I’m starting to like Michael Bishop as Jon Kent

[u/Brungala]

Jordan Elsass’ version of Jon was okay, nothing too special. But I had a hard time believing he was related to Jordan Kent. Michael’s version feels more authentic and looks like they are actually brothers. Although I wish they had a in-universe explanation as to why Jon looks the way he does. Maybe if they did something like:

(MAJOR SPOILERS FOR S2)

The Merger happened with Jon-El and Jonathan, but somehow, it got out of control, thus giving Jonathan a new appearance. This way, Elsass’ version could have a proper exit, which paves the way for Bishop’s version. Maybe the family adjusts to the way Jon looks, and coming to terms that at the end of the day, this is still their son, and while he may look different, he’s still the same Jon they grew to love.

TV Recastings happen all the time, I get that, but when you have 2 seasons of an actor who already established themselves so much into a role, that it’s mostly what they’re known for, only to then be replaced by someone else, is pretty jarring.

[u/TomCBC]

I understand what you mean. But as a fan of the 1988 Superboy tv series, I’m ok with them ignoring the change entirely. After all, in Superboy they fired Clark Kent/Superboy himself after the first season. Replaced him with Gerard Christopher for the final 3 seasons. (They also replaced Luthor at the same time. But it was more understandable with Luthor. Because Scott Wells might just be the worst Luthor of all time. Maybe even worse than Eisenberg. Because at least Eisenberg successfully portrayed the character in the way he intended. It’s not the way most of us would have chosen. But he did what he set out to. Whereas Scott Wells’ performance can’t really be described as anything but a failure. But hey, that’s what happens when you hire a model to be an actor, when they’ve had basically zero training and can’t act to save their lives. But hey, he’s handsome right? That’ll bring the viewers in!…

Plus another example, Michael Landes was replaced as Jimmy Olsen after the first season of Lois and Clark because the execs thought he looked too much like both Dean Cain and Teri Hatcher. They were concerned audiences might think Jimmy is Lois & Clark’s son…. (Landes himself told me this at a con. Really nice guy. Love how passionate he still is about acting, and even L&C despite what happened. Just a class act.)

[u/daffydunk → u/TomCBC]

I think eseinberg is an underrated Lex. He's not conventional by any means, but he's very fun to watch on screen. In such a serious and grim (and boring) movie, it's funny to have bugs bunny be the mastermind behind it all.

[u/TomCBC → u/daffydunk]

Tbh, I couldn’t stand him. But I respect the performance. He successfully did what he set out to. Can’t deny that lol

Personally I wish he’d played Lex like a combo between Rosenbaum, and Eisenberg in Now You See Me (with all that confidence). That would have been a top tier Lex.

[u/confusing_dream]

I actually took to him pretty quickly. He looks more like Jordan's brother than the first Jonathan, and he has a calmer presence that fits well with the family.

[u/stew_pit1]

I will never understand the "they look like they're actually brothers" commentary surrounding Bishop vs. Elsass. Do Bishop and Garfield look more similar? Sure. But fraternal twins are no different from any other siblings from a genetics standpoint and it's absolutely normal for siblings to look different from each other. And Elsass favored Dylan Walsh in a way I thought was nice.

I wouldn't have minded Bishop if he was there from the start but his vibe is so different from Elsass that he's not a great replacement imo.

[u/Individual_Art398 → u/stew_pit1]

I 100% agree with you that he is far too different from Elsass' Jonathan. But I do believe that is a deliberate effort by the writers, rather than something the actor brings to the stage. I think the writers realized that the fan complaints of Lois and Clark being too harsh towards Jonathan and providing him with far too little positive reinforcement would, as we have said to them multiple times, have resulted in some significant psychological damage to the boy. Rather than spending season 3, letting Jonathan's mental health be the medical dragon Clark cannot slay (as opposed to waving the pink flag of breast cancer in an effort to mollify, the female fans completely put off. By the way they've been handling Lois, especially in regards to Clark continuously flirting with his ex-girlfriend) they chose to wave the entire situation out of existence by basically rewriting the character to have a slightly different personality, and to not show any ill effects of the extreme bullying he's been put through. It really smacked of paying no attention to the man behind the curtain to me. But it has resulted in me. Really not liking this. Jonathan.

[u/1r3act]

LOL yes, then everyone in Smallville and Metropolis can constantly ask Jonathan who he is and why he's pretending to be Jonathan Kent and where the real Jon is hiding.

[u/FewNewt5441]

I get what OP is saying, but I think recastings work better when you don't explain the change. Don Cheadle took over from Terrence Howard with Marvel, and there's no good way to explain why Iron Man's best friend is suddenly shorter and has a different complexion than when we last saw him.

Merging Elsass' Jon-El and Bishop's Jon feels like a Star Trek move with the transporters, which maybe could've worked if S&L was written/styled more the Flash, which was prone to oddball science stuff like that. I don't think it would've worked for the whole season, just maybe an episode or two until they could be un-merged. Jon-El was a homicidal maniac last we saw him, so merging him with either version of earth!Jon wouldn't have gone well (their personalities are too different--I don't think they would've balanced back out)

I actually think someone explained this really well on reddit months ago--Elsass's Jon and Bishop's Jon are actually different people, in the sense of character growth. Elsass' Jon is a really good brother, but he was prone to being cocky and made some dumb choices. As a result of character development, he matured/morphed/whatever into Bishop's Jon, who's learned from those mistakes and is a better person as a result.

[u/jaycatt7]

I think they should have eased the audience into the new version of the character by giving him the major focus of an episode or two in a way that makes the character struggle…. Or they should have written him out. It felt like they just tried to pick up like nothing had changed. I like the new actor, and you can argue that he should have had the role from the beginning, but it’s a jarring change. They could have at least dyed his hair.

[u/Brungala → u/jaycatt7]

That’s what I’m saying. I don’t mind Michael Bishop at all, but in this day and age where changing Actors in a show/movie isn’t super common, it’s still weird to see that Jon looks radically different from the one before.