SMALLVILLE

[Aragorn]

Smallville and Star Trek: Voyager may have been the first two shows I invested watching a few seasons in from the start and then one day just decided they were too stupid to waste my time on.

"I saw Mrs. Kent pack Clark's lunch but he won't tell me what it is. What other secrets are you hiding from me, Clark? How am I supposed to even trust you anymore?"

These days I'm not waiting as long for a bad show to get better. The Following? Dropped it after the first season. Though I have no idea why I'm still watching Falling Skies.

 

[The Old Mixer]

I hung in with this series for far too long before deciding that the chaff-to-wheat ratio was too high to see it through. I have no interest in ever revisiting it. I might hold it in higher regard if it had been a few seasons tighter.

 

[wtriker1701]

Lionel Luthor - best villain one can imagine! OK, after John Ross Ewing II.
But in Smallville's world it was Lionel!

 

[Rowan Sjet]

I stuck with the show for a long time through thick and thin, but the season 9 Zod Kryptonian arc was the straw that finally broke the camel's back and killed any interest I had in continuing with it, which is a shame because I'd finally started warming up to Lois in season 8 and her relationship with Clark. Still, when the show was good, it could be very very good.

 

[RandyS]

I feel about Smallville the same way I do about the 1988-1992 Superboy show. Both had some good stuff in them, but neither can hold a candle to the Geore Reeves 1950s series, the Christopher Reeve movies, and my personal favorite take on Superman, Lois & Clark.

 

[kirk55555]

I've never got why people liked Lois & Clark. Who wants to watch a show where Superman is a minor recurring character and Clark Kent is only supporting cast? Heck, Smallville had Clark doing superhero things pretty consistently even from season one, so even if he as never called Superman he was doing Superman-type stuff. A TV show about the love interest that basically ignores everything about the property is just a weird concept. As far as I can tell, Lois and Clark could probably edit out a few minutes an episode and you'd never know it was even connected to Superman.

I mean, if you like a televised romance sitcom that's fine, but there was absolutely no reason to use the Superman property when Superman himself seems to only be used under protest, and only then to try to get some superman fans to come watch your newspaper reporter romance themed sitcom I don't think it should even be counted as a Superman TV show, its a Lois Lane TV show, and probably the stupidest live action show that used a DC character.

 

[Random_Spock]

Lionel Luthor - best villain one can imagine! OK, after John Ross Ewing II.
But in Smallville's world it was Lionel!

Yep, he was downright nasty. And his son was a piece of work too.

 

[Ovation]

I've never got why people liked Lois & Clark. Who wants to watch a show where Superman is a minor recurring character and Clark Kent is only supporting cast? Heck, Smallville had Clark doing superhero things pretty consistently even from season one, so even if he as never called Superman he was doing Superman-type stuff. A TV show about the love interest that basically ignores everything about the property is just a weird concept. As far as I can tell, Lois and Clark could probably edit out a few minutes an episode and you'd never know it was even connected to Superman.

I mean, if you like a televised romance sitcom that's fine, but there was absolutely no reason to use the Superman property when Superman himself seems to only be used under protest, and only then to try to get some superman fans to come watch your newspaper reporter romance themed sitcom I don't think it should even be counted as a Superman TV show, its a Lois Lane TV show, and probably the stupidest live action show that used a DC character.

Well, for one thing, Teri Hatcher as Lois. There really is no further justification needed.

 

[RandyS]

I've never got why people liked Lois & Clark. Who wants to watch a show where Superman is a minor recurring character and Clark Kent is only supporting cast? Heck, Smallville had Clark doing superhero things pretty consistently even from season one, so even if he as never called Superman he was doing Superman-type stuff. A TV show about the love interest that basically ignores everything about the property is just a weird concept. As far as I can tell, Lois and Clark could probably edit out a few minutes an episode and you'd never know it was even connected to Superman.

I mean, if you like a televised romance sitcom that's fine, but there was absolutely no reason to use the Superman property when Superman himself seems to only be used under protest, and only then to try to get some superman fans to come watch your newspaper reporter romance themed sitcom I don't think it should even be counted as a Superman TV show, its a Lois Lane TV show, and probably the stupidest live action show that used a DC character.

Well, for one thing, Teri Hatcher as Lois. There really is no further justification needed.

Yep. Says it all, doesn't it?

And as far as Supeman "being used under protest" in Lois & Clark, I'd say that applies more to Smallville, where Superman doesn't even appear in what is supposedly a Superman show.

 

[kirk55555]

They may not have called him superman on Smallville, but he did a bunch of superheroic stuff even in the early years, and by the end it was using a lot of comic stuff, including things never seen in live action like Booster Gold, the JSA and the Legion of Superheroes. Lois & Clark had... Lex Luthor? For, what, a season? What did they do with Superman besides that? I'd assume they just periodically had Superman appear and quickly beat up some thugs. Saying the name and wearing the costume doesn't make it a superman show. Its what Clark does that makes it a superman show, not what he wears or calls himself to do it.

