SV and morality

Mar 09, 2008 23:21

This topic came up, and I was kinda curious as to how everyone else viewed it as well. My question is, when it comes to the morality of this show how do you, as a viewer, see it? Is it different than what you expected? And if so, how ( Read more... )

lex luthor, smallville, clark kent

Leave a comment

Comments 9

(The comment has been removed)

pep_singer March 10 2008, 07:32:22 UTC
//SV has seriously crossed some lines, partly due to the vibe that it wants Clark to have all the adulation of an absolute white hat without actually BEING one. //

See, I think that Clark has been moral ambiguous, and the show has recognized it. I don't think they want Clark being a "white hat" so much because I do think it contradicts what the dicotomy of the Clex relationship they set out to show.

Reply


juxtoppozed March 10 2008, 06:07:38 UTC
Smallville has a lot of rich ethical questions but it doesn't scratch too deeply below the surface on these issues. And I honestly can't imagine Clark being any other way, unless we followed a sheltered farm kid (think Superman movies) who wasn't solving/facing problems, saving people, and dealing with his crazy genealogical or personal life at quite a young age. Other incarnations was "oh here's Clark Kent living the quiet idyllic farm life with two elderly farmers" then he's superman. So to introduce these problems into his life as early as 14? Yeah, we were going to see a more nuanced, layered Clark Kent--and I wouldn't have it any other way. I don't want an emotionally retarded Clark that can't negotiate sticky ethical issues and can't empathize with people ( ... )

Reply

pep_singer March 10 2008, 08:11:09 UTC
//So to introduce these problems into his life as early as 14? Yeah, we were going to see a more nuanced, layered Clark Kent--and I wouldn't have it any other way. I don't want an emotionally retarded Clark that can't negotiate sticky ethical issues and can't empathize with people ( ... )

Reply

juxtoppozed March 10 2008, 09:17:32 UTC
And really...I'm not even sure what "white" and "black" is supposed to be. Seriously, if Clark's routine crises are no where near "white" or "black" then how can we demand a simple, clear cut, fairy tale solution? I guess I just don't understand the basic idea, at all. Just in his personal life alone, he's had to deal with someone who was abused, cloned, etc by someone in their circle and decided to retaliate. What "black"/"white" way is there to deal with that? When Lex turned a soldier into an assassin and that soldier was going to deal a death blow to Clark (then probably kill Lois, and anyone else next on Lex's list), was Clark supposed to die rather than ward it off? People didn't like that situation but it was realistic, and I liked that smallville went there. There is no clean situation in that case, and it didn't pretend there was. It's just about making do, doing the best he can in a convoluted situation. Clark doing his very best and choosing the highest ground possible in a given situation is what makes him special. Most * ( ... )

Reply

pep_singer March 11 2008, 01:34:09 UTC
//There is no clean situation in that case, and it didn't pretend there was. It's just about making do, doing the best he can in a convoluted situation. Clark doing his very best and choosing the highest ground possible in a given situation is what makes him special. Most *heroes*, let alone normal people, would have let a menace like Lex die scores of times over from his own backfired plans; Clark refuses to do that no matter the consequences. //

Exactly, and I think this says a lot for his compassion.

//The availability of the essential choice is *not* at all unique to Clark, it's there for *everyone* to make--it is Clark who is the unique factor here, willingly assuming that massive responsibility. //

This is an *excellent* point. The chance of devoting your life to helping others isn't really a new concept. However, very few choose to do so, and that's what makes Clark's choice so epic, moving, and selfless.

Reply


frelling_tralk March 10 2008, 15:32:42 UTC
I've always seen SV as very conservative. I think the season 1 companion says something about wanting to attract the 7th Heaven audience, and I've heard that's quite a religious show in America?

I really can't take the Kent's seriously in that respect, although the younger characters are allowed to be more interestingly flawed obviously

Reply

chiri_chan March 10 2008, 16:27:53 UTC
7th Heaven also for a while had a large considered "family friendly" target audience. Back in the early seasons when SV was considered "family fair" it had about the best ratings it could - because it was something that "anyone" could watch. When SV got sexified later on and pretty dark, that's when people started tuning out, leading most to think people as families were watching 'that Superman show' and then left when it wasn't as Supermanly as they'd though ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up