[SV+] SPOILERS 2-08 "Ryan" -- WTF ?!?
KalElFan
is long (135 lines or so), but you'd expect no less from me, eh? :-)
When I left Usenet five and a half months ago I said I might come back
for "special" occasions, and this thread is unfortunately one of those.
Tonight's Smallville episode was one of the most tactically stupid
episodes of television I've ever seen. It astonished me in that sense,
because I think the season to date has been so tactically smart. To
digress for a while on that...
Before tonight, I thought it was the lack of strategic vision that would
eventually do this series in. The biggest strategic mistake was their
apparent decision to just outright abandon Clark-Chloe.
Everyone knew they somehow had to step back from Clark-Chloe,
so that Clark-Lana could evolve and be part of this series for a time.
But the way they did it, on-screen, was very awkward, rushed, and
implausible, to the point it seemed clear they just didn't care that they
were trashing it.
The idea of having Chloe instigate the breakup was a good one. In
fact I suggested that was the way to do it in a post last season. I didn't
describe it more specifically, but did say that approach could be poignant
and also funny. Since they're past the point of doing it the way I'd hoped,
I'll describe here what I was specifically thinking in that post. The main
point is to reinforce this strategy/tactics issue. How they execute from
episode to episode often reveals what they're thinking (or not thinking)
in terms of the longer-term direction. The lack of vision on Clark-Chloe
was obvious, because of the way they handled it.
I'd have had the Clark-Chloe relationship continue into the first part of season
2. Through various circumstances, for example Lana becoming available
after the inevitable Dear John letter to Whitney, and then an episode or
two later when Chloe would overhear a conversation between Martha and
Jonathan, Chloe would come to believe that Clark would never get Lana
out of his system.
So that's why Chloe would instigate the breakup, perhaps even written
the same way it was in that first episode. But it would be more reasoned
than we saw if done over several episodes the way I've described. One
would be able to understand Chloe's motivation. And from Clark's side,
silently at least, he'd have been a lot more hurt by the breakup than the
writers had him reacting in the first episode. The seeds of Clark-Chloe
being the place that this series could eventually go, if they chose to, would
have been planted.
The humor could have followed when Clark ended up rebounding with
some new blonde airhead/bimbo character for a few episodes, like that
candidate for class president last season. Chloe would be tearing her
hair out because she'd have lied her way to breaking up with Clark,
specifically so he would find whatever it is he needed to with Lana.
Now, it isn't impossible to revive Clark-Chloe, for example through some
powerful mythology that would establish that destiny. But of course
there isn't a shred of evidence they want any part of that. Quite the
opposite because of the way they did it and the marginalization of Chloe
since. That bad strategic decision -- that lack of vision -- is what would
ultimately have relegated this series to the "Initially very promising but
never amounted to anything" class.
Tactically, though, I thought they recognized their vulnerability on this,
and that's why they compensated with some tactically brilliant episodes.
Big numbers of course tuned in for the resolution of the cliffhanger,
then they sold sex in the second episode Heat, and in the third episode
Duplicity they sold Pete learning the secret. Then in the fourth episode
Red they sold bad-to-the-bone Clark on the motorbike, again a very
attractive episode tactically.
Of course the downside is that they spent some of their best ammunition
during those early season 2 episodes. Chances are that subsequent
episodes can't deliver the same tactical bang, and then the screwed-up
strategy becomes an even bigger problem. Millions of viewers soon
come to realize that the show just isn't as much fun and doesn't hold
as much promise as it did in first season.
The decline would have been much more gradual than it will be now
though, after tonight's episode. I wouldn't be surprised to see the
numbers dip below 8 million within the next ep or two (they've been
above 8 million all season), and keep trending down to 6, maybe even
5.x later this season and into next.
Ryan was an interesting, memorable character in season one. They
could have built a better series than Birds of Prey around that character.
(Based on the first BoP episode I concluded the premise and show
didn't have much upside and haven't watched any episodes since.
Not to say it can't eke out an existence on The WB.)
A character like Ryan should have been allowed to just exist out there
in the Smallville Universe, in "Edge City", or brought back for something
thrilling/fun/uplifting, maybe even a big picture mythology episode that
strengthened the character and the show as a whole. Instead they
bring in the might-have-been kid brother character to kill him off in
a contrived orgy of pathos. WTF makes them think viewers of a show
like this want to see crapola like they offered up tonight? [As I was about
to send this I noted Vartox's brief post on r.a.sf.superman, basically
expressing the same pissed-off sentiment about the core problem here,
killing off a strong character -- a kid character no less. I think many
viewers were instinctively pissed off by this, enough that it will affect
the must-see factor of those who don't just outright give the show up
over the next few episodes.]
In Toronto, because of a timeshifting package on digital cable, I can see
Smallville on a Halifax channel at 7:00 Eastern, or locally on CITY at 8:00,
instead of waiting until 9 on WPIX like I had to last season. The first
episode this season I couldn't wait to see at 7:00 on that Halifax channel,
and I felt that way to at least some extent the next three episodes. Then
episode four Nocturne was weak (my theory: writers amusing themselves
too much).
After that I actually watched 24 on a competing Halifax channel the following
week. I hadn't planned to, but I'd seen a large print ad for 24's season premiere
in the newspaper that day, mentioning the premise of this season (terrorist
nuclear bomb in Los Angeles). I didn't bother catching the Smallville ep
Redux until later. Same thing again with last week's episode, and again this
week.
24 is outstanding. Before tonight, it would have pained me to say that it's
better than Smallville, but it is. Much better. Smallville ought to be able to
give 24 a run for its money qualitywise, based on the promise it showed in
a great first season. But the vision just isn't there, and without vision a show
like Smallville can never amount to much. It can't compete with the edge-of-
your-seat suspense of 24, or its season 2 concept, or Kiefer Sutherland.
Mythology, vision, the series-long strategy of Smallville is what they have
to excel at to compete.
Not only doesn't Smallville have that this season, but now the level of
tactical stupidity is just baffling. I have no idea why I should bother watching
this show at all next week, and I may well not. I may just watch 24 and
quit while I'm ahead.
--
Anthony Michael Walsh
KalE...@scifipi.com
http://www.moviescorecard.com
Robert Goodman
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
H
E
R
E
"KalElFan" <KalE...@scifipi.com> wrote in message
news:mflA9.5713$Vr1.9...@news20.bellglobal.com...in small part:
> Ryan was an interesting, memorable character in season one.
> A character like Ryan should have been allowed to just exist out there
> in the Smallville Universe, in "Edge City", or brought back for
something
> thrilling/fun/uplifting, maybe even a big picture mythology episode
that
> strengthened the character and the show as a whole. Instead they
> bring in the might-have-been kid brother character to kill him off in
> a contrived orgy of pathos. WTF makes them think viewers of a show
> like this want to see crapola like they offered up tonight?
Yes, as I wrote in another alt.tv.smallville thread, I think they killed
a great asset. But I suspect it wasn't just a tactical sacrifice but a
strategic blunder -- that they actually thought the actor had matured
too much to retain kid appeal, as if that'd been his main appeal! For
me the fun with Ryan was arguing over which of his pronouncements to
believe.
Robert
David Johnston
Blah. Frankly, Ryan had no particularly useful role in the dramatic
sense apart from dropping broad hints about Lex's evilness. His power
was too good. They couldn't keep him around because between his
infallible evilness detection and Clark's total immunity to all
superpowers there was no room for an actual story. And if they couldn't
keep him around, they might as well whack him.
Ramon K. Kailly
> Smallville SPOILERS here and in the thread title, and note crossposts. This
> is long (135 lines or so), but you'd expect no less from me, eh? :-)
>
> When I left Usenet five and a half months ago I said I might come back
> for "special" occasions, and this thread is unfortunately one of those.
> Tonight's Smallville episode was one of the most tactically stupid
> episodes of television I've ever seen. It astonished me in that sense,
> because I think the season to date has been so tactically smart. To
> digress for a while on that...
What astonishes me is your reaction to the episode. That, and your
liberal use of the word "tactically".
> Before tonight, I thought it was the lack of strategic vision that would
> eventually do this series in. The biggest strategic mistake was their
> apparent decision to just outright abandon Clark-Chloe.
"Lack of strategic vision"? Are you basing that entirely upon the
Clark-Chloe relationship and how they handled it? What about the
development of Lex's character, and his relationship with Clark? What
about the milestones in Clark's journey to become Superman -- not just
his emerging powers, but the emotional milestones as well, such as
this episode?
> Everyone knew they somehow had to step back from Clark-Chloe,
> so that Clark-Lana could evolve and be part of this series for a time.
> But the way they did it, on-screen, was very awkward, rushed, and
> implausible, to the point it seemed clear they just didn't care that they
> were trashing it.
I think "trashing it" is an overly harsh term to use. It seems
relatively easy for the writers to pick up Clark-Chloe whenever they
wish.
<snip stuff about Clark-Chloe>
> Now, it isn't impossible to revive Clark-Chloe, for example through some
> powerful mythology that would establish that destiny. But of course
> there isn't a shred of evidence they want any part of that. Quite the
> opposite because of the way they did it and the marginalization of Chloe
> since. That bad strategic decision -- that lack of vision -- is what would
> ultimately have relegated this series to the "Initially very promising but
> never amounted to anything" class.
I don't see why they would need powerful mythology to revive
Clark-Chloe.
> Tactically, though, I thought they recognized their vulnerability on this,
> and that's why they compensated with some tactically brilliant episodes.
> Big numbers of course tuned in for the resolution of the cliffhanger,
> then they sold sex in the second episode Heat, and in the third episode
> Duplicity they sold Pete learning the secret. Then in the fourth episode
> Red they sold bad-to-the-bone Clark on the motorbike, again a very
> attractive episode tactically.
Yes, I agree with those comments there. Though I'm not sure the
writers are all thinking of these episodes purely in a "tactical"
sense. As standalone episodes they are excellent.
> Of course the downside is that they spent some of their best ammunition
> during those early season 2 episodes. Chances are that subsequent
> episodes can't deliver the same tactical bang, and then the screwed-up
> strategy becomes an even bigger problem. Millions of viewers soon
> come to realize that the show just isn't as much fun and doesn't hold
> as much promise as it did in first season.
Not as much fun? Doesn't hold as much promise? You had just
mentioned how superb these 2nd-season episodes have been. I
personally find the second season so far to be better than the first.
The first half of season one was especially annoying due to the
over-emphasis on meteor freaks (and I know this has been mentioned
many times before.)
> The decline would have been much more gradual than it will be now
> though, after tonight's episode. I wouldn't be surprised to see the
> numbers dip below 8 million within the next ep or two (they've been
> above 8 million all season), and keep trending down to 6, maybe even
> 5.x later this season and into next.
On what basis are you making this assumption? We don't know what the
upcoming episodes are going to be like.
> Ryan was an interesting, memorable character in season one. They
> could have built a better series than Birds of Prey around that character.
> (Based on the first BoP episode I concluded the premise and show
> didn't have much upside and haven't watched any episodes since.
> Not to say it can't eke out an existence on The WB.)
Sorry, but I don't think Ryan could have carried a series on his own.
Who would care to watch? There's no comic-book mythology to draw
upon, unless Clark or someone else from Smallville keeps showing up.
As for BoP, I think the bigger problem is the writing, rather than the
premise.
> A character like Ryan should have been allowed to just exist out there
> in the Smallville Universe, in "Edge City", or brought back for something
> thrilling/fun/uplifting, maybe even a big picture mythology episode that
> strengthened the character and the show as a whole. Instead they
> bring in the might-have-been kid brother character to kill him off in
> a contrived orgy of pathos. WTF makes them think viewers of a show
> like this want to see crapola like they offered up tonight? [As I was about
> to send this I noted Vartox's brief post on r.a.sf.superman, basically
> expressing the same pissed-off sentiment about the core problem here,
> killing off a strong character -- a kid character no less. I think many
> viewers were instinctively pissed off by this, enough that it will affect
> the must-see factor of those who don't just outright give the show up
> over the next few episodes.]
Well, I wasn't pissed off. I thought "Ryan" was a well-done episode.
And as for killing him off, I can understand the reasoning behind it.
This episode was to illustrate the limits of Clark's abilities. In
one sense, it showed him physically pushing himself trying to save
Ryan. The real lesson for Clark was that even putting in all that
effort couldn't prevent Ryan from dying. Even with all his powers,
Superman can't save everyone. Knowing that is important for Clark as
he makes his journey. And rather than using some throwaway character,
it's of more significance to use a character Clark already cares
about.
<snip stuff about 24 vs. Smallville>
> Not only doesn't Smallville have that this season, but now the level of
> tactical stupidity is just baffling. I have no idea why I should bother watching
> this show at all next week, and I may well not. I may just watch 24 and
> quit while I'm ahead.
I have no idea why you're so upset over Smallville -- even if you
didn't like "Ryan", it's just one episode. You did point out how well
the other season 2 episodes were, "tactically brilliant" and so forth,
and now you're talking about tactical stupidity?
Personally, it was difficult to see the promise of Smallville early in
the first season. I think the vision is there now, but for some
reason you're just not seeing it.
Ramon K. Kailly
KalElFan
Superman movie, a scene that illustrates how Superman can't save
everyone. SPOILER space...
S
U
P
E
R
M
A
N
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
Superman flies to the top of a high mountain. He's alone, in complete
silence. Then he listens, and his super-hearing kicks in. Someone needs
help. But before he can respond there's another person in peril, and then
somewhere else yet another crisis, and so on until he's inundated with
cries for help from all over the world.
Obviously there are variables here, such as context and editing and how
the actor plays it and how sound is used to evoke what you're trying to
get at here. We can't know for certain how it will work on-screen. But
done well, I believe this scene alone can make the movie. If they ditched
everything else in J.J. Abrams' script (and assuming it wasn't carried over
from someone else's earlier draft), it would be worth whatever they paid
Abrams.
KalElFan
> > S
> > P
> > O
> > I
> > L
> > E
> > R
> >
> > S
> > P
> > A
> > C
> > E
> >
> > H
> > E
> > R
> > E
[snip my comments about killing off Ryan, and Robert Goodman's response]
> Blah. Frankly, Ryan had no particularly useful role in the dramatic
> sense apart from dropping broad hints about Lex's evilness. His power
> was too good. They couldn't keep him around because between his
> infallible evilness detection and Clark's total immunity to all
> superpowers there was no room for an actual story. And if they couldn't
> keep him around, they might as well whack him.
I just don't agree with that last part David. If you have a popular guest
character that you don't think should become a regular, it doesn't follow
that you bring him back just to whack him. Especially not for the presumed
reasons here, i.e., to have Clark realize that he can't save everyone, and
suffer a personal loss so he can grow as a person or whatever. That's
just writer autopilot stuff from the Blah Blah Blah section of the handbook.
The latest draft of the Superman movie that was leaked a while back, the
one by Alias creator J.J. Abrams that caused such a fuss on AICN, has an
absolutely great, short scene that makes the "can't save everyone" point
better than it's ever been made. Hopefully they'll keep it. The only reason
I can imagine them not keeping it is the irrational concern studios seem to
have about things that get leaked on the Internet, especially something so
long before the movie's possible release. Maybe they think someone else
might use it for some other movie or whatever, but in this case it's just so
Superman-specific and the Internet leak itself stakes a Superman claim to
it. It's been established that this is "the" J.J. Abrams scene that even the guy
who trashed the script on AICN loved.
[I'll spoil the scene in a separate post to this thread after this one, with a
special SPOILER warning within it.]
Just a few comments to reinforce the strategy/tactics distinction that I was
making. Ramon's post (an interesting one I'm responding to separately)
mentioned my use of the work tactically so much, in connection with this
Ryan episode especially.
The terms strategy and tactics are typically used in a military context, and
maybe business, and here I'm just applying them to a TV show. Strategy
refers to the broader plan and objectives of the show, and tends to have
a longer-term context. Tactics refers to the more immediate techniques
or methods, or the maneuvering the show goes through in the short term,
to support the bigger-picture strategy.
Guest characters, or single episodes for that matter, can never be
strategic in and of themselves in a TV series. The only way this
Ryan episode could ever be a "strategic" mistake is from the point
of view of Warner Bros. as a whole, if you believe that Ryan could
have been a good character to spin off and now they've lost that
opportunity. But as he relates to Smallville, Ryan was just tactical
and not strategic. (So that's the one part of Robert Goodman's post
where we disagree.)
To use a military analogy, you don't want to suffer big tactical losses,
just so you can seize or occupy a bit of some huge territory that anyone
can easily seize or occupy a piece of. The idea that "Superman can't
save everyone" is so hugely obvious that it doesn't have to be like
storming the beaches in WWII to make it. You can make it quickly,
elegantly, and very memorably like J.J. Abrams did.
Refining it to "Superman sometimes can't save people he loves" doesn't
require actually killing off someone he loves. Everyone knows that loved
ones die. It's classically built in to the longer-term story, for example Pa
Kent dying in the first Reeve movie, and Superman's (perceived) near-
immortality is also an aspect of this. That "fear" was illustrated very
memorably with the joint Cassandra/Clark vision from Hourglass last
year, where he's in the cemetery and everyone else he loves is dead
and buried.
KalElFan
[KalElFan wrote]:
> > Before tonight, I thought it was the lack of strategic vision that would
> > eventually do this series in. The biggest strategic mistake was their
> > apparent decision to just outright abandon Clark-Chloe.
[Ramon K. Kailly responded]
> "Lack of strategic vision"? Are you basing that entirely upon the
> Clark-Chloe relationship and how they handled it?
That's the biggest strategic mistake they've made. We agree that it's
still *possible* to return to Clark-Chloe. But by any fair assessment
of it (how quickly they dropped it in the season premiere, and then the
seven episodes since), they've just abandoned it.
> What about the
> development of Lex's character, and his relationship with Clark?
That's a big part of the long-term arc of the show, no doubt. But it is
very long-term and it's increasingly difficult to get much tactical bang
out of just foreshadowing it. This analogy in Ryan, with the Warrior
Angel comics, was cute but everyone gets the idea by now. It's a
writing challenge to make it interesting episode to episode, especially
when they have to go slow on Lex actually turning heavy-duty evil.
> What about the milestones in Clark's journey to become Superman --
> not just his emerging powers, but the emotional milestones as well,
> such as this episode?
I like the word "milestones" in the same way I do "moments" when I
apply it to scenes from movies or TV episodes. I described that J.J
Abrams movie scene, and referred to the one from Hourglass with
Clark's vision in the graveyard. Likewise the President Lex vision
in that same episode. Or that Clark-Chloe "Why is my mouth minty?"
kiss from Hug, which kind of captured the whole Clark-Chloe arc
from season one, and the way that chemistry worked, without even
actually having to commit to anything because it was just a test of the
power of suggestion.
Reeve's Clark tripping over the bearskin rug in the Niagara Falls hotel
room, and then revealing his secret identity to Kidder's Lois Lane. Or
the turn-back-time ending of the first movie, so he could save Lois.
These are all great moments, and moments are what people remember
best. The upside-down kiss from Spider-Man this year. Moments
send good writing over the top.
On the other hand, dragging something out in a contrived orgy of pathos,
which this episode was, is a very poor way to create a moment or a
milestone. There may be some in the audience who enjoy this kind of
stuff, and certainly people (maybe even people without agendas) who'll
defend it up and down on the Internet or whatever. But the viewer
masses out there just don't want it. It's like transparently preachy
episodes, or anything where the writers seem to be on autopilot
following the Blah Blah Blah section of their proverbial Handbook.
The fact it drags out and takes a whole episode, and kills off a good
kid character, only makes it all the worse.
> I don't see why they would need powerful mythology to revive
> Clark-Chloe.
It's a question of how to do it effectively, after it's been abandoned
for some time. In the past I've used the example of a Lois & Clark
episode called Tempus Fugitive, where Lois temporarily learned the
secret, and a future was revealed where Lois & Clark got married.
Writers can develop, or even just foreshadow Smallville-specific
mythology that can support Clark-Chloe or anything else they want.
That President Lex vision supported the eventual turn to evil.
In fairness to the writers, the lack of creative vision on Clark-Chloe
may be a higher-up problem, or even a bureaucratic problem. DC
doesn't own Chloe. Maybe Warner Bros. does, but perhaps not
outright enough that they could literally evolve her into Lois, which
is where the big upside was/is in this series.
KalElFan
> Not as much fun? Doesn't hold as much promise? You had just
> mentioned how superb these 2nd-season episodes have been.
Tactically good, in the sense they've spent some good ideas and
moments, like bad to the bone Clark on the bike, or Pete learning
the secret (though I think they actually blew the execution of that
episode to some extent). I'm all for tactically good, standalone
episodes. But they're no substitute for a lack of vision on something
that was as key to season one, and the promise of this series, as
Clark-Chloe was.
[re my prediction of a dip below 8 million, to 6 and perhaps 5.x by the
end of the season]
> On what basis are you making this assumption? We don't know what the
> upcoming episodes are going to be like.
Actually, since I wrote that Tuesday night the numbers have come out,
and viewership for Ryan dropped a whopping 2 million to 7.4 million.
That's from last Tuesday's Lineage, which had a series-high 9.4 million.
Here's a ratings chart I've hastily put up from a site I'm building:
http://smallville.tvscorecard.com
Lineage aired on election night and the 9.4 million was somewhat inflated
because of that. But obviously there was a combination of factors that
caused a significant drop. Lineage being underwhelming was perhaps
part of it. Maybe promos gave away the sappiness of Ryan. But I
put it to you that dissatisfaction with Clark-Chloe, and a sense that the
promise of season one is starting to fade, is also settling in.
[By the way part of the overall increase in viewership from season 1 to
2 is due to a demographic update to the calculations Nielsen makes.
It benefited the 18-34 demos for example, which tended to benefit
all shows on the WB. If season one numbers were restated using the
new calculation method, the increase wouldn't have been as large.
The WB site is also being a bit disingenuous in their press release
this week, where they tout a 24% increase in viewership for Smallville.
Yes it's up 24% over the equivalent mid-November ep last year,
but it crashed 2 million, which is a huge drop, from last week.]
> I have no idea why you're so upset over Smallville -- even if you
> didn't like "Ryan", it's just one episode.