Clark in Smallville fought bad guys, teamed with other heroes, and saved the Earth, and he did it fairly consistently, with his crime fighting being a big part of his life. Lois & Clark probably had just enough of Superman fighting to justify it having Superman's name somewhere in the title, but it doesn't compare to Smallville at all. I mean, if that's what you like, fine. but as far as being a show based off of a superhero, Lois & Clark was not a superhero based show at all, and definitely isn't a superman show. When a show has less superhero elements than Wonder Woman, which itself was a show where the title character was only there to play back up to a random "guy of the week" who would be the episode's actual main character, you got to wonder why they bothered with the property. It doesn't have enough Superman stuff to make comic fans interested, and people who like romantic sitcoms probably don't care about the Superman property anyway.

You can argue it was a good show, I have nothing to say about that because I don't like romantic sitcoms. But it barely qualifies as being influenced by the Superman property, much less being a superman TV show.

 

[Misfit Toy]

But it barely qualifies as being influenced by the Superman property, much less being a superman TV show.

Wrong. It was HUGELY influenced by the Superman property at the time it was being produced.

 

[kirk55555]

But it barely qualifies as being influenced by the Superman property, much less being a superman TV show.

Wrong. It was HUGELY influenced by the Superman property at the time it was being produced.

So...did Superman comics at the time stop using any of Superman's rogue's gallery except Lex and became focused on Superman out of costume? Was action Comics renamed "Action Comics featuring Lois Lane"? Was Superman's main comic renamed Lois Lane's Boyfriend Clark Kent? I'm 99% sure none of those things happened. I'm also came out years after the Donner movies, so that can't be the influence (plus the Donner movies actually had a lot of superman, so it doesn't work anyway). So, I'm not quite sure what property influenced Lois & Clark, but unless there is a little known period where Lois Lane took over Superman's comics, I'm going to have to disagree with the property doing more than just giving the TV show some names, a location, and cameo appearances by Superman.

 

[Ovation]

But it barely qualifies as being influenced by the Superman property, much less being a superman TV show.

Wrong. It was HUGELY influenced by the Superman property at the time it was being produced.

So...did Superman comics at the time stop using any of Superman's rogue's gallery except Lex and became focused on Superman out of costume? Was action Comics renamed "Action Comics featuring Lois Lane"? Was Superman's main comic renamed Lois Lane's Boyfriend Clark Kent? I'm 99% sure none of those things happened. I'm also came out years after the Donner movies, so that can't be the influence (plus the Donner movies actually had a lot of superman, so it doesn't work anyway). So, I'm not quite sure what property influenced Lois & Clark, but unless there is a little known period where Lois Lane took over Superman's comics, I'm going to have to disagree with the property doing more than just giving the TV show some names, a location, and cameo appearances by Superman.

Disagree all you want but you'd still be wrong. The superficial things you list did not occur (title changes and the rest) but there was a period, roughly corresponding with the show, where the focus of a lot of the stories was far more on the Clark/Lois relationship than before or more recently. In this period, like in the show, Clark was the character and Superman the secret identity, rather than the other way around. And Lois did figure a LOT more prominently as a character--as co-equal as she could ever get--in the comics. As to the lack of "Superman action" in the show, at the time, budgets for TV SFX were insufficient to give much space to live-action "superhero action". If the show were being produced today, there would likely be more such action, as it is easier and cheaper to do.

You don't have to like the show, but to argue it has little connection with Superman overall is unconvincing, as the evidence does not support such a conclusion.

Plus, Teri Hatcher as Lois.

 

[kirk55555]

Wrong. It was HUGELY influenced by the Superman property at the time it was being produced.

So...did Superman comics at the time stop using any of Superman's rogue's gallery except Lex and became focused on Superman out of costume? Was action Comics renamed "Action Comics featuring Lois Lane"? Was Superman's main comic renamed Lois Lane's Boyfriend Clark Kent? I'm 99% sure none of those things happened. I'm also came out years after the Donner movies, so that can't be the influence (plus the Donner movies actually had a lot of superman, so it doesn't work anyway). So, I'm not quite sure what property influenced Lois & Clark, but unless there is a little known period where Lois Lane took over Superman's comics, I'm going to have to disagree with the property doing more than just giving the TV show some names, a location, and cameo appearances by Superman.

Disagree all you want but you'd still be wrong. The superficial things you list did not occur (title changes and the rest) but there was a period, roughly corresponding with the show, where the focus of a lot of the stories was far more on the Clark/Lois relationship than before or more recently. In this period, like in the show, Clark was the character and Superman the secret identity, rather than the other way around. And Lois did figure a LOT more prominently as a character--as co-equal as she could ever get--in the comics. As to the lack of "Superman action" in the show, at the time, budgets for TV SFX were insufficient to give much space to live-action "superhero action". If the show were being produced today, there would likely be more such action, as it is easier and cheaper to do.

You don't have to like the show, but to argue it has little connection with Superman overall is unconvincing, as the evidence does not support such a conclusion.

Plus, Teri Hatcher as Lois.

I'm calling BS on this. No way Superman comics got as much into Lois as Lois & Clark, and I bet I could find a LOT of instances of Superman fighting his rogue's gallery and actually acting like superman in late 80s/early 90s Superman books. There is a difference between Lois getting more character development in comics and superman comics becoming a romantic sitcom. I like Lois being a well developed character in the comics, she's had some great moments from before DC rebooted their line.

