Billy Batson
Sidekick
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2005
- Messages
- 1,954
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
OOOh Yea, I voted Tom being dumped is a deal breaker.
Smallville dealbreakers
- Thread starter AgentPat
- Start date
user123456789
Avenger
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2005
- Messages
- 11,260
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
triplet said:
ditto.
Captain Villa
Sidekick
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2000
- Messages
- 2,896
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
I voted other...........
Poor writing if it happens / Freak of the week, will kill this show.
The show needs the suit now.
Poor writing if it happens / Freak of the week, will kill this show.
The show needs the suit now.
Lt. Figgnuts
Back...from the graaaave!
- Joined
- May 25, 2003
- Messages
- 4,575
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Captain Villa said:
I disagree. I think the show works best with Clark as Clark, not running around as Superman. It's not a Superman show, it's a Clark Kent show.
AgentPat
Squeaky wheel
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2004
- Messages
- 15,238
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Heh. I'm bumping this poll thread because...
A. I started it
B. It's still active so folks can still vote, and
C. Some of the "dealbreakers" HAVE happened, but it looks like a few people didn't follow through LOL.
A. I started it
B. It's still active so folks can still vote, and
C. Some of the "dealbreakers" HAVE happened, but it looks like a few people didn't follow through LOL.
Lighthouse
Fairness, Equality, Bacon
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2003
- Messages
- 14,809
- Reaction score
- 2,044
- Points
- 78
If any of the main cast were replaced, that would be a deal breaker. The season 7 deal breaker for me will be if Clark does not show any growth from the past few seasons.
amazingfantasy15
Avenger
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2000
- Messages
- 12,499
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Basically the entire 6th season has become a dealbreaker for me, I only watch new episodes now if the NBC comedies are reruns.
Prognosticator
Superhero
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2005
- Messages
- 8,244
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
There's probably about 15 things, and they've ALL happened!
But I'm still watching
I guess that makes me a stooge to TV...
But I'm still watching
I guess that makes me a stooge to TV...
pyromaniac
Sidekick
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2003
- Messages
- 3,655
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 58
The first season mid-way was a dealbreaker (nice use of the term there) for me from then on.
Granted - our Channel Nine network then in Australia did not treat it well and took it off air mid-way in the second season, but I'd have stopped watching by the first season any way, with only a mild, almost suicidal curiosity in watching an occasional ep here and there.
What was the dealbreaker can be attributed to several factors:
1.
Poor acting.
The only decent ones, consistently, and over the years have been Allison Mack and Michael Rosenbaum and Jonathan Kent--his name escapes me at the moment, sorry! But Tom Welling couldn't act if he wiggled a mouse in front of an elephant's eyes and provoke a response.
Now, I've heard Welling has improved as time has gone on, but he's mostly a miss in my book. I'm sure the other half is due to my lack of ability to relate to the main character, to empathise, to understand, to respect, to root for and follow in his adventures and storytelling narratives that I feel don't really fall in any point of identification with life or theme that I can have. The concepts are there though. But that comes back to acting, so that is why. He expresses mild surprise, dismay, or sadness. Nothing against Welling, who has garnered an incredibly loyal fanbase, it's a little odd, more so for a protagonist who carries the shoulders of the show. I relate to the cinematic version much, MUCH better, but to be fair it has been as Superman.
Hmm I just thought of an example that might clarify my opinions on this. Clark Kent is watching the news that Christopher Reeve's character has just died. If that was the reaction the former had, I'd have reacted a lot more than that. He also made exposition, rather than using body language that would be more effective and which would tell us the extent of his relationship with Reeve's character and what he took from him. But of course, acting was in the way. From that little scene, it was almost forgotten, but a shame because it might have served one of the motivations--emotionally speaking--to his resolve to grow.
Kirsten Kreuk is in a similiar position. Note that it's not a comment on their looks, because I know a lot of people are vocal about that.
2.
Tone and style.
It's fine that it's a show that has sentimentalities of teenage culture and influence (ie in terms of soundtrack, bright cinematography etc) which appeals to a number of demographics but it doesn't do much for me on an intellectual basis.