A tactically very stupid episode as I've said, and millions of viewers
out there had the same kind of aversion to it. People don't watch
this show so they can be fed proverbial sometimes-life's-a-bitch
spinach. Annoyingly small thinking is what leads to episodes like
this. They have this huge creative yard to play in, and all they can
come up with is "let's bring back that interesting kid character and
have a sappy episode where we explain his powers with a brain
tumor and kill him off"? That's what they do with the great creative
scope they have?
On the heels of the last seven episodes and the abandoning of
Clark-Chloe, I'm just far less optimistic about this show's prospects
when I see an episode like this.
Even my "tactical brilliance" compliment was double-edged to some
extent. What I'm saying is they needed those to prop up the
underlying injury that they'd inflicted, strategically, when they
failed to build on and indeed abandoned Clark-Chloe. Yes those
episodes were good, but that first red kryptonite exposure is
gone now, and Pete learning the secret is gone now. With Pete's
character, it even remains to be seen how well the writers will make
use of the new dynamic.
David Johnston
Knowing he can't be everywhere is a totally different issue from knowing that
even when he is somewhere, sometimes it won't make
a difference.
Andrew Ryan Chang
>Robert Goodman wrote:
>>
>> Observing 5-day spoiler embargo in alt.tv.smallville...
>>
>> S
>> P
>> O
>> I
>> L
>> E
>> R
>>
>> S
>> P
>> A
>> C
>> E
>>
>> H
>> E
>> R
>> E
>>
>> a great asset. But I suspect it wasn't just a tactical sacrifice but a
>> strategic blunder -- that they actually thought the actor had matured
>Blah. Frankly, Ryan had no particularly useful role in the dramatic
>sense apart from dropping broad hints about Lex's evilness. His power
I thought he was a narrative crutch. "Clark, Pete's all stressed
out from keeping your secret!" That should have been brought out through
proper writing and acting. The episode was so bad that I've repressed
most of it, but I seem to recall Sam Jones III (the actor who plays Pete)
sort of acting that way in this episode. I'll assume that's cause no one
/told/ him Pete was stressed out until now.
That's not a unique situation, though. Both in this episode and
the last time Ryan was on, he was a gigantic narrative crutch all over the
place and I'm really glad they won't be using him again.
--
Bart: Actually, we were just planning the father-son river rafting
trip.
Homer: Heh heh, you don't have a son.
-- People unclear on the concept, "Boy Scoutz 'N the Hood"
David Johnston
>
> "David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message news:3DD2F...@telusplanet.net..
>
I doubt he was that popular.
Especially not for the presumed
> reasons here, i.e., to have Clark realize that he can't save everyone, and
> suffer a personal loss so he can grow as a person or whatever. That's
> just writer autopilot stuff from the Blah Blah Blah section of the handbook.
At some point Clark does have to realise that there are problems he will never
be able to fix because they aren't amenable to the application of power.
How can Clark learn his limits if he never encounters them? It seems
to me that bashing the latest monster of the week, which is as usual helpless
as soon as Clark shows up at the site of one of its attacks is far more
"blah blah".
Are you saying that he should _never_ learn the lesson on the show that
people close to him will eventually die regardless of how carefully
he looks out for them? Or that rather than using a superfluous character
for it, they should have used a regular?
David B.
That's really a problem with mind reading characters. The writers use them
to tell and not show which isn't dramatically satisfying.
KalElFan
> >> S
> >> P
> >> O
> >> I
> >> L
> >> E
> >> R
> >>
> >> S
> >> P
> >> A
> >> C
> >> E
> >>
> >> H
> >> E
> >> R
> >> E
> >>
> I thought [Ryan] was a narrative crutch. "Clark, Pete's all stressed
> out from keeping your secret!" That should have been brought out through
> proper writing and acting. The episode was so bad that I've repressed
> most of it, but I seem to recall Sam Jones III (the actor who plays Pete)
> sort of acting that way in this episode. I'll assume that's cause no one
> /told/ him Pete was stressed out until now.
>
> That's not a unique situation, though. Both in this episode and
> the last time Ryan was on, he was a gigantic narrative crutch all over the
> place and I'm really glad they won't be using him again.
It's not a unique situation with or without any narrative crutch factor
this season. No one told Allison Mack that the voluntary speech center
of Chloe's brain wasn't properly connected to her vocal chords, and
that she'd blurt out some damn fool nonsense in the first episode this
season for no apparent reason, which would wipe away a season's
worth of buildup of Clark-Chloe. Nobody told Tom Welling that
after Chloe blurted out the damn fool nonsense, his character Clark
would basically say "Okay!"
I think Ryan's appearance last year was infinitely better than it was
here, even the narrative crutch parts. You make a good point that
this episode was bad enough that maybe Ryan couldn't be brought
back successfully anyway. But it's hard to "credit" the episode
because they dumped on Ryan's character real good before they
offed him.
[As an aside, I'm curious if anyone remembers the promo for "Ryan"
last week. I didn't see it on the Canadian channel. I'm wondering
if it telegraphed how sappy this episode would be, i.e. about Ryan
dying and/or having the brain tumor.]
KalElFan
> Are you saying that he should _never_ learn the lesson on the show that
> people close to him will eventually die regardless of how carefully
> he looks out for them? Or that rather than using a superfluous character
> for it, they should have used a regular?
We've seen the regular character (Pa Kent) die in previous major incarnations,
like the Reeve series. I think it's very instructive to note how that was really
used though, in the first Superman movie. Young Kent, played by Jeff East
experienced Pa's death. Reeve's Superman simply recalled it near the end
of the movie, in that voiceover, as he was flying up and rejecting Jor-El's
edict not to interfere in human history. And then he went back in time to
save Lois, i.e. reverse her death. What Superman "learned" was to refuse
to accept the limitation. Superman is a can-do kind of guy. Like Kirk in
the Kobayashi Maru scenario, only he doesn't have to cheat to win.
*DWELLING* on Superman's limitations, or realities he can't change, is I
think a bad idea per se. I like the Abrams treatment of it in that scene because
it deals with it quickly and memorably, but really it's a point that doesn't
need to be made at all in Superman. With Silver Age Superman (which
Reeve's was when he went back and saved Lois), the point was barely
applicable. He had weaknesses like kryptonite and magic and other
Kryptonians (and other super-powered villains), but there was virtually
nothing he couldn't do. This brain tumor Ryan had could have been
cured after Superman used his telescopic vision to look up in the sky
at the nearest sufficiently advanced civilization, to read their medical
text that describes the procedure or cure.
Now I'm not advocating that Smallville's Clark would be a better or
more interesting character if he was the god-like Superboy equivalent,
traveling to the 30th century to consult his Legion buddies and bringing
back the cure that way. But I just don't see where/how this Clark
could be so mentally screwed up that he thinks he's godlike in that
way, and can save anyone from anything. Obviously, he must know
he has limitations because he only recently (last year in fact) started
to really power up and have bullets start bouncing off him. His fear
in that Hourglass vision was that he might outlive everyone else, and
that strongly suggests he takes it as a given that he can't save everyone.
So I'd argue that there's no need to learn any lesson like we saw here.
If they had to do it it was probably better to off Ryan than a regular,
but even there it depends on the regular to some extent. I could make
the argument that killing off the might-have-been kid brother in this
awful ep came off as much more annoying and cheap than a genuine
Pa Kent Really Does Die Tonight episode, promoted that way. I
think people would tune in for that kind of "milestone" episode in
this series, and it would be much more effective in getting at what
you're talking about. I just don't think they really need to get at what
you're talking about.
(On your Abrams scene point in the other post, I don't see a big
distinction. Basically Clark is not fast enough in Abrams scene, but
people watching it won't really be dissecting it that way. It works,
or rather will work, because it captures the "limitation" point as
powerfully as anything. He could be not strong enough, or not
smart enough, or not invulnerable enough or whatever, to save
a particular person he was trying to save. But illustrating that all_
those_people crying out for help, and some dying, are beyond
his ability to save is the ultimate way to deal with it.)
Josh Dull
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I can't believe no one else has mentioned this, but the mayor of Smallville
is Cancer Man!
Josh
David Johnston
> "David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message news:3DD416...@telusplanet.net...
>
> > Are you saying that he should _never_ learn the lesson on the show that
> > people close to him will eventually die regardless of how carefully
> > he looks out for them? Or that rather than using a superfluous character
> > for it, they should have used a regular?
>
> We've seen the regular character (Pa Kent) die in previous major incarnations,
> like the Reeve series. I think it's very instructive to note how that was really
> used though, in the first Superman movie. Young Kent, played by Jeff East
> experienced Pa's death. Reeve's Superman simply recalled it near the end
> of the movie, in that voiceover, as he was flying up and rejecting Jor-El's
> edict not to interfere in human history. And then he went back in time to
> save Lois, i.e. reverse her death.
I thought that pretty damn hokey, myself.
>
> back the cure that way. But I just don't see where/how this Clark
> could be so mentally screwed up that he thinks he's godlike in that
> way, and can save anyone from anything.
He IS godlike. He's already the most powerful being on the planet.
Everyone else is nothing compared to him.
> Obviously, he must know
> he has limitations because he only recently (last year in fact) started
> to really power up and have bullets start bouncing off him.
All that means is that he knows he _had_ limitations.
> His fear
> in that Hourglass vision was that he might outlive everyone else, and
> that strongly suggests he takes it as a given that he can't save everyone.
But that doesn't mean he's learned the lesson of acceptance and that's
a critically important lesson for him to learn. If he doesn't learn it,
if he doesn't accept that there are some things that can't be solved
with a pure heart and endless amounts of strength, then at some point
he'll decide that he can't accept the world being
run by people so far inferior to him in both power and ethics.
Robert Goodman
> I'm all for tactically good, standalone
> episodes. But they're no substitute for a lack of vision on something
> that was as key to season one, and the promise of this series, as
> Clark-Chloe was.
Up until "Ryan", I'd thought the worst episodes were the 1st season
closer & 2nd season opener, which were, however, tactically good. I
wasn't using the tactical-strategic terminology you've introduced, but I
must say it fits the problem very well. By the end of the 1st season,
there'd been some terrific long-term suspense built up, and then they
blew it in the orgy that was the over-the-summer cliffhanger. They
distorted and short-circuited the whole series in the interest of some
artificial short-term suspense. (And subsequently, as you point out,
they wasted even the Chloe-Clark-Lana triangle the season finale had
helped build.)
In the 1st season there was one episode that I considered just plain bad
(by "Smallville standards) -- "Reaper". But at least it didn't
sacrifice the long-term benefit of the series. By contrast, the
over-summer-cliffhanger did damage the series. But here in "Ryan"
they've managed an episode which was both poor on its own and hurt the
series a little.
Robert
Robert Goodman
> > What about the
> > development of Lex's character, and his relationship with Clark?
> That's a big part of the long-term arc of the show, no doubt. But it
is
> very long-term and it's increasingly difficult to get much tactical
bang
> out of just foreshadowing it. This analogy in Ryan, with the Warrior
> Angel comics, was cute but everyone gets the idea by now.
Exactly. It was cute once, but now it's annoying. In another thread in
alt.tv.smallville I was arguing ironically with someone that if the
future of these characters is played out in "Warrior Angel" comics, then
what are we watching "Smallville" for when we could just read "Warrior
Angel"?
There are ways to introduce these things more subtly. The dialog at the
beginning of the previous episode about Zeus, Hera, and Hercules was
good. This Warrior Angel contrivance is heavy handed and stale.
> It's like transparently preachy
> episodes, or anything where the writers seem to be on autopilot
> following the Blah Blah Blah section of their proverbial Handbook.
It followed a terrific episode by Gough & Millar themselves. That's the
trouble with TV series -- the people with the creative vision can't
crank it out fast enough, so the product gets diluted. Reminds me of a
discussion last spring between "Monk" creator Andy Breckman and his WFMU
co-host Ken Freedman. (Note reference in a recent episode of Monk to DJ
Little Kenny Friedman. Also http://wfmu.org .) Andy had to take a long
leave from that radio show to work on the TV series, even though many of
the episodes wouldn't have his writing credit. (He somehow also wangled
co-writing credit for some episodes for WFMU cohort Tom Scharpling.)
Gough & Millar do just a few episodes of "Smallville" a year, and the
rest go to underlings who may be very talented but don't share the
vision. I'd rather they have Gough & Millar do the whole thing and
there be just, say, 4 episodes of "Smallville" a year (and of course
give up all pretense of "Smallville"'s calendar paralleling the real
world's) than Gough & Millar "writing around" the messes left by the
fillers-in. (But then what would the cast & crew do for work?)
"We left you in charge of the pet [Ryan], and it's dead?!"
Come to think of it, even renaming the mayor "Tate" when he'd already
been named "Siegel" is a sloppy continuity error that's liable to happen
when you're not too careful with the hand-offs. I wouldn't be surprised
if future episodes flat-out contradict "Ryan" in some respects.
Lana's situation amounts to a continuity error too. In "Ryan" the
situation with Mr. Small is acknowledged -- so they can't say that this
episode took place before "Lineage" -- but they haven't had the DNA test
yet. It's such a trivial thing to do, there would have to be some
excuse for its not having been done, and we heard none. This matter is
not something that can be stretched out; either they want to do it and
get it done, or they don't. It's not like an engagement before
marriage.
Robert
Robert Goodman
> At some point Clark does have to realise that there are problems he
will never
> be able to fix because they aren't amenable to the application of
power.
Huh??! He learns that lesson almost every episode! His face is
practically rubbed in it. Mostly he thinks his powers are useful for
little things like making toast and getting to school on time, and that
otherwise he's cursed by them.
Robert
Robert Goodman
news:ar0uku$h6b$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
> >> S
I think you may have misunderstood what I meant by "matured". I meant
his voice had changed, etc., so that he was no longer Cute Little Kid.
> I thought he was a narrative crutch.
The whole episode was overflowing with narrative crutches.
> "Clark, Pete's all stressed
> out from keeping your secret!" That should have been brought out
through
> proper writing and acting. The episode was so bad that I've repressed
> most of it, but I seem to recall Sam Jones III (the actor who plays
Pete)
> sort of acting that way in this episode. I'll assume that's cause no
one
> /told/ him Pete was stressed out until now.
Maybe you assume too much. I suspect Ryan was lying. His facility at
lying was the one interesting thing about him they carried over from the
previous episode he was in.
> That's not a unique situation, though. Both in this episode and
> the last time Ryan was on, he was a gigantic narrative crutch all over
the
> place and I'm really glad they won't be using him again.
No, the first time was an interesting story, especially if you realize
that at several different points in the episode, he may or may not have
been telling the truth. Plus it made for an interesting affection
triangle between him, Clark, and Lex. I don't believe it was intended
to be sexual (although I think they might have been feeding the slashers
secondarily), but just a struggle for attention in friendship. Plus,
the "Warrior Angel" bit was cute at first, and the backlit Clark in the
garbage truck scene was deliciously campy. (The one bit of subtlety in
"Ryan" was the muted echo of that scene, backlighting Clark without the
halo effect when he came to bust Ryan out of the lab.) "Stray" (the 1st
ep with Ryan) was one of the better ones, and provocative too, as it
provided plenty to argue & speculate about in alt.tv.smallville.
Robert
W. Blaine Dowler
It's been mentioned. It's had its own thread about three times. :)
--
- Blaine
http://www.bureau42.com
XFW # 299792458, WM, SW, WNS, NRMTPB, FPSSG
SVS# 0.00729735308002..., CoC #36, SSUCS
Eric W. Nikitin
> edict not to interfere in human history. And then he went back in time to
> save Lois, i.e. reverse her death. What Superman "learned" was to refuse
> to accept the limitation. Superman is a can-do kind of guy. Like Kirk in
> the Kobayashi Maru scenario, only he doesn't have to cheat to win.
Thanks for pointing out the parallel between the two. I definitely
agree this is how Superman should be portrayed. Unfortunately, the
current Superman presentations that I've seen don't portray him this
way. (Especially the Justice League cartoon... where Superman is
basically a big, blue punching bag whose job it is to keep the bad
guys busy while the real heros figure out how to beat them.)
> Now I'm not advocating that Smallville's Clark would be a better or
> more interesting character if he was the god-like Superboy equivalent,
> traveling to the 30th century to consult his Legion buddies and bringing
> back the cure that way. But I just don't see where/how this Clark
> could be so mentally screwed up that he thinks he's godlike in that
> way, and can save anyone from anything. Obviously, he must know
> he has limitations because he only recently (last year in fact) started
> to really power up and have bullets start bouncing off him. His fear
> in that Hourglass vision was that he might outlive everyone else, and
> that strongly suggests he takes it as a given that he can't save everyone.
One of the main things that bothers me about Smallville is that
the writers/creaters seem to want to generate as much angst and
guilt in Clark as possible.
Don't get me wrong... I love watching Smallville (or else I
wouldn't bother wasting time nitpicking it). It's just I would
have done some things differently if I had creative control
of the show.
Eric
Eric W. Nikitin
I don't think I've ever agreed with you more, Robert.
Eric
Grant Goggans
> Are you saying that he should _never_ learn the lesson on the show that
> people close to him will eventually die regardless of how carefully
> he looks out for them? Or that rather than using a superfluous character
> for it, they should have used a regular?
I've gotta agree with this one, Kal. I had no idea Ryan was
supposedly such a popular character or an important one (he's been
described as "like my kid brother" in... errr... how many episodes
prior to this?). He's certainly nowhere strong enough to have
warranted a spinoff as you suggested. Frankly, he was whiny, weak and
unnecessary the first time we saw him, and only brought back for a
sweeps Very Special Episode. If killing him off was a perceived way
to tell the character of Clark that he won't always be able to save
his friends, then TPTB did no harm in killing him.
That's not to say the episode was any good (it wasn't), but I don't
see it as the egregious error Kal does.
--Grant
Eric W. Nikitin
>> >> S
>> >> P
>> >> O
>> >> I
>> >> L
>> >> E
>> >> R
>> >>
>> >> S
>> >> P
>> >> A
>> >> C
>> >> E
>> >>
>> >> H
>> >> E
>> >> R
>> >> E
>> >>
> [As an aside, I'm curious if anyone remembers the promo for "Ryan"
> last week. I didn't see it on the Canadian channel. I'm wondering
> if it telegraphed how sappy this episode would be, i.e. about Ryan
> dying and/or having the brain tumor.]
Once of the reasons I was surpised that Ryan actually died was
how obvious the promo was about him dying.
Eric
David Johnston
>
> "David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
> news:3DD416...@telusplanet.net..
>
> will never
> > be able to fix because they aren't amenable to the application of
> power.
>
> Huh??! He learns that lesson almost every episode! His face is
> practically rubbed in it.
I don't see that at all. Just about every episode he runs into a
problem that can be solved by brute force, if he can only stay away
from meteor rocks and figure out who the latest mutant is.
Robert Goodman
> > > At some point Clark does have to realise that there are problems
he
> > will never
> > > be able to fix because they aren't amenable to the application of
> > power.
> > Huh??! He learns that lesson almost every episode! His face is
> > practically rubbed in it.
> I don't see that at all. Just about every episode he runs into a
> problem that can be solved by brute force, if he can only stay away
> from meteor rocks and figure out who the latest mutant is.
Sure, he runs into those problems frequently too. But the really
serious problems in his life remain intractable. That might've been
epitomized early when he saved Lana's life but Lana appreciated the way
Whitney was always there for her.
Robert
Ramon K. Kailly
> "David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message news:3DD416...@telusplanet.net...
>
> > Are you saying that he should _never_ learn the lesson on the show that
> > people close to him will eventually die regardless of how carefully
> > he looks out for them? Or that rather than using a superfluous character
> > for it, they should have used a regular?
>
> We've seen the regular character (Pa Kent) die in previous major incarnations,
> like the Reeve series. I think it's very instructive to note how that was really
> used though, in the first Superman movie. Young Kent, played by Jeff East
> experienced Pa's death. Reeve's Superman simply recalled it near the end
> of the movie, in that voiceover, as he was flying up and rejecting Jor-El's
> edict not to interfere in human history. And then he went back in time to
> save Lois, i.e. reverse her death. What Superman "learned" was to refuse
> to accept the limitation. Superman is a can-do kind of guy. Like Kirk in
> the Kobayashi Maru scenario, only he doesn't have to cheat to win.
But in a way, it _was_ cheating -- he wasn't supposed to do that sort
of thing.
> *DWELLING* on Superman's limitations, or realities he can't change, is I
> think a bad idea per se. I like the Abrams treatment of it in that scene because
> it deals with it quickly and memorably, but really it's a point that doesn't
> need to be made at all in Superman.
I REALLY disagree with that idea. I think it's an essential point of
Superman. Otherwise why bother with the comic at all -- he could just
defeat all evil in the universe, save everybody, right all wrongs, and
alter time so that nothing bad ever happens again. The End. Since
that's not what happened in the comics, it follows that he has
limitations.
> With Silver Age Superman (which
> Reeve's was when he went back and saved Lois), the point was barely
> applicable. He had weaknesses like kryptonite and magic and other
> Kryptonians (and other super-powered villains), but there was virtually
> nothing he couldn't do. This brain tumor Ryan had could have been
> cured after Superman used his telescopic vision to look up in the sky
> at the nearest sufficiently advanced civilization, to read their medical
> text that describes the procedure or cure.
And how lame does that solution sound? It seems ridiculous to be able
to use telescopic vision to see across the galaxy (and I suppose the
problem of information travelling faster than light wouldn't even be
mentioned in the comic). It's especially lame when you consider that
we're talking about an alien civilization whose brains ought to be
different from those of humans.
Seriously, I think the Abrams scene you mentioned applies equally well
with the Silver Age Superman. All over the world, people die or are
hurt every second. Since we don't see Superman spend every single
moment, 24 hours a day, flying around the world saving all these
people, it follows that he knows he _can't_ save everyone.
> Now I'm not advocating that Smallville's Clark would be a better or
> more interesting character if he was the god-like Superboy equivalent,
> traveling to the 30th century to consult his Legion buddies and bringing
> back the cure that way. But I just don't see where/how this Clark
> could be so mentally screwed up that he thinks he's godlike in that
> way, and can save anyone from anything. Obviously, he must know
> he has limitations because he only recently (last year in fact) started
> to really power up and have bullets start bouncing off him. His fear
> in that Hourglass vision was that he might outlive everyone else, and
> that strongly suggests he takes it as a given that he can't save everyone.
That Hourglass vision showed a possible future; it wasn't necessarily
about Clark's fears. And since it's a _possible_ future, it's one he
can change. If I recall correctly, he actually did act on one of the
visions and saved someone.
> So I'd argue that there's no need to learn any lesson like we saw here.
> If they had to do it it was probably better to off Ryan than a regular,
> but even there it depends on the regular to some extent. I could make
> the argument that killing off the might-have-been kid brother in this
> awful ep came off as much more annoying and cheap than a genuine
> Pa Kent Really Does Die Tonight episode, promoted that way. I
> think people would tune in for that kind of "milestone" episode in
> this series, and it would be much more effective in getting at what
> you're talking about. I just don't think they really need to get at what
> you're talking about.
Pa Kent is a special case. We can't say for sure if he's going to die
anytime soon. Both of Clark's parents are alive in the Post-Crisis
version of the mythology.
> (On your Abrams scene point in the other post, I don't see a big
> distinction. Basically Clark is not fast enough in Abrams scene, but
> people watching it won't really be dissecting it that way. It works,
> or rather will work, because it captures the "limitation" point as
> powerfully as anything. He could be not strong enough, or not
> smart enough, or not invulnerable enough or whatever, to save
> a particular person he was trying to save. But illustrating that all_
> those_people crying out for help, and some dying, are beyond
> his ability to save is the ultimate way to deal with it.)
This isn't just about pointing out his limitations to the audience.
And it's not simply about making Clark aware that he's not omnipotent
-- obviously he already knows he's not. Nor is it about Clark
outliving those he loves.
Ryan was just a kid. The fact that he was a kid, that he wasn't
supposed to die, emphasized the tragic element of the story. Clark
knows he can't stop people from dying of old age, but Ryan was a boy
whom Clark thought he could save. But he couldn't. Clark wasn't
thinking, "I can't save him. I can't save everyone." Clark was
thinking, "I'm not going to let him die. I'll find a way."
Clark had never before dealt with that kind of intensely personal
failure. Now it's been brought home to him that even in situations
where he thinks his powers can make a difference, even when it
involves those he loves, he can fail. The people he cares about can
die despite his best efforts.
This was a lesson that was completely sidestepped in the Superman
movie. Instead Superman broke the rules to make things right again.
Ramon K. Kailly
KalElFan
> He IS godlike. He's already the most powerful being on the planet.
> Everyone else is nothing compared to him.
He's nowhere near godlike. Heck, werewolf critters who live in their
parents' basement can still push him around. :-)
> > Obviously, he must know
> > he has limitations because he only recently (last year in fact) started
> > to really power up and have bullets start bouncing off him.
>
> All that means is that he knows he _had_ limitations.
Then he must be repressing that werewolf from his memory, because
that was only a few weeks back. I'm sure there are other recent
examples, but I remember questioning at the time I saw that why the
werewolf could toss him around so damn easily. Especially since the
show refused to explain him as a genuine werewolf, which would have
meant magic or the occult, thereby giving them the opportunity to
formally introduce that traditional Superman weakness into the
Smallville mythology.
> > His fear
> > in that Hourglass vision was that he might outlive everyone else, and
> > that strongly suggests he takes it as a given that he can't save everyone.
>
> But that doesn't mean he's learned the lesson of acceptance and that's
> a critically important lesson for him to learn.
Based on the evidence, the only way he isn't already accepting it is if he's
developed a delusional god complex overnight, like that kid from the Leech
episode last year who got his powers for a few days. Only then, or in some
"Redder" (Red Kryptonite 2) episode would there be any basis for this
cause-effect leap you make here:
> If he doesn't learn it,
> if he doesn't accept that there are some things that can't be solved
> with a pure heart and endless amounts of strength, then at some point
> he'll decide that he can't accept the world being
> run by people so far inferior to him in both power and ethics.
That doesn't follow. You're trying to defend the need for an episode
like this but objectively you just can't do it. What it boils down to is
that blah blah stuff from the handbook. "We gotta get us one of them
there emotionally painfully episodes, so our character here can grow
as a person and learn about life and that it's a bitch sometimes." Blah
blah blah and gag me with a spoon. Send the genius thinking behind
this episode over to Touched By a Freakin' Angel, where it works
well enough because the audience is all geared up for it. You expect
every second guest critter to die. Heck, this ep is a happy one over
there, because you could show a hokey-but-screw-it "Ryan-gets-his-
Warrior-Angel wings" ending and he goes to heaven.
KalElFan
news:ar23l0$eejtc$4...@ID-140940.news.dfncis.de...
> It followed a terrific episode by Gough & Millar themselves. That's the
> trouble with TV series -- the people with the creative vision can't
> crank it out fast enough, so the product gets diluted.
I think there is a problem with the writing talent spread way too thin in
television, maybe especially sf television. There never seems to be
the combination of (i) quality, long-term thinking and vision -- a good
overall concept, show direction and insight that will SELL to as big
an audience as possible, and (ii) good tactical execution of individual
episodes, which along with marketing and stunt events and casting can
pump up ratings. Every single friggin' show out there in this genre,
that isn't practically DOA to start, seems to lose steam and tank these
days.
I was researching Deep Space Nine for this part of this post, and I'll
mention a Smallville connection in a bit. I've been watching DSN reruns,
from the beginning into season 3 so far, after watching the tail end on the
last cycle (on the Space channel here in Canada). Anyway, it was the
consistently best-written of the five Trek series by *FAR*. Yet it still
had an almost straight-down ratings trendline because it was so arc-
heavy and inaccessible to new viewers.
I think Andromeda would have suffered the same fate if they continued
with ex-DSNer Robert Wolfe's approach. So I supported the Sorbo
camp's changes for season 3 -- basically more standalone stuff and so
on, and ditch the arc complexities. But geez, those first few season 3
Andromeda eps were some of the most god-awful crap ever aired.
It's improved since, with ones like that John DeLancie ep, but episode-
to-episode it's still not up to seasons 1 and 2. It just supports the thin
talent point you made and I agreed with. Honest to God, you could
hold a random lottery on rec.arts.sf.tv and the person could probably
come up with better than Andromeda was airing earlier this season.
Something is very wrong here, and I think it's too many shows and
not enough good creative talent to go around. It's a MUCH bigger
problem than it used to be 10 or 15 years ago.
The Smallville connection is this. Kenneth Biller is co-EP in the
Smallville credits this year. I checked kryptonsite.com and he actually
wrote the Teleplay for Lineage, from a story by Gough and Millar.
You've praised the ep, and as I was watching it I also remember thinking
that it was beautifully written. I remember thinking Biller was a strong
addition when I first saw his name this season. But his strength is
probably in the arc-type stuff. Try to explain that Lineage backstory
to a newbie viewer. It'd be like trying to explain the Dominion and
Bajoran Prophets to a newbie Deep Space Nine viewer.
So there's a balance here that they need to strike. My guess is that
Biller's creative talent *could* be indispensable to the series, but it
somehow has to be merged with the great standalone episode writing
ability that I think Doris Egan had last season (with Hourglass and Hug),
and the great Superman vision and judgment somebody else might have,
and perhaps most importantly the ability to see it all from a viewer
perspective. I think that latter one is where these shows often ultimately
fail. I'm sure they *think* they have all these pieces they need, but they
don't really.
In Smallville's case, dropping Clark-Chloe as they did, and this episode
"Ryan", are major clues to where the Smallville gaps are creatively. If
they could fix the creative *thinking* that led to these problems, by
shuffling people in or out if necessary, the series might still amount to
something long-term.
> Come to think of it, even renaming the mayor "Tate" when he'd already
> been named "Siegel" is a sloppy continuity error...
I think only a very small percentage of viewers noticed that, but now that
you mention it I agree it's sloppy/annoying if there's no out. My vague
recollection is that you're right and there's no out.
At the end of last season I ran through all the episodes and made notes
of references to the river in the Smallville area, as part of the whole
distance-from-Smallville-to-Metropolis issue. There was actually
the most obvious one that I didn't mention when I posted the results
here, which was the Premiere where Clark saves Lex after he runs
his car into him and off the bridge.
It seems to me that kind of research or data base building, which would
inventory a variety of references including things like who the mayor of
Smallville is, would easily catch any problem like that. Especially if it
were kept up to date episode-to-episode, instead of waiting and having
to do a season or two of episodes at once. Somebody should catch
stuff like that Mayor name change.
KalElFan
KalElFan wrote]:
> >[As an aside, I'm curious if anyone remembers the promo for "Ryan"
> >last week. I didn't see it on the Canadian channel. I'm wondering
> >if it telegraphed how sappy this episode would be, i.e. about Ryan
> >dying and/or having the brain tumor.]
>
> Yeah, the promos for 'Ryan' had Ryan say "I'm dying, Clark', with a voiceover
> saying something like 'a hero finds out that he can't save everyone'. The
> thirty second promo revealed everything that happened.
Thanks for posting that (also to Vartox who responded on r.a.sf.superman;
both of you are on AOL and I've added crossposts to this so those following
the thread in the other two groups will know).
The promo is definitely another part of the explanation for 2 million "Lineage"
viewers from the previous week, deciding to watch Frasier or clean their
combs or whatever on Tuesday, rather than endure "Ryan". As I try to
pull a Ryan and read the marketing folks' minds, my first reaction is God
Bless 'Em. It's their job to lie pathologically (within the bounds of legality
and lawsuit avoidance), so I don't attribute it to a fit of honesty here. I'd
like to think they easily understood what a stinker this whole concept was,
in terms of its potential to piss off many viewers.
So they protected the series as much as they could, instead of trying to
lie or wiggle their way to the best ratings numbers for the episode. They
basically told the folks most averse to this kind of sap to stay away, and
a huge number of them said thanks for the warning. This is good because
those folks are easier to lure back. They might have just skipped the
one ep. Moreover, the people that did watch were able to hold their nose
and endure it better, because they knew what was coming.
The ratings drop will be more gradual, given this. Viewership may not
drop below 7 million in the next week or two; because they took the
hit in advance via that promo. So kudos to the WB's marketing.
KalElFan
It's probably unfortunate that got plunked into this poor episode. It would
have been great to see him debut in something more fun, for example where
the A plot had some suspected supernatural happenings that Smallvillians were
buzzing about, and the mayor quipped to Lex that he doesn't believe any
of that hocus pocus.
But I do like the character, and the casting. He's a tool the writers can
use in their Luthor subplots (both Lex and Lionel).
KalElFan
[re Reeve's Superman going back in time to save Lois at the end of the
first movie]
> But in a way, it _was_ cheating -- he wasn't supposed to do that sort
> of thing.
Stretching semantics on the word "cheat" is in this case even more pointless
than all the other semantic arguments you see on Usenet, where people try
to hijack perfectly good words. Kirk was faced with a test, or a game. In
that context, those who use the English language have come to apply the
word "cheat" -- "he cheated on the test," or "he cheated in the game."
Kirk did that when he reprogrammed the computer to change the test
or game.
If Kirk had been faced with a "real" (in the context of the story) Kobayashi
Maru scenario, he would have failed. Superman wouldn't. Yes, Reeve's
Superman was defying his father's "rules", but they were rules that the movie
never even made any attempt to justify. More to the point, life isn't a game,
let alone a game his father had any right to dictate the rules on. So he said
screw limiting himself and letting her die. He could save her, and so he did
save her.
> > *DWELLING* on Superman's limitations, or realities he can't change, is I
> > think a bad idea per se. I like the Abrams treatment of it in that scene because
> > it deals with it quickly and memorably, but really it's a point that doesn't
> > need to be made at all in Superman.
>
> I REALLY disagree with that idea. I think it's an essential point of
> Superman. Otherwise why bother with the comic at all -- he could just
> defeat all evil in the universe, save everybody, right all wrongs, and
> alter time so that nothing bad ever happens again. The End. Since
> that's not what happened in the comics, it follows that he has
> limitations.
Just as the weak semantic argument didn't achieve anything, neither does
switching to a straw man argument. I'm with you on the paragraph above,
100%, because it does nothing to contradict the paragraph you're responding
to. I said that DWELLING on Superman's limitations, in storytelling, was
a bad idea. Not that Superman shouldn't have limitations or weaknesses
or challenges or villains that he has trouble overcoming. This Clark can't
save all the starving children in Africa. Should we have a starving children
in Africa episode?
I hope you answered no, because I suspect a poll would show 99%+ of
viewers, heck even angst-addicted writers, would say no. But think about
it, because then you have to go through all kinds of contortions to justify this
stinker of an episode. At its core, it's a "Superman can't cure brain tumors!"
episode. That's the limitation, and they contrived to a ridiculous extent to
bring back the character who just happened to be his wannabe kid brother
in an ep last season, so they could give him the brain tumor and kill him off.
This is what they do with huge creative canvas they've been given here.
It was the same with Lois & Clark, to the bitter end. They had the Tempus
episodes and the Soul Mates episode, focusing on the Ultimate Romance
destiny of Lois & Clark. Within a few episodes after the real wedding, they
did a December one that was brutally honest in its promo: Lois gets appointed
temporary editor, and Lois & Clark have a fight over who's the boss. Ratings
completely tanked to a series low, as viewers ran for some happy Christmas
programming.
It's writer *thinking* that leads to crap like Ryan. "How can we dwell on
Clark's limitations?" "How can we get some serious angst, pain, suffering?"
And this flawed thinking leads to contrived approaches like we saw here.
"Who should we give the brain tumor to?" Or "Who should we kill off?"
Meanwhile, this huge creative canvas they have to work with rots.
> Seriously, I think the Abrams scene you mentioned applies equally well
> with the Silver Age Superman. All over the world, people die or are
> hurt every second. Since we don't see Superman spend every single
> moment, 24 hours a day, flying around the world saving all these
> people, it follows that he knows he _can't_ save everyone.
Yes, but in the above (and paragraph before it, which I clipped), you're
still mocking the idea of an omnipotent Superman. I agree Superman
needs challenges. He can't be completely godlike. But he never was.
There were always weaknesses and challenges, even in Silver Age.
The point is his limitations were never dwelled on.
The Abrams scene is great (the potential of that scene is just awesome
if they do it right) because it doesn't dwell on limitations. It captures
the point beautifully, and very powerfully with profound impact on the
character. But it's only an extended moment, and then it moves on.
The whole movie isn't an angst-fest based on that.
> Clark had never before dealt with that kind of intensely personal
> failure.
Yep, that's why people are watching Smallville, to see Clark deal with
intensely personal failure. Here viewers, eat this. My writers' manual
says it good for you. Keep up that small thinking, that visionless thinking.
It's the ticket to greatness for this series!
/sarcasm mode off.
KalElFan
> One of the main things that bothers me about Smallville is that
> the writers/creaters seem to want to generate as much angst and
> guilt in Clark as possible.
I think that proverbial writer's handbook has an Angst section before
the Blah Blah Blah one. Some writers need AA -- Angst Addiction --
therapy. The Executive Producers of Lois & Clark, if they ever
cleaned up, would be super-qualified to lead the AA sessions.
So far in Smallville my Angst-aversion alarm hadn't gone off, but now
that you mention it this Ryan ep was an Angst subset of sorts. It's
different from what we saw in L&C, but you may be right they're
too focused on that.
It's not just the problems with the sausage coming out of the angst-
addicted sausage machine, like this episode. It's the opportunity
cost. There's so much better stuff that they could be doing in a
Young Superman series like this, at this particular turning point in
the franchise's history, if they weren't fixated on ways to produce
angst.
KalElFan
> The problem was that the over-summer cliffhanger forced issues that
> should have been allowed to play out in detail over several episodes. I
> wanted more about Lionel's decision re the fertilizer plant, more about
> Whitney's decision to enter the Marines, and more about Nixon's
> investigation. The characters really seemed like puppets on strings
> instead of following real motivations -- except for Nixon, who just
> caught on too easily. And then they stupidly followed the real world
> calendar, having no episodes to fill in summer action, so for instance
> we saw nothing of the development of LexCorp. Why the hell does it have
> to be fall 2002 in Smallville just because it's fall 2002 here?
I think they could have had an episode or two dealing with the summer
break, but I do think fast-forwarding at some point early on in season
2 was the way to go.
> They achieved shock and a trivial kind of suspense, but they blew the
> longer-term intrigue that was in the offing. And those situations are
> irretrievable, while they might somehow be able to revive interest in
> the Chloe-Clark-Lana-Whitney situation. It'll be hard to do that,
> because by now it seems they simply blow with the wind, so there's no
> emotional investment, but it could conceivably be resuscitated.
Yes it can, but they don't seem to want to.
KalElFan
> Up until "Ryan", I'd thought the worst episodes were the 1st season
> closer & 2nd season opener, which were, however, tactically good. I
> wasn't using the tactical-strategic terminology you've introduced, but I
> must say it fits the problem very well. By the end of the 1st season,
> there'd been some terrific long-term suspense built up, and then they
> blew it in the orgy that was the over-the-summer cliffhanger. They
> distorted and short-circuited the whole series in the interest of some
> artificial short-term suspense. (And subsequently, as you point out,
> they wasted even the Chloe-Clark-Lana triangle the season finale had
> helped build.)
I think cliffhangers by nature have come to be anomalies, in the sense
that they're very implausible setting up impending doom, and then they
have to resolve all of that in a single episode. The overall effect is that
the resolution is almost inevitably unsatisfying after you look back on
it. They're good tactically in the sense they suck in viewers, but because
of the resets and so on they usually don't amount to much.
With the beginning of this season, I agree it was worse in retrospect,
because it did too quickly short circuit Clark-Chloe, and maybe a few
other things (Lana dumping Whitney so quickly). Clark-Chloe was the
huge one though. They should have wanted to follow through with it
a bit, and transition to Clark-Lana better.
I still see Clark-Chloe as the key Opportunity for Greatness that fell
into this series' lap in season one. In this genre, it's possible to evolve
Chloe, literally, into the Lois Lane character. Someone mentioned the
simple possibility of Chloe taking the pen name Lois Lane when she
eventually goes to Metropolis. Even Gough's comments (from the
comicon in San Diego or someplace) that Lois Lane is in college, and
she's Chloe's cousin, doesn't preclude that simple approach even after
we see that Lois on screen. Kill that Lois off, and Chloe honors her
by taking the pen name Lois Lane later on, and poof Chloe=Lois in
this series.
I'd do it in a different and much better way which I won't describe here
(it'd work even if this cousin Lois shows up, because my approach is big
picture and the What You Thought You Knew Was Wrong technique
would actually make the whole thing work even better). But the point
again is anything is possible in this genre. IF they had the VISION, after
seeing season one, to realize what they stumbled upon with Clark-
Chloe, and its potential to drive this series (along with Clark-Lex, and
Clark's evolution into Superman), then it's right there for them to do.
It seems to me they just didn't have that vision on it. It's a shame.
KalElFan
> I've gotta agree with this one, Kal. I had no idea Ryan was
> supposedly such a popular character or an important one (he's been
> described as "like my kid brother" in... errr... how many episodes
> prior to this?). He's certainly nowhere strong enough to have
> warranted a spinoff as you suggested. Frankly, he was whiny, weak and
> unnecessary the first time we saw him, and only brought back for a
> sweeps Very Special Episode. If killing him off was a perceived way
> to tell the character of Clark that he won't always be able to save
> his friends, then TPTB did no harm in killing him.
>
> That's not to say the episode was any good (it wasn't), but I don't
> see it as the egregious error Kal does.
Given the new promo information I didn't have before, I think I'll just
claim victory on the "no harm in killing him" point. The ratings result --
a 2 million viewer crash from the previous ep Lineage, to a new season
low 600,000 or 700,000 below whatever the previous low was --
reflects what many viewers thought of this before they even saw the
episode. They want better than this kind of episode concept, from
this show. The show is still at a point where giving people better
can preserve the show's chance for greatness. It's not too late, but
a season from now it probably will be.
Beyond that, I think Ryan was received better than you believe he
was last season. I remember a response post about guest characters
on a.tv.smallville, where someone said their favorite was Ryan, and
I think the Usenet discussions suggested that the ep was well-received,
and there may even have been a KryptonSite poll last season where
Ryan did well. But even for people who could take him or leave him
(let's say they're the majority), a reaction like "Goodie! A kid-killing
episode! Clark really needs to learn him this here good lesson!" is
something only the Bizarros among them would have.
So there's just no upside here, even if Ryan was as weak a character
as you believe. The spinoff point wasn't key to what I was saying.
Would I have personally *advocated* a spinoff? No. But again
I said better than Birds of Prey. I didn't say a Ryan spinoff had the
potential to be the highest-rated series on the WB or any such, but
it was apparent (to me anyway, I'm one of the 2.5 million who left
after the premiere) that Birds of Prey had no such potential either.
(Apologies to BoP fans. I hope for their sake the show doesn't
get cancelled, and I'm just giving my personal opinion based on
premiere. The WB's ratings requirements may well be such that
the show can survive. But obviously it didn't sell to a lot of folks
who checked it out.)
David Johnston
> "Ramon K. Kailly" <ramon....@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:27423178.02111...@posting.google.com...
>
> [re Reeve's Superman going back in time to save Lois at the end of the
> first movie]
>
> > But in a way, it _was_ cheating -- he wasn't supposed to do that sort
> > of thing.
>
> Stretching semantics on the word "cheat" is in this case even more pointless
> than all the other semantic arguments you see on Usenet, where people try
> to hijack perfectly good words. Kirk was faced with a test, or a game. In
> that context, those who use the English language have come to apply the
> word "cheat" -- "he cheated on the test," or "he cheated in the game."
> Kirk did that when he reprogrammed the computer to change the test
> or game.
Actually, he didn't. Since the "test" was actually a psychological evaluation there were no dishonest ways to
approach it.
> Meanwhile, this huge creative canvas they have to work with rots.
What I'm not getting is exactly what you want done with that huge
creative canvas. Have him slap down a few more mutants? Or
erratically bounce between girls a bit more. What can they do with
this show that they haven't already done?
> needs challenges. He can't be completely godlike. But he never was.
He most certainly was in the Silver Age. He once blew out a star with a sneeze. He created a planet, complete with
life. If that isn't godlike, I don't know what is. Anything he didn't do was because he chose
not to do it.
>
> There were always weaknesses and challenges, even in Silver Age.
> The point is his limitations were never dwelled on.
He didn't HAVE any limitations.
