Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

One thing I didn’t realize, Allegra was created by Eric Wallace in Titans vol 2 #28:

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1620/8083/products/AUG100134_grande.jpg

So that would explain why she was given a regular part.  Creators naturally have favor for characters they made, but it didn’t hurt that Wallace was likely getting an extra fee every time he used the character in Flash.

DC Warner has been good about paying those creator fees.  Jim Starlin even noted that his fee for the appearance of KGBeast in Batman v Superman was more than he got for Thanos.  What makes that even more amusing is that you couldn’t even recognize the KGBeast in that appearance; you had to know his civilian name and put two and two together.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

From a creative standpoint, it's also likely that the Allegra character allowed Wallace a lot more freedom. There are ultimately going to be restrictions on what a TV adaptation is licensed to do with Barry Allen, Iris West, Wally West, Caitlin Snow, Eobard Thawne, etc., whereas DC isn't going to take issue with "Allegra" because barely anyone knows who she is.

Not that Eric Wallace seemed to do very much anyway with anyone. *sigh*

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

Yeah.  Again, I know what I would've done with the season, either if I wanted to wrap up the Arrowverse or just the Flash.  Maybe my idea wouldn't have worked that well either, but at least it would've been something.  This season wasn't really about anything, even if you look at it the way Wallace does (as a couple different graphic novels).

Wallace talked about how he needed all 13 episodes to properly wrap up Barry's story.  I think he could've easily done everything he did in season 9 in 6 episodes.  The premiere, one episode for the Red Death, the Oliver episode, and three episodes for a finale.  I'd probably do an entire episode getting Eddie from "who is this guy?" to Cobalt Blue, the episode where Barry goes back and deals with Thawne, and the finale.

That's really all they needed.  So Wallace either needed to tell a bigger story (so there's less wasting time) or spent more time on the rest of the Arrowverse.

That all being said, I think the Flash was still an overall success.  It never got great after season one, but it was watchable all the way through.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

Spoilers from Superman & Lois

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

So at the end of the latest episode, Kyle comes to the farm to confront Clark, and Clark ends up having to reveal his identity so he can woosh off and save the day.

...has that really never happened to him?  I would imagine it would happen all the time with other parents at school, commitments at work, or other situations where Clark is one on one with someone who refuses to leave.  I would think Clark would be more prepared for that because I would think most people wouldn't take "we have to deal with this later" as an excuse.

I would think Clark would be able to superspeed and "vulcan neck pinch" someone or something.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

I'm not sure. Generally, most stories where Clark has to leave to become Superman are set in cities. In LOIS AND CLARK, Clark would claim to have to check his mail or return an overdue VHS to a rental or pick up dry cleaning or make an appointment and just flee the scene, diving around a corner or down some stairs or into an elevator or whatnot. Clark is usually in a city. It's unusual for Clark to be cornered at a remote location where he can't urgently charge off to go around or down some structure.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

It is amusing that Wallace now wants others to do what he wouldn’t do himself:

https://bamsmackpow.com/2023/06/03/the- … -and-lois/

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

I assume Wallace understands that he may have screwed things up.  I think either he was caught off guard by the end of the Arrowverse or found himself unable to do anything about it.  Again, it's not his responsibility to close up the entire Arrowverse, but I wish he would've said those things if that was the case.  "Look, all I could do was wrap up Barry's story" plays differently than "I would've done X and Y but I only had 13 episode and I needed to use all 13 of those to finish Barry's story."

Because as we all saw, Wallace wasted so many of those episodes.

It's probably unfair to judge him based on the fact that season 9 was the last season of the Arrowverse.  If, say, Batwoman had been the last season of the Arrowverse, it probably wouldn't have been able to do much better.  Legends was probably the most equipped for many reasons.

But I still think Wallace could've done a much better job.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

It's baffling to me how Wallace chose to use his resources. Two episodes of Javicia Leslie: she spends them not playing Ryan Wilder except in two scenes. Reduced availability of Grant Gustin: he's wasted in standalones and is absent for half of the series finale arc instead of filming the series finale earlier when Gustin was in fuller availability. Full use of Danielle Panabaker: she spends the season playing a character who isn't Frost and isn't Caitlin. Multiple episodes with limited availability for Grant Gustin: Wallace claims there wasn't enough space to do Arrowverse finale stories and hopes SUPERMAN AND LOIS will do it instead.

I don't get it. I liked the finale, though, having all the speedster villains.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

And I think it was annoying they couldn't get Carlos Valdes back.  I get that actors get busy and I'm sure traveling around the country to shoot a scene isn't fun, but that should've been a priority (just like it was a major priority to get Michael Rosenbaum back for Smallville).  Cisco was a major player in the series and arguably its most beloved character.  The show clearly dipped when he left.  An even if he'd shown up on a video chat, that would've been better than literally nothing.  Unless there's something behind the scenes that no one has talked about, Valdes was happy to come back.  If he couldn't make it back for the finale, plan something earlier.  The finale was four episodes long so I assume they filmed for four weeks.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

Superman & Lois has been renewed for a ten-episode season four.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

I will have some thoughts on the potential budget cut tomorrow.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

I read that the actor that plays General Lane has already been told he's not coming back.  If the budget cuts are severe enough, I don't know if it really benefits the show to come back.  I'd almost rather bring it back for a "special event" - a small handful of episodes that would finish the story.  Maybe the "Superman" effects are really easy to do now for cheap, but the show has been really good in terms of making Superman look and feel real.  If they're going to scale that back that it looks cheap, I'd almost rather it not come back at all.

Maybe they can do 10 episodes that still look good.  I hope so.