A typical story structure holds that there is little complusion in the character threads, driving them forward or in divergent directions pertaining to development or storyline. It might be because we all know the 'ending' of Superman as a legacy, as a mythology and as such, but I note the altruism is also true for ơther characters who have been tweaked, modernised, or appropriated to befit this new incarnation of life in Smallville. They don't translate the 'how' well in terms of engaging characters, ie villains whom even lasting beyond the FOTW don't come off as memorable and formidable enough let alone one that can emotionally and psychologically 'damage' Clark Kent which could warrant proportional growth for him, that they can actually clock up the Rogues Gallery or Hall of Fame as far as the show goes. James Marsters' character Brainiac is an exception, beacuse he's a great actor and he makes it work.
And of course, speaking of FOTW, they comprise standalones, and quite a lot of them. A good standalone is one, while being its own story in almost its entirety, is one that affects the cast with the mainplot, in a medium or long run.
Furthermore - it seems that a lot of these FOTWs are often defined by their powers which in turn define their personality: 'a man who bends glass! A man who, with one touch, kills people! A telekinetic with an affinity for heartbreak!'
Ironically, Clark Kent's personality defines his powers. And ask me something here - why is that most FOTWs are usually those with a criminal bent? Those that are, clearly need less of a motivation, a background that shape them who they become, and by that, how they use their powers. It is so that it's easier as opposed to the few FOTWs who are misunderstood, tragic or, gasp, good.
3.
Overt exposition and symbolism.
I seem to hear those terms 'secret' and 'I have to hide my identity!' and 'destiny' banded about a lot, which while yes can be attributed to a variety of contexts, is one that loses meaning altogether just by the overuse and the modicum of moderate intelligence it bestows on even a viewer--well, like me--that anytime someone opens their mouth that implicates or refers to in anyway Clark Kent's journey, it comes off a little blatant and knowing for my tastes, particularly if it's spoken by someone who really doesn't have a clue that their dialogue are laden with double meaning, courtesy of that fourth-dimension wall, ALMOST.
I'm more interested in seeing the execution, first, not exposition that leads us to realise, oh this what he is going to do, be, go now.
4.
Collective brainwashing.
Lots of that going around, though I realise that's a necessary evil. It's been pointed out though that when, or consecutively that a character is in danger, he or she has to invariably be knocked out or out of action or busy someplace else so that Clark Kent can be a little more free to unleash his whammy on the foes. Yes, I understand why but it's too repetitive, plus it's not executed in a similiar, ie slightly cheeky (because we know how ridiculous that in the real world, we'd have found out sooner rather than later), beat owing to Lois not knowing the truth for four seasons as to the identity of Superman in an earlier incarnation Lois & Clark. And of course, more importantly--following danger averted, following some initial suspicion that Kent is more than who he appears to be, a bogus explanation is given: 'just affected by Kryptonite', or... or... well, fill in the blanks, and the suspicious person in question ceases doubt and all's well with the world.
Problem with that is that when writing, story and character development is convenient, it chooses that someone ie Lionel Kent who finds out, benefits him because it's in aforementioned interests.
Again, I see why though - this is one of these situations, on a creative point of view, that can be a little difficult to write out of the corner from but only if it's not done right.
5.
Pete Ross.
The way he was written, and written out appalled me (whether it's a strong word or not, you decide). Here he was, touted as one of the cast in first season, here for a fair haul. I don't mind rotations, additions or depatures within the cast long as they're performed well or those which make sense in context.
Not Pete. Over time, from one of Clark Kent's best friends, he'd been increasingly on the peripheral and finally, because the creators had admitted they had no idea what to do with him, only thrusted him the whole 'finding out about Clark, keeping it and being burdened with it' so as to give him that something to do.
What was the payoff? He leaves town because writing-wise, he was at a dead end. It's a flimsy reason. So he can't walk around and blurt out to locals that he knows Clark Kent has superpowers?!
'Hey, what's up, Mr Milkman?'
'Not bad. You?'
'I really appreciate your milk. I... Clark Kent is not normal! I don't want your milk because I don't deserve to have something this great!' *breaks down, weeping*
*stares*
Along those lines anyway. The fact Pete Ross is 'burdened'--burdened being the operative word--is nothing akin to the pressure that Clark Kent goes through. Selfish baboon.
Granted, I never saw that so-called arc when it took place, the conclusion being his departure from town so I'm only saying as I heard it. Ultimately though, the real reason was that Pete Ross had become creative dead weight, and if that happened early on in the run, tsk.
