Smallville's Panel at San Diego Comic-Con

[KALEL114]

I think the problem for a lot of people is that, in the early seasons, the show appeared to be building towards a recognizable (if not identical) version of the Superman mythology. That is to say the show was more or less how things went from Smallville to the Superman world we know. With each season, though, this has become less the case: more and more it becomes apparent that the mythology being built up to here is very, very different.

Now, whether or not that bothers a person is up to them, but I think there would be less resistance to the changes if it was apparent from day one that this version of Superman was going to be very different. If we knew from the start that this would be as much a reimagining as it has turned out to be, I think you'd have fewer annoyed fans.

That's the thing right there. We did know it would be a re-imagining/re-interpretation from day one. The TPTB had stated that before the series even began and have repeated it time and time again. For me, it should be viewed as an Elseworlds or Earth (whatever number you want).
Read this when you have the time.

http://www.kryptonsite.com/gough.htm

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

It is kind of funny that with Welling wearing the black clothes, the latest Superman movie rumor has the Wachowski's (rumor for the millionth time over last 4-5 years) taking on the project

 

[Asteroid-Man]

So is the movie a rumour or what?

 

[Webhead2006]

which movie, the rumored smallville tv movie, or what ever will be the next big screen supes movie.

 

[Sawyer]

So is the movie a rumour or what?

I'm fairly sure it was all BS.

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

So is the movie a rumour or what?

Rumor of course.

Odd that it gets posted on IESB like 5-6 months after AICN posted something similar. I wouldn't mind there being something to it though.



Remember this report from AICN back in Feb? http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40084

It is picking up new steam these days.

http://thinkmcflythink.squarespace.c...t-warners.html

After IESB posted update of this news, TMT is now going with the story.

In what should come as no surprise to anybody with a keyboard, Rob Sanchez over at IESB has some sort of golden ticket to Burbank as evidenced by another exclusive passed on to him from inside the cubicles at Warner Bros. Feeling some heat from the recent lawsuit ruling, the Brothers Warner are moving swiftly towards meeting the mandate set forth by the court of achieving production on a Superman film by 2011. Rob is reporting that the new film will not be a continuation of the middle ground that was "Superman Returns" but an entirely different take. Returns will act as the exclamation point or in some people's minds, the period for the "Donnerverse".

There will also be a new director behind the lense and some names that Rob has been hearing include James McTeigue and the Wachowski's. McTeigue's latest film "Ninja Assassin" is enjoying rave reviews and the Wachowki's were last seen hiding out in Germany costing WB millions with their migraine inducing work on "Speed Racer". It is hard to fathom that WB would hand over the keys to the car to the Wachowski's after they crashed and burned on the race tracks of their last flick. McTeigue on the other hand makes a lot of sense.

There are a lot of questions that still need to be answered. Who will be playing Superman? The studio could certainly still turn to Brandon Routh who seems to have a good relationship with the execs of both WB and Legendary. A search for a new Superman would be a long and arduous process but the studio could certainly go that route. In that case, I think they will go with a virtual unknown, not on the scale of Brandon Routh, but more of an "Oh THAT guy!"

What about a script? TMT is hearing from our guys in the sky that Grant Morrison is involved story wise on one level or another on any new Superman film going forward. It would fit with WB's plan of bringing in a comic book writer to lay out the groundwork before handing it off to a screenwriter or two as is the case with Geoff Johns, who just contributed heavily on the possible new "Flash" movie. In my "Superman Limbo" four part series I put forth what WB is looking for in a creative team and what directors and writers would fit this criteria.

This is just the beginning of the news concerning our favorite blue tighted friend that can fly. This story will surely crack open the gates for even more news and you can be sure the netmasters and forum dwellers will be along for the always bumpy ride.


http://iesb.net/index.php?option=com...ures&Itemid=73

A couple of interesting tidbits coming from the Superman camp that I feel I must share with our readers.

Currently, Superman is a hot property over at Warner Bros. Studios, this is known. But how do you move from Bryan Singer's recent attempt at rebooting the character in Superman Returns into something more action packed? Word out of WB is that Singer's film willl simply be seen as a "book-end" to the Richard Donner legacy, to complete the saga. The next films will be a completely new take on the character and the story.

And as everyone knows by now, Bryan Singer is no longer involved in the Superman franchise. Hence, the billion dollar question is...who is?

For the better part of the last month, I've been hearing a few names pop up in regards to who just might be involved in the reboot of the Superman franchise.

And from the recent lawsuit we all know that the new Superman film must be in production by 2011 and IESB has learned that it has indeed been put on the proverbial "fast track". So what names are we hearing?

This past weekend at San Diego Comic Con, I ran into plenty of DC and WB folks who turned pale when I started asking about the man in blue.

