Spoilers "Superman & Lois" Season 1 spoiler discussion!

[TREK_GOD_1]

What's telling is the Holy-Man identity some have injected into Superman, then claim "he was always that way" when that's just a lie to support their need to see (and in some case, worship) the character in that way. If that kind of fan takes the "originalist" position then that means exactly that--the original, early version, and not jump head several years because they're having a conniption about the Superman who killed villains.

 

[Jayson1]

Superman is still at his best though when he feels at least connected in spirit to the Christopher Reeves version. For many of us he still is kind of the mental template in what makes the character great. Even the Superman and Lois version feels like he is still in that spirit only with a new modern twist of making him a dad.

 

[Mudd]

I like Cavill better than Reeve, who seemed a little bit of a boy scoutish caricature at times.But then, I was an adult when that movie was released. None of the big 70s/80s spectacles had the impact on me that they did on Gen-Xers.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Yeah I was I was the cusp of adulthood when a lot of those films came out. I like Star Wars, but I don't eat, breath and sleep it like GenX. Superman is a bit different as I grew up with the character. So I had expectations based on that going into the movie.

 

[The Realist]

Superman is still at his best though when he feels at least connected in spirit to the Christopher Reeves version. For many of us he still is kind of the mental template in what makes the character great. Even the Superman and Lois version feels like he is still in that spirit only with a new modern twist of making him a dad.

Yep. Though some bemoan it and struggle mightily against it, the Reeve version still is and likely will always remain the defining portrayal of Superman, in any medium.

And as you note, it's possible successfully to evolve and update the character while still embracing that spirit, as S&L does. Classic doesn't have to mean static.

 

[Noname Given]

Yep. Though some bemoan it and struggle mightily against it, the Reeve version still is and likely will always remain the defining portrayal of Superman, in any medium.

And as you note, it's possible successfully to evolve and update the character while still embracing that spirit, as S&L does. Classic doesn't have to mean static.

I always thought Christopher Reeves version of Superman borrowed a lot from George Reeves portrayal 25 years earlier. I do think the one aspect of the character that Christopher Reeve excelled at was his portrayal of Clark Kent, and he did that character aspect better than George Reeves, Brandon Routh, Henry Cavill, or Tyler Hoechlin.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I like Cavill better than Reeve, who seemed a little bit of a boy scoutish caricature at times.But then, I was an adult when that movie was released. None of the big 70s/80s spectacles had the impact on me that they did on Gen-Xers.

I am a Gen-Xer, and when I watched the Donner Superman back in 1978, that beating of the Boy Scout drum was too much at times--almost as over the top as Adam West's Batman.

 

[The Realist]

I always thought Christopher Reeves version of Superman borrowed a lot from George Reeves portrayal 25 years earlier. I do think the one aspect of the character that Christopher Reeve excelled at was his portrayal of Clark Kent, and he did that character aspect better than George Reeves, Brandon Routh, Henry Cavill, or Tyler Hoechlin.

Well, George Reeves's portrayal is certainly a classic in its own right, and personified the character in the minds of TV viewers for a generation or more. But as much as I love that version, I think it's clear Christopher Reeve has supplanted him in the minds of the general public and the larger culture.

As for the Clark Kent persona, it really depends on what you're looking for. Reeve emphasized the "disguise" aspect of it, and did so brilliantly. Routh, in Superman Returns, followed suit.

Cavill and Hoechlin are operating in the post-Crisis realm of Clark's the real guy, Superman's the disguise (or, more accurately, Superman's the public face of one aspect of Clark). Dean Cain did the same. And George Reeves was almost ahead of his time in a way, making his Clark every bit as charismatic and dynamic as Superman himself.

It's easier to get Clark right than Superman, I think, probably because Clark is more grounded by nature, less heightened and theatrical. Cain, for example, was much more convincing as Clark than as Supes. And Cavill's Clark feels more "right" to me than his Superman does.

 

[Jayson1]

I am a Gen-Xer, and when I watched the Donner Superman back in 1978, that beating of the Boy Scout drum was too much at times--almost as over the top as Adam West's Batman.