Whitney is similiar, but a LITTLE different. He gets a decent sendoff and makes a re-appearance to clear up any disclosure that there might be.
I'm sure I'm ignorant on a couple of points but that has always been my stance towards Smallville.
Granted - our Channel Nine network then in Australia did not treat it well and took it off air mid-way in the second season, but I'd have stopped watching by the first season any way, with only a mild, almost suicidal curiosity in watching an occasional ep here and there.
What was the dealbreaker can be attributed to several factors:
1.
Poor acting.
The only decent ones, consistently, and over the years have been Allison Mack and Michael Rosenbaum and Jonathan Kent--his name escapes me at the moment, sorry! But Tom Welling couldn't act if he wiggled a mouse in front of an elephant's eyes and provoke a response.
Now, I've heard Welling has improved as time has gone on, but he's mostly a miss in my book. I'm sure the other half is due to my lack of ability to relate to the main character, to empathise, to understand, to respect, to root for and follow in his adventures and storytelling narratives that I feel don't really fall in any point of identification with life or theme that I can have. The concepts are there though. But that comes back to acting, so that is why. He expresses mild surprise, dismay, or sadness. Nothing against Welling, who has garnered an incredibly loyal fanbase, it's a little odd, more so for a protagonist who carries the shoulders of the show. I relate to the cinematic version much, MUCH better, but to be fair it has been as Superman.
Hmm I just thought of an example that might clarify my opinions on this. Clark Kent is watching the news that Christopher Reeve's character has just died. If that was the reaction the former had, I'd have reacted a lot more than that. He also made exposition, rather than using body language that would be more effective and which would tell us the extent of his relationship with Reeve's character and what he took from him. But of course, acting was in the way. From that little scene, it was almost forgotten, but a shame because it might have served one of the motivations--emotionally speaking--to his resolve to grow.
Kirsten Kreuk is in a similiar position. Note that it's not a comment on their looks, because I know a lot of people are vocal about that.
2.
Tone and style.
It's fine that it's a show that has sentimentalities of teenage culture and influence (ie in terms of soundtrack, bright cinematography etc) which appeals to a number of demographics but it doesn't do much for me on an intellectual basis.
A typical story structure holds that there is little complusion in the character threads, driving them forward or in divergent directions pertaining to development or storyline. It might be because we all know the 'ending' of Superman as a legacy, as a mythology and as such, but I note the altruism is also true for ơther characters who have been tweaked, modernised, or appropriated to befit this new incarnation of life in Smallville. They don't translate the 'how' well in terms of engaging characters, ie villains whom even lasting beyond the FOTW don't come off as memorable and formidable enough let alone one that can emotionally and psychologically 'damage' Clark Kent which could warrant proportional growth for him, that they can actually clock up the Rogues Gallery or Hall of Fame as far as the show goes. James Marsters' character Brainiac is an exception, beacuse he's a great actor and he makes it work.
And of course, speaking of FOTW, they comprise standalones, and quite a lot of them. A good standalone is one, while being its own story in almost its entirety, is one that affects the cast with the mainplot, in a medium or long run.
Furthermore - it seems that a lot of these FOTWs are often defined by their powers which in turn define their personality: 'a man who bends glass! A man who, with one touch, kills people! A telekinetic with an affinity for heartbreak!'
Ironically, Clark Kent's personality defines his powers. And ask me something here - why is that most FOTWs are usually those with a criminal bent? Those that are, clearly need less of a motivation, a background that shape them who they become, and by that, how they use their powers. It is so that it's easier as opposed to the few FOTWs who are misunderstood, tragic or, gasp, good.
3.
Overt exposition and symbolism.
I seem to hear those terms 'secret' and 'I have to hide my identity!' and 'destiny' banded about a lot, which while yes can be attributed to a variety of contexts, is one that loses meaning altogether just by the overuse and the modicum of moderate intelligence it bestows on even a viewer--well, like me--that anytime someone opens their mouth that implicates or refers to in anyway Clark Kent's journey, it comes off a little blatant and knowing for my tastes, particularly if it's spoken by someone who really doesn't have a clue that their dialogue are laden with double meaning, courtesy of that fourth-dimension wall, ALMOST.