David Johnston
> "David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message news:3DD420C0...@telusplanet.net...
>
> > He IS godlike. He's already the most powerful being on the planet.
> > Everyone else is nothing compared to him.
>
> He's nowhere near godlike. Heck, werewolf critters who live in their
> parents' basement can still push him around. :-)
All the "werewolf" did was surprise him. Clark wasn't damaged, or
overpowered, just slow to react and distracted by Pete's need for
immediate hospitalisation.
David Johnston
>
> It's not just the problems with the sausage coming out of the angst-
> addicted sausage machine, like this episode. It's the opportunity
> cost. There's so much better stuff that they could be doing in a
> Young Superman series like this,
Like what?
Andrew Ryan Chang
>KalElFan wrote:
>> He's nowhere near godlike. Heck, werewolf critters who live in their
>> parents' basement can still push him around. :-)
>
>All the "werewolf" did was surprise him. Clark wasn't damaged, or
>overpowered, just slow to react and distracted by Pete's need for
>immediate hospitalisation.
He was thrown a good 50 feet, and that before Pete got smacked
around. If not damaged, it still would have been embarassing for a
full-fledged superhero.
--
For certain purposes it's not too misleading to call our system democracy
or capitalism or -- better still -- industrialism, but its real names are
factory fascism and office oligarchy. Anybody who says these people are
"free" is lying or stupid. -- "THE ABOLITION OF WORK" by Bob Black
Robert Goodman
already
> > been named "Siegel" is a sloppy continuity error...
> I think only a very small percentage of viewers noticed that, but now
that
> you mention it I agree it's sloppy/annoying if there's no out. My
vague
> recollection is that you're right and there's no out.
Well, I did write facetiously in another thread in alt.tv.smallville
that he must've changed his name over the past year because "Siegel" was
too Jewish. Smallville is of course a hotbed of anti-semitism.
And the Luthors used to be the Mansons.
Robert
KalElFan
"ANIM8Rfsk" <anim...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message news:20021115125421...@mb-fe.aol.com...
> I think moving Lana in with Chloe puts them BOTH off limits to Clark
> from now on.
The writers may well intend it that way, so they can get Clark in
some other relationship for a time. I think Gough said there would
be other relationship(s) in one quote of his I read over the summer.
I just hope they go for humor in anything like that, because nobody's
gonna care at all about the relationships on this show if #3 shows
up and it seems like they're really expecting the audience to take
her seriously. The show will drown in Clark's Creek.
Introducing Chloe's place (which I'm assume they'll be doing) also
gives the writers an easy-to-use new nexus of sorts. And it may
help keep the Chloe character from becoming marginalized more
than she has. So I think the roommates idea is a good one, maybe
even an excellent one if they handle the relationship side right. Get
enough humor there, and they might even be able drag it out for
a season in that mode if they wanted to. It could work well.
KalElFan
[snip question about what I think they should do with the creative
canvas they have, because I'm starting a response to that in the
other post with the "Smallville Strategy" adapted thread title]
> > ... He can't be completely godlike. But he never was.
>
> He most certainly was in the Silver Age. He once blew out a star
> with a sneeze. He created a planet, complete with life. If that isn't
> godlike, I don't know what is. Anything he didn't do was because
> he chose not to do it.
I've often used godlike to describe Silver Age Superman incarnations,
which Reeve's version tended towards. I also remember things like
you've described above in the comics. One that seems to stick in my
mind was Superman flying into a massive star, so he could bring out
two handfuls of superdense material that he needed for some reason.
Those incarnations differ from the original Superman in 1938, or from
Byrne's incarnation, or the one in this Smallville series, all of which
are dramatically powered down by comparison.
But it just ain't true that Silver Age Superman was completely godlike
or omnipotent, with no limitations or weaknesses. You had the various
kryptonite with different effects, the loss of powers under a red sun
(or in the Phantom Zone, or the bottled city of Kandor or other devices
they could use to power him down), the magic/occult vulnerability,
villains like other Kryptonians or Mr. Mxyzptlk and so on. As I said:
> > There were always weaknesses and challenges, even in Silver Age.
> > The point is his limitations were never dwelled on.
But then you just went ahead and said:
> He didn't HAVE any limitations.
*shrug* You just seem to have a blind spot on this one David. I
think that in itself may be instructive though. Some writers searching
for story ideas or whatnot, seem to have the same blind spot. They
instinctively recoil from the godlike incarnations: "But he's omnipotent!
How can I write for that? I need him powered down so I can write
something for him!"
Well, no you don't *need* him powered down, because he was
powered up for decades and hundreds if not thousands of stories
were written for him. His popularity soared during that period, as
it did with Reeve's version initially. It's not difficult to understand
why. He's SUPERman. Not Stronger-Than-Average Man. By
and large, people liked him better that way. That's why he was
powered up relatively quickly after 1938.
But fine, let's say we give a writer more scope, with a powered-down
Superman. Even a writer who, like you, seems literally blind to the
fact that he DID HAVE LIMITATIONS AND WEAKNESSES,
even when he was powered up.
If such a writer, like Byrne, uses it to do something interesting and
new, then fine. But then pretty soon you can end up with stories
where Superman is a friggin' doormat, 12th-ranked most powerful
character in the DCU or whatever. Or a vehicle for kid-dying-of-
brain-tumor stories in a TV series, like we saw here. That's the
problem. The powering down can become a crutch for writers
prone to pedestrian stories you can see with any damn character.
Conversely and even worse, it may squeeze out or create a flawed
belief that you don't need writers with vision who can handle a
character with as much grand scope as Superman.
David Johnston
> "David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message news:3DD65DA9...@telusplanet.net...
>
> [snip question about what I think they should do with the creative
> canvas they have, because I'm starting a response to that in the
> other post with the "Smallville Strategy" adapted thread title]
>
> > > ... He can't be completely godlike. But he never was.
> >
> > He most certainly was in the Silver Age. He once blew out a star
> > with a sneeze. He created a planet, complete with life. If that isn't
> > godlike, I don't know what is. Anything he didn't do was because
> > he chose not to do it.
>
> I've often used godlike to describe Silver Age Superman incarnations,
> which Reeve's version tended towards. I also remember things like
> you've described above in the comics. One that seems to stick in my
> mind was Superman flying into a massive star, so he could bring out
> two handfuls of superdense material that he needed for some reason.
>
> Those incarnations differ from the original Superman in 1938, or from
> Byrne's incarnation, or the one in this Smallville series, all of which
> are dramatically powered down by comparison.
>
> But it just ain't true that Silver Age Superman was completely godlike
> or omnipotent, with no limitations or weaknesses.
Oh he had vulnerabilities. He had lots and lots of vulnerabilities.
He belonged to the vulnerability of the month club. He just had
no limitations. A vulnerability is not a limitation, because it doesn't
actually stop you from doing what you want to do.
>
>
> > > There were always weaknesses and challenges, even in Silver Age.
> > > The point is his limitations were never dwelled on.
>
> But then you just went ahead and said:
>
> > He didn't HAVE any limitations.
>
> *shrug* You just seem to have a blind spot on this one David. I
> think that in itself may be instructive though. Some writers searching
> for story ideas or whatnot, seem to have the same blind spot. They
> instinctively recoil from the godlike incarnations: "But he's omnipotent!
> How can I write for that? I need him powered down so I can write
> something for him!"
>
> Well, no you don't *need* him powered down, because he was
> powered up for decades and hundreds if not thousands of stories
> were written for him.
Yup. They'd trot out the kryptonite, or the magic, or red sun radiation,
or any of the other myriad vulnerability that various writers would whip
up to make what he was doing seem slightly difficult, just as they'd forget to have him use powers like
superspeed or his super-brain, or his super hypnosis, until it was the end of the story and they'd stop
pretending that the problem Superman was up against was a difficult one.
Sue me, I'm not a Dragonball Z fan.
David Johnston
people duking it with punches that could shatter mountains for me and a
lot of others, unquestionably.
But of course Smallville's _real_ strategic error is not doing the Ryan
episode and getting rid of a useless character. It's deciding that
Clark would be immune to all superpowers, leaving those stupid green
rocks as the only chink in his armour. They are already so common that
it is almost unbelievable that Clark hasn't relocated to a healthier
locale.
KalElFan
> Oh he had vulnerabilities. He had lots and lots of vulnerabilities.
> He belonged to the vulnerability of the month club. He just had
> no limitations. A vulnerability is not a limitation, because it doesn't
> actually stop you from doing what you want to do.
Well, it'd be easy to chase down the incredibly bouncing semantic
ball here. Limitation: unable to function effectively in the presence
of green kryptonite. Or Limitation: unable to see through lead, and
then I say nyah nyah there's more proof you're wrong even in your
semantic retreat to a single word.
Basically you just don't like the godlike Superman, which was
evident again in the other part of the post when you talked about the
writers "trotting out" things. They trotted out things for 40-some
years of a godlike Superman in the comics, with perhaps ten
Superman-related titles a month during one stretch of that time.
And this period was, again, when his incredible popularity in
the culture was built up.
As I said earlier in the thread, though, I'm not advocating a
godlike Clark in Smallville. They just shouldn't use that as an
excuse to do stories that dwell on his limitations, because Clark
knows he has them and few in the audience want to see that.
--
Anthony Michael Walsh
KalE...@scifipi.com
http://www.moviescorecard.com (e-mail feedback welcome)
KalElFan
As I mentioned in the email response David, your question is a good
opportunity (so thanks) to try to make this a more constructive offshoot
of the thread. I've bashed Ryan and the thinking behind Ryan enough.
I know exactly what I'd do, and in considerable detail, but there are
limits to how I can or should describe what I'd do in a Usenet thread,
It can give a show legal problems, unless it's couched in broad enough
terms, or as "speculation" based on things we've seen and therefore
they've arguably already conveyed the possibility of.
For now I'll break it down as follows, and possibly expand on each
of these in separate posts later.
- #1: Romance -- How to Handle It in Smallville
As I've said before, I'd evolve Chloe into Lois, literally, over the
course of this series. We can get some great foreshadowing out
of that, and "milestones" as was talked about earlier in the thread,
and moments. There are just huge payoffs to the series if they go
this route, long term and also in many individual episodes.
As for Lana, there'll obviously be a Clark-Lana period during this
series. But since very early on in Smallville I've been convinced that
Lana should slowly turn darker, partly through Luthor influence.
And so I'd be very slowly developing towards that, and keeping
it in mind for the writing now.
There were also some points I made in the response to ANIM8Rfsk,
about the new "Chloe-Lana are roommates" dynamic, and how I
hope they handle that especially if they bring in a new romantic
interest for Clark.
- 2: Smallville and Big Picture Superman Mythology
Presumably we'll see the origin story unfold in Smallville, find out
more about the spaceship and so on. I'd prefer we see more of
that rather than the extremely go-slow approach so far, but I
understand the limitations they're working under.
The Star Trek Universe and Star Wars Universe are by and large
understood by even casual fans. I'm not talking about geek-level
knowledge of characters, like the specs to Boba Fett's armor or
anything like that. I'm talking about a big picture understanding
of what they're watching -- its place in the fictional universe, and
relation to previous incarnations they've seen. It's simple in the
case of those franchises because it's based on a single timeline:
different series or movies take place in different eras, or maybe
different parts of the galaxy in the case of Star Trek.
The Superman Universe, and the wider DC Universe, are completely
incoherent and have been for decades now. It's been DC's biggest
problem, and it's the biggest lead ball and chain that the TV folks and
the movie folks have weighing them down. Fixing it could open up
all kinds of creative scope and give the Superman/DC Universe (or
rather Multiverse) more grandeur than any other SF franchise has.
If I do the follow-up posts I'll get into this one more, but it's going
to become even more important if the movie happens. There is
potential conflict there, and costs that the franchise suffers as a
result. Instead of the TV side and movie side working synergistically,
you get Smallville fans mad that maybe Welling hasn't been cast,
and casual viewers/moviegoers wondering how one relates to the
other and so on. So I'd fix that, and then use the solution to GREAT
effect in Smallville. It would be a tremendous help to the show,
again both long-term and providing lots of fodder for good episodes.
- 3: Smallville-Specific, and Smallville-Only Elements
Many of these would flow from the first two above, but I'll mention
one more in particular here. I'd be using Joe Morton's Dr. Hamilton
more in the approach I'd take. It looked like they were planning to
re-introduce him as Brainiac or something with the death scene earlier
this season, which I think would probably be a bad idea in this series
right now so hopefully that's not it. But I would bring him back
periodically in a very specific longer-term arc, to better effect than
he's been used so far.
(Come to think of it I might also bring back Ryan in an ep sometime.
We saw no body, and that Doctor -- the actor who was the villain
from Dark Angel last season -- probably had a cure. That's my
speculation anyway. :-) So the good news would be Ryan's alive,
but the bad news is he might be more messed up next time we see
him.)
I hope Martha's secret isn't pregnancy because I can't see much
upside to that. I'll speculate that getting Martha involved in the
whole municipal politics angle might work well. Pete might be
useful there too. The President Lex vision from the comics is a
good long term destination to have in mind, with Vice President
Ross perhaps.
David Johnston
wrote:
>"David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message news:3DD7D74D...@telusplanet.net...
>
>> Oh he had vulnerabilities. He had lots and lots of vulnerabilities.
>> He belonged to the vulnerability of the month club. He just had
>> no limitations. A vulnerability is not a limitation, because it doesn't
>> actually stop you from doing what you want to do.
>
>Well, it'd be easy to chase down the incredibly bouncing semantic
>ball here. Limitation: unable to function effectively in the presence
>of green kryptonite.
Except he could. He just had to get a few steps away and then
just blow it away with his "super breath".
Or Limitation: unable to see through lead, and
>then I say nyah nyah there's more proof you're wrong even in your
>semantic retreat to a single word.
True, he couldn't see through lead. On the other hand as a story
I read pointed out the simple existence of a chunk of lead shielded
building was a give away, and he could _hear_ through lead.
Ramon K. Kailly
> > > *DWELLING* on Superman's limitations, or realities he can't change, is I
> > > think a bad idea per se. I like the Abrams treatment of it in that scene because
> > > it deals with it quickly and memorably, but really it's a point that doesn't
> > > need to be made at all in Superman.
> >
> > I REALLY disagree with that idea. I think it's an essential point of
> > Superman. Otherwise why bother with the comic at all -- he could just
> > defeat all evil in the universe, save everybody, right all wrongs, and
> > alter time so that nothing bad ever happens again. The End. Since
> > that's not what happened in the comics, it follows that he has
> > limitations.
>
> Just as the weak semantic argument didn't achieve anything, neither does
> switching to a straw man argument. I'm with you on the paragraph above,
> 100%, because it does nothing to contradict the paragraph you're responding
> to. I said that DWELLING on Superman's limitations, in storytelling, was
> a bad idea. Not that Superman shouldn't have limitations or weaknesses
> or challenges or villains that he has trouble overcoming. This Clark can't
> save all the starving children in Africa. Should we have a starving children
> in Africa episode?
It's not a "straw man" I'm trying to knock down here. What you had
said was that "it's a point that doesn't need to be made at all in
Superman". Even the Abrams treatment, as far as you're concerned,
isn't necessary. That's where we disagree; I'm saying that if
Superman has limitations, then that is a point that should be made.
That's not the same as dwelling on his limitations.
> I hope you answered no, because I suspect a poll would show 99%+ of
> viewers, heck even angst-addicted writers, would say no. But think about
> it, because then you have to go through all kinds of contortions to justify this
> stinker of an episode. At its core, it's a "Superman can't cure brain tumors!"
> episode. That's the limitation, and they contrived to a ridiculous extent to
> bring back the character who just happened to be his wannabe kid brother
> in an ep last season, so they could give him the brain tumor and kill him off.
> This is what they do with huge creative canvas they've been given here.
At its core, the episode isn't about brain tumors at all. They could
have used something completely different, but had the same result. I
had already mentioned what I thought this episode was about at its
core. I'll explain it in more detail below.
<snip stuff about Lois & Clark>
> It's writer *thinking* that leads to crap like Ryan. "How can we dwell on
> Clark's limitations?" "How can we get some serious angst, pain, suffering?"
> And this flawed thinking leads to contrived approaches like we saw here.
> "Who should we give the brain tumor to?" Or "Who should we kill off?"
> Meanwhile, this huge creative canvas they have to work with rots.
Maybe it's just _your_ huge creative canvas. I really don't believe
they were thinking along those lines when they wrote the episode.
<snip more stuff>
> The Abrams scene is great (the potential of that scene is just awesome
> if they do it right) because it doesn't dwell on limitations. It captures
> the point beautifully, and very powerfully with profound impact on the
> character. But it's only an extended moment, and then it moves on.
> The whole movie isn't an angst-fest based on that.
And I didn't think Ryan was all an angst-fest either. When did they
find out that Ryan had a tumor? Two-thirds of the way into the
episode? Then they switched to Clark's attempt to save Ryan, and
finally the five-minute "long goodbye". They didn't drag it out
through the whole episode. Nor do I think the episode was dwelling on
Clark's limitations.
> > Clark had never before dealt with that kind of intensely personal
> > failure.
>
> Yep, that's why people are watching Smallville, to see Clark deal with
> intensely personal failure. Here viewers, eat this. My writers' manual
> says it good for you. Keep up that small thinking, that visionless thinking.
> It's the ticket to greatness for this series!
>
> /sarcasm mode off.
What's this, the sarcasm argument? You basically just snipped the
points I made without addressing them at all. Let me make this clear
-- I think that what happened in Ryan fits in with the "vision" of the
show. It might not be a vision you like or agree with, but that
doesn't mean it's not there.
Previously you had brought up the Jonathan Kent's death in the
Superman movie. In the pre-Crisis comics, Clark loses his parents.
In the post-Crisis, they're still alive. I'm unclear as to exactly
what point in the pre-Crisis mythology that the Kents die, or how it
happens. (Did they die of old age, or in an accident?) However,
Superman recalls the deaths as occurring years in the past. As
Superboy, he still had his parents.
The deaths of Jonathan and Martha were an important event in Clark's
transition from Superboy to Superman. Yes, he knew he had
limitations, but losing loved ones made him aware of those limitations
in a personal way, not just an abstract way.
Why is this important? Because it touches on one of the essential
aspects of Superman -- his humanity. It shows us that there are
forces in his life that are beyond even his ability to change; that
for all his amazing powers, he cannot protect himself from loss.
In Smallville, Jonathan and Martha are still fairly young. I'm
guessing that in this respect, the show is going to follow the
post-Crisis mythology, and the Kents are still going to be alive and
kicking when Clark dons the cape and tights. I'm not suggesting that
the writers were thinking "well, if we can't kill off the Kents, let's
kill off...oh, say, Ryan instead". Because there is another layer to
this.
In "Hourglass", Clark was told that someone close to him would die.
This, of course, really upset him. In the end, it was the psychic
lady (I forget her name) who died. But she was elderly, and her death
came suddenly and unexpectedly. Ryan was young, and Clark knew he was
dying, and thought something could be done about it. But for all his
power, he couldn't save Ryan. This adds another layer to the "losing
loved ones" concept, because in Ryan's case, Clark thought that his
death was preventable.
Here's where I re-insert the sentences that you snipped: Now it's
been brought home to him that even in situations where he thinks his
powers can make a difference, even when it involves those he loves, he
can fail. The people he cares about can die despite his best efforts.
I think that knowing that, and coming to terms with that, is important
to Clark as he becomes Superman. Because he's as much Super-MAN as he
is SUPER-man.
Ramon K. Kailly
Eric W. Nikitin
> So far in Smallville my Angst-aversion alarm hadn't gone off, but now
> that you mention it this Ryan ep was an Angst subset of sorts. It's
> different from what we saw in L&C, but you may be right they're
> too focused on that.
They *can't* do as much angst as, say, a young Batman story, but
I think they're trying way harder than they need to, in that respect.
> It's not just the problems with the sausage coming out of the angst-
> addicted sausage machine, like this episode. It's the opportunity
> cost. There's so much better stuff that they could be doing in a
> Young Superman series like this, at this particular turning point in
> the franchise's history, if they weren't fixated on ways to produce
> angst.
Yes, right. You said it better than I did.
Eric
Eric W. Nikitin
> As I've said before, I'd evolve Chloe into Lois, literally, over the
> course of this series. We can get some great foreshadowing out
> of that, and "milestones" as was talked about earlier in the thread,
> and moments. There are just huge payoffs to the series if they go
> this route, long term and also in many individual episodes.
Here's where we'd differ the most on our creative vision of the
Superman future. I wouldn't have the literal Chloe=Lois.
How I'd choose to work it would depend on how long the Smallville
legacy continues through the franchise. Would there be a Clark in
college spinoff (since there's no college in Smallville, you might not
want the show to be called Smallville from that point on)? Would
there be a "Superman: the lost years" type spinoff after that, which
takes place in the years between college and going to work at the
Daily Planet?
Assuming we'd have continuity (via TV series and/or movies) from
Smallville through Clark going to work at the Daily Planet, I'd
eventually have a death of Chloe episode. (If done well, this could
be an extremely powerful episode.) I think this would probably work
best at the end of the Clark in college timeframe. What better reason
for him to start wandering around the world than the woman he's been
falling in love with dies?
For us Allison Mack fans, change her hair color and eye color, and
poof, the perfect Lois. Plus, lots of creative material based on the
fact that Lois reminds Clark of her cousin (Clark might be reluctant
to pursue a relationship with Lois at first because of her connection
to Chloe, and yet he's still extremely attracted to her, etc.).
Just my thoughts.
Eric
KalElFan
> It's not a "straw man" I'm trying to knock down here...
I said your argument was a straw man because the bulk of it was
that "Otherwise..." part -- otherwise we'd have the godlike Superman
who could do anything, solve anything, etc. I could have said you
were making a flawed logic leap, but that was obvious so I chose
to focus on my agreement that your "Otherwise..." part was bad.
Anyway, after we clear that "Otherwise..." boogie man or straw
man or flawed logic leap away, the disagreement we're left with on
this part of it is here:
> Even the Abrams treatment, as far as you're concerned, isn't
> necessary. That's where we disagree; I'm saying that if Superman
> has limitations, then that is a point that should be made.
Well, even there I wouldn't agree that a "point" needs to be made.