If not, here's how I'd pitch it in the writers room:

IDEA ONE - Kandor.  I'd bring the whole family (no Lana, no Lana's family, no other cast) into the bottle city of Kandor.  I don't know if it'd be cheaper to film on an alien-looking set, but Clark wouldn't have any powers and they could explore some of Clark's Krypton side.  Let them out in the finale to wrap up the Smallville storylines, but you'd reduce the cast and take superpowers out of it.

IDEA TWO - Clark is permanently depowered.  Maybe use gold kryptonite.  Maybe use Mister Mxyzptlk.  Make something up.  Doesn't really matter.  Take away his powers (and I guess Jordan loses his powers too) and essentially make this Clark's retirement story.  Jordan has to deal with the fact that he's back to being a normal teenager again (and maybe Jonthan enjoys it a little too much) and Clark has to deal with the fact that he's not Superman anymore.  You could have the main villain of the story be just the concept of aging and not beiing able to do what you used to do.  Maybe the town struggles and Clark has to watch Smallville slowly weaken away too.  Maybe there's a bully in town and Clark can no longer defend himself or his family the way he once did.  Maybe they can save up some budget for a big finale where Clark finds a way to return his powers and uses it on Jordan so he can be the next Superman.  Or maybe they both get their powers back and Jordan gets to be Superboy.  Either way, it would just be a normal family drama for most of the season so that should save most of the CGI budget.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

Well, the actors playing Lana, Kyle, Sarah, John Henry, and Chrissy have all been axed as regulars as well.  So maybe we're going to spend a season in Kandor!

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

I've seen situations like this before.

CHUCK, a peculiar blend of JAMES BOND and THE IT CROWD, had a serious budget cut for its fourth and fifth seasons. The show lost one cast member and the JAMES BOND style action was reduced in favour of IT CROWD sitcom antics and significantly less action. Characters spent episodes running around their underground bunker base or inside the set of the big box electronics store.

BLINDSPOT, a high action procedural featuring Jaimie Alexander (Sif from THOR) fighting crime, had a serious budget cut for its fifth and final season of 11 episodes. The show lost a cast member. The regular hand-to-hand combat scenes with Jaimie Alexander were lost. Eight of the 11 episodes had no location shooting and few guest stars and were filmed in an enclosed studio space (a bunker, a basement) or the FBI office.

However, both CHUCK and BLINDSPOT saved so much money on bottle episodes that the series finales were lavish productions filled with returning guest stars, exorbitant stunts, extensive location filming, extended action sequences, and where the episodes leading up to the finale felt like low budget web series tie-ins, the series finales themselves felt like big budget feature films.

In both cases, CHUCK and BLINDSPOT elected to keep as much of the cast as they could afford and accepted a loss of scale, special effects, action and location filming. It looks like SUPERMAN AND LOIS has made the opposite choice and chosen to maintain production value (special effects) at the expense of its cast. There seems to be some chance of the departing regulars staying on as guest-stars. However, given the costliness of SUPERMAN AND LOIS' special effects, it's likely that the visuals will also be taking a downgrade.

We might see something like that with SUPERMAN AND LOIS: the season premiere two parter featuring the usual Smallville cast only for Clark, Lois, Jonathan, Jordan and Lex to be shunted into the Phantom Zone or the city of Kandor or wherever requires few guest-stars and limited location filming. Then they escape at the end of Episode 8 and the two part series finale features the full cast and all the savings of Episodes 3 - 8 being put into the series finale.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

Well if the plan is to have a low-key season 4 devoid of CG, that's not really the way to set it up!

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

I haven't watched SUPERMAN AND LOIS' third season yet. I've been too tired to watch something that I want to enjoy with full attention, so I put on the fourth season of TITANS while doing various chores. It's a baffling series to me, using a grab bag of leftover copyrights after other licensors took Batman, Superman and the rest.

It's still up to its old habits of overpromising and underdelivering: it teases an appearance from Superman but they don't have the license, so we just get a note; Bruce Wayne corresponds via unheard phone calls; Lex Luthor is only permitted a brief appearance. Season 3 wasted a year trying to tell the story of BATMAN: A DEATH IN THE FAMILY and BATMAN: UNDER THE RED HOOD without using Batman and Season 4 seems to nod at this bizarre trait before going into a story that, despite its flaws, actually pertains to the Titans.

The story this year seems to have an inciting antagonist and then it sparks very separate plotlines for all the characters as each episode splits them up for something else. I continue to be unsure as to how these arcs are thematically linked by anything more than moody lighting and severe cinematography and high-stress performances. I would say that for the previous three seasons too.

The series continues to emphasize bombast and moody visual spectacle for superhumans. TITANS' protagonists spend most of their time fighting their grudge matches and enmities with old enemies and very little time protecting innocents and saving people. There seems to be some congitive dissonance where Nightwing and Tim Drake kill at least one henchman in the heat of combat but Nightwing later declares that the Titans don't kill.

In previous seasons, the Titans killed various people in combat and were eager to abandon people in trouble and also let Jason Todd murder various victims and wander off freely. Raven has a lot of lines and some lip service to helping people, but for the most part, these superheroes do nothing heroic. Season 3 continues with more of the same and seems to think that these depressed, dour people have won the audience's loyalty.

I really don't get it. I don't understand why all these characters are in the show, and TITANS is using a grimdark aesthetic to make the shallow and thin seem deep and complicated. The show is well-cast, visually compelling, technically proficient and not exactly terrible, but I don't know why anyone would make a superhero show where they're never really heroes or why they would do it with the TEEN TITANS copyright. But it's inoffensive while I'm refilling Sodastream bottles and folding socks and doing other such tasks.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Spoilers from Superman & Lois

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

So at the end of the latest episode, Kyle comes to the farm to confront Clark, and Clark ends up having to reveal his identity so he can woosh off and save the day.

...has that really never happened to him?  I would imagine it would happen all the time with other parents at school, commitments at work, or other situations where Clark is one on one with someone who refuses to leave.  I would think Clark would be more prepared for that because I would think most people wouldn't take "we have to deal with this later" as an excuse.

I would think Clark would be able to superspeed and "vulcan neck pinch" someone or something.

Sorry for the long delay. I didn't have time to give SUPERMAN AND LOIS my full attention until the past week when I was stuck at home with COVID.

I have to say, this situation did not make a lot of sense visually. Clark could have refused to talk to Kyle, gone back into the house, supersped out the back, run a few miles, and then flown into the sky.

There was really no reason for Clark to use his superstrength and superspeed in front of Kyle. This was a bit forced.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

Yeah I thought it was bizarre and something Clark should be more prepared for.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

A bit of a tangent: James Bamford, who directed many, many, many episodes of ARROW and established the overall visual style of the show (heightened, exaggerated superhero fantasy) directed a movie called AIR FORCE ONE DOWN. This is a very silly yet incredibly self-serious direct to streaming film about Secret Service Agent Allison Miles (played by Katherine McNamara who was Oliver's daughter Mia on ARROW) who has to defend the President of the United States (Ian Bohen) when Air Force One is hijacked and Allison and the president have to parachute into hostile territory.

Bamford is an amazing TV director who seems be working on a maybe $5 million budget and Bamford capably makes it look like a $10 million movie, filmed in Bulgaria, using stock footage and greenscreen backgrounds to create the feeling of Washington, DC and TV quality sets to show a somewhat spartan but adequate Air Force One interior.

Bamford added a real sense of myth and legend and a larger than life quality to ARROW, and AIR FORCE ONE DOWN attempts to do the same with sweeping shots of the White House, of Air Force One, of the president's motorcade... while keeping shots angled to avoid having to show too many cars or extras, and with a booming orchestral based score to convey reverence and importance to America's political landmarks. This style, applied to superhero costumes and combat, seemed joyfully fantastic; applied to US fixtures, it seems... awkwardly jingoistic.

There's a crisp efficiency to this movie as character names are established in onscreen text. There's a lot of silliness that seems fine on ARROW but absurd in a more 'realistic' situation such as the absurd ease with which terrorists infiltrate Air Force One.

But I am mostly watching for the combat, to watch Katherine McNamara's Allison Miles dodge, punch, kick, roll, leap, dive and beat the hell out of angry men in all the ways I wished we could have seen her do on that GREEN ARROW AND THE CANARIES series that didn't get picked up. There is a terrifying savagery to McNamara's action sequences where she tears apart villains in a way that the CW would never have been willing to broadcast.

There's an insane sequence where Miles alone guns down what has to be 40 soldiers as she storms through an enemy base and conveniently, no one ever comes at her from behind while her back is turned, all in an attempt at one prolonged tracking shot with cuts masked by morphing or strobing lights or McNamara's hair whipping past the camera.

Also interestingly, Bamford insists on letting Miles get injured and slowed, whereas ARROW's superheroes could take blow after blow and never miss a step. Bamford making McNamara's character endure injury and pain adds a sense of peril for Miles that Mia Smoak never had.

If you ever wonder what the ARROW house style of direction would look like on a non DC property, AIR FORCE ONE DOWN is probably it. It's comes off as a ridiculously self-important B-movie... but still kind of fun.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

Superman & Lois is back for its final season with two new episodes.  I liked both of them.  I think Tyler Hoechlin is a really good Clark Kent.  I still feel like he's a little small for Superman, but like Tom Welling, I think he has an innocent hopefulness that I feel like Clark should have.  I think he comes across as someone fearless but gentle which I appreciate.

It's an abbreviated final season so it's already 20% done.  And the producers said they'll do something to honor the legacy of the Arrowverse.  Which, of course, we've heard before big_smile

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

I thought it was good. But... I question the merit of doing SUPERMAN AND LOIS where Superman is dead. It seems to defeat the purpose of having a Superman show.

I'm relieved that, despite the reductions, all of the cast will be present, even if they won't be in every episode.

The flashback to a thirtysomething Clark admitting to Lois that he's never had sex was hilarious.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

ireactions wrote:

I thought it was good. But... I question the merit of doing SUPERMAN AND LOIS where Superman is dead. It seems to defeat the purpose of having a Superman show.

I gotta think, with only ten episodes, Superman comes back in some form pretty soon.  Eradicator or Cyborg Superman or whatever version of Death of Superman they're doing.

But I agree.  I don't think "Lois and Sons" is going to be as compelling vs Brainiac even if one has powers.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Superman & Lois is back for its final season with two new episodes.  I liked both of them.  I think Tyler Hoechlin is a really good Clark Kent.  I still feel like he's a little small for Superman, but like Tom Welling, I think he has an innocent hopefulness that I feel like Clark should have.  I think he comes across as someone fearless but gentle which I appreciate.

It's an abbreviated final season so it's already 20% done.  And the producers said they'll do something to honor the legacy of the Arrowverse.  Which, of course, we've heard before big_smile

I enjoyed both of these episodes too. I think Tyler Hoechlin and Henry Cavill are two of my favorite portrayals of modern Superman. Christopher Reeve being my absolute favorite that nobody can top.

I don't think big muscles or size alone makes Superman. But properly portioned athleticism, combined with the right personality and acting that Tyler portrays, does wonders. I think Bitsie Tulloch makes an excellent Lois Lane. Her performance as Lois is always top-notch. And she puts a good spin on the character.

Have you seen the latest season 4 trailer? I can't wait to see the scene where Clark tells Sam Lane his real identity in the episode itself.

As an avid Superman watcher, I should have known that they would be tackling the death of Superman at some point. As I've grown attached to these characters, so has my grief with the death of Superman. My stepdad died less than 24 hours after an abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture last year in July. And that grief came rushing back in the final 10 minutes of the second episode.

I hope they bring back Superman fairly fast, and that they don't dwell too much on the loss.

I don't think the heart Lex stomped on was Superman's real heart. But I can certainly understand Johnathan's and the family's sense of loss and their confusion during this time of grief. Anyway, Lex isn't going to simply destroy his prized possession so unilaterally. Plus, it wouldn't be that destroyable by a human being.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

Yeah, I think he'll come back sooner than later.  I think the show needs him there, and I hope it helps with everyone's grief, including yours.

I agree that Superman doesn't need to be jacked like Cavill was.  In fact, if you take his powers literally, he'd probably need to lift a crazy amount to build any true muscle.  So he'd probably look more like Hoechlin than Cavill.

But my favorite thing about Superman is his undying hope, which I think was personalized well by Tom Welling and I think Hoechlin does a great job with.  Since my favorite analysis of Superman comes from a now-canceled figure, I'll just post this as my favorite personification of Superman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GDNd8b_QOo (my favorite part starts at 2:46)

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

Who was this figure and what was your favourite analysis?

I'll remount it for you so you can have an alternate source.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

It's Max Landis.  He did a video on Superman after Man of Steel and he was refuting the idea that classic Superman was boring.  And I'll paraphrase so as not to directly quote him, but his idea (which I'm sure he didn't come up with) is that if you're a Kryptonian on Earth, you have two options: rule the Earth or try to save it.  And instead of absolute power corrupting him, he always makes the right choice.  And he chooses the right choice, which is to be a superhero.  Not because his parents died and he's on revenge or because he feels obligated to.  Just because it's the right thing to do.

He also talks about Superman killing Zod in Man of Steel and rationalizes it because his "no kill policy" is more about living in a world full of metaphorical children than any sort of moral issue.  Not that Superman isn't moral, but he's willing to make hard decisions to save people.  So when he fights Lex Luthor, it's an adult fighting a child.  When he fights Zod, it's an adult fighting an adult.

I just think that kinda clarified things for me about Superman because I kinda agreed that he was boring.  But it clarified things for me, and now I like that personification of Superman.  And I think Hoechlin and Welling make that personification work.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

I've rewatched Max Landis' video on Superman's power levels and how his only path is to save or conquer. I'd say... while a valid perspective, it's primarily focused on Superman's external superpowers and neglects more internal aspects.

Often, the argument is that power can reveal while absolute power will corrupt absolutely. The fantasy of Superman is that someone with great power would wield it almost entirely in service of civilization as a whole; and this person would, in using their power for themselves, only use it for harmless personal indulgences like eating lots of ice cream and never gaining weight (Dean Cain) or using superspeed to make up for sleeping in later (Tom Welling).

Often, it's claimed that this is implausible and unlikely that someone with this power would not use it to serve themselves.

In the "Leech" episode of SMALLVILLE, Clark's powers are transferred to an abused and bullied teenager named Eric Summers. Eric, shortly after discovering his superstrength, violently assaults his abusive father and his school bully. Clark asks his parents if they were ever afraid of Clark and Clark's strength. Jonathan says Clark had a few tantrums as a child and kicked some holes in walls, but never hurt anyone and never frightened Jonathan or Martha.

From a physiological standpoint, I offer this head canon: Clark's alien body absorbs and stores solar energy -- sunlight -- in a way that also makes Clark highly sensitive to light in all forms. Light is not just energy to Clark; it's sensory information that he can access via his super senses where his eyes can absorb vast levels of light and also magnify minute levels, and he can even perceive the way sound saves interact with light waves to hear small sounds and across great distances. Clark will amplify these super senses at times, but he's also living with heightened awareness in his daily life, in ways he reflexively tones down but doesn't tune out.

These super senses would give Clark an increased awareness of all the biological processes around him: when someone is hurt or sick or sad or lonely, Clark can subconsciously feel a reflected version of those sensations and emotions.

It wouldn't be to the degree where he's overwhelmed by them, and it largely manifests as super empathy and super compassion -- an innate awareness of the fragility of life around him. As a result, the young Clark, even when upset, was highly aware of how he could hurt his parents and restrained himself.

When Eric receives Clark's powers, Eric likely has the same perception of life around him being fragile -- but it manifests as contempt and dominance and as the sick pleasure of being able to inflict pain upon the people who tormented him who are now defenceless. Clark had the benefit of a loving and nurturing environment where the pain of others was met with understanding and support; Eric was raised by an abusive father who taught him that other people's pain was to be relished and to keep them in line, so his enhanced awareness of life becomes a form of superiority.

While I have a lot of issues with SMALLVILLE, for the most part, it believes that Superman's physical superpowers also come with super senses, and also super morality and super empathy. One version of Superman's comic book origin, BIRTHRIGHT, outright makes the super compassion textual by saying that Superman can see a field of light and life around all living beings and that it is emotionally and physically devastating for him when he sees that light die. For me, that's a little too overt and I would prefer it as something more subconscious yet present.

I admit, in saying the super senses can either manifest as empathy or superiority, we are back to saying that Superman could either save or conquer -- but I would also note that Tom Welling did an amazing job of showing Clark's gentleness and compassion in his performances, and his cautious screen presence certainly implies an awareness of how breakable the world is for Clark.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

I agree with all that.  I will say that in some of Landis' other videos (for example, his rewrite of the Death and Return of Superman), he does go into detail about his appreciation for Clark (the person) being one of Clark's superpowers.  When he's confronted with other Kryptonians, Clark rejects them because he sees himself as being from Kansas, not from Krypton.  Surprisingly (or, perhaps, unsurprisingly), it makes me remember how our boardmate in exile used to think about Clark and how a non-American couldn't play him. 

I do think that one of my issues with Cavill is that he never seemed to embrace his own humanity and quickly embraced his Kryptonian side when that was revealed to him.  Other versions of Clark have friends and interests on Earth and a true interest in the planet and its people.  Cavill's Clark doesn't seem to have any friends outside of Lois and turns on the planet almost immediately after she's lost to him (in the Knightmare world).  But please note that this is almost certainly not on Cavill but on American Zach Snyder who seems to misunderstand Clark (at least my understanding) on a basic level.

One of my favorite Clark moment from Smallville is this one between Bart and Clark.  Bart says that he has no reason to stay in Smallville, and Clark, very innocently, says "you have me" with so much kindness and hope in his voice.  Clark can literally do anything or go anywhere, and he's gotta make Bart feel like he's the only one on the planet at that moment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLYEExrAEJI

Or when Clark is still trying to save Lex in the series finale.  That's the Clark that I want to believe in.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

SPOILERS AHEAD FOR SUPERMAN AND LOIS EPISODE 3

====================

I enjoyed watching Jonathan get his powers finally in episode 3 of Superman and Lois. This was a close to a penultimate moment for him, and he acts a lot like his dad and is overjoyed. I did not want to see Sam Lane die. The last 30 seconds was perfect and I am glad they are not dwelling on deaths.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

It seems to me like the situation is another part of the budget reduction where some of the former cast can only be in three episodes because it's what production can afford to pay. Interestingly, on social media, this actor said that he wasn't going to be in the fourth season at all, only to later be seen in on-set photos.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

ireactions wrote:

It seems to me like the situation is another part of the budget reduction where some of the former cast can only be in three episodes because it's what production can afford to pay. Interestingly, on social media, this actor said that he wasn't going to be in the fourth season at all, only to later be seen in on-set photos.

Apparently we were supposed to get at least 7 seasons of Superman and Lois until James Gunn entered the picture.

Le sigh. What could have been.....

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

I don't know if there was any "supposed to". Most major network shows, studios and creators will hope for seven seasons of a TV show by default as an ideal point for streaming and broadcast sales for ad revenue and subscription earnings.

I can assure you that, no matter what the CW says, James Gunn did not get SUPERMAN AND LOIS cancelled. Ever since CW was purchased by Nexstar, there has been a mass cancellation of their scripted programming that operates at a higher price point than what the CW now prefers.

This network couldn't keep THE WINCHESTERS or WALKER: TEXAS RANGER on the air at this new budget ceiling, and SUPERMAN AND LOIS was the most expensive show on the CW. Its budget-reduced, truncated return for a fourth and final season was all the CW was willing to pay. Gunn did not shut this series down; the CW did.

1,653 (edited by QuinnSlidr 2024-10-20 11:19:01)

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

Brad Schwartz of the CW actually said this:

Following the February announcement, Schwartz clarified that the series was cancelled due to James Gunn’s Superman. “They don’t want a competing Superman product in the marketplace,” he stated to TheWrap.

In spite of the ironic titling of this article...

https://www.superherohype.com/news/5854 … james-gunn

===========================

Don't get me wrong. I'm still gonna give the James Gunn version of Superman a chance. I just wish that there was the ability to have Superman & Lois run as well. There can be two different versions/universes showing at the same time.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

I think Brad Schwartz is saving face with an untruth. The reality, from what I can tell, is that James Gunn could have wholeheartedly and totally supported more seasons of SUPERMAN AND LOIS and the CW would have still been reluctant to pay for it with their new budget reductions. When the CW can't even keep THE WINCHESTERS and WALKER: TEXAS RANGER going, it's going to struggle with SUPERMAN AND LOIS.

I'm also doubtful that James Gunn would have even been able to stop SUPERMAN AND LOIS if the CW were inclined to order another season. Gunn may certainly be in charge of in-house WB film and TV projects, but a CW Superman show comes from the CW network purchasing the licensing rights to Superman for a period of time with options to extend, and I can't imagine the CW not locking in those extensions even if they may waive them.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

I don't love the version of Lex on Superman & Lois.  I don't buy that this is Lex Luthor, and he doesn't feel like any version of the character that I recognize.  He doesn't seem like he's all that smart.  He's ruthless and physically imposing, but that's about it.

Rosenbaum will always be my favorite Lex, but between Eisenberg, Cryer, and Cudlitz, I feel like we've lost who Lex Luthor is supposed to be.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

It's interesting. Rosenbaum's version of Lex Luthor was pretty unusual among Lex Luthors.

I've never seen the SUPERBOY series. But across Gene Hackman, John Shea, Clancy Brown, Jesse Eisenberg, Michael Rosenbaum, and that other one, the main elements of Luthor is that he is an egocentric, self-serving con artist dedicated to amassing wealth and power, who guises his confidence game in different guises.

Hackman guised his con (destroying populated areas to create real estate) in flair and costumes and not much else. He was a huckster version of Luthor.

