Time Travel Device: H.G. Wells’ Time Machine
Time Travel Outcome/Purpose: To kill Superman/Clark Kent
Coolness Factor: Getting to see Clark Kent/Superman’s story from the beginning. Lane Davies as Tempus.
Flaws: Not really a flaw since Lois & Clark is such a blatantly campy show, but I (Kate) have never really gone along with the idea that Superman is not only super-strong but SO smart, he can build a time machine from plans in a few seconds.
Paradox: Totally the Grandfather paradox (indirectly) since Tempus presupposes that he would still be around once Superman’s utopia is destroyed. But in reality, without the utopia, Tempus’ existence is not a guarantee.
Season 4: "Twas the Night Before Myxmas"
Time Travel Device: There's that loop again! (In this case, the loop does have an origin or source, which it doesn’t in many other episodes/movies we’ve watched for this list.)
Time Travel Outcome/Purpose: To demoralize the world/get rid of Superman.
Coolness Factor: Love those Christmas episodes!
Flaws: Not to be cynical but Lois' "unthawing" seems a tad convenient.
Paradox: Loop
Kate says this is one show I own all four seasons of. It is unbelievably adorable. Dean Cain as the everyday American boy who happens to be a superhero is exactly my idea of Superman. Teri Hatcher is one of the few Loises that doesn’t drive me crazy; in fact she's very sweet. Martha and Jonathan Kent are the perfect parents. I could keep going about all the other characters . . .
The show is funny, spoofy, campy, clever, touching, insightful. I could keep going . . .
"Tempus Fugitive" is one of my favorites although, in this case, it is a favorite not for the regular stars but for the best guest star ever! That voice! That sarcasm!
There are too many great Lane Davies’ lines to list them all, but here is one (towards the beginning):
Tempus: Well, this is a special pleasure, Ms. Lane. I'm Tempus. I'm from the future that you and Superman created.Setting aside the great fun of Tempus, the episode is important because Lois not knowing Clark is Superman gets pretty old. The creators do have Lois find out in Season 3, but even by the middle of Season 2, it was getting exasperating. This episode is a nice “hey, she knows, no, she doesn’t!” break.
Lois: Me and Superman?
Tempus: A world of peace. A world with no greed or crime. A world so boring you'd blow your brains out, but there are no guns.
"Twas the Night Before Myxmas" is far more heavy on the theme than "Tempus Fugitive." As a "redeeming Scrooge" type tale, it is pretty good, but it also illustrates some of the flaws of the last season. Once Lois & Clark got married, the episodes got downright squishy with sentiment. On the one hand, I think squishy sentiment is underrated: I love a happy ending! On the other, how much work would it really have taken to give the plots more plausibility? So many plots in Season 4 are resolved through Lois & Clark's love which is nice but not really conflict-inducing.
Still, "Twas the Night" does have some nice elements embedded in the loop (the shrinking tree for example). The script-writing may have been overly sentimental but the episode isn't lazy.
Final note: One thing I really like about Lois & Clark is the emphasis on Clark as the "real" personality: "Superman is what I can do. Clark is who I am." I’ve never been able to relate to the version of Superman that emphasizes the god-aspect of the man rather than the human aspect. I'm always appreciated that Clark/Superman has to struggle with decisions in this show. You aren't sure what he will decide!
Mike says no, no, I'm full, really. Thank you, but I've had all the cheese and corn I can stand. Anymore, and my head will explode. Dang it, I said NO! If you haven't guessed from my very clever and witty retort, I was a little overwhelmed by the camp and sentiment of these episodes. HOLY COW! I really don't remember this show being that painful to watch!
I too love Lois and Clark, and I, like Kate, own the entire series. As a teenager, it was one of those shows everyone was talking about Monday morning. I, the biggest comic fan in the school, never could join in because my mother HAD to watch America's Funniest Home Videos (which was on at the same time). *Sigh*
Having rewatched the show just a couple years ago, it was surprising how much I'd forgotten of these episodes. Both are great for our discussion on time travel. That "Night before Myxmas" actually defines a time loop while showing one is also fairly cool.
"Tempus Fugitive" covers so much ground, and the idea behind it is so epic in scale, I was shocked that it was just a hour episode. It is a busy, compact forty-five minutes, and Tempus makes it a fun ride.
One thing I like a lot is the idea of Clark keeping the knowledge of his own timeline, and being able to interpret the changes, such as the great bank hiest. Very cool stuff. The idea that Tempus would happen to run into Jesse James? Phfffffft. Well, if a man in tights can fly, and HG Wells can show up with a time machine, then yeah, I guess Jesse James could have been in Smallville that day. I guess. But I agree with what Kate said about meeting famous people in her review of Man From Earth:
"Why is it that people with past lives or people who have lived forever always have to know famous people? Why don't they just know that guy who ran the fish stand in Istanbul? Why aren't their day planners filled with 'Bobs' and 'Jills' rather than Columbus and Attila the Hun? Even if I lived 10,000 years, I doubt my circle would enlarge to include Hollywood magnets and political personalities..."
This is easily applied to Time Travel. While it's more likely you'll meet someone if you time travel specifically to meet them, I think celebrities were just as hard to find then as they are now.
Anyway, a fun episode, and while it explored a Lois that knew Clark's secret, it was quick to restore the status quo.
"The Night Before MyxMas" was . . . painful. Kate is right in saying that the fourth season oozed sentiment (so much in fact, I find myself occasionally cleaning up the puddle of sentiment that pools around the DVD stand where I keep my copy of the fourth season). Lois and Clark were married, happy, and the show could no longer run on pure sexual tension and the will they/won't they cliff hangers. The show had two choices: go real, or go cheesy. As a result of the producers' choice, there have been more mice-related thefts of season four of Lois and Clark from stores and homes than any other TV season, EVER.
Sorry, I'm very tangent prone tonight. Anyway, the episode is cute, but that's about it. I do like the idea of the people in the loop feeling its effects despite not being aware of it (though, to justify the changes in people and surroundings, it would have to be a loop of a couple days, instead of a few hours). The tree and Jimmy's girlfriend are great visual cues to help the viewer understand when they are in the loop, and the progression of despair everyone is feeling.
Mr Myx (I don't feel like googling the name and cutting and pasting right now) is played well by Howie Mandell, and I can understand why they choose him for the part. The comic version of Myx wasn't really one for world domination... he just REALLY liked annoying Superman. Still, his inclusion here is clever.
Overall, it really is the hokey feelings and mushiness of the episode (and that's really saying something considering this is a CHRISTMAS episode) that makes it hard to watch. But the trick used to send back Myx? Very Funny.
7 comments:
And you're right, Kate. Lois unfreezing was VERY convenient. As was her remembering the last loop! Kind of lazy writing on the part of the script writer.
Thinking about Season 4: on the one hand, I admire the producers for (1) getting Lois & Clark together and (2) keeping the premise that Lois & Clark are fated to be together (this is implied heavily from Day 1). Lois, specifically, is touted as the best human woman ever to handle marriage to a god-like superhero. In a Season 3 episode (Tempus shows up again!), Lois has to convince a Clark from a different time-line to BE Superman. It is very cool how she places the needs of society and Clark over the drippy/sentimental needs of the love match.
And it is very cool that Season 4 isn't filled with TWO BILLION FIGHTS ("Why can't you stay?! Why do you have to go help that village in South America survive an earthquake?!").
But it's a huge pity the writers couldn't have "kept it real" as Mike says. Some Bones-Booth acerbity would have gone a long way! It was there!! In the first season, Clark's Booth-like acceptance of Lois' crazy risk-taking (and kind amusement over her bossiness) keeps the show running very nicely.
Granted, in Season 4, Lois & Clark were still in the honeymoon stage, but for the sake of television, it would have nice if the writers had skipped straight to the "old married couple" stage.
Hi Kate & Mike,
I apologise if my comments are too far afield!
I haven't watched "Lois & Clark", although I might check in to it after reading your reviews. Did either of you ever watch "the other" Superman show, "Smallville"?
I really liked this show in the beginning. They tried to look at Superman when he was still a high school kid while he was still "Clark Kent" and while he was just learning about his super powers. Not being a huge comics fan, I didn't mind the "license" they took with the original story (like calling Kryptonite "meteor rock" - remember, they are imagining a time before Clark knew all of his history).
One of the things you say about Lois - about her not being a very "attractive" character. I agree. In the Superman movies I couldn't really understand what Clark saw in her. She appeared to me to be completely out for herself.
In "Smallville" we have the earlier romance in Clark's life with Lana Lane. The Lana character is much more appealing than the Lois character. But the real surprise is the introduction of a completely new character, Chloe. Chloe is a pre-cursor to the Lois character. She is the head reporter of the school's newspaper and therefore has the motivation to find out what is going on around town (which gives the plot a reason that she and Clark would interact so much). Chloe falls in love with Clark, but Clark only has eyes for Lana. I'm sure the writers just wanted to create the typical childhood story of unrequited love, but the character of Chloe (or perhaps the actress who portrayed her) developed in to a far more appealing love interest than Lana!
There was a line in the episode named "Fever" in season 2. Clark is ill and has fallen asleep on the couch. Chloe happens by and finds him there sleeping and says this:
"I want to let you in on a secret: I'm not who you think I am. In fact, my disguise is so thin; I'm surprised you haven't seen right though me."
"I'm the girl of your dreams, masquerading as your best friend."
"Sometimes I want to rip off this facade like I did at the Spring Formal, but I can't because you'll get scared and you'll run away again. So, I decided it was better to live with a lie than expose my true feelings. It's so much easier when you're unconscious."
"My dad told me there are two types of girls: the ones you grow out of and the ones you grow in to."
"I really hope I'm the latter."
"I may not be the one you love today, but I'll let you go for now, hoping one day you'll fly right back to me -- because I think you're worth the wait."
Perhaps I'm sappy, but I think that is one of the best lines of any romantic movie I've seen! Perhaps you have to watch the scene and know the characters before it makes much of an impact on you.