His limitations simply become inherent and obvious in whatever
Superman incarnation. We see them in the normal course. Writers
don't have to make a point of them.
You're right I don't think the Abrams scene is *necessary*, but
I did say it's the best damn thing in the script and explained why.
He is going out of his way to make the point, but it's done very
well and powerfully and quickly.
> And I didn't think Ryan was all an angst-fest either. When did they
> find out that Ryan had a tumor? Two-thirds of the way into the
> episode? Then they switched to Clark's attempt to save Ryan, and
> finally the five-minute "long goodbye". They didn't drag it out
> through the whole episode...
This is the most disingenuous thing you wrote. No one, not before
this episode if they saw the promo and not after the episode, has
any different perception than it was about Ryan and that the kid
got a brain tumor and he died. That's how the episode will be
remembered. Sure, there was B-plot stuff as there always is, the
Mayor was in it and the X-Philes especially liked that, but they did
devote an episode to this whole limitations or personal loss or failure
"point" you think needs to be made. Excerpting from the rest of your
post where you get at that again and again:
> ... losing loved ones made him aware of those limitations
> in a personal way, not just an abstract way....
>
>... for all his amazing powers, he cannot protect himself from loss....
>
> ... Ryan was young, and Clark knew he was dying, and thought
> something could be done about it. But for all his power, he
> couldn't save Ryan...
>
> Here's where I re-insert the sentences that you snipped: Now it's
> been brought home to him that even in situations where he thinks his
> powers can make a difference, even when it involves those he loves, he
> can fail. The people he cares about can die despite his best efforts.
And Blah Blah Blah. If nothing else I agree that you've captured the
kind of writer thinking that led to this episode. It's pure writerthink
for writerthink's sake. There's nobody there to stop it, to say: "Y'know,
maybe we shouldn't go out of our way like this, listening to our writer-
think impulses and feeding 'em this kind of episode. Sure, a big
milestone ep where we killed off Pa Kent, that'd be real dramatic
and a big personal loss for Clark, and very sad, not to mention a
big ratings event too for the episode itself. But let's face it we don't
want to off Pa right now, or Ma, or Pete, and even if we wanted
to we wouldn't have the balls to do the kind of real honest-to-God
personal loss episode that would mean something and really shock
people, like killing Lana or Chloe, because it might lose millions of
viewers and get the show canned. So shouldn't we resist our writer-
think impulses to do a cheap, contrived, returning-guest-character-
who-might-have-been-kid-brother-killing version?"
Maybe the writers should run a Martha's Kitchen Table litmus test for
their writerthink. Have Martha run it by Clark, and see how well it
works. For Ryan it might have gone like this:
Martha: "You know Clark, tomorrow I could get an incurable brain
tumor, and despite your powers and finding the best doctor, I'd still
die because there are no cures to an incurable brain tumor.
Clark: "Mom! Are you sick? Are you going to die?"
Martha: "Well, no dear, I'm fine. I just think it's important for you to
know that you have limitations and someone close to you could die,
say of a brain tumor."
Clark: "Well... I know that Ma. But I try not to think about... brain
tumors."
Martha: "Of course it wouldn't have to be a brain tumor. That's not
really the point at all. It could be some other bad thing. Any thing
bad enough that it would take the life of someone very close to you,
and there'd be nothing you could do about it. That would be the
point."
Clark: "The point?"
Martha: "Well, maybe that's not really the point either. The point
would be to actually experience that personal loss... how that would
make you feel, and how you would grow as a person. How would
you feel if you experienced that kind of personal loss, Clark?
Clark: "That'd suck, Ma."
Martha: "That would suck, wouldn't it?"
Clark: "Yeah."
KalElFan
news:20021117224505...@mb-bd.aol.com...
> "Martha's secret"??? Did I miss something?
>
> I sure hope you're not referring to that conversation she and Ryan had in the
> Luthor Mansion.
>
> If you are, they already revealed that "secret"...
>
> Jonathan and Clark don't know that Martha...
>
> (Unnecessary pause here...)
>
> (And here...)
>
> (Oh, what the hell, here too...)
>
> LOVES her job...
Not sure if you're joking or not (why would they have written it that
that was a secret?), but yeah if there is no Martha's secret I did miss
something.
Yes, it was that Ryan conversation with her that revealed it, and
pregnancy was the first thing that popped into my mind. Though
I'm only back to participate in this thread (including this offshoot
now), I have looked at a few other posts. I think there was a thread
on Martha's Secret, but anyway someplace I saw someone also
mention the possibility of pregnancy.
David Johnston
wrote:
>"David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message news:3DD65E9E...@telusplanet.net...
>
>> KalElFan wrote:
>>
>> > It's not just the problems with the sausage coming out of the angst-
>> > addicted sausage machine, like this episode. It's the opportunity
>> > cost. There's so much better stuff that they could be doing in a
>> > Young Superman series like this,
>>
>> Like what?
>
>As I mentioned in the email response David, your question is a good
>opportunity (so thanks) to try to make this a more constructive offshoot
>of the thread. I've bashed Ryan and the thinking behind Ryan enough.
>
>I know exactly what I'd do, and in considerable detail, but there are
>limits to how I can or should describe what I'd do in a Usenet thread,
>It can give a show legal problems, unless it's couched in broad enough
>terms, or as "speculation" based on things we've seen and therefore
>they've arguably already conveyed the possibility of.
>
>For now I'll break it down as follows, and possibly expand on each
>of these in separate posts later.
>
>- #1: Romance -- How to Handle It in Smallville
>
>As I've said before, I'd evolve Chloe into Lois, literally, over the
>course of this series. We can get some great foreshadowing out
Gah. Chloe is not Lois Lane. She'd have to be certifiably blind not
to figure out that Clark is Superman. Its bad enough that Lex
presumably will instantly figure it out. At least in Lex's case I can
imagine him keeping it a secret.
>- 2: Smallville and Big Picture Superman Mythology
>
>Presumably we'll see the origin story unfold in Smallville, find out
>more about the spaceship and so on. I'd prefer we see more of
>that rather than the extremely go-slow approach so far, but I
>understand the limitations they're working under.
>
>The Star Trek Universe and Star Wars Universe are by and large
>understood by even casual fans. I'm not talking about geek-level
>knowledge of characters, like the specs to Boba Fett's armor or
>anything like that. I'm talking about a big picture understanding
>of what they're watching -- its place in the fictional universe, and
>relation to previous incarnations they've seen. It's simple in the
>case of those franchises because it's based on a single timeline:
>different series or movies take place in different eras, or maybe
>different parts of the galaxy in the case of Star Trek.
That's not the issue. The reason why they are going slow, is because
Clark finding out where he came from is the climactic point in his
story. It will be the critical transition from boy to man.
>(Come to think of it I might also bring back Ryan in an ep sometime.
>We saw no body, and that Doctor -- the actor who was the villain
>from Dark Angel last season -- probably had a cure. That's my
>speculation anyway. :-) So the good news would be Ryan's alive,
>but the bad news is he might be more messed up next time we see
>him.)
Enh. I hope they drive a stake into his heart.
Robert Goodman
> Introducing Chloe's place (which I'm assume they'll be doing) also
> gives the writers an easy-to-use new nexus of sorts. And it may
> help keep the Chloe character from becoming marginalized more
> than she has.
Which is odd and a bit sad, considering how much play there could be in
her journalistic role -- her nose for news and tendency to jump to
conclusions. In season 1 it was a cliche that she'd have the correct
(or at least adequate enough for a TV show, and not contradicted)
explanation for everything weird -- to the point I think they were
making fun of it in one episode when she came up with some such
explanation for some bizarre occurrence, and Clark's comeback was a
deadpan approximately, "I'm sold." So how about an episode wherein she
jumps to a wrong conclusion, and Clark thru use of X-ray vision or some
such contrivance knows the truth but can't prove it (or at least
convince Chloe before she embarrasses herself) without revealing his own
nature? Or maybe Clark deliberately withholds the truth as payback for
Chloe's adoption snooping?
Or maybe Chloe picks up Roger Nixon's trail and it winds up leading to
Lex rather than Clark? And she suspects Lex to be an ET? And maybe she
even digs up additional evidence suggesting to US that he is!
Robert
Maureen Goldman
>Gah. Chloe is not Lois Lane. She'd have to be certifiably blind not
>to figure out that Clark is Superman.
Chloe\Lois would also likely wonder why Clark was wearing glasses.
Robert Goodman
> The Superman Universe, and the wider DC Universe, are completely
> incoherent and have been for decades now. It's been DC's biggest
> problem, and it's the biggest lead ball and chain that the TV folks
and
> the movie folks have weighing them down.
It vexes me to have fairy-tale-generically named prominent places like
Edge City and Hub City co-existing with our-world geography. I was
hoping they'd leave those references out of "Smallville", but they
haven't. "Metropolis" is acceptable because there really is one, but
the others remind me of "Capital City" in Simpson cartoons.
After some millennia I suppose they might lose their generic nature and
seem like real names, like "Adam" ("a man" in Hebrew). In the meantime,
such things as a sign reading, "Hub City 425 mi." (not just the name of
the destination, but the idea of such a sign, like that'd be a likely
destination at that distance to point to) lead me to think they want
"Smallville" to be fairy-talish.
Alternate geography (like the great bridge & dam in Kansas) doesn't
bother me, but silly geography does.
Robert
KalElFan
apologies in advance if I don't respond to things there that look
like they deserve a response. I may make another post or two
there, but mainly I'll be sticking with this offshoot.]
"Eric W. Nikitin" <enik...@junior.apk.net> wrote in message news:aravbh$ns5$1...@plonk.apk.net...
> Here's where we'd differ the most on our creative vision of the
> Superman future. I wouldn't have the literal Chloe=Lois.
>
> How I'd choose to work it would depend on how long the Smallville
> legacy continues through the franchise....
>
> Assuming we'd have continuity (via TV series and/or movies) from
> Smallville through Clark going to work at the Daily Planet, I'd
> eventually have a death of Chloe episode. (If done well, this could
> be an extremely powerful episode.) I think this would probably work
> best at the end of the Clark in college timeframe. What better reason
> for him to start wandering around the world than the woman he's been
> falling in love with dies?
>
> For us Allison Mack fans, change her hair color and eye color, and
> poof, the perfect Lois. Plus, lots of creative material based on the
> fact that Lois reminds Clark of her cousin (Clark might be reluctant
> to pursue a relationship with Lois at first because of her connection
> to Chloe, and yet he's still extremely attracted to her, etc.).
Back in mid-December 2001 (Dec 11th I think, if I remember the date
correctly from when I clipped this earlier), I wrote on r.a.sf.superman:
"... you could go the Sam-
Serena Bewitched route and use a wig to make Mack a brunette
cousin of Chloe. For some reason I think that might actually work
and be great fun, but it does [raise] questions of exactly what you'd
plan for the Chloe character long-term (and as an endgame)..."
So I think I was the first to mention the possibility of casting Mack
as cousin Lois, in addition to Chloe. The above was part of the
whole hints-and-breadcrumbs campaign I was engaging in in my
posts, after becoming convinced in November that Chloe=Lois was
a gold mine they'd stumbled upon. I think the TV Guide rumor
that Chloe might have a cousin in Metropolis (nudge-nudge-wink-
wink-maybe-she's-cousin-Lois) was out by then. I was worried
they might not just announce that as official, but also cast a new
Lois for a guest appearance.
If you cast Lois for a guest spot, you lose some flexibility on how
you can do Chloe=Lois. Casting the new Lois is also a dicey issue,
as is how viewers react to Lois. It could also affect perception of
Chloe and Lana as potential relationship partners for Clark. A
new Lois is just a Big Issue that needs to be carefully considered.
A lot more carefully than "Hey, let's bring in Lois for a guest spot."
So when I wrote the above, I was simultaneously trying to caution
against the whole thing -- against giving up the flexibility -- but also
trying to identify the least damaging way to do it if they were intent
on casting Lois.
IF they're intent on having Lois appear, and especially if they think
they might want to kill Chloe off at some point, then the best Lois
casting is the brunette Allison Mack (looking and acting a few years
older than Chloe, because Gough says Lois is in college).
I think a cousin Lois played by a new actress is a bad idea that
could weaken the show in the longer term. But beyond that, in
terms of my own personal approach to evolving Chloe into Lois,
it wouldn't matter at all. Whether we see a new Lois or not, or
if we do whether she's played by Allison Mack, it'd still work.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the What You Thought You
Knew Was Wrong approach is ideally suited to the way I'd
do it. In an ironic way, the worse any cousin Lois casting got
screwed up, the more beneficial my approach would be because
at the end of the day Chloe is and always was Lois, from birth.
If they really wanted a Chloe death, my approach could also
provide that in a fairly seamless, which is to say non-contrived-
looking way that would be built in to the series-long Chloe=Lois
arc. I would not do a permanent Chloe death though, obviously
because in my vision she's Lois.
Beyond that I'd challenge you to consider the upside and the
downside of our approaches -- (i) Chloe=Lois or (ii) Chloe
isn't Lois and gets killed off. The latter limits how effective and
powerful any Clark-Chloe romance can be. It can't be Ultimate
Romance because that's with Lois. It risks draining from any
Lois relationship if the series goes to a Metropolis spinoff, or
the movies. It risks ticking viewers off this whole incarnation
when Chloe is killed. Yes, casting Allison Mack as Lois will
minimize the damage, but why are we thinking about minimizing
damages in the first place here? We should be aiming higher.
Now think those weaknesses, and add the opportunity cost of
all the great foreshadowing, milestones, and moments that this
series can have with a SERIES-long Chloe-is-revealed-as-Lois
arc. The FIRST foreshadowing alone, will have the buzz meter off
the scale and pump up ratings. Viewers, and increasing numbers
of new viewers, will be hooked into the arc. For that and the
important milestone eps, it can get big press. THE whole Early
Ultimate Romance can actually be told in this series, because
Lois is there. The DVD sales down the road will be gargantuan,
because Smallville will be a classic retelling of ALL the critical
elements: Clarks' evolution into Superman, Clark and his greatest
adversary Lex, and sending it over the top is Clark and Lois --
who was there in Smallville only we didn't know it at first.
There's just absolutely no comparison at all. As I've said before
it'll be such a shame if the series can't realize on the tremendous
potential it has sitting there.
KalElFan
> Gah. Chloe is not Lois Lane. She'd have to be certifiably blind not
> to figure out that Clark is Superman. Its bad enough that Lex
> presumably will instantly figure it out. At least in Lex's case I can
> imagine him keeping it a secret.
That's not an obstacle, least of all in this incarnation. Pete knows,
Lana will probably know, Lex might learn it, and so Lois learning
it not only isn't a problem, it's arguably very desirable at some point.
The whole not-knowing-the-secret period between Lois & Clark,
in Metropolis, is pretty old and stale anyway.
Moreover, the_whole_friggin'_town_of_Smallville should arguably
be able to see and recognize the future Superman as Clark Kent,
if they ever take this series to Metropolis. The only way to avoid
that is with the super-power-of-suggestion idea, or something like
it, whereby it's explained that Superman can alter people's visual
perception of him enough that his Clark Kent identity is protected.
In that scenario, Lex could even be kept out, or even Chloe but
again I don't think it's a concern at all in her case. Certainly not
in this incarnation.
> >- 2: Smallville and Big Picture Superman Mythology
> >
> >Presumably we'll see the origin story unfold in Smallville, find out
> >more about the spaceship and so on. I'd prefer we see more of
> >that rather than the extremely go-slow approach so far, but I
> >understand the limitations they're working under.
> >
> >The Star Trek Universe and Star Wars Universe are by and large
> >understood by even casual fans. I'm not talking about geek-level
> >knowledge of characters, like the specs to Boba Fett's armor or
> >anything like that. I'm talking about a big picture understanding
> >of what they're watching -- its place in the fictional universe, and
> >relation to previous incarnations they've seen. It's simple in the
> >case of those franchises because it's based on a single timeline:
> >different series or movies take place in different eras, or maybe
> >different parts of the galaxy in the case of Star Trek.
>
> That's not the issue. The reason why they are going slow, is because
> Clark finding out where he came from is the climactic point in his
> story. It will be the critical transition from boy to man.
Nah. For starters that suggests we wait almost the whole series to
see the most basic information everyone in the audience already knows:
that he's Kal-El from Krypton and his parents were Jor-El and Lara.
I'll give you a 100% guarantee they're not stupid enough to make us
wait that long for that stuff. I'm not sure why you think it has anything
to do with his critical transition from boy to man either. It's just his
Kryptonian heritage he's learning about.
The bigger problem, and it's an issue very much connected to the
incoherence of the Universal structure I mentioned, is the opportunity
cost. Imagine all the great stories they *could* tell if they had a
new, coherent structure to sell in this series. One that allowed them
to support the movie if it happens, and vice versa. Without that, all
we get is the Gospel elements of the origin story and whatever other
contortions they go through to try to make Things Kryptonian interesting.
It won't mean squat, and it's fraught with pitfalls. In Lois & Clark they
had Clark run off with a New Kryptonian princess.
Ramon K. Kailly
>
> > It's not a "straw man" I'm trying to knock down here...
>
> I said your argument was a straw man because the bulk of it was
> that "Otherwise..." part -- otherwise we'd have the godlike Superman
> who could do anything, solve anything, etc. I could have said you
> were making a flawed logic leap, but that was obvious so I chose
> to focus on my agreement that your "Otherwise..." part was bad.
And it seems to me you misunderstood the point I was making (or
rather, implying).
> > Even the Abrams treatment, as far as you're concerned, isn't
> > necessary. That's where we disagree; I'm saying that if Superman
> > has limitations, then that is a point that should be made.
>
> Well, even there I wouldn't agree that a "point" needs to be made.
> His limitations simply become inherent and obvious in whatever
> Superman incarnation. We see them in the normal course. Writers
> don't have to make a point of them.
>
> You're right I don't think the Abrams scene is *necessary*, but
> I did say it's the best damn thing in the script and explained why.
> He is going out of his way to make the point, but it's done very
> well and powerfully and quickly.
And what I'm saying is, I think limitations are an important, even
essential aspect of a superhero, to the extent that they _need_ to be
pointed out.
> > And I didn't think Ryan was all an angst-fest either. When did they
> > find out that Ryan had a tumor? Two-thirds of the way into the
> > episode? Then they switched to Clark's attempt to save Ryan, and
> > finally the five-minute "long goodbye". They didn't drag it out
> > through the whole episode...
>
> This is the most disingenuous thing you wrote.
I'm not being disingenuous at all. I meant exactly what I said.
> No one, not before
> this episode if they saw the promo and not after the episode, has
> any different perception than it was about Ryan and that the kid
> got a brain tumor and he died. That's how the episode will be
> remembered. Sure, there was B-plot stuff as there always is, the
> Mayor was in it and the X-Philes especially liked that, but they did
> devote an episode to this whole limitations or personal loss or failure
> "point" you think needs to be made.
Again, they only devoted the tail end of the episode to it. All the
rest may have led up to it, but I wouldn't say that was all there was
to it.
> And Blah Blah Blah. If nothing else I agree that you've captured the
> kind of writer thinking that led to this episode. It's pure writerthink
> for writerthink's sake.
And if nothing else I'd say that you've still failed to grasp this
episode.
>There's nobody there to stop it, to say: "Y'know,
> maybe we shouldn't go out of our way like this, listening to our writer-
> think impulses and feeding 'em this kind of episode. Sure, a big
> milestone ep where we killed off Pa Kent, that'd be real dramatic
> and a big personal loss for Clark, and very sad, not to mention a
> big ratings event too for the episode itself. But let's face it we don't
> want to off Pa right now, or Ma, or Pete, and even if we wanted
> to we wouldn't have the balls to do the kind of real honest-to-God
> personal loss episode that would mean something and really shock
> people, like killing Lana or Chloe, because it might lose millions of
> viewers and get the show canned. So shouldn't we resist our writer-
> think impulses to do a cheap, contrived, returning-guest-character-
> who-might-have-been-kid-brother-killing version?"
And I don't think they were thinking along those lines. Maybe it's
easier for you to believe they did, so you can more easily despise
this episode. I think they could just as easily have created the
"Ryan" episode and then worked on the ending. You seem to think they
made up the ending, or the "point", as you see it, of the ending, and
then wrote the episode around it.
> Maybe the writers should run a Martha's Kitchen Table litmus test for
> their writerthink. Have Martha run it by Clark, and see how well it
> works. For Ryan it might have gone like this:
<snip stuff about Martha's Kitchen Table>
> Clark: "That'd suck, Ma."
>
> Martha: "That would suck, wouldn't it?"
>
> Clark: "Yeah."
Yeah, well, life sucks for some people.
You're still not getting it. I'll post it a third time:
Now it's been brought home to him that even in situations where he
thinks his powers can make a difference, even when it involves those
he loves, he can fail. The people he cares about can die despite his
best efforts.
Before you say "Blah Blah Blah", consider: have you understood the
point I'm trying to make here? It's not true to say that there was
nothing Clark could do about Ryan's situation; he did do something
about it. Clark didn't perceive the situation as hopeless. He used
his powers to track down the specialist whom he believed could save
Ryan. But for all his efforts, Clark came up short. His attempt to
save Ryan failed in the end. It wasn't as though Clark knew what the
outcome would be from the start.
Ramon K. Kailly
Robert Goodman
> Nah. For starters that suggests we wait almost the whole series to
> see the most basic information everyone in the audience already knows:
> that he's Kal-El from Krypton and his parents were Jor-El and Lara.
What if he's not?
KalElFan
I decided I'd keep hope alive and watch Smallville episode 2-09
Dichotic on CITY-TV here in Toronto at 8. Let's consider Smallville's
Strategy in the romance area, in light of this episode.
Season 1 we had the Clark-Chloe train just leaving the station after
Revving Up Real Good, only to have what seemed like an emergency
shutdown at the beginning of season 2. Then the Clark-Lana train
surely looked like it was about to board, especially given how quickly
Lana dumped Whitney. Instead the Clark-Lana train just blew smoke,
until the end of this episode when they shut everything down and told
us Romance Rail is out of service for an indefinite period of time. If
Clark were to invite Lana on a date or vice versa next week, I think
this whole show would go off the rails and have trouble getting back
on. So I have to believe they mean it, at least for the rest of season
2 and probably into 3.
