Well, considering some sections of Superman Returns(2006) are practically shot for shot reshoots of Superman(1978) - in many ways, they're almost the same film.
How do the Christopher Reeves "Superman" movies hold up to more modern comic book movies?
- Thread starter Jayson1
- Start date
That's one of my favorite scene of the movie.
And in some scenes you could feel his loneliness. But maybe I am to nostalgic because I was 7 when I saw the first movie and my parents were going to a tough divorces, and Superman was my big hero.
And I think that Returns decerved a sequel
Well, considering some sections of Superman Returns(2006) are practically shot for shot reshoots of Superman(1978) - in many ways, they're almost the same film.
Unfortunately. Perhaps that's why I consider Brandon Routh's performance, along with the space shuttle sequence to be the only really good aspects of that film.
I share your sentiments. I rank it at or near the top of all the superhero movies that I have ever seen. Loved John William's music.
There is too much brooding with the superheroes of recent movies. That's a downer.
Reeves' Superman and Clark Kent had a sunny disposition and an aw shucks personality. He gave off a positive good natured vibe.
I remember the scene when Superman (in the 2nd movie) proudly flew the US flag back to the White House. Superman II wasn't afraid to be patriotic -- not nationalistic -- with that scene. I thought that scene, in a way, celebrated the ideals of America, and that Superman shared those same ideals. He was the Superman of "truth, justice and the American way".
There's nothing I liked about the third and fourth films.
I've seen it within the past year, and still enjoy the first film immensely, especially before Superman gets to Metropolis but even also most of what follows. I'm probably in the minority, but I've always loved his defiantly turning time back.
There is always something about John William's score that just works for Superman.
The other thing is Christopher Reeves take on Clark Kent...clumsy dork that seems right out of the 1950s, verse Superman, strong, confident but, just still with a very 1950s sensibility to him. A kind and more or less gentle superhero who will greet the villain politely. Casually tell them something about what they are doing is wrong, and than usually calmly disarm them and take them to the police. The only villain this really doesn't work with is Lex Luthor, who is not only able to talk his way into stalling Superman, but is also crazy prepared with ways to keep Superman either weak or busy.
Clark Kent is the fish out of water in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Superman, would be if he wasn't Superman. Lois Lane would call him on stuff, but he's Superman, and that sort of distracts her, a little.
It is the way that Reeves can pull off both characteristics that sells Superman playing Clark Kent, or perhaps it is more Clark Kent/Kal-El playing Superman playing public image of Clark Kent: uber dork. While Superman III wasn't all that good, it did have some really good scenes or moment. Clark Kent casually breaking a bully's hand near the end with the excuse "I've been working out" worked for a laugh. Clark fighting Superman in the scrapyard also works perfectly.
The other thing is Christopher Reeves take on Clark Kent...clumsy dork that seems right out of the 1950s, verse Superman, strong, confident but, just still with a very 1950s sensibility to him. A kind and more or less gentle superhero who will greet the villain politely. Casually tell them something about what they are doing is wrong, and than usually calmly disarm them and take them to the police. The only villain this really doesn't work with is Lex Luthor, who is not only able to talk his way into stalling Superman, but is also crazy prepared with ways to keep Superman either weak or busy.
Clark Kent is the fish out of water in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Superman, would be if he wasn't Superman. Lois Lane would call him on stuff, but he's Superman, and that sort of distracts her, a little.
It is the way that Reeves can pull off both characteristics that sells Superman playing Clark Kent, or perhaps it is more Clark Kent/Kal-El playing Superman playing public image of Clark Kent: uber dork. While Superman III wasn't all that good, it did have some really good scenes or moment. Clark Kent casually breaking a bully's hand near the end with the excuse "I've been working out" worked for a laugh. Clark fighting Superman in the scrapyard also works perfectly.
To be fair, there is really nothing TO like about Superman III and Superman IV (IMO).
You don't give that junkyard scene enough credit. Pure comicbook, the inner fight of Superman uniquely shown for the audience.
Meh - it was pretty cliche for me. It was also so utterly predicable too. Again, compared to the rest of the film, yes, it's probably one of the best sequences there - but given the totality of the film (especially the ridiculous ATARI game tie in during the 'final battle' sequence) it wasn't great. (And the 'Dark Phoenix saga' had already been done 3 years earlier in the X-Men comicbook series by the competitor company MARVEL - so it just looked like someone said "oooh, that was popular, lets ape that with Superman".)
I feel like the Donner cut is an interesting DVD bonus feature, nothing more. The Donner cut goes so far in trying to fix what ain't broken that it creates a litany of additional problems. The most obvious and biggest one is, of course, the ending that they just lift straight out of the first movie, making the Donner cut completely unworkable as a sequel to anyone who hasn't read up on the backstory. Can you imagine being someone who hadn't seen either movie watching the first one and then the Donner cut of part II? You'd think it was a joke.
