Talk:Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman

Transwiki

Hello,

I'm Mark and I write from Italy. I should like to translate and adapt the English Wikipedia's articles about movies and tv shows based on the DC Comics characters for the Italian Wikipedia. Could I translate this article with your permission ?

Go for it.

You don't need permission to translate articles between Wikipedias :-) Dan100 (Talk) 18:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Time travel television series

"Category:Time travel television series" is a newly-created category. There is a discussion over how much "time travel" should occur in a series before it should be included in this category. Please join the discussion in that category's discussion. Val42 19:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Retained "Lois & Clark"?

I live in the UK, and watched this when it was airing and I don't remember it having "Lois & Clark" in the opening credits as the article suggests. Can anyone confirm if this is actually true? ItsaBitsa 14:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The "Lois and Clark" bit was dropped when it aired originally on the BBC - who had the title sequence altered (and not unnoticeably) to read simply "The New Adventures of Superman". On the other hand when Sky aired the series (first run of Season 4 and repeats of the previous seasons) they did indeed leave the title sequence unaltered (thus restoring the "Lois and Clark"), but promoted it only as "The New Adventures of Superman". --Rdd 20:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Cheers for the info, should the article maybe be changed to include that info? or is it pretty irrelevant stuff? ItsaBitsa 16:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

More details please

I have just been perusing the other entries on Superman and all of them are very detailed and comprehensive. This one seems very thin on the ground by comparison - especially for a series that ran for 4 seasons. Perhaps it attracts a different sort of fan from the other Superman versions? Panopticon 12:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Running Time

Why is the "running time" quoted as "60 minutes (approx. 42 min)" - surely it is one or the other? - they are very different time. If the larger time is to factor in adverts then surely this is not relevant as that is a commercial desision by the broadcasting company, and nothing to do with the programme's running length... Indeed, for example when it was shoed on the BBC there were no ad breaks. Bensonby 01:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It may seem weird to phrase it that way, but yes, that's what it means. I don't know about the rest of the world, but here in Canada (as is also the case in the US), it's pretty much standard to have shows divided up into half-hour or full-hour blocks (after commercials are factored in). You're right that the broadcaster is the one to handle the commercials, but that doesn't mean it has nothing to do with the program's running time. That's just how things work here.

To possibly better-illustrate the point, some shows actually have a bit of fun with themselves, and include their characters saying things like, "We'll be right back" to the 'camera', right before commercials. In general, the shows are typically divided so they'll have appropriate points in the story to break for commercials. It's very much a part of the show. Granted, that's a very commercialized, and unfortunate, way to approach creative expressions, but c'est la vie. Bladestorm 15:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose thats fair enough and accurate then. Just wished to clarify something that seemed strange to me (as a British person perhaps?) - Indeed when watching American programmes on the BBC its sometimes obvious when the ad-break would have been, with a climax in music and an obvious change of scene, it can get quite entertaining. Thanks for clearing it up. Bensonby 14:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing why it makes sense to quote a programme's running including advertisements. It's the slot time not the programme time and it can vary anyway. Certainly I don't see why the running time inclusive of an assumed percentage of advertisements should be stated first, it's not the more important of the two is it? Advertisements are very much secondary to the programme itself. It's not just the BBC besides, short of catching an occasional rerun the place you'll be seeing them is on retail, where there are no ads. TygerTyger 14:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• From the episodes I've seen, the shows actual length minus commercials is closer to about 45 minutes. 68.59.161.22 02:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Lane Smith as Perry White.jpg

The image Image:Lane Smith as Perry White.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Lewis and Clark?

Can anybody provide a citation that there was ever an intended "joking reference to Lewis and Clark"? That seems a bit of a stretch. Those are the characters' names and, given the focus on Lois and Clark (as opposed to Superman) the title made sense. Besides, what was supposed to have been the point of such a reference? W/o a citation I move that the sentence come out. SnappingTurtle (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I do not have a citation, but one of the awards for journalism they mention at one point in the show was the "Meriweather Awards". Meriweather Lewis was the Lewis of Lewis and Clark. That is too much for mere coincidence, I am sure there is a source, I just don't know where.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Season 1, Episode 16, is where Perry mentions the "Merriweather Award for Journalistic Excellence". That is too coincidental for htem not to know they are doing a play on words with the title.
    • If it isn't a pun, why not call the show 'Clark and Lois'? The producers would definitely have known the potential connotations of the title. Also, 'Lewis and Clark' is not well-known in the UK - hence the BBC switching the title to 'The New Adventures of Superman'. 2A00:23C7:8905:CC01:D103:266C:2723:43EA (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