John Shea guised his con (sabotaging federal and municipal projects so Lexcorp could 'rescue' them at a price) in an extravagant arrogance and a facade of fair play that masked a petty, bitter, vindictive, and eventually deranged personality. After Clark and the Daily Planet destroy the Luthor empire at the end of LOIS AND CLARK's first season, Luthor is reduced to a homeless madman living in a sewer with his only ambition being to marry Lois Lane even if he has to brainwash her into walking down the aisle.

Clancy Brown guised his con (technology that would defend the human race made while destroying any competition) in philanthropic futurism, a mask for how the only future Luthor cared about was his own dominance and superiority and mastery of all other life.

Jon Cryer guised his con (exploiting human racism against aliens) with a fake redemption story and extravagant charisma that eventually gives way to his only priority being his ego and his grudges.

Jesse Eisenberg guised his con (calling aliens out as threats for other heroes to destroy) in a guise of geeky, chatty analysis and humanism, but when he murders his own assistant to maneuver Batman to fight Superman, it's clear that he simply enjoys seeing people fight each other on his behalf.

Then we have Michael Rosenbaum, who noticeably played Lex instead of Luthor. Lex's character is defined for me across several scenes over the series. The first is in "Cool", where Lex tells Martha he's hosting a gathering of local farmers at the Luthor mansion to discuss investing in them. Martha and Jonathan attend and find: no other farmers are present. Lex invited only them. Lex expresses his wish to invest in the failing Kent farm so they can buy advanced farming equipment, vastly increase their harvests, for which Lex would take a profit.

Jonathan protests, saying the Kent farm is a family business that never took outside help. Lex hands Jonathan a file revealing that Hiram Kent, father to Jonathan, accepted numerous government subsidies in lean years. "Why are you so interested in our family, Lex?!" Jonathan sputters, incensed at this intrusion.

"Your son brought me back from the dead," Lex answers, sincere in his gratitude for how Clark saved Lex from a car accident and performed CPR when Lex had stopped breathing.

Lex is sincere... but note how his approach is intrusive and domineering. He lures the Kents to his home under false pretenses. He deliberately creates a situation where he has more information on them than they do on him. He establishes a position of superiority where, despite claiming he would only be an investor, his dominance is absolute. Lex is taken aback when Jonathan turns him down.

Lex doesn't know how to create a relationship of equality and trust with the Kents. He doesn't realize that, to be a friend, he should simply be present and available, rather than trying to control and maneuver them. It never occurs to him to write up his offer, send the Kents a polite letter, assure them the offer is always open, and to simply be a good buddy. He has to be in charge. But Lex can't and won't see it, and his guise of empowering investment is in fact a con -- for himself. Lex has convinced himself that he is a servant of the world when the truth is, it's simply a facade over his actual goals.

In "Lexmas", Lex declares his worldview: "What I want more than anything is to live happily ever after. And do you know what the secret to happiness is? Power. Money and power. Once you have those two things, you can secure everything else." This culminates in Lex hiring a hypnotist to engineer a breakup between Clark and Lana, followed by Lex dating Lana and engineering her alienation from all her friends, then having her injected with drugs that make her experience all the symptoms of pregnancy to induce her to marry him. Lex needs everyone in his life to be totally dependent upon him and give up all their secrets to him.

In "Descent", after killing Lionel Luthor, there is an angry confrontation between Clark and Lex. Clark accuses Lex of only caring about power and control. "This is Smallville!" Lex sputters. "Meteor freaks! Alien ships! Cryptic symbols! Someone has to protect the world!" Lex further accuses Clark, not incorrectly, of causing Jonathan Kent's death. "Why did Jonathan Kent always look so tired?" Lex says cruelly. "Was raising the perfect son really that much work?"

This is a conflation where Lex has woven lies and truth to present a self-flattering image of himself as the wronged party.  But the truth is, Lex has experimented on meteor mutants to create weapons for sale and power to enrich himself. He doesn't care about protecting the world. And Lex knows that Jonathan loved Clark wholeheartedly whereas Lionel always held Lex at a distance.

We come to the endpoint of Lex's denial: he takes control of the Fortress in the Arctic and confronts Clark, declaring, "You didn't trust me with everything you had!" Lex activates a Kryptonian Orb that he believes will grant him control over Clark -- instead, it causes the Fortress to collapse with Lex inside. When we next see Lex: his body was crushed and frostbitten so badly that his face has been seared away; he's immobile in a chair; he's dependent upon cardiopulmonary bypass and a ventilator just to survive; he's using a voice synthesizer just to speak. The charisma of Michael Rosenbaum has been sheared off by ice and hate.

Lex confronts Clark and Lana and declares, "Clark Kent and Lana Lang. You've destroyed me in every possible way." Except -- it was Lex who triggered the collapse of the Fortress when Clark begged him not to and Lana wasn't even there.

Lex's self-deception is how he guises his con; he has conned himself into thinking he is the world's saviour and it's only other people who steered him to a dark path.

So, Michael Cudlitz? He's Luthor with Clancy Brown's dominating approach, with a measure of Rosenbaum's self-righteous self-deception and the attitude that nothing is ever his fault, and any fault he assigns to others must be punished. But there are none of the charismatic layers that the Cryer and Rosenbaum brought to the role, only the underlying brutality which has become the text rather the subtext.

But to be fair, this is who Lex Luthor is once you strip away the veneer of charm and intelligence. Lex is a thug.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

Interesting analysis.  I guess, to me, I see Lex as a genius more than anything else.  I see genius intellect being Lex's superpower and his flaw being his frustration with that not being enough.  I think of it as the smart nerd in high school who is constantly frustrated that the cool jock gets all the friends and all the girls.  Being the best at science should trump being the best at football.

With Cudlitz, I see a guy who's pretty smart (creating/controlling Doomsday was effective - taking control of his destiny in jail required smarts) but he's more like a different jock who is mad at the better jock.  I feel like Rosenbaum (and Brown) are ten steps ahead of everyone and only lose because they underestimate other people's smarts or one small fatal flaw.  I feel like Cudlitz is maybe one step ahead and loses because he hasn't fully thought everything through.  I think he's been an effective villain but don't see that villain being Lex Luthor.

Your analysis of Rosenbaum is good though.  I always thought of Lex as someone who desperately wanted to be loved, and it just drove him to be kind of crazy.  That he realized he could never get the love he wants with brains alone, but he could get money and power pretty easily with brains alone.  So he took the path of least resistance and hoped that the money and power would be enough to make up for it.  Or at least make up for his shortcomings.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

I agree that Lex in most depictions is a genius. For me, the conman part of his personality dominates, but I can see why you'd go with genius.

Lex (Rosenbaum) wants to be loved. But part of being a good friend and earning the love of others -- and it took me way too long to learn this -- is to be present without being controlling. It means you're not going to strong-arm people into anything; they have to make their own decisions themselves, and you're simply standing by even if they don't choose to come to you in that moment (or ever).

But Lex exerts crazy amounts of pressure to try to bend friends to do what he thinks is best for them (and him) and he turns love into hatred. Lex is completely unwilling to confront his own role in this repeated dynamic. Lex insists that manipulating people into seeing him as their benefactor and savior is heroic and self-sacrificing, even though that heroism is often fraudulent and the sacrifices are self-induced suffering.

The most revealing moment about Lex for me, strangely -- is a scene where he isn't even present. It's in "Bulletproof", where Lana learns that Lex was horrifically injured by 250 tonnes of ice collapsing on him and is depending on his team building a supersuit, via Project Prometheus, to restore his paralyzed and frostbite ravaged body to full health and give him superpowers.

Lana steals all the project files, Tess pursues Lana with a gun, and Lana gets the upper hand and reveals something terrible to Tess: when Tess was injured in an explosion, Lex saved Tess' life with a surgical team -- but he had implanted into Tess a nanotransmitter connected to Tess' optic nerve, enabling Lex to see everything through her eyes at any time. "He's watching us now," Lana tells Tess.

The fact that Lex decided to surveil Tess by hijacking her eyes reveals a pathological need for total control of others at all times in all ways. This is a deeply disturbed human being who doesn't believe anyone could ever love or even like him. He monitors them to this absolute degree to see if they're still loyal or if they'll turn on him. He needs to position them into subservience under his dominance. He treats Tess as a tool for his own use with total disregard her individuality or autonomy.

Cudlitz is just the same. He doesn't care about his daughter except as a thinly moral justification for lashing out at the Kents. She's just a possession that he considers stolen so that he can have an excuse for his aggression. He's Lex without Michael Rosenbaum's air of intelligence and charisma.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

I was really moved by Clark surrendering to the evitable and not using time travel or a body double and such to undo the latest change to his life... but I wonder what it means, practically, now that everyone has Superman's home address. It's possible we'll just never have to deal with it as the show is so close to its final hours.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

ireactions wrote:

I was really moved by Clark surrendering to the evitable and not using time travel or a body double and such to undo the latest change to his life... but I wonder what it means, practically, now that everyone has Superman's home address.

I'm sure it will come up, and it will be interesting to see how it's handled.  This isn't exactly like Tony Stark giving out his address in Iron Man 3.  People aren't going to come after Superman, and if they did, Superman and his super sons can probably handle it.  The one who's in real danger is Lois, and I'm not sure how you handle that.  But people already know that Lois is under the protection of Superman, and it keeps people away from her instead of inspiring people to go after her.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

I guess it's possible that no one is dumb enough to launch a missile at the Kent Farm.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

I finally got to catch up on the latest Superman and Lois episode 7. Wow. What an incredible reveal. Superman obviously had no choice.

This has to be one of the greatest moments in the DC universe.

I absolutely love Tyler Hoechlin as Superman. David Corenswet has some big shoes to fill in the upcoming James Gunn Superman universe.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

QuinnSlidr wrote:

I finally got to catch up on the latest Superman and Lois episode 7. Wow. What an incredible reveal. Superman obviously had no choice.

I mean did he?  I like the reveal from a narrative perspective because I think it opens up some interesting ideas for the last three episodes, but did he really have to reveal it to the whole world?  It seems like the secret was out in Smallville, but this wasn't a situation where J. Jonah Jameson revealed Peter Parker's identity to the world.  A lot of people in Smallville knew about Clark, but they were keeping the secret.  No one rushed out to sell the secret to the Daily Planet or the Inquisitor or anything.  No one was really blackmailing him.  Even the guy with the gun wasn't looking for money or anything - he just wanted Clark to admit it.

Now maybe it would've exploded and he would've eventually had to do it, but I think a measured response would've been for Clark to reveal the secret to Smallville and trust them to keep it.  Then the boys could have a normal life in the town, and Clark wouldn't have to hide.  Again, maybe that wouldn't have been enough, but it was enough up until that point.  So I think maybe Clark could've taken a smaller step and revealed himself to fewer people and tried things that way.

And maybe if this wasn't the last season, they would've gone in that direction first.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

I don't know what small town Slider_Quinn21 lives in where the entire populace could keep a secret like Clark Kent being Superman from reaching the rest of the world in this day and age, but I would like to live there.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

ireactions wrote:

I don't know what small town Slider_Quinn21 lives in where the entire populace could keep a secret like Clark Kent being Superman from reaching the rest of the world in this day and age, but I would like to live there.