Would this series be of any interest to your video club?
R in Seattle
I'll leave Smallville analysis to Mike, who is the expert!
Thank for linking that, Kate! I saw R's comment a couple days ago, and I was trying to think of how to condense my feelings for the show into a small package! The finale review, I think, will really fill you in on my general thoughts of the show. I liked it a lot, and got very excited at different points in the show. However, the show had so many flaws that I was rather disgusted and disappointed by the time it ended.
Hi Kate and Mike,
I just finished watching the first season of "Lois and Clark".
I found that I liked it, with certain qualifications.
I liked the lead characters played by Dean Cain and Teri Hatcher. I thought that they were interesting and believable in their roles. I also liked the character of Perry White played by Lane Smith (I have seen Lane Smith in the "From the Earth to the Moon" series and liked him in that as well).
However, I thought that the casting was a bit uneven. For example, I didn't think that John Shea was a good choice for the character of Lex Luthor. He didn't seem menacing at all. He simply wasn't believable as someone to be feared.
I also wasn't impressed with the characters of Clark's parents. This might not be the fault of the actors as much as the writers. I don't think their characters were fleshed out very well. I didn't see any interaction that made me believe that they were really Clark's parents. No signs of real affection.
I did like the interaction between Clark and Lois once it got beyond the first few episodes, although there were some scenes that were a bit too "sappy" for me.
I'd like to compare "Lois and Clark" to the other "Superman" TV series, "Smallville".
I liked "Smallville", too, also with qualifications.
First of all, I liked the main characters of Clark and his parents. I must admit that I was very surprised at how much I liked the character of Jonathan Kent, played by John Schneider. You may remember that John Schneider played the character of Bo Duke on the "Dukes of Hazzard". I guess that this just shows John's range!
I was also impressed with Michael Rosenbaum's protrayal of Lex Luthor. John Shea could take some lessons here! Michael's Lex is *menacing*. You're never quite sure what he is going to do next. Is he good? Is he evil? Does he even know himself? Definitely to be feared.
The writers of "Smallville" also took some liberties with the original "Superman" narrative. They changed the character of Lex Luthor by starting him out as someone essentially good who turns evil because of the events in his life, especially surrounding his relationship with Clark. I thought that this was an interesting twist on the story.
"Smallville" also introduced another character in Clark's life in the person of Chloe Sullivan. Her character creates a "love triangle" with Clark and Lana. Chloe is Lana's best friend and is also in love with Clark. However, Clark is completely unaware of her affection for him (so we get the unrequited love angle). Allison Mack does an amazing job portraying Chloe. I liked her much more than Lana!
The main criticisms I have of "Smallville" are that they have Clark constantly lying to Lana (and Chloe and his other friends) in order to preserve his secret identity. I think this is a serious character flaw that is at odds with the very heart of what Superman represents. In the comic books, Superman's motto was "Truth, Justice and the American Way". What was that first word? TRUTH. How can you have Clark constantly lying to the people closest to him and have him believe in truth? I do understand that this was intentional on the part of the writers. I think the writers wanted to explore the tension between the dual identities of Clark and Superman. But I object to them doing it in this way. I think it violates the very premise of the idea of Superman.
The tension between Clark and Lana also got old. How many times can you have them get close, break up and get close again? I began to really dislike the character of Lana and was glad to see her go. However, I didn't like the character of Lois Lane at all.
It's too bad that we can't combine the best qualities of both shows.
-R in Seattle
I've always enjoyed John Shea, but I would agree that he plays the role more as super-sarcastic antagonist than menacing villain--or potentially randomly violent villain. Rosenbaum does the latter type very well; in fact, if Smallville had just been "The Chronicles of Lex Luthor as played by Rosenbaum," I might have watched more than three episodes! (Three full episodes plus random scenes here and there for a total of probably 10 or so.). There's a campy feel to the Lois & Clark series, which I happen to like, which I think John Shea captures perfectly. But it does make him more Gene Hackman-ish than, oh, any villain played by Hugo Weaving.
However, he does mostly disappear after the first season. The villains then become more single-episode villains rather than long-term villains.
I would have to disagree regarding Clark's parents. I think they are wonderful: affectionate, sweet as well as totally normal, advice-giving parents whose son has grown and moved to the big city. K Callan happens to be one of my favorite actresses, and that was partly because of Lois & Clark.
I completely agree about Lana. That was why I only watched about three full episodes of Smallville. I got tired of the "oh, Clark, why don't you talk to me" stuff, and it only took me three episodes to get tired of it because it happened every single episode!
In comparison, Rosenbaum's unnerving, youthful desire for ambition coupled with his real friendship with Clark came across as fresh in those episodes. (I happened to see the end of the episode where a woman in a rest home sees Lex Luthor's future which kills her; his panic-strickened denial is so plausible and touching, the scene has stayed with me.)
It is almost as if the person writing Rosenbaum--insightful character development about how a person can choose the wrong path for completely human reasons--was NOT the same person writing lame dialog between Lana and Clark. Pity.
Post a Comment