Fine, I think it's just as well that Clark-Lana doesn't leave the station
under these circumstances. It gives the show a period of stability in
this area, a time to regroup, and it means viewers who remain with
the show will stop getting jerked around on Clark-Lana-Chloe. The
end of tonight's episode is also like those Ryan promos -- it was
brutally honest about it, and in doing so it takes the hit upfront.
KalElFan
> ... I think they could just as easily have created the
> "Ryan" episode and then worked on the ending....
Perhaps they did, Ramon. In fact that doctor/villain looked like an
episode-long A plot, until they cut it short and burned it into that
"Lex has lots of lawyers and clout" point (which they've done a
number of times before on this show). The thing is it doesn't matter.
In fact it's arguably worse, because it means the offing-Ryan part
found its way, as an afterthought, into what might have been a more
decent episode.
> Yeah, well, life sucks for some people.
>
> You're still not getting it. I'll post it a third time:
>
> Now it's been brought home to him that even in situations where he
> thinks his powers can make a difference, even when it involves those
> he loves, he can fail. The people he cares about can die despite his
> best efforts.
>
> Before you say "Blah Blah Blah", consider: have you understood the
> point I'm trying to make here?
Yes, it's 100% crystal clear. And it's exactly the Blah Blah Blah stuff
I'm talking about. In fact I think much if not all of it was included in
that sequence I quoted in my last post. We have absolutely no
misunderstanding about what you're saying. You seem to think it
matters when you do things like refine it to "situations where he thinks
his powers can make a difference" and so on, but it doesn't. Likewise,
whether or not the writerthink came in the specific way or the specific
sequence I've given is not the issue. The end result was this episode,
and it's writerthink *like* you've described above, and at length in this
thread, that led to it.
Now, am I saying the Ryan ep has killed this show? No of course not.
At one point I said my angst alarm hadn't even gone off in this series
before now. They're far from Lois & Clark's angst addiction. But
in some ways that's all the more reason to pound at it now and make
the point. The 2 million episode-to-episode drop should also be a clue.
With few exceptions, the millions of people who watch this show don't
come away from an episode like Ryan even thinking, let alone saying,
"Now it's been brought home to him that even in situations where he
thinks his powers can make a difference, even when it involves those
he loves, he can fail. The people he cares about can die despite his
best efforts." That's what I mean by all of the justification or rationale
for this episode -- no matter how you word it -- being writerthink. It's
not viewer-think, it's writerthink.
There needs to be a check -- heck a veto built in someplace -- on
writerthink episodes like this. Sure, every episode has to have conflict
or tension and so on, and technically every episode is a product of
some kind of writerthink. But the minute this kind of writerthink comes
into play -- intense personal failure, people he cares about dying despite
his best efforts, yadda yadda yadda, it should set off alarm bells.
KalElFan
I can't imagine them changing those basic elements of the origin story in
this series. There's just no reason to change it, and no upside. What
are they going to do, make him George from JungleWorld, and his
parents Tarzan and Jane? For the same reason they call this series
Smallville, and they call him Clark Kent, and his parents are Jonathan
and Martha, I think the above remains the standard. Again, I just see
no reason they would even want to change it. There's no upside to
changing it, only potential downside.
Now, once you get beyond those basics, and probably Krypton
exploding, I think it's open season how they portray the backstory
beyond that.
Robert Goodman
> > > Nah. For starters that suggests we wait almost the whole series
to
> > > see the most basic information everyone in the audience already
knows:
> > > that he's Kal-El from Krypton and his parents were Jor-El and
Lara.
> > What if he's not?
> I can't imagine them changing those basic elements of the origin story
in
> this series. There's just no reason to change it, and no upside.
There's no upside in changing them per se; the upside is in preserving
the POSSIBILITY of changing them -- the element of surprise!
Actually there is one upside in changing them per se -- the shock value.
But that works only once. It'd be better to dribble out the
inconsistencies slowly -- preserving some things, changing others, so
we're kept guessing about what's still to be revealed, and saving the
biggest for last.
Robert
David Johnston
wrote:
>"Robert Goodman" <rob...@bestweb.net> wrote in message news:arhgb7$im1h9$2...@ID-140940.news.dfncis.de...
>
>> "KalElFan" <KalE...@scifipi.com> wrote in message
>> news:6ieC9.3618$kS3.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...in small part:
>>
>> > Nah. For starters that suggests we wait almost the whole series to
>> > see the most basic information everyone in the audience already knows:
>> > that he's Kal-El from Krypton and his parents were Jor-El and Lara.
>>
>> What if he's not?
>
>I can't imagine them changing those basic elements of the origin story in
>this series.
I can't imagine them changing Lois's name to "Chloe"...
Robert Holland
> "David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message news:3DD65E9E...@telusplanet.net...
>
> > KalElFan wrote:
> >
> > > It's not just the problems with the sausage coming out of the angst-
> > > addicted sausage machine, like this episode. It's the opportunity
> > > cost. There's so much better stuff that they could be doing in a
> > > Young Superman series like this,
> >
> > Like what?
>
> As I mentioned in the email response David, your question is a good
> opportunity (so thanks) to try to make this a more constructive offshoot
> of the thread. I've bashed Ryan and the thinking behind Ryan enough.
>
> I know exactly what I'd do, and in considerable detail, but there are
> limits to how I can or should describe what I'd do in a Usenet thread,
> It can give a show legal problems, unless it's couched in broad enough
> terms, or as "speculation" based on things we've seen and therefore
> they've arguably already conveyed the possibility of.
>
> For now I'll break it down as follows, and possibly expand on each
> of these in separate posts later.
>
> - #1: Romance -- How to Handle It in Smallville
>>
>
>>
Thank our luck stars you don't write for this show!
I believe the producers realize that comic books are too shallow to
make good TV, so they decide to tell the story of some teenagers in
modern society, and throw in a little Superman crap to spice it up.
And they are doing the right thing.
RH
Rank Tyro
wrote:
>I believe the producers realize that comic books are too shallow to
>make good TV, so they decide to tell the story of some teenagers in
>modern society, and throw in a little Superman crap to spice it up.
You sincerely believe the result is good TV?
KalElFan
> I can't imagine them changing Lois's name to "Chloe"...
Well, imagine it this way David. First, completely forget that I've been
advocating a series-long Chloe=Lois arc, and that we've been going
back and forth not seeing eye to eye on it. Assume instead that there
was a very specific meeting about the Lois Lane issue, prior to the
series, among a few Powers That Be.
They realized that Lois isn't in Smallville in previous tellings of this
early Superman story. She just passes on a train like she did in the
first Reeve movie or whatever. But maybe someone suggests a
different telling here. Lex wasn't in Smallville in the Reeve series,
or Lois & Clark, and he doesn't go bald in some lab accident in
this Smallville series... heck, there's no Superboy in this series. So
why not just have Lois in this new Smallville incarnation, and just
announce that and cast her? Let's just have that change, that new
spin on it.
More back and forth. Having Lois would allow them to tell the
early version of the Ultimate Romance story. But then they recall
Lois & Clark, where they botched the romance. Yes, having a
young Lois in Smallville would be an interesting new take, but
will people view it that way when it's announced? Will the geeks
scream bloody murder before they even give it a chance? Some
are already (at that point) screaming about the no flights no tights
stuff. And what if the Lois actress and the chemistry don't work?
Finally, somebody comes up with a brainstorm. What about having
Lois Lane in this series, but the viewers just don't know it at first.
They fiddle with the letters, anagram-like, and give her the name
Chloe Sullivan. "What about she moves to Metropolis one day, and
takes the pen name Lois Lane?" asks the person proposing this.
Nah, because then the moment she adopts the pen name is the only
revelation. Better that Chloe Sullivan was, at birth, Lois Lane. The
one, true Lois Lane destined for the Ultimate Romance relationship
with Superman/Clark. Lots of great revelation, surprise, and shock
opportunity there, as we reveal how and why it is that she is, and
always was, Lois. Big picture stuff. Not an accidental switched at
birth mistake, or Lois's mother being a single teenager who gave her
up for adoption to the Sullivans. Something more substantive, story-
wise. Something goddam goose-bumps interesting, evolving over
several episodes spread over this series. The kind of thing that'll light
a ratings fire under the series and draw in all demos, because it combines
the Ultimate Romance element with some great Superman mythology/
SF-type elements.
Of course no meeting even remotely like that could possibly have
happened. Not even a meeting of, say, two senior PTB, or even
one. Never could have happened.... could it?
KalElFan
[re Kal-El being from Krypton, and his parents being Jor-El and Lara]
> There's no upside in changing [that] per se; the upside is in preserving
> the POSSIBILITY of changing [that] -- the element of surprise!
>
> Actually there is one upside in changing them per se -- the shock value.
I don't see value in changing the above basic info, but the rest sure.
There's a specific example that I'll use here. I've had material read
by Warner Bros. twice, the first being in the mid-80s and a script called
Brainiac's Revenge. I was going to describe the Superman-Lois part
of that script, as an example of the kind of romance story I've been
talking about, in another post to this Strategy thread that I still plan to
do. But the Brainiac part actually ties in beautifully with the origin
story issue we're discussing here, and the idea of changing things from
the established mythology.
My version of Brainiac was part machine and part organic -- that bald,
green-skinned guy with the electrodes on his head, with a saucer-like
spaceship. That was the essence of Brainiac to me based on my memory
of him from the comics, and I thought he'd make a great movie villain.
There were two changes that I made, though, that I thought were rather
significant and might be controversial to purists. The first was that in
Brainiac's backstory, fully revealed to Lois at the Fortress of Solitude
towards the end of my script, I made him responsible for the destruction
of Krypton. The explosion of Krypton is a famous feature of the story
that was there from the start. Brainiac, on the other hand, didn't even
exist for the first 20 years or whatever of Superman.
My second change was to give Brainiac Parasite-like traits. Parasite was
another Superman villain, introduced circa 1966, that I remembered from
the comics when I was a kid. I gave Brainiac energy-sucking power
requirements, both organic (at one point early on I had Brainiac sucking
the life out of a human test subject) and thermal (in the backstory I had
Brainiac using Krypton's core as an energy source).
I also had a robotic-type servant character named Creighton, who
answered to Brainiac with "My Lord" and so on. But that was just an
add-on. The above messed with Brainiac's origin story, and Krypton's
origin story, and gave Brainiac another villain's power. I thought the
changes were good and very useful ones, but I was taking liberties.
Anyway, I was quite pleased to read one of their drafts of the Superman
movie a few years back, and find the green-skinned Brainiac version,
with Parasite-like traits, sucking the life energy out of some alien near the
beginning, and later on being revealed as responsible for the destruction
of Krypton, and having a robotic-type servant calling him My Lord.
To be clear, I'm not accusing, and in fact I don't believe, that any one
person was guilty of "borrowing" my material. Let alone Kevin Smith --
he would have been in high school, if that, when Brainiac's Revenge
was looked at by Warner Bros. Though I didn't read early versions
before Smith's, I know that Brainiac was carried forward from the
first one they commissioned (Lemkin's I believe), and that Poirier's
had Brainiac responsible for the destruction of Krypton. I know
the animated series in the 90s also used that element.
I signed the releases and that's just the way it goes when you do that.
Material doesn't get ripped off in its entirety, but an energy-sucking
Brainiac who's responsible for the destruction of Krypton gets passed
down. I'm okay with that, in fact I'm flattered. The same when I post
Superman-SPECIFIC (including Smallville-specific) material in a public
forum. I'd never sue, even if they took it word for word. In fact I wish
they had in the case of my Superman Framework (the WB-L&C TV
side looked at an early version of that in 1996 -- that was the second
case of Warner Bros. looking at my material). Instead we got a far
less useful version of the concept showing up in the comics a couple
of years later as Hypertime.
Anyway, finishing this post by returning to the origin story discussion,
I think a show like Smallville should stick to the very basic Clark/Kal-El
biographical stuff, and reveal that sooner rather than later in the series.
Then, and maybe even starting in conjunction with the first revelation of
that basic information, they can give us more. I'm not sure that Brainiac
would work very well in this series, especially not any version of him
emerging from that Dr. Hamilton (played by Joe Morton) death we saw
earlier this season. But Brainiac, or some version of the Eradicator (I'm
not too familiar with that "character"), or other Kryptonian villains or
whatnot -- there are all kinds of possibilities -- could be done and there'd
be pretty much an open slate to build on the origin story.
Hopefully whatever they do will be interesting, maybe even surprising,
shocking etc., as you suggest, and not show-destroying stuff like the
running-off-with-the-New-Krypton-princess business was in Lois & Clark.
David Johnston
wrote:
>"David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message news:3ddd2e78...@news.telusplanet.net...
>
>> I can't imagine them changing Lois's name to "Chloe"...
>
>Well, imagine it this way David. First, completely forget that I've been
>advocating a series-long Chloe=Lois arc, and that we've been going
>back and forth not seeing eye to eye on it. Assume instead that there
>was a very specific meeting about the Lois Lane issue, prior to the
>series, among a few Powers That Be.
>Of course no meeting even remotely like that could possibly have
>happened. Not even a meeting of, say, two senior PTB, or even
>one. Never could have happened.... could it?
One hopes not.
KalElFan
> >Of course no meeting even remotely like that could possibly have
> >happened. Not even a meeting of, say, two senior PTB, or even
> >one. Never could have happened.... could it?
>
> One hopes not.
A one-liner something like that was expected, but why would you
hope not?
Obviously no such meeting ever took place. I made it up because
I thought the different perspective -- that it was their idea all along,
and I had nothing to do with it -- might get the discussion beyond the
usual b.s. where it's ego vs. ego and people dig in and never want
to concede a thing. Of course if someone won't buy into that new
perspective it doesn't work, but I thought I'd give it a try.
KalElFan
> I believe the producers realize that comic books are too shallow to
> make good TV...
Which is why the WB, and Smallville's producers, decided to do
Birds of Prey!
>, so they decide to tell the story of some teenagers in modern society,
Teenagers... doing things... teenager things... in modern society. Nah,
it'll never fly on the WB. :-/
>and throw in a little Superman crap to spice it up.
Sold!
But would it be okay if it's, like, better-quality Superman crap? Seeing
as the Superman angle gets them more than double Dawson's Creek's
numbers, and Gough is on record saying he doesn't want this to be
Clark's Creek?
Could we have some romance too? Or is that too comic-booky?.
David Johnston
> "David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message news:3ddd8ed5...@news.telusplanet.net...
>
> > >Of course no meeting even remotely like that could possibly have
> > >happened. Not even a meeting of, say, two senior PTB, or even
> > >one. Never could have happened.... could it?
> >
> > One hopes not.
>
> A one-liner something like that was expected, but why would you
> hope not?
Because it is enough of a stretch that Lex and Clark ended up in the same town before meeting again in
Metropolis. Adding Lois to the mix would be a bit much. Also, Chloe isn't very much like the various
portrayals of Lois apart from being a journalist. It would be forcing her into an unnatural mold and freezing
Clark into a high school romance forever. I don't really buy Chloe as the love of Clark's life.
Even when he was asking her out, the excitement was all on her side.
Clark, in asking her out, was opting for safety, not pursuing someone
who made him feel passionate. Chloe probably lays the groundwork for Clark's interest in journalism, but Lois
needs to be edgier to work
as a romantic interest.
David Johnston
> "Robert Holland" <rhol...@wht.jarin.net> wrote in message news:98e23102.02112...@posting.google.com...
>
> > I believe the producers realize that comic books are too shallow to
> > make good TV...
>
> Which is why the WB, and Smallville's producers, decided to do
> Birds of Prey!
And, boy, that sure worked out, didn't it?
Robert Holland
Yes. Smallville is compelling television. It tells an interesting
story and tells it well. It's much better than any Superman property
that has ever been produced.
RH
Robert Holland
> "Robert Holland" <rhol...@wht.jarin.net> wrote in message news:98e23102.02112...@posting.google.com...
>
> > I believe the producers realize that comic books are too shallow to
> > make good TV...
>
> Which is why the WB, and Smallville's producers, decided to do
> Birds of Prey!
Hey, I wonder if *that* will fly...
> >, so they decide to tell the story of some teenagers in modern society,
>
> Teenagers... doing things... teenager things... in modern society. Nah,
> it'll never fly on the WB. :-/
Har! Yeah, well, the WB seems to have corned the market on teens and
young adults, just as Disney staked out its claim on children and
teenyboppers. If you have only one teen/young adult show in your
weekly TV budget, Smallville is it.
> >and throw in a little Superman crap to spice it up.
>
> Sold!
>
> But would it be okay if it's, like, better-quality Superman crap? Seeing
> as the Superman angle gets them more than double Dawson's Creek's
> numbers, and Gough is on record saying he doesn't want this to be
> Clark's Creek?
The Superman tease is getting good results. It's funny now that the
death of the victim or main villain doesn't even merit mention now. No
one mourned the dead shop instructor (or the fire destruction of the
school's machine shop), and there was no mention of the half villain
that died, or the other half that, what, lived? The focus was on
Clark's love triangle.
> Could we have some romance too? Or is that too comic-booky?.
Now I realize you are lusting for big-breasted comic book women, and
perhaps you'd like some sculpted-muscle men as well. Perhaps you'd
like to see them getting it on, as the Justice League was known to do
in the afterhours.
But, you see, Smallville's story is so well told that you don't need
big knockers and one-dimensional women. You don't need but the
occasional Super trick and a reference to what we all know is down the
road.
RH
KalElFan
[re Birds of Prey]
> And, boy, that sure worked out, didn't it?
No it didn't work out on the WB, but the point is they did embark
on that series, and it was as comic book as it gets. If the producers
thought as Robert Holland suggested they did, they never would have
embarked on that series at all.
It's possible that Birds of Prey could still continue and even be
reasonably successful, but not on a major network, or a network
like the WB that wants to be a major network. If Mutant X can
work for Marvel and Tribune in syndication, it seems to me so
could Birds of Prey. When Birds of Prey was first announced I
said it would be better to take it that route than put it on the WB.
Casting is also a big deal in the comic book genre. I thought the
women in BoP were okay in the roles (probably that Batgirl-Oracle
actress was best), but not great. This afternoon I ran across the
rumor/report that James Caviezel is Brett Ratner's first choice to
play Superman in the new movie. About five minutes later, I'd
come to the conclusion that was inspired, and that he'd be an
absolutely outstanding choice. Yeah, my impression is he probably
should bulk up a bit. But even if he didn't I can see him being just
perfect for the part. He's a decent actor with enough presence that
he's interesting to watch. There's enough intensity there, and character
in his face and eyes especially. There's also this seriousness and
sincerity about him.
If you've seen him in Frequency, you may know the kind of quality
I'm trying to get at here. There'd be these lingering scenes where
he'd be at the radio. He was interesting to watch during those, and
the audience never once thought of snickering. I think that's the
right combination, because you want to ensure he's ridicule-proof.
I can imagine that mountaintop scene I referred to early in the thread,
working just right with him. I can also see him working very well in
the romance subplot with Lois, because I think the same qualities
I've mentioned work there, and did when he was in Angel Eyes
with Jennifer Lopez. So he's the guy, and I hope they sign him.
--
Anthony Michael Walsh
KalE...@scifipi.com
Check out http://www.moviescorecard.com
KalElFan
> The Superman tease is getting good results. It's funny now that the
> death of the victim or main villain doesn't even merit mention now. No
> one mourned the dead shop instructor (or the fire destruction of the
> school's machine shop), and there was no mention of the half villain
> that died, or the other half that, what, lived?
I have seen a fair bit of discussion on that actually, though I agree
that:
> The focus was on Clark's love triangle.
By writer design, especially the ending which went out of its way to
put both (romantic) relationships on the shelf.
> Smallville's story is so well told that you don't need big knockers
> and one-dimensional women.
Well, we don't need or want one-dimensional women. One-dimensional
women can't even have big knockers.
> You don't need but the occasional Super trick and a reference to what
> we all know is down the road.
No they need more than that, and they've had more than that. If they want
to sustain it, though, and have this series realize on its full potential, they
need to excel in those areas I mentioned.
--
Anthony Michael Walsh
KalE...@scifipi.com
Check out http://www.moviescorecard.com
KalElFan
[why David hopes that a "Chloe is Lois" arc hasn't been planned]
> Because it is enough of a stretch that Lex and Clark ended up
> in the same town before meeting again in Metropolis. Adding
> Lois to the mix would be a bit much.
In this case viewers won't know Chloe=Lois except over the long-
term arc. By the time they see the first foreshadowing of it they're
hooked into the story and romance, and millions of new viewers
are getting drawn in. I agree that announcing Lois upfront would
have been a potential problem, not just for the reason you state.
> Also, Chloe isn't very much like the various portrayals of Lois
> apart from being a journalist.
Nah, cyberspace is overflowing with discussion about Chloe being
like Lois, or what we'd expect a young Lois to be. Journalist, smart,
spunky, snoopy, independent, attractive, penchant for getting into
trouble -- if she's not a natural blonde she 100% fits just on the face
of it.
> and [it freezes] Clark into a high school romance forever.
The marrying-high-school-sweetheart thing happens. Teens
watching the show would like to believe it can happen. In
this incarnation, it would happen. Lois Lane would have
been Clark's high school sweetheart. It'd be a great change
of pace (from what I gather) from other WB series, and it'd
be a new spin on the Ultimate Romance story in Superman.
> I don't really buy Chloe as the love of Clark's life. Even when
> he was asking her out, the excitement was all on her side. Clark,
> in asking her out, was opting for safety, not pursuing someone who
> made him feel passionate.
This gets to how the story is written. I think there's been more than
enough evidence -- overwhelming evidence -- that Clark-Chloe
has worked and can work in this series. You're right that it emerged
mainly from Chloe's side initially, because of the Clark-pines-for-
Lana premise. But we have seen Clark's perception of Chloe change.
They gave them the first kiss backstory, their kiss from Hug worked,
the panic when he saved her from that buried alive situation worked
and so on until they shut it down. Even there, at this stage Chloe and
Lana are pretty much in the same "just friends" boat vis-a-vis Clark.
Moreover, from a writing point of view, I don't think you even want
it to be a mutual love at first sight situation, with passion on both sides.
The situation here, where it originated with Chloe, and then it builds on
Clark's side, is better. That was what made Clark-Chloe work in
season 1. Although they haven't handled it the best way this season,
the place they're at now isn't a bad place to be. It is conducive to
getting it going again.