There is one thing we know for sure, there is currently a very short list of potential directors to bring Supes back to the big screen.

First are the Wachowski Brothers, yep, Andy and Larry. The other name I am hearing is James McTeigue.

Here's where things get fuzzy, because I am also hearing the Wachowski's may come in to produce with James McTeigue as the actual director.

Part of me wonders why WB would allow the Wachowski's anywhere near Superman after the amount of money they cost the studio after the disaster that was Speed Racer. But, then again, they did make WB plenty of dough on the Matrix trilogy plus Jeff Robinov loves these guys.

To me, it makes more sense to have Andy and Larry Wachowski serve as producers with James McTeigue to direct after the awesomeness that is his film Ninja Assassin because the one absolute mandate WB and DC have for the new Superman film is for it to be action packed, something Superman Returns was sorely lacking. And there is no doubt that the Wachowski's and McTeigue can be relied on for action.

One thing is for sure, Superman is moving faster than a speeding bullet and we can expect some major announcments coming from the Burbank studio in the very near future.

Stay tuned to the IESB as this story develops!

 

[Asteroid-Man]

So it's not been debunked officially? It might still hold some truth? What about the Blue suit with the red on the sides, any truth to that?

 

[Saint]

That's the thing right there. We did know it would be a re-imagining/re-interpretation from day one. The TPTB had stated that before the series even began and have repeated it time and time again. For me, it should be viewed as an Elseworlds or Earth (whatever number you want).
Read this when you have the time.

http://www.kryptonsite.com/gough.htm

Well, I can only speak to what my experience was watching the show--not their intentions, since I never really followed what the creators were saying about it. That said, skimming your link I don't really see an indication of the sort of reinvention Smallville eventually became about. Gough talks about modernization, certainly, but I don't think that's quite the same.

 

[Syncos]

Oh, I understand the problem now: it makes sense for someone who hates the show to post here, but that person must have a certain post count in this section before it is acceptable to post a negative opinion. This is very different from your original post, which suggested rather clearly that it doesn't make sense for someone who hates the show to post here.

Amusingly, both arguments are equally asinine. I suppose I should give up hope that you will simply say "Oh, I guess it was a mistake to complain that someone posted an opinion about Smallville in the Smallville forum." Ah well.


Aside from being a negative opinion, I challenge you to explain precisely how my comment was "flaming."

I'm under the impression you're not actually reading my posts, simply skimming them to pick out one fragment to build a retort to.

My point has nothing to do with post count. It's about trolling, essentially.
My point is now, and has always been that coming into a board to flame something is not really discussion.

As to how your comment was "flaming"?

You walked into this board saying things like
"if the show were any good in the first place. But it isn't. I gave Smallville a lot of chances, and it never delivered anything but junk."

Which offers nothing constructive, it's simply a negative remark towards the series.

"Flaming is a hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users. An Internet user typically generates a flame response to other posts or users posting on a site, and such a response is usually not constructive, does not clarify a discussion, and does not persuade others."

I think the problem for a lot of people is that, in the early seasons, the show appeared to be building towards a recognizable (if not identical) version of the Superman mythology. That is to say the show was more or less how things went from Smallville to the Superman world we know. With each season, though, this has become less the case: more and more it becomes apparent that the mythology being built up to here is very, very different.

Now, whether or not that bothers a person is up to them, but I think there would be less resistance to the changes if it was apparent from day one that this version of Superman was going to be very different. If we knew from the start that this would be as much a reimagining as it has turned out to be, I think you'd have fewer annoyed fans.

First bit of -discussion- i've seen you post.
I'm not sure I agree with your point, though. Smallville's taken quite a few liberties with the canon since day one.

 

[Syncos]

Well, I can only speak to what my experience was watching the show--not their intentions, since I never really followed what the creators were saying about it.

This gets into a tricky area of interpretation though.
If you've never checked out any promotion for the show that's claimed it was following it's own story of Superman, you've never seen anything that says otherwise. It's simply assumption.

To some people an apple is just an apple.
Some people REALLY want a pear, and will damned well hope that their apple is going to end up tasting like a different fruit once it's all said and done.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Both of you, that's enough. Your discussions have gone way off topic and it's getting annoying for everyone else. If you want to be civil in your expressions of opinion and talking about them, go right ahead but will at least one of you just stop? We don't want MEHZEB to come in here with the Prob. Hammer.

 

[triplet]

Or, I could whip out the merry-go-round photo.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

What?

 

[triplet]

What?

The arguments keep going around and around in circles with no end in sight, sorta like a carousel.

*shrug*

I thought it might be funny too....

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Haha, there there. *Pats shoulder*

 

[Saint]

I'm under the impression you're not actually reading my posts, simply skimming them to pick out one fragment to build a retort to.