    Why would they call the show "Clark and Lois"? Besides, this is all speculation; with no source stating it was a pun, we have no reason to even consider stating it was a pun in the article. Martin IIIa (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion: a "Not to be confused with..." note

In the 1960s, there was a Saturday morning cartoon series, The New Adventures of Superman. It has its own Wiki-article, The New Adventures of Superman (TV series), and there is another page, The New Adventures of Superman. As a simple click will reveal, that is a disambiguation page listing nothing but these two TV shows' articles. The other program's article has a "Not to be confused with..." note/Wikilink referencing this article at its top, but there isn't one about it here, a good idea considering the BBC retitling of this, discussed in an earlier thread. I hereby submit that we should add such a note here, and delete that disambig. page, as it would thus be rendered redundant. --Ted Watson (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The disambig note isn't that big a deal, so I just added it. As for the disambig page...I don't mind one way or the other, so whatever you guys think. DonQuixote (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ratings

The TV ratings listed here are surely wrong. I can't find anything that backs up the notion that the show had such huge ratings in season 1 & 2. Certainly not the number one rated show of any year (unfortunately) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.240.25 (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Be my guest

I recall Emily Procter making one appearance as Clark's ex, but I don't see here in the list... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 11:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Well, actually she initially shows up as alternate universe Clark's fiancee. It is mentioned on her filmograpbhy that she shows up as Lana Lang, and the show only ever has Lana Lang as alternate universe Clark's fiancee. They may mention at some point that Lana Lang exists in the main universe, but she never shows up. In the first season when Clark brings Lois to Smallville while they are investigating actions said to be by the EPA, we do meet the sherrif who seems to have dated Clark when they were both in high school, and she is essentially a stand-in for Lana, since they did not want to pay for the rights to use the name Lana Lang, but she is actually named Rachel.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Setting of show

The main question is "does Lois and Clark qualify for Category:Television shows set in Kansas"? Smallville is clearly identified as in Kansas (even though Metropolis is never clearly identified, some maps make it look like it is in Pennsylvania, but other things seem to leand more towards people thinking it is meant to be New York). The one thing we know is Metropolis is not in New Jersey. So the question is, does the show get set in Smallville enough to count. I can think of at least five episodes with large portions in Smallville, and if you count the shots of Jonathan and Martha Kent on the other end of the line, it would add up to even more shows.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Since it's mainly taking place in Metropolis, & the "home setting", the Planet, is there, I'd say no. Is there a cat for "Set in fictional cities"? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Fortunantly I do not think so. I would go with you on this, we never pass the "set in" threshold for anywhere else then Metropolis. I would go with one setting, and that is Metropolis and not Kansas.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

UK title (The New Adventures of Superman)

Since a note had been left asking for clarification, and in hidden wiki source comments asking if "The New Adventures of Superman" was the official import title in the UK... to the best of my memory, yes. When I watched it over here as a little girl, the opening titles said only "The New Adventures of Superman" (no "Lois & Clark" bit), so it was at least official enough for them to record slightly altered opening credits with the new title. Xmoogle (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thx. If nobody objects, I'm going to reword it so "TNAoS" is listed as the Brit title, & "commonly 'L&C' or 'TNAoS' in U.S." Anybody object to adding it's aka "L&C" among comics buffs? (I use that, & most comics fans I know do, too, including non-readers of Supes, like me.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Do we really need the "Guest cast" section

I think we should delete the "Guest cast" section. Wikipedia is not TV Guide or IMDb, a long long long list of people who appeared on the show is unnecessary and pointless. The problem with the section is that it serves no purpose at all, except give us a long list of minor actors who appeared on the show. The section also distracts from the main cast member and to the article over all. I think we should also trim down the "Special guest stars" section, only have more notable actors or people who have guest starred on the show multiple times.--Rootone (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree...the list is ridiculously long... I think we should rename the "Guest Cast" section to "Recurring cast" section and leave only the actors who appear in 3+ episodes. As it happens in most of the shows in WP. About the "Special Guest" one, not sure if we should trim it or not. Usually the show itself separates the guests from special guests so, they are notable on their own even if they appeared in one episode. TeamGale ^(talk) 11:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160329020347/http://bztv.typepad.com/newsviews/2006/06/lois_clark_the_.html to http://bztv.typepad.com/newsviews/2006/06/lois_clark_the_.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)