5.20 - Fade (Spoilers)

[Spike_x1]

Good episode. I liked everything that I saw. But like the previous episode, one thing kinda stuck out at me as another lost opportunity: if the show's writers are going to bring in an assassin whose gimmick is invisibility, why not just use the comic book villain, Blindspot?

Just to let you guys know, that little thing didn't ruin the episode for me at all. It just disappoints me when I look at the wasted potential of how it could have immersed itself so much more into Superman's mythology.

What next? A guy who can teleport insanely powerful weapons into the palm of his hand, but his name's not Bloodsport/Alex Trent/Bobby DeBois? Or maybe a cyborg powered by kryptonite, but his name's not John Corben/Metallo?

I just don't see the point in showing a character with the same powers as a known member of Superman's rogues gallery, but giving them a completely different name.

 

[AgentPat]

I just don't see the point in showing a character with the same powers as a known member of Superman's rogues gallery, but giving them a completely different name.

Politics. They simply may not be *allowed* to use a specific character name in the show. Batman, anybody?

 

[blksuperman2]

Lois is starting to annoy me now. Everytime she calls Clark "Smallville" it seems forced. It worked on the cartoon, but here, she lives in Smallville. It makes no sense to walk around calling someone "Smallville" When that's where you live as well.

Anyway, I'm done ranting.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Lois is starting to annoy me now. Everytime she calls Clark "Smallville" it seems forced. It worked on the cartoon, but here, she lives in Smallville. It makes no sense to walk around calling someone "Smallville" When that's where you live as well.

Anyway, I'm done ranting.

You know what I'm sayin....

 

[Spike_x1]

Politics. They simply may not be *allowed* to use a specific character name in the show. Batman, anybody?

I thought that they couldn't use Batman because Batman Begins was in production. I could understand the situation for the more well known villains like the Parasite, Metallo, Bizarro, Toyman, etc, because Warner Bros. wants to keep the option available that those characters might appear in a sequel to SR or something like that.

However, no such problems should exist for the lesser known Superman villains like Bloodsport, Blindspot, Hi-Tech, Blackrock, Arclight, Barrage, Anomaly, Neutron, Hellgrammite, Loophole, Terra-man, and many others who haven't had anything more than a cameo in the comics for the past ten years. DC has forgotten them and nobody is expecting to see those guys in any future Superman movies. So Smallville is probably the only option in the near future for those characters to get a worthwhile chance at a live action adaption.

But yes, I do understand that there is the possibility of legal issues surrounding even those unfamiliar characters (I'm probably the only poster here who's actually aware of the existance of half of them), but it's very unlikely, considering that they're all owned by DC & Warner Bros, and the studio should therefore be free to do what they want with the characters. So I'm sure you can understand my disappointment when I see some freak-of-the-week knockoff using one of my guy's powers against Clark in an episode of SV.

 

[Kane]

DC makes the ultimate decisions of what characters they are allowed to use.

Expecting new comic villians every week wont ever happen for SV.

 

[AgentPat]

...But yes, I do understand that there is the possibility of legal issues surrounding even those unfamiliar characters (I'm probably the only poster here who's actually aware of the existence of half of them), but it's very unlikely, considering that they're all owned by DC & Warner Bros, and the studio should therefore be free to do what they want with the characters. So I'm sure you can understand my disappointment when I see some freak-of-the-week knockoff using one of my guy's powers against Clark in an episode of SV.

I hear ya. There's numerous reasons why they may or may not use specific characters though. I'd imagine after hurdling the legal issues of what they're allowed to use, there's also the case of *wanting* to use a specific character. FOTW's make good "throw away" characters. They're there to advance the main characters forward. So if random FOTW gets killed or put away in some insane asylum, they're not going to be missed by comic aficionados. Add to this that the writers have a lot more freedom when they don't have to worry about conforming to a pre established character. Think about how many times people piss and moan about how they "bastardized" Flash, Aquaman, and Cyborg... not to mention Superman. LOLOLOL.

 

[Spike_x1]

DC makes the ultimate decisions of what characters they are allowed to use.

Expecting new comic villians every week wont ever happen for SV.

DC is owned by Warner Brothers. If the WB is dead-set on using a specific character in Smallville (assuming that the character is free to be used and not the sole property of an individual writer or artist), then it doesn't matter what the company of "DC Comics" really wants. The owner of the DC ultimately calls the shots, and that owner would be the Warner Brothers Conglomerate.

 

[avidreader]

Well, I'm pretty certain the romantic aspect is history. It kind of has to be. They can't wallow in it any more. The characters, particularly Clark, HAVE to move on. It's also less to do with fan's being bored to tears with the relationship as it is (apparently) the actors...

