Interesting discussion here on the importance of good ole Lex Luthor. I think there are many ways to look at the big picture, but two in particular come to mind. Bear with me for a moment as I tell a story...
In 1974, Henry Winkler was cast to play a minor character, Arthur Fonzarelli, in the ABC show Happy Days. He appeared in two short scenes in the pilot episode. In later seasons however, "The Fonz" became SO popular with fans, Winkler moved up in billing second only to Ron Howard. The network even wanted to rename the series, "Fonzie's Happy Days." The situation proved that you never really know what's going to click with an audience.
In the case of Happy Days, Fonzie arguably became The Most Popular Character on the show. And while Happy Days was a comedy, it bears noting that Richie Cunningham was the straight-laced kid, and Fonzie was the older, street-wise bad boy who got what he wanted merely by snapping his fingers. As a viewer living vicariously through the lives of these characters, who would YOU want to be?
*cough*
LOL! Sorry, couldn't resist.
For some fans, the Happy Days analogy may apply to SV. Rosenbaum's portrayal of Lex Luthor has elevated the character to a more familiar level. Cult status, even. You can kind of see the shift in how the show was perceived to adjust focus in Variety's three major reviews starting in 2001:
10/12/01
"Smallville" [is a show that] depicts Superman as a teenage boy with teenage problems...
For what it is - one more semi-soap opera about beautiful teens with self-esteem troubles - "Smallville's" well produced, and it certainly boasts some impressive special effects in its pilot episode. Ultimately, though, the familiarity of the story might work against the show. As with last season's decent entry "The Fugitive," people may feel they've already seen this before and know where it goes.
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117916084.html
This review is interesting in that it emphasizes that the show is *about* "teenage Superman." The writer (Steven Oxman) however suggests viewers might get bored with watching something they've already seen and are therefore familiar with.
[Oh man... LMAO!! No comment. *cough*]
Two years later, they're still talking about the focus of the show being on a "well known character," but they're also pointing out how the story changes have improved the mythology. Hey, whatdaya know? Maybe Oxman was wrong; it's not boring after all.
1/18/07
Despite the limitations of a TV budget, "Smallville" has always done a creditable job of bringing convincing production value to its hero and villain-filled world - a standard put to the test by the presence of four sidekicks along with the show's usual strange visitor from another planet.
Ah, now we're seeing the importance of the four "sidekicks" show up in reviews. Continuing on...
The real skill, however, resides with the storytelling under exec producers Alfred Gough and Miles Millar, who, in essence, have spent the last six years working backward - filling in the gap in the first "Superman" movie between Clark racing through those Kansas cornfields and Superman's John Williams-accompanied flight out of the Fortress of Solitude. Moreover, they have done so while, at times, boldly reimagining DC Comics lore...
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117932451.html
Thank you, Variety, for reinforcing and confirming some of Gough's recent comments about... well... everything (no need to drag those arguments here - even though I just did
)
Aight... so what's the attraction to SV? Well, back in 2001 I'd argue it was the Superman angle for me. Um... well... that and other things:
[2001 mindset]
What IS that? Looks... mmmm... uh... interesting. <slurp>
Wait... there's an S on his chest? Is that supposed to be... no! Is that... Superman? Crap! When's that show air!
[/2001 mindset]
I'm guessing I wasn't the only one that had that reaction. So here's the bottom line as it applies to me...
- Why did I start watching the show? Duh! It was about Superman. The caveat of the specifics - Clark Kent as a teenager - was irrelevant. It was about Superman's early life in Smallville. That was enough for me.
- Did I give two hoots who the other characters were? Pfft!
C'mon, peeps. LOL
- Was I confused with Lex Luthor being in the show. Yeah, kinda sorta. It was odd, but I got used to it - after about the first ten minutes.
- Would another "villain" have worked, assuming he was written as well as Lex and had the same charisma and talent of Rosey? Sure. I don't see why not.
- In retrospect, do I wish it was a different actor or character? Hell no! Michael Rosenbaum is fantastic - the best Lex Luthor ever. Whoda thunk?
- Would I stop watching the show if MR were replaced or his character left the show entirely? No, of course not, though I admit such a change in line-up would take some getting used to.
- Why do I continue to watch the show? It's STILL about Superman (despite the protestations of some fans to the contrary LOL)
- What are the chances I'd continue to watch the show if Welling left? Slim to none.
There ya have it. YMMV.
t:
