What works in one medium doesn't necessarily work in another. That's why the best superhero adaptations are the ones who subvert the rules of the comic (like Iron Man and DK).
I don't read Iron Man but Dark Knight worked because it, like Batman Begins, was true to the spirit of the comics. As is Smallville, it's just true to the spirit of Superman books. But at the same time it is a weekly show with 22 episodes to fill each year. Some episodes are padded, like any other show. When I watch a show I judge it based on what it is and what it's trying to be. Smallville succeeds at being a good superhero show that is also truly original (no one has ever tried to do the pre-Superman/secret identity story).
I also look for a show to evolve, and Smallville has. Clark's powers have steadily increased, the character has matured and moved towards the Superman role, and the villains went from krypto-powered teens with metaphorical issues to supervillains. Lex started out as a decent guy and slowly morphed into a villain in a very fluid and organic way.
Besides, what kind of excuse is that? It's based on a superhero comic so it's allowed to be utterly idiotic?
i don't think it's idiotic at all. it's a sci-fi/fantasy show. if you find aliens idiotic then you can't really fault the show for it because that's what the story is about. i say it's based on a comic to justify the soap opera element and the fact that change is slow and that sometimes they have to just throw in a freak of the week story. Superman books have always had him pining over Lois or worrying about their relationship, fighting random villains who only appear once, and have changed less in a decade than Smallville does each year.
Also you have to keep in mind the character's age. They were whinier in the beginning because they were teends. Clark and Lana were played pretty well all things considered. He matured and their relationship matured and then eventually fell apart in a very adult manner. I appreciated that.
But I enjoy the soap opera melodrama in superhero shows. Batman and Iron Man are really not in the same storytelling style as Superman. His story specifically is meant to be grandiose and melodramatic, a modern version of hercules and jesus and moses etc.
When have I said that all superhero comics are good?
1984, Denver.
In fact, I think most of them are mediocre, and I've said so many times (I love that word, apparently).
Superhero comics are often cliches. But Superman originated the cliches, he doesn't really need twists because he is what he is. He is the original.
Yet at the same time Smallville has added those twists. THey've avoided retelling the same stories over and over again. The Lex/Clark relationship, Lana and Clark, Lana marrying Lex and faustian deals she made, Bizarro, Brainiac, Zod, Jor-El, Kara, Lex and Lionel's relationship, The Kents, Doomsday, Chloe. All are either original creations or unique takes on old characters meaning you can know every comic book ever and still not know what's coming. This Doomsday story is a good example. It's a fresh take on it instead of just another adaptation of the Death of Superman where he breaks out of the ground and they fist fight for 20 minutes.
I prefer superhero comics that have a twist to make them intereting, or over the top self-aware stuff that's allowed to be silly because it doesn't take itself more seriously than it should (the exact opposite of what I've seen in Smallville: the fact that those characters never stop to think how repetitive and unlikely the situations they're in are completely disqualifies them as rational thinking people. Unless those meteor rocks also made them retarded.).
Again, it's Superman. Superman is allowed to have the cliches because they're his cliches. And as I said they have lots of original twists. And quite frankly few shows ever stop to wonder why they have 22 adventures per year, that's just how television works.
BUt at the same time there is a change in how things work on the show. Characters originally ignored the strange freaks, then they feared them, then some accepted them (Lana, Chloe) while others experimented or recruited them (Lex). Clark has actually noticed that he seems to just keep fighting bad guys but that has also made him mature as a hero. Remember in year 1 he whined about missing out on fun stuff, now he wants to be out there helping people.
As I've said before it's the soap opera aspect what annoys me the most. I've seen how those things are done: the people who make those shows don't give a shit about what they're doing.
that's not fair to them. just because you don't like it doesn't mean they're just phoning it in. i like it, i watch it weekly, and whatever story they're telling they do care about it. you may not like their best effort, but it doesn't mean no one does.
and the soap opera aspect is more in the vein of the classic tragedies with stylistic touches. I watched 90210 and Melrose Place in the 90's. This show is higher quality melodrama.
They're only concerned with stretching the concept as much as they can, beyond the point where things stop making sense (hence, you know, countinuing the show after the characters are older than the logical age the initial concept allowed, and after most of the cast and even the creators have wisened up and left).
the initial concept is a young Clark Kent growing up. They did 4 years of high school and now they're adults. From the beginning they've said the show is about him going from a teen to Superman. now Clark is pretty damn close to taking up the identity so hopefully this will be the last year and will be wrapped up nicely.
And just because you don't like it doesn't mean it was just being stretched out.
I don't know for sure 'cause I haven't watched the new season, but I think Doomsie Davis Jr. is an example of that.
maybe. too soon to tell.
The idea of Lex going from nice guy to evil bastard is obviously very appealing and one of the main draws of the show (even if him being childhood friends with Clark is one of the silliest ideas to come out of the Silver Age, one that never should have found its way outside brightly colored comics). [quote]
but in the Silver Age he turned evil because he blamed Superboy for his baldness. Smallville handled the character shift well. I don't know how they'll make the adult relationship work but that doesn't matter because the show is about their youths not being slaves to how the comics do things.
[quote] So the actor is gone? Fine, let's just replace him with another nice guy who'll do the same thing. Maybe he's not Clark's friend and he probably isn't as psychologically complex as Lex, but he's still got the same Anakin thing going, just in time to replace Lex's arc.
Lex was a psychological character, very well acted and the father/son dynamic was great especially compared to Clark/Jonathan.
Doomsday is more like a werewolf/monster story. It's a classic storytelling device to have the villain hide in plain site. Brainiac was Clark's college proffessor who revealed himself to be a kryptonian ally of Jor-el and then later revealed to be an AI servant of Zod.
Just because they all were friends on some level with Clark doesn't mean it's the same story repeated.