Then your evaluation of the situation is sadly inaccurate.

My point has nothing to do with post count.

Are you sure? You complained that I am not a regular in this section, that I merely popped up to voice criticism. That is to say, you are complaining that someone who does not post regularly in this section is out of line for coming in purely to voice criticism. So, again: apparently your problem is that one must have a certain post count in this section (that is, one high enough to be considered a "regular") in order to post criticism without being deemed a "troll." You will understand if I consider this deeply ludicrous.

It's about trolling, essentially.

You don't seem to know what "trolling" is. If I was interested in posting purely to cause aggravation, I would have used your comments about Smallville as an excuse to complain about the show (the most notable openings were when you said the show has survived for eight years by virtue of it's quality--an obvious logical fallacy since bad shows endure all the time--and when you described what you considered to be the virtues of the show). The reason I did not do that is because I have no particular interest in aggravating fans, especially on the grounds of what they like or dislike. People like what they like, and it makes no difference to me. I posted because something annoyed me and I felt the need to comment. For the third time, I am forced to observe that this is really much less complicated than you seem to think.

My point is now, and has always been that coming into a board to flame something is not really discussion.

This has always been your point? Curious, because your original argument made it quite clear that your point was that it was unreasonable of me to be posting in this forum by virtue of hating the show. Perhaps you did not communicate your issue correctly? Or perhaps you decided to retroactively rewrite your position because you realized complaining that somebody posting an opinion about Smallville in the Smallville forum was ridiculous?

As to how your comment was "flaming"?

You walked into this board saying things like
"if the show were any good in the first place. But it isn't. I gave Smallville a lot of chances, and it never delivered anything but junk."

Which offers nothing constructive, it's simply a negative remark towards the series.

Oh, I see: so all negative remarks that do not contain constructive criticism are flaming. As before, you'll understand if I find this to be a deeply ludicrous position.

"Flaming is a hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users.

Thank you for demonstrating that my remark was not flaming, since I was neither being hostile nor insulting to another internet user.

This gets into a tricky area of interpretation though.
If you've never checked out any promotion for the show that's claimed it was following it's own story of Superman, you've never seen anything that says otherwise. It's simply assumption.

Based on an evaluation of the material, yes. So?

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Saint, drop it. You wanna express your opinion go ahead, but now you two are arguing about arguing. Just drop it. The two of you have taken things way off topic. If you aren't going to discuss the Smallville Panel at the San Diego Comic-Con, leave the thread. That goes for any off topic discussions. If you and/or Syncos want to continue arguing about your argument, then do it in PMs.

 

[AgentPat]

I think the problem for a lot of people is that, in the early seasons, the show appeared to be building towards a recognizable (if not identical) version of the Superman mythology. That is to say the show was more or less how things went from Smallville to the Superman world we know. With each season, though, this has become less the case: more and more it becomes apparent that the mythology being built up to here is very, very different.

How is it apparent? The series isn't over yet. They dumped the Kuwachi cave arc and introduced a crystal fortress in order to line up with the one used in the films. They killed off their version of Jimmy Olsen so the new one could line up agewise with the one from the comics. Even Jor-El's first message to Clark, "Rule them with strength, my son. That is where your greatness lies," is out of place now. If anything, it seems apparent to me that they are building to a more traditional conclusion.

I concede the Super Lana fiasco. I'm convinced the writers were drugged when they came up with that ridiculous storyline, and DC must have been held at gunpoint to agree to it. But I suppose even with that, there's still time to correct it. I just want to forget it.

Now, whether or not that bothers a person is up to them, but I think there would be less resistance to the changes if it was apparent from day one that this version of Superman was going to be very different. If we knew from the start that this would be as much a reimagining as it has turned out to be, I think you'd have fewer annoyed fans.

No flights, no tights?
Lex and Clark as childhood friends?
Some chick named Chloe?

I'd say it started out different enough for Superman fans to have a reasonable clue that it wasn't going to be a typical Superman story. Add to this all of the initial press, which basically said the same thing:

"A young Clark Kent struggles to find his place in the world as he learns to harness his alien powers for good and deals with the typical troubles of teenage life in Smallville. This reinterpretation of the enduring Superman mythology and its classic characters blends realism and adventure into an exciting action series."​

With the exception of the "teenage" part, the show has pretty much lived up to the original One Sheet synop. In fact, that description is still used to this day in the show's product marketing.

As to annoyed fans, I know they're out there. Painfully so. But I think it's less about content and more about expectation for those who feel the show takes too many liberties. Clark can never be Superman because everybody knows what he looks like without glasses. How about letting the show explain that part of Clark's journey? As somebody who's watched the show since the beginning, I know that there's never going to be a straight line from point A to point B. I know that the show is going to take detours, and artistic license is par for the course. I welcome that, because if I wanted Smallville to match up note for note with the comics, ...I'd read the comics.

