Superman
- Thread starter urbandefault
- Start date
Perhaps. But that likely works because Captain America is decades out of time. A period piece Superman from the late 30s who similarly found himself in the present would make such a thing quite a bit easier than trying to make him a contemporary character who behaves as if he were from a more "old-fashioned" time. It can be done (the movie in 1978 manages it pretty well), but it's not easy.
As to the "non-traditional" (in quotation marks because I don't necessarily grant that it was as untraditional as naysayers argue) version in Man of Steel, I will only say this (as an unabashed fan of the film). Among the reasons I like it so much (all while thoroughly enjoying, from 1978 up to today, Superman) is that rather than trying to re-create that version, it was willing to offer a different take that successfully challenged my expectations in a way I found interesting. I get that such an approach to an iconic character might not be universally appreciated (as, in this case, it clearly wasn't). What I will not accept is the idea that the attempt to do something different, in and of itself, was illegitimate (particularly as, in the case of Superman, there are so many traditional versions already extant).
^ You would basically be skipping the latter third of the movie.
You can but they are not that terrible
Other than the fact that they destroy like 10 buildings, presumable full of people. Superman broke so much stuff that he had to spend most of his second movie (BvS) paying the price for it.
I don't think good characters are inherently boring but I do think it's much easier to make a more flawed character interesting. You basically have to work harder to make Superman interesting than say Batman but if you try and make Superman have to many flaws or even be anything less than one step bellow perfect then it doesn't feel right. That's why the Supergirl Superman they got his decency right but they don't really capture the awe that comes with the character or respect his iconic status of basically being the most important Superhero character of all time.
The recent movies were worst in that he doesn't have the decency nor the iconic respect. Only thing going was the actor looks the part. I know some should say that you need to evolve the character to fit the times but to me the appeal of the character is his kind of timeless appeal. Superman in 78 should look and feel like Superman in 2020. Any attempt make him modern takes away from the character because he is like the ultimate symbol of goodness. He is kind and gentle that cares about people despite also being the strongest person alive who could take over the world if he wanted. He is the greatest person and his one angst is he still wishes he could be better. Not to mention humble by pretending to be Clark Kent who is kind of nerdy or a buffoon. Which means he doesn't have any annoying macho pride were he feels to need to be celebrated for lets face it. Being super hot and ripped.
Jason
This. For some reason, some of the modern filmed Superman haters (that is, the movie Superman) seem to think he should act like he's from 1940. Clark was raised by parents with solid, sensible values, but those values are not trapped decades in the past, or maintain a perspective as old. Clark/Superman is of the time of the adaptation, but his values (rather timeless) prevent him from being typed as a relic from the past, or piggybacking to be some kind of flavor-of-the-moment.
Well observed. As I pointed out earlier, Superman is not a relic of the past, he's not some stodgy, could-be-your-tired uncle type like George Reeves' interpretation. He's also not a "man out of time" like Steve Rogers, nor should he behave that way at any time. In the DCEU, he realistically goes from trying to find his place in the world (because he knows that humanity is not skin deep, so he has to figure out whether he has any link to mankind, or is as alien as his species), to finally adopting the values of his adoptive father, blending them with his naturally protective nature to be the Superman seen from the last act of Man of Steel-forward. Even then, he still has to deal with a vocal part of the public fearing him as "the other", no matter how many lives he saves. That double life (of hero/"god" and otherworldly threat) is the best balancing act of the strongest Superman comic stories adapted for live action.
It was not. Cavill and the movies he starred in created--arguably--the best portrayal of Superman as he would be if in the real world, which was the point.
Moreover if doing something different was a problem, Kenneth Johnson's reimagining of The Incredible Hulk would not have been the great success it was. To this day, that TV series is still cherished for going its own route, and for my money, Bixby gave the best, most complex & mature portayal of Banner ever set before a camera. Ruffalo's version always left much to be desired.
Was going to quote this directly, but I decided to link to a post (not one of mine, just so another voice can be presented) that describes the approach taken in the film in a way that's pretty clear, acknowledges why people might object to the approach, but successfully (to me) captures what I found interesting about Man of Steel's version of the Superman story. The link, rather than quotation, is to avoid giving specific content spoilers (I HATE spoilers so I "do onto others..." in that regard).
Sounds like the Superman curse is alive and well.Hoechlin was very well-received in his initial appearances on Supergirl, and deservedly so. I was delighted. Combined with writing that understood the character, Hoechlin's performance gave me a screen Superman I could unreservedly embrace.
Unfortunately, and unjustifiably, a certain contingent of fans has turned against Hoechlin over his subsequent appearances. They're mainly folks with a very macho-crotch view of Superman, who tend to describe him as a "badass." (Properly characterized, Superman tends to describe himself as a "friend.") They saw Hoechlin's grace and humility as weakness and submissiveness, and they were outraged when their caped penis extender was beaten by a dumb girl. (One suspects there is some old playground trauma being triggered here.)
This sad crowd got a new source of supposed ammunition when Brandon Routh's "Crisis" Superman showed up. He's physically larger than Hoechlin, you see, and that is very important. So, so important. Because large is where it's at. (Or so they've heard.)
Meanwhile, Hoechlin has carried on being an exemplary Superman, who will be having the last laugh soon on his very own weekly television series.
This has been my problem with the recent movies as well. It's like the people making the movies know so little about what makes the character work that I wonder how they got the job in the first place. Any potential director that says "we need to modernize Superman" should be immediately dropped from consideration.
Link's not working for me, Ovation. I'm actually kind of interested to see what it says, because though you and I obviously don't agree on the subject of Snyderman, I've always found your perspective on him better argued than most, so I'm curious to read the post you're endorsing.
Statistically speaking, it's still the safest way to travel.
I was 7 years old and my dad took me to see this and bought me this huge program they were selling at the theater which my mom hated because it had this big picture of Miss Teschmacher and her cleavage.
Superman: The Movie is still the greatest superhero film ever made.
I didn't necessarily mean that he has to act like he's from the 1940s, I just meant that he should be a positive, optimistic, character who has older fashioned values. He should be someone who believes in equality, and defending the weak from those who abuse them, things like that.
Nope. The most important, but no longer good.