I'm more interested in seeing the execution, first, not exposition that leads us to realise, oh this what he is going to do, be, go now.
4.
Collective brainwashing.
Lots of that going around, though I realise that's a necessary evil. It's been pointed out though that when, or consecutively that a character is in danger, he or she has to invariably be knocked out or out of action or busy someplace else so that Clark Kent can be a little more free to unleash his whammy on the foes. Yes, I understand why but it's too repetitive, plus it's not executed in a similiar, ie slightly cheeky (because we know how ridiculous that in the real world, we'd have found out sooner rather than later), beat owing to Lois not knowing the truth for four seasons as to the identity of Superman in an earlier incarnation Lois & Clark. And of course, more importantly--following danger averted, following some initial suspicion that Kent is more than who he appears to be, a bogus explanation is given: 'just affected by Kryptonite', or... or... well, fill in the blanks, and the suspicious person in question ceases doubt and all's well with the world.
Problem with that is that when writing, story and character development is convenient, it chooses that someone ie Lionel Kent who finds out, benefits him because it's in aforementioned interests.
Again, I see why though - this is one of these situations, on a creative point of view, that can be a little difficult to write out of the corner from but only if it's not done right.
5.
Pete Ross.
The way he was written, and written out appalled me (whether it's a strong word or not, you decide). Here he was, touted as one of the cast in first season, here for a fair haul. I don't mind rotations, additions or depatures within the cast long as they're performed well or those which make sense in context.
Not Pete. Over time, from one of Clark Kent's best friends, he'd been increasingly on the peripheral and finally, because the creators had admitted they had no idea what to do with him, only thrusted him the whole 'finding out about Clark, keeping it and being burdened with it' so as to give him that something to do.
What was the payoff? He leaves town because writing-wise, he was at a dead end. It's a flimsy reason. So he can't walk around and blurt out to locals that he knows Clark Kent has superpowers?!
'Hey, what's up, Mr Milkman?'
'Not bad. You?'
'I really appreciate your milk. I... Clark Kent is not normal! I don't want your milk because I don't deserve to have something this great!' *breaks down, weeping*
*stares*
Along those lines anyway. The fact Pete Ross is 'burdened'--burdened being the operative word--is nothing akin to the pressure that Clark Kent goes through. Selfish baboon.
Granted, I never saw that so-called arc when it took place, the conclusion being his departure from town so I'm only saying as I heard it. Ultimately though, the real reason was that Pete Ross had become creative dead weight, and if that happened early on in the run, tsk.
Whitney is similiar, but a LITTLE different. He gets a decent sendoff and makes a re-appearance to clear up any disclosure that there might be.
I'm sure I'm ignorant on a couple of points but that has always been my stance towards Smallville.
avidreader
Avenger
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2005
- Messages
- 10,548
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
These kinds of lines always amuse me to no end. How can you possibly be in a position to make judgment on something when you state something like this?
Yes, you've written a nice big post there that's been worded all very nicely, but none of it, to me, makes a great deal of sense, because you seem to be coming from a place where you've watched an episode here or there or even a scene here or there and drawn your ideas of what you suspected rather than what was given.
If Smallville is not for you, then that's fine and dandy, but I think what you've written there would be similar to me writing a review for a movie that I have absolutely no interest in viewing, and I get my details for the review by reading other people's opinions and seeing a clip here or there, or basing an actor's abilities on one particular line that they delivered over the entire course of the movie.
Anyway, g'day to a fellow Aussie.
BasinCityBlues
Civilian
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2005
- Messages
- 120
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 11
replacing rosenbaum is the worst thing that can happen. Its the only thing worse than recasting welling.
Superman1980
Civilian
- Joined
- May 15, 2003
- Messages
- 656
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 11
I don't think anything could stop me watching Smallville. I'd be p**sed off if some of the things mentioned were to happen but i'd still need my Superman fix all the same
AgentPat
Squeaky wheel
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2004
- Messages
- 15,238
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Hee!The only way I'd stop watching the show is if the show ceased to be entertaining to me. Kind of like if every week was of the quality of a "Facade".
That kind of happened to me with The Sopranos, but I don't think it was the "quality" of the episodes. It just got... boring. I think I baled when they had Furio move back to Italy instead of doing the dirty with Carmela - which was something they'd been teasing for over a year. He just moved away? WTF!?! Sooooo anticlimactic. And then there was that season finale where Junior sang. For like 10 minutes. OMG! Yeah.... disappointment abounds. I was done after that. LOLOL!!