Also, the minute she's Lois Lane, people buy into her being the love
of his life. It makes the writers' job easy in that respect.
> Chloe probably lays the groundwork for Clark's interest in journalism
Bleech. Imagine looking back on this series five years from now or
whenever it ends, thinking "well, Chloe laid the groundwork for his
interest in journalism." Nobody cares about that, and we'll be bored
to death long before we get there.
> but Lois needs to be edgier to work as a romantic interest.
Edgy schmedgy. She's edgy and spunky enough, probably too much for
her own good in the romantic sense. She's making out with two-faced
killers and such. She's isn't drowning in her tears over Clark.
--
Anthony Michael Walsh
KalE...@scifipi.com
Check out http://www.moviescorecard.com
Grant Goggans
> Nah. For starters that suggests we wait almost the whole series to
> see the most basic information everyone in the audience already knows:
> that he's Kal-El from Krypton and his parents were Jor-El and Lara.
> I'll give you a 100% guarantee they're not stupid enough to make us
> wait that long for that stuff. I'm not sure why you think it has anything
> to do with his critical transition from boy to man either. It's just his
> Kryptonian heritage he's learning about.
>
> The bigger problem, and it's an issue very much connected to the
> incoherence of the Universal structure I mentioned, is the opportunity
> cost. Imagine all the great stories they *could* tell if they had a
> new, coherent structure to sell in this series. One that allowed them
> to support the movie if it happens, and vice versa. Without that, all
> we get is the Gospel elements of the origin story and whatever other
> contortions they go through to try to make Things Kryptonian interesting.
> It won't mean squat, and it's fraught with pitfalls. In Lois & Clark they
> had Clark run off with a New Kryptonian princess.
I'd say the less "Kryptonian heritage" they put in this series, the
better. Lois & Clark actually did it decently in its first season.
Clark learned his parents sent him to Earth because his planet blew up
and his dad looked like David Warner. That's it. The more backstory
you give it, the sillier it ends up, from that New Crapton garbage
from later Lois & Clark, to the Jor-El of the 1970s with the green
"sun" costume showing up four times a year for some reason or other,
to that ridiculous business in the 1978 movie with Clark listening to
Marlon Brando lecture him for sixteen years about "the human heart."
--Grant
Ramon K. Kailly
> "Ramon K. Kailly" <ramon....@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:27423178.02111...@posting.google.com...
>
> > ... I think they could just as easily have created the
> > "Ryan" episode and then worked on the ending....
>
> Perhaps they did, Ramon. In fact that doctor/villain looked like an
> episode-long A plot, until they cut it short and burned it into that
> "Lex has lots of lawyers and clout" point (which they've done a
> number of times before on this show). The thing is it doesn't matter.
> In fact it's arguably worse, because it means the offing-Ryan part
> found its way, as an afterthought, into what might have been a more
> decent episode.
But that doesn't mean the entire episode has to be thrown into the
garbage just because you didn't like the ending.
> > Yeah, well, life sucks for some people.
> >
> > You're still not getting it. I'll post it a third time:
> >
> > Now it's been brought home to him that even in situations where he
> > thinks his powers can make a difference, even when it involves those
> > he loves, he can fail. The people he cares about can die despite his
> > best efforts.
> >
> > Before you say "Blah Blah Blah", consider: have you understood the
> > point I'm trying to make here?
>
> Yes, it's 100% crystal clear. And it's exactly the Blah Blah Blah stuff
> I'm talking about. In fact I think much if not all of it was included in
> that sequence I quoted in my last post. We have absolutely no
> misunderstanding about what you're saying. You seem to think it
> matters when you do things like refine it to "situations where he thinks
> his powers can make a difference" and so on, but it doesn't. Likewise,
> whether or not the writerthink came in the specific way or the specific
> sequence I've given is not the issue. The end result was this episode,
> and it's writerthink *like* you've described above, and at length in this
> thread, that led to it.
>
> Now, am I saying the Ryan ep has killed this show? No of course not.
> At one point I said my angst alarm hadn't even gone off in this series
> before now. They're far from Lois & Clark's angst addiction. But
> in some ways that's all the more reason to pound at it now and make
> the point. The 2 million episode-to-episode drop should also be a clue.
I don't think there's anything to worry about. It looks like the
ratings for "Dichotic" were slightly up over "Ryan".
> With few exceptions, the millions of people who watch this show don't
> come away from an episode like Ryan even thinking, let alone saying,
> "Now it's been brought home to him that even in situations where he
> thinks his powers can make a difference, even when it involves those
> he loves, he can fail. The people he cares about can die despite his
> best efforts." That's what I mean by all of the justification or rationale
> for this episode -- no matter how you word it -- being writerthink. It's
> not viewer-think, it's writerthink.
Except that I was thinking along those lines while I was watching the
episode. It didn't come across as "writerthink" to me -- it came
across as something that the viewer could pick up on. It's seemed
obvious to me, especially after Jonathan made a comment to Clark about
Ryan's situation being beyond even Clark's ability to fix. Then it
was driven home by Lex's comment that Clark should be spending time
with Ryan instead of futilely searching for a miracle.
> There needs to be a check -- heck a veto built in someplace -- on
> writerthink episodes like this. Sure, every episode has to have conflict
> or tension and so on, and technically every episode is a product of
> some kind of writerthink. But the minute this kind of writerthink comes
> into play -- intense personal failure, people he cares about dying despite
> his best efforts, yadda yadda yadda, it should set off alarm bells.
Well, that's where the difference of opinion comes in. For you, this
sets off alarm bells. For me, it doesn't. This goes back to what you
mentioned earlier, where you said that the point being made in "Ryan"
doesn't need to be made at all in Superman. I disagreed (and still
do) because I think it's an important point and should be dealt with
at least once. I had no objections to the way it was handled in
"Ryan".
Ramon K. Kailly
KalElFan
Virtually everyone has a frame of reference in the back of their minds
when they watch Superman -- the previous incarnations they've already
seen or know about. Or the new one that the Warner Bros. movie
folks might be coming out with in a couple of years. My guess is that
there's, literally, only a fraction of one percent of the audience over
the age of, say, 12, that doesn't have some preconceived notion or
knowledge of Superman. Most often it'll be from first-hand watching
of one of the Reeve movies, or a Lois & Clark episode, or watching
the animated series, or the reading of a comic.
Why not use Smallville as an opportunity to address that -- to establish,
in this series, the existence of a Superman Multiverse? The comics had
that element in the 1950s, long before my 1996-97 Superman Framework
and long before the later "Hypertime". [I address my own personal interest
in all this in part 4, maybe tomorrow]. So why not just establish a Smallville
version or spin on the Superman Multiverse, and then use that to tell a
few interesting stories? Alternate timeline episodes have been the basis
for some of the best-received episodes in many SF series, and they can
be fun and very accessible to non-SF fans too. At the same time, they
can enhance the whole franchise.
For example in the third (by then) Origin Mythology episode of Smallville,
airing in say May of 2004 just before the movie might be coming out,
someone from the movie could actually guest star in this Smallville TV
series. Perhaps ideally, Anthony Hopkins does a spot as Jor-El (he'll
be playing him in the movie), in the big Smallville Season 3 finale. No,
Colonel, he wouldn't be wearing the cheesy suit.
You would have lots of Smallville-specific stuff going on, but because it
would be part of the series-long Origin Mythology arc there'd also be
the tie-in dealing with the Superman Multiverse, and specifically the
happenings in the timeline the movie is about to tell their story in.
12 million Smallville viewers in the U.S. alone (by then) could be eagerly
awaiting the season 3 Smallville finale with Hopkins' guest appearance,
and then pumped up to see the movie and bring a partner. Of course
they don't all go, or all go the first weekend, but it still has huge box
office effects and is instrumental in sending the movie over the $125
million top its opening weekend, #1 all time.
As opposed to the potential alternatives. For example Smallville viewers
not particularly caring, or even resenting the movie because it snubbed
Welling or is overshadowing their favorite incarnation. You use the Origin
Mythology established in Smallville -- and then that one simple episode
in May 2004 -- to establish hugely positive synergy. It also has zero
negative effect on movie-only fans, because the movie needn't have
anything to do with Smallville, or even refer to Jor-El's alternate-timeline
excursion that had him appearing in Smallville.
The only way such synergy is going to happen, in a seamless way, is if
the necessary creative elements to implement it are a franchise-wide
objective. It has to come from Alan Horn's level, because right now
(who knows these days at AOL Time Warner) he's the Warner Bros.
guy responsible for the WB network, and the TV production division,
and the movie division, and the comic division -- the whole thing.
It may be overstating the case to say Tollin/Robbins/Gough & Co.
don't give a flying fedora about the movie, and Jon Peters doesn't
give a flying fedora about the TV series, and Paul Levitz doesn't give
a flying fedora except for DC Comics' license fees and trying to sell
more comics. But it's not far from the truth. None of these guys
are really focused on the franchise, let alone exclusively. They've
got their own areas of responsibility they're busy with.
It's Warner Bros. as a whole -- and that means Horn -- that has to
be responsible for a coherent Superman strategy that gets everything
working together. That has to include implementing a creative frame-
work that takes a moviegoer/viewer/customer perspective. It can't
be done effectively any other way.
--
Anthony Michael Walsh
KalE...@scifipi.com
Check out http://www.moviescorecard.com
KalElFan
> I'd say the less "Kryptonian heritage" they put in this series, the
> better...
If their Kryptonian heritage story involved him running off with a
princess from New Krypton, or that cheesy-looking suit that you
mentioned they had Jor-El wearing in the comics (though see my
note at the end of this post on that one), then of course I'd agree.
On the other hand, a strategy where they're so paralyzed by fear
of screwing up, that they avoid the Origin Mythology entirely, would
be just as bad in my view. They've been licensed to do the Young
Superman premise, and it'd be awfully pathetic if they were afraid
to tell us that he's Kal-El from Krypton, and that his parents were
Jor-El and Lara, and about that spaceship they've teased us with,
and then whatever else they've got that would put their own spin
on it.
They'd be exploring this area, Smallville style, over the course of
the series. It needn't and shouldn't get dumped on folks all at
once, and 90% of the episodes might not deal with it at all, in
any noticeable or significant way.
Your post is a good opportunity to provide a few more examples
of what we might see as part of the series-long Origin Mythology arc.
I'm doing that in two separate posts, one on very specific issues and
the other a general issue where they have huge potential to benefit.
Getting back to that cheesy Jor-El suit, it got me thinking how it might
be possible to see that in Smallville, not played straight as the suit Jor-El
wears, but in a different context. Something more substantial than just
a character seeing it in a Halloween costume store or whatever. Anyway,
that one germ of an idea ended up inspiring an entire episode. I'm not
going to post anything on it, because it doesn't even require the suit
and could easily be an episode of a series other than Smallville. The
suit would only appear very briefly even in the Smallville version (I
do think it would make a great Smallville ep, and it'd be fun to see
that suit in it in the context I have in mind). So anyway, thanks for
mentioning it.
--
Anthony Michael Walsh
KalE...@scifipi.com
Check out http://www.moviescorecard.com
KalElFan
areas they could address as part of any series-long Origin Mythology
arc. For example, in just a small part of one scene, in say an Origin
Mythology episode next season, we might have a piece of dialogue
that explains why kryptonite has the unique effects it seems to. In
other incarnations we've seen, kryptonite never had mutation effects
on humans.
That one fraction of a scene, and poof they don't need to be as
embarrassed about any of the freaks that have come before,
or ones they may have in future, because they've reinforced a
basic premise of the series. I'm happy they've avoided the freak-
of-the-week plot PATTERNS, including Chloe or some device
being used to tell us "Yep, this guy/gal got them a dose of meteor
rock..." We can just assume that, like some did with Twin Boy
last week. But something as basic as this is to the show, is I think
worthy of something in the series-long Origin Mythology arc that
explains it.
In the same vein, how'd the spaceship get to Earth? Sent here
by Jor-El so that his son could escape the destruction of Krypton?
Fine. But is Krypton 100 light years away, 1000 light years? Does
that ship have some kind of faster-than-light warp propulsion? That
may explain how the ship got here, but what about the debris from
Krypton's explosion? The ship was programmed to get to Earth,
but how could those meteor rocks just happen to find their way
here, across hundreds or thousands of light years?
The answer doesn't have to be incomprehensible technobabble
that drives away the non-SF fans, like the teen girls watching for
Welling or whatever. The second Origin Mythology episode might
spend 30 friggin' seconds on it, with a neat visual that some character
is showing us as he/she explains: "Krypton was in this system, 600
light years from Earth, but the ship took only 15 months to make
the trip."
"You're saying Krypton had faster-than-light-travel... and they
could build it into this... little... ship?" someone else challenges.
"Yes. In fact the technology on this... little... ship also dragged
along considerable debris from Krypton's explosion. That's why
the Smallville meteor storm arrived at the same time."
If the writers are scared to death of more than 30 seconds at a
time of this stuff, they stop there. Maybe later on, or even in another
episode, we find out that the debris was "dragged along" because it
was caught in the ship's extended warp bubble -- the Kryptonian
technology that allowed faster-than-light-travel. [This is the way
I've handled it in my Superman Framework.]
Anyway those are some quick and specific things that could emerge
from the series-long Origin Mythology arc, and that establish a good
SF foundation for this series and even Superman generally. Part 3
of this deals once again with a huge issue weighing down Superman,
and the huge upside potential if they fix it.
KalElFan
> But that doesn't mean the entire episode has to be thrown into the
> garbage just because you didn't like the ending.
I think there were more problems than just the ending, and the ending
was inextricably linked to a lot of what came before. (See comments
later, based on some elements you yourself pointed out.)
> >...The 2 million episode-to-episode drop should also be a clue.
>
> I don't think there's anything to worry about. It looks like the
> ratings for "Dichotic" were slightly up over "Ryan".
I haven't seen the total viewership number for Dichotic. On the
night they said the WB had 7.7 million viewers, but that's the
average of Gilmore Girls and Smallville. They were touting all-
time record numbers in many Gilmore Girls demos, and the
lead-in from that -- those strong female demos -- were all the
press release really had left to tout for Smallville this week.
The most telling demo info they gave may have been male teens.
On November 5, in that Lineage episode where they got 9.4 million
viewers, Smallville was #1 with a 6.5 rating and 19 share among male
teens. For Ryan a week later, Smallville was still #1 among male
teens, but down to a 5.3 rating and 16 share. For Dichotic, Smallville
was #3 in the male teen demo, down to a 4.7 rating and 15 share.
So in the space of two episodes, Ryan being the intervening one, they
lost more than a quarter of their male teen audience. It's very intuitive
of course, that males and probably male teens in particular would be
most averse to the contrived, wannabe-three-hanky-weepfest that
was Ryan.
> ... It didn't come across as "writerthink" to me -- it came
> across as something that the viewer could pick up on....
Oh, they absolutely telegraphed it, right from the start with the headaches
and bleeding. But that's still writerthink, permeating the whole episode.
They'd decided (before or after the fact) that they were going to off Ryan,
so they'd foreshadow that here, and philosophize about it through Lex there,
and so on. That's part of what I meant by the whole_episode being rather
contrived, and inextricably linked to the death of Ryan.
By viewerthink I mean how viewers *respond* to an episode like this.
How they feel about it. How they feel about the show after watching
this kind of episode. How badly they want to watch again next week
(the must-see factor). Are they thrilled, to the point they can't wait for
more? Giddy with anticipation over what might come next?
That's what I'm getting at. Not how many viewers were smart enough to
think this contrived death might be coming, when Lex started philosophizing
about how-you-spend-those-final-hours-with-a-loved-one It's what the
viewers thought of that while they were watching, e.g....
"Yep, maybe they're going to kill the kid... gee that'll suck... *sigh*...
[and later]
"Yep, they actually killed the kid... "
/sarcasm on ...
"Well that was outstanding ... I'm really eager to see next week's episode
now... maybe it'll be even better, like Clark having a big spat with both
Lana and Chloe at the end, and saying he just wants to be friends... "
/sarcasm off
> Well, that's where the difference of opinion comes in. For you, this
> sets off alarm bells. For me, it doesn't.
I know, and maybe you're even in some denial about the negative effect
it had. Does my description above, of the kind of viewer thinking that
takes place with an episode like this, register at all? Because that's the
key to not crashing and burning a movie series or TV show with great
potential. You have to have some insight into how viewers see it. If
all you have is your writerthink, and related manual, the result can be
Superman III, or the Lois clone swallowing the frog, and your movie
series or TV series are dead.
To be clear again, Ryan is nowhere *NEAR* as bad as that. But it
was damaging, and now's the time for the writers to recognize that,
before they fritter away the solid work they've done, especially in
season one, to lay the groundwork for a truly Great Series. It'd be
a shame to see this series' epitaph be Robert Holland's "A show
about teenagers in modern society, with some Superman crap
thrown in." And maybe "Started off great but only managed to
last four years on the WB."
--
Anthony Michael Walsh
KalE...@scifipi.com
Check out http://www.moviescorecard.com
Robert Goodman
> In the same vein, how'd the spaceship get to Earth? Sent here
> by Jor-El so that his son could escape the destruction of Krypton?
> Fine. But is Krypton 100 light years away, 1000 light years? Does
> that ship have some kind of faster-than-light warp propulsion? That
> may explain how the ship got here, but what about the debris from
> Krypton's explosion? The ship was programmed to get to Earth,
> but how could those meteor rocks just happen to find their way
> here, across hundreds or thousands of light years?
Months ago I wrote in alt.tv.smallville that from the clues they dropped
in various episodes last season, they're going to tell us that Clark
came from the celestial body we know as the short-period Comet Biela
(which broke up) -- or possibly that Comet Biela was another fragment of
his planet -- and that he was in suspended animation in the space ship
for over 200 years, and that the meteor stream from Biela continues to
strike Earth (especially the Midwest and most especially around
Smallville) periodically, the meteors being responsible for the Midwest
fires of 1871 (cf. Chloe's line about not blaming Clark for the Great
Chicago Fire of 1871), and the original Nicodemus flower incidents of
that time. That'd put Krypton within our solar system if Krypton was
Biela, although not necessarily so if Biela was only a fragment of
Krypton. (They may never invoke the name "Krypton" and derivative
"kryptonite".) That wouldn't be the first time Clark's planet of origin
was said to be close enough to have been known to astronomers on Earth;
in the first Superman movie serial, Krypton was the name the planet had
been given by Earth astronomers.
I later speculated in alt.tv.smallville that Clark's ship might've been
designed for a landing on Mars or some other planet, accounting for some
of its apparently strange behavior on Earth in "Smallville". I also
"proposed" that Krypton/Biela was originally colonized by Earthlings
who'd fled the destruction of Atlantis, which would account for Clark's
uncanny resemblance to human beings. I don't know if "Smallville" would
go there, but it'd make sense.
Robert
Dead to Rights
>in various episodes last season, they're going to tell us that Clark
>came from the celestial body we know as the short-period Comet Biela
>(which broke up) -- or possibly that Comet Biela was another fragment of
>his planet -- and that he was in suspended animation in the space ship
>for over 200 years, and that the meteor stream from Biela continues to
>strike Earth (especially the Midwest and most especially around
>Smallville) periodically, the meteors being responsible for the Midwest
>fires of 1871 (cf. Chloe's line about not blaming Clark for the Great
>Chicago Fire of 1871), and the original Nicodemus flower incidents of
>that time. That'd put Krypton within our solar system if Krypton was
>Biela, although not necessarily so if Biela was only a fragment of
>Krypton. (They may never invoke the name "Krypton" and derivative
>"kryptonite".) That wouldn't be the first time Clark's planet of origin
>was said to be close enough to have been known to astronomers on Earth;
>in the first Superman movie serial, Krypton was the name the planet had
>been given by Earth astronomers.
>
>I later speculated in alt.tv.smallville that Clark's ship might've been
>designed for a landing on Mars or some other planet, accounting for some
>of its apparently strange behavior on Earth in "Smallville". I also
>"proposed" that Krypton/Biela was originally colonized by Earthlings
>who'd fled the destruction of Atlantis, which would account for Clark's
>uncanny resemblance to human beings. I don't know if "Smallville" would
>go there, but it'd make sense.
>
While this was all very nice, I'm afraid it's about four million levels above
where the current Smallville "Daaah, Kryptonite gives them powers!" writers are
operating at.
__
Sole owner and proprietor of the pariah known as Billy J Dancefloor, to the
complete horror and anger of AGVX, November 17 - Present
KalElFan
> Months ago I wrote in alt.tv.smallville that from the clues they dropped
> in various episodes last season, they're going to tell us that Clark
> came from the celestial body we know as the short-period Comet Biela
> (which broke up) -- or possibly that Comet Biela was another fragment of
> his planet...
Weird theoretical constructs aside, comets are actually small objects, i.e.
nowhere near planet-size. They can look bright because of their expansion
and extended tail when they get close to the sun, but their core is actually
small. Some comets might support microscopic life (in an SF context --
there's no evidence they do in reality) and/or they might have organic
material. But they'd be incapable of supporting macroscopic life forms
like us or our fictional Kryptonians. So saying that "Clark's from Comet
Biela" -- while it might get by 95% or more of the population sad to say --
would I think be viewed as extremely bad SF these days.
On the other hand, your suggestion that a FRAGMENT from Krypton's
explosion could have ended up a comet is plausible. You could have your
Comet Biela -- a fragment of Krypton -- be the clue that points to Krypton
having once been a planet in our solar system. If you want to say Krypton
exploded 200 years ago, it gets implausible because it probably would have
been observed from Earth. You would have to put it out beyond Jupiter,
or like some old SF movie or series I vaguely remember, make it a twin
of Earth that's perpetually out of our view on the opposite side of the sun.
I've spent as much time on this as I have because it is a plausible change
to the origin story, to have Krypton be "local". I don't like it -- see below
for some other reasons -- but it is plausible. In fact this upcoming episode
with the native American angle, that I saw a promo of yesterday, makes
you wonder if something like you're suggesting could even be coming.
Kryptonians visited Earth centuries ago or whatever. I think the idea of
folks from Atlantis colonizing Krypton originally is a bad one, because it
becomes more ridicule-prone for no reason. I'm seeing jokes about
Patrick Duffy (he did that Man from Atlantis series) being Superman's
cousin.