I completely agree, but within the confines of the show, we were already there, right?  The whole town essentially knew.  I know the Kents were treating it like it was only a couple people here and there, but even if that's true, those people were keeping the secret.  The secret wasn't getting out.  Even when Clark revealed himself to everyone in the diner, Clark still had time to arrange a nationally televised interview to announce the secret himself. 

That means for an entire day (at least), an entire diner full of people who literally saw Clark Kent turn into Superman (in full costume) didn't blab on social media about it.  No one took out their phones and uploaded a video to Instagram.  The secret was being kept.  So I really don't think it's that much of a leap to say that if Superman stood in front of the town and politely asked them to keep his secret and protect it from others, I have to assume they would.

I agree that it's not super realistic, but it probably wasn't realistic that the girl at the convenience store would keep the secret either.  Or even the old lady that Lex tried to buy the farm from.  Candice's dad sure as heck wouldn't have kept it.

And we see this kind of thing in sci-fi all the time.  A town with a secret, and they all band together to keep it.  Whether it's witches or vampires or whatever.  From Supernatural to X-Files to Doom Patrol to Hot Fuzz.  That's what I'm thinking.  A town that's pretty closed off from the rest of the world that would band together to keep a big secret.  I don't see how this would be that much crazier than any of that.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

In a world of smartphone cameras, YouTube, and Smallville having at least one petty criminal, I do not see how Clark's secret could have stayed secret.

THE X-FILES was a 90s show in a very internet-limited era. SUPERNATURAL started in 2005, and it was an era of talk and text phones and low resolution web video; it was not fit for documentarians or plausible revelations. Also, monsters were not sufficiently mainstream and hadn't made major media appearances. It was only in 2008 that YouTube offered HD video streaming; it was only 2011 that the iPhone could film in 1080p video.

Superman, however, is an in-universe global icon in an era of even $200 smartphones being able to film 4K video and upload them to YouTube, and the SUPERMAN AND LOIS series began in 2021 and high definition web video has been a plot element. I don't think Superman can keep a secret identity in a small town in this era; once the town knew, it was going to leak and the world would know.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

ireactions wrote:

I don't think Superman can keep a secret identity in a small town in this era; once the town knew, it was going to leak and the world would know.

But like I said, no one blabbed it.  Not the young woman who's almost certainly active on social media.  Not the old lady who could use the money.  Not the high school football coach who seems starved for attention.  Not the drunk ex-con who wanted an explanation more than money or fame.  When Clark appears in costume in the Smallville diner, no one seems to take out their phone and film anything, and no one seems to have released that footage to the public prior to Clark making his announcement.

I agree that it's beyond belief, but it's the reality of the show.  No one told anyone the secret outside of town.  Obviously expanding that beyond a handful of people puts the secret in jeopardy, but it would be better than telling the whole world.  And Clark could easily explain that a) the town owes him this and b) if people found out, their town would be overrun.  Which is what episode 8 is about.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

I think it would have happened eventually. A jealous football player would have leaked a video, an ex-con with an axe to grind would have posted something just to lash out and strike back. Not everyone in Smallville is an angel. Someone was going to film something and post something. All it takes is one person with a grudge and a phone.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

Oh I agree, and I think that's where the narrative would've gone.  It would've gone from Clark keeping the secret to the family keeping the secret to his expanded family to the town to the whole world. 

I think there's some narrative potential in Clark trusting Smallville to keep his secret.  I don't know if this idea fully works, but I think you could do a POV episode where paranormal detective analogues (maybe like Sam and Dean, maybe like Mulder and Scully) come into town because they've heard something strange is happening in Smallville.  The town seems nice at first as they run into the Kents and some of the other characters on the show.  But people are dodgy when certain questions are asked.  Nervous.  Suspicious.  Then weird things happen.  Fires mysteriously go out.  Cars on a collision course suddenly don't collide.  A weird streak appears in the sky.  And something happens that causes them to leave town, but those characters are our focus the whole episode.  I think it could be fun.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

On a podcast, Mark Guggenheim was asked: why didn't the CRISIS finale episode show the SMALLVILLE universe to confirm that Clark and Lois were still alive and well and not destroyed?

Mark Guggenheim:

Why didn’t we have SMALLVILLE? I’ll be honest with you. I think it was two reasons.

Number 1: it never occurred to me until I got the question on Twitter that people think we did blow up the SMALLVILLE universe. So part of it was that, and part of it was, we had obviously seen Clark and Lois in episode 2. For the most part, the ‘going around the horn’ was to see all the universes and all the characters that we didn’t get to see.

If I could have done it all over again, it would be awesome to just have a shot of Lois and Clark on the farm, kissing, for the go-around-the-horn-sequence. But yeah, sorry, I dropped the ball on that!

We only had Tom for a few hours, but also, here's the thing: under SAG rules, an actor don't get paid by the amount of time they spend on set. They get paid by the number of episodes they are in. So if Tom was contracted for episode 2, and if Tom appeared in episode 5, that would trigger a completely different payment.

We certainly didn’t have the money for that, but that really wasn’t a factor. It, quite frankly, just didn’t occur to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nESsjqA … rseOfColor

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

Despite a budget-strapped season, SUPERMAN AND LOIS has been pretty solid and effective at making the isolated episodes with lavish effects feel spectacular enough that the quieter, cheaper episodes are also okay.

There's a lot more happening that I hope to type about in the next few days.

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

This teaser was posted to Twitter today to the official Superman & Lois account. I wonder who the guest star might be...hmmmmm....

https://x.com/SupermanLoisTV/status/1862960138568745415

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

Probably not Allison Mack!

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024)

ireactions wrote:

Probably not Allison Mack!

Definitely not! LOL