o\-< o|-= o/-< o|-= o\-< [Liam]
my tastes as a media consumer, part 1
I've been watching a lot of Smallville lately.
It's nothing as groundbreaking as Lost: Season 1, but in many ways I think I'm actually enjoying this show more. The title is appropriate in that while Clark Kent is the main character, it's not really focused on being a show about Superman as it is about the circumstances that produced Superman. Some of the supporting characters are pretty good, especially young Lex Luthor (Michael Rosenbaum) , early journalism mentor/classmate Chloe Sullivan (Allison Mack), and Jonathan Kent (John Schneider). Young Clark Kent (Tom Welling) himself is portrayed a bit woodenly, but it's convincing nonetheless because save for some obligatory teen angst he usually plays straight man to his more animated supporting cast, and besides that Supes himself is a fairly straightforward guy in DC lore. Also acted more conservatively is the character of Lana Lang (Kristin Kreuk, whose obvious hapa features are never explained with so much as an asian mailman, something that constantly threatens to disrupt the believability of the show when i'm watching) who if nothing else works well in the context of the show.
The first season drags a bit, largely adhering to a cookie-cutter formula in which a new character gains kryptonite-based superpowers from meteor rocks scattered around the town and becomes an evil version of some highschool stereotype. Typically Clark and friends investigate, and then Clark finds a way to covertly use his powers to confront the threat, in the process unintentionally disappointing Lana or Chloe's romantic intentions for him. Part of the show's strength, though, comes from this adherence to formula; it's like the Saturday morning fare our generation was raised on, complete with the "Smallville Torch" newspaper office acting as a clubhouse for the gang to compare notes. As the show progresses and we get a better feel for where everyone stands the plot gets more imaginitive, and in the second season they basically drop the formula altogether for the majority of the episodes. The single-episode conflicts still drive the story, but in terms of screen time they give more and more ground to the season-long plotlines developing between the main characters.
Here's the thing with this show; the most consistently engaging piece of lore for the vast majority of superheroes is the origin story. Smallville is, at its core, possibly the most in-depth superhero origin story ever produced. The Superman franchise (one of the most recognizable but easily-taken-for-granted icons in American popular culture) contains a wealth of material to introduce or re-examine through the vehicle of this show-- notable themes include the concept of nurture versus nature in Lex and Clarks' upbringing, the idea that Clark's Kryptonian parents intended for him to conquer Earth, and the evolution of a functional "secret identity" as employed by Clark/Superman later in life.
I rike.
I've been watching a lot of Smallville lately.
It's nothing as groundbreaking as Lost: Season 1, but in many ways I think I'm actually enjoying this show more. The title is appropriate in that while Clark Kent is the main character, it's not really focused on being a show about Superman as it is about the circumstances that produced Superman. Some of the supporting characters are pretty good, especially young Lex Luthor (Michael Rosenbaum) , early journalism mentor/classmate Chloe Sullivan (Allison Mack), and Jonathan Kent (John Schneider). Young Clark Kent (Tom Welling) himself is portrayed a bit woodenly, but it's convincing nonetheless because save for some obligatory teen angst he usually plays straight man to his more animated supporting cast, and besides that Supes himself is a fairly straightforward guy in DC lore. Also acted more conservatively is the character of Lana Lang (Kristin Kreuk, whose obvious hapa features are never explained with so much as an asian mailman, something that constantly threatens to disrupt the believability of the show when i'm watching) who if nothing else works well in the context of the show.
The first season drags a bit, largely adhering to a cookie-cutter formula in which a new character gains kryptonite-based superpowers from meteor rocks scattered around the town and becomes an evil version of some highschool stereotype. Typically Clark and friends investigate, and then Clark finds a way to covertly use his powers to confront the threat, in the process unintentionally disappointing Lana or Chloe's romantic intentions for him. Part of the show's strength, though, comes from this adherence to formula; it's like the Saturday morning fare our generation was raised on, complete with the "Smallville Torch" newspaper office acting as a clubhouse for the gang to compare notes. As the show progresses and we get a better feel for where everyone stands the plot gets more imaginitive, and in the second season they basically drop the formula altogether for the majority of the episodes. The single-episode conflicts still drive the story, but in terms of screen time they give more and more ground to the season-long plotlines developing between the main characters.
Here's the thing with this show; the most consistently engaging piece of lore for the vast majority of superheroes is the origin story. Smallville is, at its core, possibly the most in-depth superhero origin story ever produced. The Superman franchise (one of the most recognizable but easily-taken-for-granted icons in American popular culture) contains a wealth of material to introduce or re-examine through the vehicle of this show-- notable themes include the concept of nurture versus nature in Lex and Clarks' upbringing, the idea that Clark's Kryptonian parents intended for him to conquer Earth, and the evolution of a functional "secret identity" as employed by Clark/Superman later in life.
I rike.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home