Another thing that would be lost in your scenario is the Red Sun vs.
Yellow Sun mythology, which I'm fond of and which has become fairly
entrenched in the mythology. You may remember General Zod from
Superman II mentioning it for example, that Earth had a yellow sun
(whereas Krypton had a red sun).
Also, from DC Comics' point of view, they've had galactic-level storytelling,
for example the Green Lantern stuff, for a long time. Why would they want
this Smallville series trying so very hard to make Krypton local? The SF
convention of faster-than-light travel is very well established -- warp drive,
or warp bubble technology as I've called it, or hyperdrive or slipstream or
wormholes are terms and devices that have also been used. Letting Krypton
be hundreds of light years away isn't a problem, and in fact still puts it in our
little corner of the galaxy.
Likewise, humanoid life on alien worlds has also become an established SF
convention. Yes, it's implausible that all intelligent alien life would look very
similar to us, but it is plausible that some would. Two arms, two legs, two
ears and eyes, a head and so on have evolutionary advantages judging by
life on our planet, so humanoid life could have evolved elsewhere. Moreover,
it's very plausible that a humanoid Jor-El would send his humanoid son to
a planet where humanoids were the dominant species. Anyone who asks
why Clark doesn't look like a reptile or a fish has their simple answer right
there: if he did, Jor-El would have sent him to a planet dominated by Reptile
Folk or Fish Folk.
So I just see no particular reason to make Krypton local, and because
there's no reason to I think a lot of people would perceive it negatively --
"We don't need no stinkin' Atlantis as the source of our Kryptonians." :-)
I view it as the kind of thing that might be interesting for an Elseworlds
story, but not a major incarnation like Smallville.
KalElFan
message news:20021123105002...@mb-mu.aol.com...
[Robert Holland wrote]
> >The Superman tease is getting good results. It's funny now that the
> >death of the victim or main villain doesn't even merit mention now.
[ANIM8Rfsk responded]
> Never has. The original premise was, monster of the week kills people and
> nobody seems to care and certainly the police don't bother to investigate,
> until monster threatens somebody close to Clark, at which point Clark kills
> them, and nobody seems to care and certainly the police don't bother to
> investigate.
That aspect of it -- no one seeming to care or investigate -- might be
something they want to address at some point, but even there I'm not
sure it's necessary. It's been established that Smallville is meteor rock
central, and meteor rock exposure leads to the freaks. They're playing
the freaks straight just as X-Files did, which I think is wise. In fact the
premise is arguably even better established here than it was in X-Files.
Given the ratings on this show and on X-Files, I think this issue may be
one of those things that generates some griping online, but is in fact just
an accepted part of the show. As long as they avoid plot patterns that
go beyond the freaks (e.g., Chloe always researching and explaining
that it was meteor rock exposure, and Clark always confronting the
villains at the end only to be disabled by their kryptonite composition
or fuel, and then the villain conveniently gets killed or kills himself) it
needn't be a problem to keep having the freaks in, say, every third or
fourth episode.
Explaining kryptonite, as I suggested in another post, would also be
a good idea in one of the Origin Mythology episodes they have over
the course of this series. That would be a kind of booster shot that
helps to reinforce the premise, and make it less susceptible to the
bitching it causes.
If they did want to address your valid point about no one investigating
the weirdness and heavy death toll in Smallville, I think it'd be easy to
do and could also generate some interesting story possibilities. The
idea would be "weird things have been happening at an increasing
rate..." Chloe first recognized it as a curious Wall of Weird issue, but
because of the last few years state or federal authorities, or the ever-
useful secret government agency or whatever, have started to take an
investigative interest.
Ramon K. Kailly
> "Ramon K. Kailly" <ramon....@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:27423178.02112...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > I don't think there's anything to worry about. It looks like the
> > ratings for "Dichotic" were slightly up over "Ryan".
>
> I haven't seen the total viewership number for Dichotic. On the
> night they said the WB had 7.7 million viewers, but that's the
> average of Gilmore Girls and Smallville. They were touting all-
> time record numbers in many Gilmore Girls demos, and the
> lead-in from that -- those strong female demos -- were all the
> press release really had left to tout for Smallville this week.
>
> The most telling demo info they gave may have been male teens.
> On November 5, in that Lineage episode where they got 9.4 million
> viewers, Smallville was #1 with a 6.5 rating and 19 share among male
> teens. For Ryan a week later, Smallville was still #1 among male
> teens, but down to a 5.3 rating and 16 share. For Dichotic, Smallville
> was #3 in the male teen demo, down to a 4.7 rating and 15 share.
Hmm, looking at the press release, I'd say it contradicts itself. In
one sentence it says that the rating/share of 4.7/15 placed Smallville
#1 in its time period among male teens. Then in the next sentence, it
says Smallville placed #3 among male teens.
> So in the space of two episodes, Ryan being the intervening one, they
> lost more than a quarter of their male teen audience. It's very intuitive
> of course, that males and probably male teens in particular would be
> most averse to the contrived, wannabe-three-hanky-weepfest that
> was Ryan.
You're assuming way too much here. You noticed that male teen
viewership was down between "Lineage" and "Ryan". In fact, the drop
between "Lineage" and "Ryan" was more significant. Perhaps "Dichotic"
simply continued a trend of some sort.
And why focus on male teens in particular? Those strong female demos
you mentioned actually broke records for Smallville (6.5/20 among
female teens). Overall, the rating/share for "Ryan" was 6.3/9. The
rating/share for "Dichotic" was 6.5/9. Looks like the contrived,
wannabe-three-hanky-weepfest of "Ryan" actually boosted ratings.
> By viewerthink I mean how viewers *respond* to an episode like this.
> How they feel about it. How they feel about the show after watching
> this kind of episode. How badly they want to watch again next week
> (the must-see factor). Are they thrilled, to the point they can't wait for
> more? Giddy with anticipation over what might come next?
Looking at the ratings, I guess some people _were_ giddy.
> > Well, that's where the difference of opinion comes in. For you, this
> > sets off alarm bells. For me, it doesn't.
>
> I know, and maybe you're even in some denial about the negative effect
> it had. Does my description above, of the kind of viewer thinking that
> takes place with an episode like this, register at all? Because that's the
> key to not crashing and burning a movie series or TV show with great
> potential. You have to have some insight into how viewers see it. If
> all you have is your writerthink, and related manual, the result can be
> Superman III, or the Lois clone swallowing the frog, and your movie
> series or TV series are dead.
Well, I'm a viewer, and I wasn't thinking along the lines you
described. As for my being in denial, remember that all the
conclusions you've drawn about "Ryan", and "writerthink", and "viewer
thinking" and so on, are primarily based upon your opinion.
> To be clear again, Ryan is nowhere *NEAR* as bad as that. But it
> was damaging, and now's the time for the writers to recognize that,
> before they fritter away the solid work they've done, especially in
> season one, to lay the groundwork for a truly Great Series. It'd be
> a shame to see this series' epitaph be Robert Holland's "A show
> about teenagers in modern society, with some Superman crap
> thrown in." And maybe "Started off great but only managed to
> last four years on the WB."
Again, whether it was damaging is still your opinion. It doesn't
appear to me that they were damaged much at all.
As for Smallville becoming a truly Great Series...well, let's see what
happens. Opinions vary, of course, over what it would take to get
there.
Ramon K. Kailly
Grant Goggans
Why not use Smallville as an opportunity to address that -- to
establish,
in this series, the existence of a Superman Multiverse? The comics
had
that element in the 1950s, long before my 1996-97 Superman Framework
and long before the later "Hypertime". [I address my own personal
interest
in all this in part 4, maybe tomorrow]. So why not just establish a
Smallville
version or spin on the Superman Multiverse, and then use that to tell
a
few interesting stories? Alternate timeline episodes have been the
basis
for some of the best-received episodes in many SF series, and they can
be fun and very accessible to non-SF fans too. At the same time, they
can enhance the whole franchise.
You know, I was thinking about this when you were espousing similar
thoughts towards the end of Lois & Clark, and I've thought about them
this weekend, and while it's cute and entertaining to speculate, I
just see this as making as much sense and being as necessary as having
the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes from the 1980s Granada TV series
travel forward into the future to assist the Basil Rathbone Sherlock
Holmes fight Nazis before crossing over to give much-needed advice to
the Tom Baker Sherlock Holmes on the Baskerville moors and then help
the Nicol Williamson Sherlock Holmes kick cocaine. Sorry.
--Grant
KalElFan
> You know, I was thinking about this when you were espousing similar
> thoughts towards the end of Lois & Clark, and I've thought about them
> this weekend, and while it's cute and entertaining to speculate, I
> just see this as making as much sense and being as necessary as having
> the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes from the 1980s Granada TV series
> travel forward into the future to assist the Basil Rathbone Sherlock
> Holmes fight Nazis before crossing over to give much-needed advice to
> the Tom Baker Sherlock Holmes on the Baskerville moors and then help
> the Nicol Williamson Sherlock Holmes kick cocaine.
Consider what you're comparing Grant, and the resulting effect it has on
your argument. I made the point that "alternate timeline episodes have
been the basis for some of the best-received episodes in many SF series."
I also made the point that the underlying concept already exists in Superman.
Your counterpoint was to rattle off an extremely exaggerated use of the
concept, for a character that doesn't have a tradition of using the concept,
because -- rather big DUH here -- he isn't even SF and so the concept
doesn't fit.
>Sorry.
No need to be on my account, considering the strength of your
argument. Besides, we agree completely on the value of the
alternate universe concept to Sherlock Holmes. I hope we also
agree that Warner Bros., in making its decisions regarding
Superman, would be ill-advised to look to the hot Sherlock
Holmes... <cough> franchise, for guidance.
Look, the minute Smallville touches this concept, or anything SF
or in the Superman mythology for that matter, of course it could
be crap. But it doesn't have to be crap. Episodes using this concept
can be fun and very accessible to the broader SF audience and
beyond that. What's "cute and entertaining to speculate" on (your
words in quotes) can make for some good episodes over the
course of this series. Nobody said it had to involve an exaggerated
use of the concept...
For example I doubt that before that episode with Anthony Hopkins
as Jor-El, we would see one where Dean Cain's Superman guest
stars. And before that an episode where Margot Kidder appears,
as the Lois Lane she played in the Reeve series only 20 years older
now. And before that an episode where a mysterious gal named
Linda appears, whom we discover has another identity and comes
from one of those alternate timelines that Smallville had only hinted
at before this point.
Yep, I doubt we'd ever see that.
Because that's just too much vision for me or anyone to ask of them.
That's right, I put together the exaggerated, over the top series of
episodes, and reading it you (or others) probably thought I was
illustrating what they should never, ever do. But now go back and
read it, and put it in your Sherlock Holmes pipe and smoke it Grant. :-)
That's Smallville's Homage to Superman month on the WB in May
of 2004, culminating in Hopkins' appearance. It's promoted up the
wazoo and draws series-high numbers, all-time Warner Bros. records
including its first top ten placement of a show. That month brings in
Superman fans past and present, to check out Smallville for the first
time in some cases.
And -- before you jump to conclusions on the stories detracting from
or ignoring Smallville -- it's the exact opposite. Because by now this
Smallville timeline has been foreshadowed as having critical importance
to the multiverse. This is where the whole month of May explodes and
illustrates that importance, while at the same time reaching fever pitch
on a slew of Smallville-specific developments. The month showcases
Smallville for new and old fans alike. We get Lex's next step towards
the dark side. The Chloe is Lois arc advances in a major way. Lana
learns Clark's secret. A regular character dies. It's a huge Smallville
month, with their Homage to Superman integrated into it.
That mysterious Linda in the first episode of May 2004 is a babe. She's
been very carefully, and very well cast. Because she's starring in a new
WB series that debuts in September of 2004. It's called Kara, and it
becomes the second highest-rated show on the WB.
But yep, it's too much vision to ask. Maybe this show's destiny is to
be, as Robert Holland characterized it, a show about some teenagers in
modern society with some Superman crap thrown in. We don't need
no stinkin' vision in this show. Any more than we would in a Sherlock
Holmes one.
KalElFan
> Hmm, looking at the press release, I'd say it contradicts itself. In
> one sentence it says that the rating/share of 4.7/15 placed Smallville
> #1 in its time period among male teens. Then in the next sentence, it
> says Smallville placed #3 among male teens.
Let's assume it was still #1 Ramon. There's no discrepancy in the rating
number itself (one rating point, in this case, equates to 1% of VIEWERS
in that demo). It went from a 6.5 to a 4.7 rating, a 27.7% drop. Even
if they can say "well, we're still #1", they lost a lot of male teen viewers
in the space of the two episodes.
> And why focus on male teens in particular?
Because it's where they lost the most viewers (viewers the WB is looking
to get more than other male age groups), and because loss of viewers in
that demo is so perfectly consistent with what one would expect from
an episode like Ryan. The huge two million drop itself ought to be enough
of a clue as I've said, that the Ryan promo had a lot to do with it, and this
is just more evidence.
> Again, whether it was damaging is still your opinion. It doesn't
> appear to me that they were damaged much at all.
Well, if you recognize some damage I suppose that's progress, but
this is Usenet and I certainly didn't expect a concession post. I've
pursued this discussion in part because I knew the perspective you
were coming at this from, from your very first post. I knew it was
the perspective that the show needed to address.
As for damage, of course I also hope they haven't been damaged
much.
Dead to Rights
Of course he is. Do you know who Kalelfan is? He's a special brand of idiot who
copes with his self-evident dumbassery by pretending that millions of people
agree with him. Whatever you do, don't engage him in conversation since that
only encourages his brain-sucking presence.
Ramon K. Kailly
> > And why focus on male teens in particular?
>
> Because it's where they lost the most viewers (viewers the WB is looking
> to get more than other male age groups), and because loss of viewers in
> that demo is so perfectly consistent with what one would expect from
> an episode like Ryan. The huge two million drop itself ought to be enough
> of a clue as I've said, that the Ryan promo had a lot to do with it, and this
> is just more evidence.
Meaning you'd prefer to look at the demos that prop up your theory,
rather than the demos that don't.
> > Again, whether it was damaging is still your opinion. It doesn't
> > appear to me that they were damaged much at all.
>
> Well, if you recognize some damage I suppose that's progress, but
> this is Usenet and I certainly didn't expect a concession post.
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear: it's still YOUR OPINION as to
whether there was damage. It's not an opinion I agree with.
Looking at the demos, there's more evidence against the idea of damage
than for it. Rather than the WB saying "Gee, maybe 'Ryan' was a
mistake; look at that drop in male teens for 'Dichotic'", they
probably said, "Hey, ratings are up, and 'Dichotic' broke records for
women 12-34 and female teens! Great job people!"
But I suppose I can't expect a concession post from you, either.
Ramon K. Kailly
Grant Goggans
> Consider what you're comparing Grant, and the resulting effect it has on
> your argument. I made the point that "alternate timeline episodes have
> been the basis for some of the best-received episodes in many SF series."
...and, I'd argue, some of the worst-received of many others.
> I also made the point that the underlying concept already exists in Superman.
>
> Your counterpoint was to rattle off an extremely exaggerated use of the
> concept, for a character that doesn't have a tradition of using the concept,
> because -- rather big DUH here -- he isn't even SF and so the concept
> doesn't fit.
Actually, Holmes has appeared in quite a few SF/fantasy books and TV
shows over the years. We could have the Holmes from the Doctor Who
novel _Original Sin_ consult the Data-as-Holmes from the hologram
episode of Star Trek.
No, my counterpoint is that it's really amazingly unnecessary. When a
TV viewer sits down to watch an episode of a Sherlock Holmes series,
or a Sinbad series, or an old Tarzan movie, or the 1960s Batman show,
or an X-Men cartoon, or a 1940s Lord Peter Wimsey movie, they don't
need to know, they don't want to know, how this production fits into
the meta-parallel-universe where every other fictional iteration of
the characters exist. They couldn't care less.
If you don't like Holmes as an example, use X-Men cartoons. The X-Men
of the current "Evolution" cartoon series are clearly not the same
ones shown on the cartoon which ran throughout the 1990s and neither
of them are the X-Men who guest starred on Spider-Man and His Amazing
Friends. Well, I don't know, it's possible that people are clamoring
for some big crossover between the three, but it seems unlikely.
I don't mind winks to the audience. It would be cute to see
Commissioner Gordon in Birds of Prey before it's wrapped up, and have
him played by Adam West. It would be a huge irritation to me as a
viewer to have one of the few remaining episodes devoted to explaining
how the Gotham of Birds of Prey shares the same vibrational space as
the parallel Gotham of the West/Ward show, when I'd much rather see
the shows that the producers want to tell, and not some corporate
demand that the whole Batman franchise coexist for...
...that's the part I don't get. I don't see it as necessary or having
a point at all to suddenly have Smallville cross over into other
Superman media. I don't see it as being anything that the producers
want to do with their vision of Superman. Sure, I'll grant you it
could be cute to have Gene Hackman and John Shea counsel Michael
Rosenbaum in the finer points of being evil, but that's what fanfic
was invented for.
Well, that and having Kirk screw Spock.
> But yep, it's too much vision to ask. Maybe this show's destiny is to
> be, as Robert Holland characterized it, a show about some teenagers in
> modern society with some Superman crap thrown in. We don't need
> no stinkin' vision in this show. Any more than we would in a Sherlock
> Holmes one.
I think you'd have to ask Gough & Miller what their vision is. They
might want this show's destiny to be to stand on its own as an
individual, rather than making Smallville the integral part of some
meta-fictional crisis which some movie producers would be obliged to
solve.
--Grant
Robert Goodman
> Weird theoretical constructs aside, comets are actually small objects,
i.e.
> nowhere near planet-size. They can look bright because of their
expansion
> and extended tail when they get close to the sun, but their core is
actually
> small.
There's no theoretic size limit to comets. Comets are defined by their
appearance -- having a "coma" -- and eccentricity of orbit (or even
non-orbit). Stories of a heavenly body which may have been Venus
appearing tailed or "bearded" in ancient times were among of the
elements Velikovsky drew on in his theories. Although the ascription of
this property to Venus is questionable, there is no reason to think
planet-size bodies could not have a luminous projection. Earth's
"gegenschein" is one such, but faint.
> So saying that "Clark's from Comet
> Biela" -- while it might get by 95% or more of the population sad to
say --
> would I think be viewed as extremely bad SF these days.
> On the other hand, your suggestion that a FRAGMENT from Krypton's
> explosion could have ended up a comet is plausible. You could have
your
> Comet Biela -- a fragment of Krypton -- be the clue that points to
Krypton
> having once been a planet in our solar system.
It could be either. At the time of Biela's discovery in the 17th C., I
don't know how advanced telescopic techniques of determining the size of
such bodies was. It may have been planet-sized.
> If you want to say Krypton
> exploded 200 years ago, it gets implausible because it probably would
have
> been observed from Earth.
Biela's breakup apparently occurred either while it was obscured by the
sun or while it was...
> out beyond Jupiter,
> I've spent as much time on this as I have because it is a plausible
change
> to the origin story, to have Krypton be "local". I don't like it --
see below
> for some other reasons -- but it is plausible. In fact this upcoming
episode
> with the native American angle, that I saw a promo of yesterday, makes
> you wonder if something like you're suggesting could even be coming.
> Kryptonians visited Earth centuries ago or whatever.
If the pictorial representation and Indian lore from that episode are to
be interpreted the way characters did in that episode, then indeed it
seems "the" meteors have been falling on Smallville (and the green
minerals in them causing strange and untoward effects) periodically for
centuries.
> I think the idea of
> folks from Atlantis colonizing Krypton originally is a bad one,
because it
> becomes more ridicule-prone for no reason.
Atlanteans are more ridicule-prone than spacemen?
> I'm seeing jokes about
> Patrick Duffy (he did that Man from Atlantis series) being Superman's
> cousin.
That'd be awfully parochial. Out of all the jokes that can be made
related to Supermania, I don't see that as a significant addition.
> Another thing that would be lost in your scenario is the Red Sun vs.
> Yellow Sun mythology,
According to what I wrote in alt.tv.smallville a few months ago,
explicitly so, the color of sunlight would be irrelevant. Not that such
a detail would be incompatible with the scenario I drew up, just
Superfluous.
> which I'm fond of and which has become fairly
> entrenched in the mythology.
So the trench can be dug up. It did fine without it for, what, the
first 20 years or so?
> Also, from DC Comics' point of view, they've had galactic-level
storytelling,
But there's no need for "Smallville" to tie into that.
> for example the Green Lantern stuff, for a long time. Why would they
want
> this Smallville series trying so very hard to make Krypton local?
Just because it's cool for the writers to tie into some real-world
scientific controversy.
> Likewise, humanoid life on alien worlds has also become an established
SF
> convention. Yes, it's implausible that all intelligent alien life
would look very
> similar to us, but it is plausible that some would. Two arms, two
legs, two
> ears and eyes, a head and so on have evolutionary advantages judging
by
> life on our planet, so humanoid life could have evolved elsewhere.
Sure, but Clark doesn't even have the crooked finger that The Invaders
did! The only good reasons for such strong resemblance would be (1)
common origin, or (2) design. Coincidence just doesn't cut it.
> Moreover,
> it's very plausible that a humanoid Jor-El would send his humanoid son
to
> a planet where humanoids were the dominant species.
And maybe at the time Jor-El sent that ship off, a planet fitting that
description was Mars!
Robert
Robert Goodman
news:1384839a.02112...@posting.google.com...
> You know, I was thinking about this when you were espousing similar
> thoughts towards the end of Lois & Clark, and I've thought about them
> this weekend, and while it's cute and entertaining to speculate, I
> just see this as making as much sense and being as necessary as having
> the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes from the 1980s Granada TV series
> travel forward into the future to assist the Basil Rathbone Sherlock
> Holmes fight Nazis before crossing over to give much-needed advice to
> the Tom Baker Sherlock Holmes on the Baskerville moors and then help
> the Nicol Williamson Sherlock Holmes kick cocaine. Sorry.
That reads like Jane Roberts' "oversouls" concept.
BTW, I was tickled when I saw in the credits when the TV play of "The
Lathe of Heaven" was rerun about 2 years ago that Jane Roberts had a bit
part. When I'd watched its first airing 20 years earlier, I hadn't
known who she was, so took no note. I'm sure her casting was a cute nod
to her ideas about dreams.
Robert