But y'know what? Even though I haven't watched the show (Sopranos) in years, I will STILL make sure I catch the show finale, which is this season. I wonder how many other people will turn out to watch the SV series finale? You KNOW CW is gonna promote that sucker in a big way, and for good reason...
Serene
Avenger
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 10,281
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Ditto to that.
That's a lot of explanation about a show you haven't watched regularly since halfway through season one.
LOL! Just realized that I don't really know why you are here if you don't like the show, and haven't watched it in 5 years. But , Welcome! anyway.
SloaneClone
Jay-El
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
- Messages
- 146
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 11
If any of the actors/actresses are replaced, that would be a definate deal-breaker for me.
I can't stand a recast.
I can't stand a recast.
Sam Fisher
Heavy Meddle
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2004
- Messages
- 14,743
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 31
Haven't read the comics so not a problem with me.
Tivo
Now that would be stupid
I hope not.
Maybe this will happen
up:Hopefully not.
jr24tw
Sidekick
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2006
- Messages
- 1,220
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 58
Kristin is gone I'm gone. Simple as that. Don't care if she is replaced. Give a damn about it. She is the only reason I'm still watching (as Tom is the main reason for others...or Michael or Allison). She is gone. I'm gone.
pyromaniac
Sidekick
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2003
- Messages
- 3,655
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 58
These kinds of lines always amuse me to no end. How can you possibly be in a position to make judgment on something when you state something like this?
Yes, you've written a nice big post there that's been worded all very nicely, but none of it, to me, makes a great deal of sense, because you seem to be coming from a place where you've watched an episode here or there or even a scene here or there and drawn your ideas of what you suspected rather than what was given.
If Smallville is not for you, then that's fine and dandy, but I think what you've written there would be similar to me writing a review for a movie that I have absolutely no interest in viewing, and I get my details for the review by reading other people's opinions and seeing a clip here or there, or basing an actor's abilities on one particular line that they delivered over the entire course of the movie.
Anyway, g'day to a fellow Aussie.
Yeah, I know.
I mean, on the fact that I'm not as well acquainted with Smallville as most of you are.
However, I only based my observations and opinions on what I had seen and heard of, not those that would be open to (mis)interpretation. I think I was careful not to overstep the line, LOL.
For example - the acting of Tom Welling. I can note it based on what I'd seen, even in occasional episodes since Season One (which by the way, I should emphasise that that has happened; we're now in the beginnings of Season Six in Aussie Land), and even the recent eps, again, I can reiterate such insight. At the same time, I also maintain that perhaps part of the problem is my lack of inability to relate to Welling's character, but then I thought if it came back to the acting, which I felt never was sold to me, then I can cite it as a reason.
On the other hand, I also did point out that I have heard his acting improves when he has dramatic material to work with, but it's these instances I have not seen unfortunately. However, it's bit of a double-edged sword. The fact his acting, which I'd heard from right in this forum, had to improve tells me a lot about how his acting was from the start. Of course, there is room for improvement, but coupled with the overall 'feel' in the creator's intent and guidance of the aforementioned aspects of the show I've commented on and that 'selling point', they did not endear me, much less to the point of maintenance.
And I only attribute further criticism when I see even the most hardened and loyal of fans voice disapproval of, say, Kristin Kreuk's character (as already mentioned in this thread!) and if I do, they would be due to character inconsistency and acting, at least on my part.
Smallville does have its good points (rich, reverent mythology and such) which again, were pointed out but I feel the fact it leans towards the more negative end of the spectrum has turned me into the type of viewer who'll only tune in for mild entertainment now and then.
However, it's good that my initial verbose post shouldn't let you stop watching Smallville. You watch for many reasons. And that the fanbase is certainly too large for one dissenter to knock 'em out of the ballpark.
Yeah, and hi back to you too. Whereabouts are you?
And thanks Serene for the unexpected welcome. A shout back too. I've been lurking here for a while though.
Similar threads
- MeteorGeek
- Misc. TV Series
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Get on board the Train, rail, locomotive and train modelling thread (5 Viewers)- Latest: Rozen Thorne