The Marvel films are really great fun. They are the superhero films I was waiting for in the 1970s and they were worth the wait. Especially for a lifelong Iron Man fan like me.
That being said, the 1978 Superman is truly one of the great American films of the 20th century. More that a superhero film, it's an American myth, told on an epic scale. After a decade of Vietnam, Watergate, the energy crisis and inflation. Smallville and Metropolis and a hero in red and blue who represented everything the country wanted to believe in during it's better days is what Americans really wanted to see. You couldn't make that film today. There aren't enough people around any more who would remember the era that the movie evokes. Today's superhero movies will, for better or worse, feel dated in 20-30 years. But some people will still watch Superman and love it for it's acting, clever wit, story and the lost world it preserves.
That being said, the 1978 Superman is truly one of the great American films of the 20th century. More that a superhero film, it's an American myth, told on an epic scale. After a decade of Vietnam, Watergate, the energy crisis and inflation. Smallville and Metropolis and a hero in red and blue who represented everything the country wanted to believe in during it's better days is what Americans really wanted to see. You couldn't make that film today. There aren't enough people around any more who would remember the era that the movie evokes. Today's superhero movies will, for better or worse, feel dated in 20-30 years. But some people will still watch Superman and love it for it's acting, clever wit, story and the lost world it preserves.
It's interesting. No one had really bothered to comment on Chris Reeve's performance as Superman and the 1978 movie with such excessive reverence . . . until the past few years or so. I had never came across such reverence when "LOIS AND CLARK" was on the air in the 1990s or when "SMALLVILLE" was on the air in the following decade. Just recently. What is up with this current worship of the film? Is it the in thing with pop culture to be mired in the past?
Yeah, I think Christopher Reeve's portrayal definitely influence the comics. Post-Crisis Superman was the role reversal you speak of: Clark Kent was the real person, and Superman was the alter ego. Up until then, Kent was the alter ego from 1938 until Crisis. I much prefer the Kent personality being the true personality.
I have always been of the opinion that Reeve's Superman was really Clark Kent at heart: sort of Kent playing superman playing Kent. That's compared to George Reeves' Superman, which really was just Superman playing Kent, when needed. If that makes sense.
For ages it had been Superman disguises as "mind mannered" Clark Kent. But then it became, Clark Kent, playing this larger than life superhero people called Superman, playing weak Smallville based Clark Kent. It even come out that way by the 1990s cartoons. When Superman isn't being Super, and he's not trying to pass off as a reporter from the Daily Planet, he's still Clark Kent. (unless he can be Batman, of course, at which point he is the indestructible Batman).
I didn't particularly watch "Smallville" so I can 't comment on that performance, but I did watch "Lois and Clark" Dean Cain does do a fairly good job as Superman, and a relatively good Clark, and his Clark is the base personality rather than Superman. However his Clark isn't quite the large personality gap that Reeves Clark is from Superman. Cain's Clark is however closer to the 1990s cartoon version of the character, minus the larger romance with Lois Lane. Both Lois and Clark and the 1990s Cartoon shared a little bit of the Superhero goes home to see his human folks jokes, with Cain's Clark calling his mother to try to find out how to get a stain (caused by a bomb) out of his uniform (which she made). The 1990s cartoon Superman does have the disadvantage of being underpowered for most of his appearances due to having to share the screen a lot with other heroes and having to be on par with Batman, who has no powers, but is the best superhero of that cartoon universe. The "World Made of Cardboard" speech sums up his feelings by the end of all those series.
I didn't particularly watch "Smallville" so I can 't comment on that performance, but I did watch "Lois and Clark" Dean Cain does do a fairly good job as Superman, and a relatively good Clark, and his Clark is the base personality rather than Superman. However his Clark isn't quite the large personality gap that Reeves Clark is from Superman. Cain's Clark is however closer to the 1990s cartoon version of the character, minus the larger romance with Lois Lane. Both Lois and Clark and the 1990s Cartoon shared a little bit of the Superhero goes home to see his human folks jokes, with Cain's Clark calling his mother to try to find out how to get a stain (caused by a bomb) out of his uniform (which she made). The 1990s cartoon Superman does have the disadvantage of being underpowered for most of his appearances due to having to share the screen a lot with other heroes and having to be on par with Batman, who has no powers, but is the best superhero of that cartoon universe. The "World Made of Cardboard" speech sums up his feelings by the end of all those series.
As bad as 3 and 4 were they
Jason
I do think people for along time sort under apreciated how good he was in the movie, because Superman isn't a edgy or flashy character. Playing the ultimate boyscout and not be boring is something really hard to do and I think people didn't really think about it in that way for along time. There is that and the fact that he never went on and had a great career away from character and I think that also made people look down on his performance in the film.
Jason
Oh I don't know about that. Reeves performance has always been praised highly as long as I can remember.