There are also fans who think the show's biggest problem is its desire to line up with the mythology, not reinterpret it. Reference all of the TWoPpers who still think (want?) Chloe to be the real (read: iconic) Lois Lane.

And finally there are the purests who don't like it when anything is altered from their concept of the mythos. For those individuals, I'd suggest just sticking with the comics. By its very premise - a reinterpretation of the mythology - Smallville was never meant for them.

 

[Brainiac 8]

Well put Patsy. I also agree that the Super Lana thing must have been the product of a little too much booze and drugs and they just decided there was no turning back.

 

[Prison Mike]

they've always been clear that the show is a "reinterpretation" of the Superman mythos. They never claimed that it would follow the classic mythology 100%.

 

[Syncos]

Then your evaluation of the situation is sadly inaccurate.

I'm going to start off by saying this will be my last reply to this side discussion, as it's merely a debate that's going nowhere, and not relevant to the topic.

Are you sure? You complained that I am not a regular in this section, that I merely popped up to voice criticism. That is to say, you are complaining that someone who does not post regularly in this section is out of line for coming in purely to voice criticism. So, again: apparently your problem is that one must have a certain post count in this section (that is, one high enough to be considered a "regular") in order to post criticism without being deemed a "troll." You will understand if I consider this deeply ludicrous.

Perhaps i didn't give you the benefit of the doubt. Around these parts we get countless trolls who come by for one or two off posts claiming something like "this show is terrible. why hasn't it been cancelled yet?" merely to cause ****. Your first few points gave no indication that you were in any way different. I'm still not convinced that you wouldn't have already moved on if not for the discussion i inadvertently caused -about- what's grounds for discussion.

But i'm willing to give you a chance to have a reasonable and intelligent discussion about the series.

You don't seem to know what "trolling" is.

I know full well what a troll is.

Again, your first few posts in this section gave no insight as to whether you were looking for a discussion or looking for a reaction. And those are two completely different things.

It's not a lot of tact to walk into a board (comprised mostly of fans of something) introducing yourself with "this sucks." You may give people the wrong impression.

I'm man enough to admit that I didn't convey the point of my grievence well enough to really get across what I meant.

If I was interested in posting purely to cause aggravation, I would have used your comments about Smallville as an excuse to complain about the show (the most notable openings were when you said the show has survived for eight years by virtue of it's quality--an obvious logical fallacy since bad shows endure all the time--and when you described what you considered to be the virtues of the show).

Sounds like you just did. Bravo at sneaking that shot in there.

The reason I did not do that is because I have no particular interest in aggravating fans, especially on the grounds of what they like or dislike. People like what they like, and it makes no difference to me. I posted because something annoyed me and I felt the need to comment. For the third time, I am forced to observe that this is really much less complicated than you seem to think.

This has always been your point? Curious, because your original argument made it quite clear that your point was that it was unreasonable of me to be posting in this forum by virtue of hating the show. Perhaps you did not communicate your issue correctly? Or perhaps you decided to retroactively rewrite your position because you realized complaining that somebody posting an opinion about Smallville in the Smallville forum was ridiculous?


Oh, I see: so all negative remarks that do not contain constructive criticism are flaming. As before, you'll understand if I find this to be a deeply ludicrous position.

Thank you for demonstrating that my remark was not flaming, since I was neither being hostile nor insulting to another internet user.

An exchange between users doesn't necessarily need to be targeted AT a user.

Nice use of extrapolating an out of context fragment of a description and replying to that single point.

Flaming a show is still flaming. I'm sure there are people out there to take offense to "this show is garbage there's no reason to watch." without giving any fundamental reasoning behind it.

If you're willing to have reasonable discussion, please stick around.
as long as it's a discussion you're looking for, and not a reaction.

 

[Angeloz]

So there wasn't a nude streaker during the Con?

Angeloz

 

[annie.j88]

i just wanna know if someone asked welling if he'd ever wear that suit.

in fact i'd like to know what questions were asked, and to whom if anyone knows.

thanks!!!

 

[KALEL114]

i just wanna know if someone asked welling if he'd ever wear that suit.

in fact i'd like to know what questions were asked, and to whom if anyone knows.

thanks!!!

Here is the complete run through of the panel.

http://www.newsarama.com/tv/090725-sdcc09-smallville.html

And welcome to the boards.

 

[kal_el_526]

Eh, all the questions sucked. I would have asked Tom if after Smallville was completed, would he consider playing Superman on the big screen. And if not what would he like to do after with his career. Other good questions would have been will we be seeing Brainiac or Martian Manhunter again? Or when will Clark throw some glasses on? Oh well.