Another poster elaborated a bit on another board...



Some interesting stuff there.

So funny you posted that, 'cause I was discussing that very aspect of the Clana relationship in IM with Trip and James last night.

 

[Kane]

DC is owned by Warner Brothers. If the WB is dead-set on using a specific character in Smallville (assuming that the character is free to be used and not the sole property of an individual writer or artist), then it doesn't matter what the company of "DC Comics" really wants. The owner of the DC ultimately calls the shots, and that owner would be the Warner Brothers Conglomerate.

I dont think so. Not exactly. I think Dan Didio and a few others have a say. I dont think the WB execs do that stuff, they prolly arent even familiar with all these lesser known Superman rogues anyways.

 

[BaK]

Lois is starting to annoy me now. ...

I have experienced very similar reactions/symptoms myself, the only difference being it happened much, way much earlier - last season actually.. (believe it was the opener)..

 

[user123456789]

Lois is starting to annoy me now. Everytime she calls Clark "Smallville" it seems forced. It worked on the cartoon, but here, she lives in Smallville. It makes no sense to walk around calling someone "Smallville" When that's where you live as well.

Anyway, I'm done ranting.

"Smallville" was used perfectly at the end of Devoted last season.

 

[Pixiedust]

Lois is starting to annoy me now. Everytime she calls Clark "Smallville" it seems forced. It worked on the cartoon, but here, she lives in Smallville. It makes no sense to walk around calling someone "Smallville" When that's where you live as well.

Anyway, I'm done ranting.

But she didn't live in Smallville when she first started calling him that nickname so it just stuck.

To Lois, she calls Clark "Smallville" because that name embodies everything that she believes about Clark. He's a small town farm boy who has the same characteristics of the place he grew up. quaint, wholesome, a nice guy but unexciting, just like the town he lives in.

To me, it makes perfect sense for her still to call him Smallville, even though she lives in the town herself. She isn't from Smallville and will never identify herself with the town the same way as Clark does no matter how long she lives there.

Not to mention, it is a homage to the comics just like all the other Superman references we continue to get.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

But she didn't live in Smallville when she first started calling him that nickname so it just stuck.

To Lois, she calls Clark "Smallville" because that name embodies everything that she believes about Clark. He's a small town farm boy who has the same characteristics of the place he grew up. quaint, wholesome, a nice guy but unexciting, just like the town he lives in.

To me, it makes perfect sense for her still to call him Smallville, even though she lives in the town herself. She isn't from Smallville and will never identify herself with the town the same way as Clark does no matter how long she lives there.

Not to mention, it is a homage to the comics just like all the other Superman references we continue to get.

But that's the mentality of most in the town, she looks mad stupid doing it. People from Brooklyn, NY are always nickmaed "Brooklyn" if there from there and reflect the hard and tough mentality. But if you an outta towner who moves to like Brownsville in BK calling everyine "Brooklyn" is ****ing retarted.

 

[Spike_x1]

I dont think so. Not exactly. I think Dan Didio and a few others have a say. I dont think the WB execs do that stuff, they prolly arent even familiar with all these lesser known Superman rogues anyways.

When they think that there's money to be made, Warner Brothers calls all of the shots in their tv shows and movies. They might go to DC for advice and consultation, but they're still free to ignore that advice if they choose to.

How do you think the "Catwoman" movie was greenlit? Do you think any of the DC comics guys really would've let that pass if they any control over it? No. If they had any amount of respect for the character, they would've protested against the WB's production of "Catwoman," but that wouldn't have mattered at all to Warner Bros. (who only saw dollar signs and didn't care the least about basing it off of the comic).

 

[Kane]

The character of 'Patience Phillips' ? I dont see why DC would have a problem allowing that. It isnt Selina Kyle.

 

[Spike_x1]

You don't think DC would've had a problem with their parent company using the name "Catwoman" in an attempt to cash in on the current popularity of superhero movies, considering that the movie didn't have a single thing to do with the comic character except for the name? Trying to cash in on the name's recognition is a true bastardization of a character if I've ever seen one.

I mean, I've read some posters around here who think that "AC" was a bastardization of Aquaman, but at least he still had the name Arthur Curry, had the same powers, and had the same physical appearance. Catwoman-In-Name-Only didn't even have any of those similarities going for her. So the real question should be why wouldn't DC have a problem with WB using the name Catwoman for that sad excuse for a movie? DC's writers, artists, and editors have every excuse to be outraged about the drastic misuse of a long-loved character.