That said, I doubt any serious Superman book of the last few decades ever became the romantic sitcom Lois & Clark was, and I doubt comic Lois ever acted like Hatcher's Lois either, at least in modern times. I wouldn't be surprised if Hatcher's Lois was influenced by the Silver age goofy, marriage/romance obsessed Lois, but I doubt I could find a similar Lois post Crisis on Infinite Earths, if not earlier. I don't actually know if Hatcher's Lois was influenced by any comic version of Lois, I've never been able to stomach a full episode of Lois & Clark, but if the Lois from a romantic sitcom was influenced by anything, it would probably be the Silver Age Lois who had a long running solo comic basically devoted to her trying to marry Superman .

Also, I'm kind of creeped out (although not surprised) that people would take an actresses appearance into account when deciding if they think a show is good or not. I don't know if she's a good actor, my experience seeing teri Hatcher act was a Tales from the crypt episode that had a good story but definitely didn't have Hatcher showing off any particular acting talent, but I think numerous shows over the years have proven that just having an attractive actress doesn't contribute to the quality of a show at all. Even if you find her attractive (I don't, at all) ending an argument defending the show by drooling over her is not exactly helping your case. If she was a good actress and that's why she was a benefit to the show then ok, it doesn't make the show anymore a Superman show but its a legitimate reason for her involvement to be counted as a positive in an argument. But attractiveness =/= acting ability or make the character the person is playing any better.

 

[Ovation]

Humour. It is a strange concept.

While I won't deny I find Teri Hatcher attractive, that was hardly my main point. Moreover, try not to be so literal. I didn't say the show copied the comics to a T, I said the show was inspired by a number of elements that were current in that run of comics. Like it or don't like it--matters not to me. But you are still wrong to argue the show did not have a strong connection to the overall Superman "franchise" (for lack of a better term). The common elements are plainly evident.

 

[Misfit Toy]

So...did Superman comics at the time stop using any of Superman's rogue's gallery except Lex and became focused on Superman out of costume? Was action Comics renamed "Action Comics featuring Lois Lane"? Was Superman's main comic renamed Lois Lane's Boyfriend Clark Kent? I'm 99% sure none of those things happened. I'm also came out years after the Donner movies, so that can't be the influence (plus the Donner movies actually had a lot of superman, so it doesn't work anyway). So, I'm not quite sure what property influenced Lois & Clark, but unless there is a little known period where Lois Lane took over Superman's comics, I'm going to have to disagree with the property doing more than just giving the TV show some names, a location, and cameo appearances by Superman.

Disagree all you want but you'd still be wrong. The superficial things you list did not occur (title changes and the rest) but there was a period, roughly corresponding with the show, where the focus of a lot of the stories was far more on the Clark/Lois relationship than before or more recently. In this period, like in the show, Clark was the character and Superman the secret identity, rather than the other way around. And Lois did figure a LOT more prominently as a character--as co-equal as she could ever get--in the comics. As to the lack of "Superman action" in the show, at the time, budgets for TV SFX were insufficient to give much space to live-action "superhero action". If the show were being produced today, there would likely be more such action, as it is easier and cheaper to do.

You don't have to like the show, but to argue it has little connection with Superman overall is unconvincing, as the evidence does not support such a conclusion.

Plus, Teri Hatcher as Lois.

I'm calling BS on this.

So what? You're simply wrong.

 

[kirk55555]

Well, that's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. I'm done arguing about the stupid romantic sitcom starring d-list actors pretending its connected to a superhero property. Its not a show whose existence is even worth acknowledging, much less arguing about. It's long gone, and mostly forgotten. Superman is getting dragged through the mud enough nowadays without bringing up the time his name was used to get some idiot's romantic sitcom idea on the air.

 

[RandyS]

Well, that's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. I'm done arguing about the stupid romantic sitcom starring d-list actors pretending its connected to a superhero property. Its not a show whose existence is even worth acknowledging, much less arguing about. It's long gone, and mostly forgotten. Superman is getting dragged through the mud enough nowadays without bringing up the time his name was used to get some idiot's romantic sitcom idea on the air.

You need to look up the definition of sitcom. Lois & Clark was not a sitcom by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[kirk55555]

Well, its either sitcom or soap opera. I don't know another name for idiotic live action romance shows (not all sitcoms are romance based, but its still a common enough theme). I mean, you could also call Lois & Clark a pile of romance filled c%$p, but I don't know if that's a technical term. If there is a term for a moronic romance show that uses a popular property to try to sucker in viewers who would never watch it otherwise, I don't know what it is, and I don't care.

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

Well, its either sitcom or soap opera. I don't know another name for live action romance shows.

I would say it's more of a dramedy than I straight up comedy or even a soap opera. It's clear that Moonlighting was Lois & Clark's immediate ancestor though you can argue that both shows were influenced by the classic movie His Girl Friday. The Lois of L&C certainly owes a debt to Hildy Johnson. Then again Lois predates Hildy by a couple of years so maybe Hildy owes Lois!