But that was because he is suppose to contrast with the big city ways of Lois and even Luthor who is just a shady crook. Meanwhile Clark like I sort of put it basically grew up in a Norman Rockwell painting. He is about old school traditional values but without you know some of the bad stuff like racism.

 

[Mudd]

But that was because he is suppose to contrast with the big city ways of Lois and even Luthor who is just a shady crook.

Whatever. The character still veered toward caricature at times.

 

[Guy Gardener]

I was wondering who played Superman in Legends of the Superheroes.

No one did.

So I'm thinking that this 1979 production wasn't allowed to use Superman because of the movie.

Which is when I noticed that Gigantor is Trans.

Cool.

I wonder if the producers were progressive or ignorant?

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

But that was because he is suppose to contrast with the big city ways of Lois and even Luthor who is just a shady crook.

That can be achieved without going off of the deep end with the Boy Scout act; Kirk Alyn and Cavill pulled that off perfectly where their personality contrast was just that--and not an exaggeration.

I was wondering who played Superman in Legends of the Superheroes.

No one did.

So I'm thinking that this 1979 production wasn't allowed to use Superman because of the movie.

Correct, and the same applied to Wonder Woman; this applied to live action, but Hanna-Barbera Poductions--the company behind Legends of the Superheroes--had the rights to use both characters on their Super Friends cartoons.

Which is when I noticed that Gigantor is Trans.

I wonder if the producers were progressive or ignorant?

Hanna-Barbera Productions were not aware--largely due to Aleshia "Giganta" Brevard choosing to not go public about it until decades later.

 

[Mudd]

Clark was hardly the only mistreated person in that restaurant. He used his capabilties to deliver comeuppance while simultaneously showing restraint. There's movements around to understand bullies, but if the bully actually learned something instead of mindlessly aping his father, say, he'd get more sympathy also.

Yep. The regulars in the diner were delighted. Saying that Clark took advantage of his superior strength is the same as saying that he had no business going after rotten landlords or munitions manufacturers in 1939. Those reptiles were just doing legal trade.

 

[Guy Gardener]

In the Donner version, Superman turns back time after he gets his powers back, so it's a new timeline, and that bully never bullied Clark, it's probably even days before he would have bullied Clark in the earlier timeline.

How can the bully learn anything if Clark is just some asshole he's never seen before?

So if Clark goes back in time... Shouldn't there be two of him?

If there were two of them after the first movie, wouldn't that have been helpful fighting Zod?

 

[JD]

I already said I reject that false equivalence. He wasn't saving a hostage or preventing a murder, he was getting revenge on someone who'd embarrassed him. The problem is that he was using his superior power for selfish motives instead of selfless ones. That's a fundamental difference, the difference between a bully and a protector.

Superheroes have been doing this kind of thing for decades, so I don't really see the problem.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Superheroes have been doing this kind of thing for decades, so I don't really see the problem.

Proportionate response.

The bully was obviously going to rape Lois, and everyone in that bar was going to let him.

Which makes them just as guilty.

So Clark should have beat up the cook, the waitresses and all the other patrons too.

It might save time just to heat vision the Dinner from orbit.

Because precrime is a thing.

Superhypnosis is better.

"You enjoy having sex with chickens. All you want to do is find a live chicken and make tender love to it... And then eat it."

 

[JD]

Was the whole rape thing really a part of it? I didn't think these movies went that dark.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Was the whole rape thing really a part of it? I didn't think these movies went that dark.

Like any thug in a bar "Hey you, why are you with such a loser when you could be with a real man like me?"

That's direct.

Then he beat Clark into a pulp.

"If this limp dick can't defend you, then he's not man enough for you, like I am, I am all man. Come out to my truck and I'll show you."

He's not going to take "no" for an answer.

Lois however, might kick him in the goolies, and put a fork in his eye.

Which is also direct.

And about how much force Lois would have to exert to get out of that diner with her virtue intact.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Which is what she would have done, if the diner owner hand't held her back.

Logically The cook must have been stopping Lois from angering Rocky to the point that he killed her, or hurt her as bad as he did Clark, the less kind explanation why the cook was holding that Lane woman by the wrists, was that he was helping Rocky beat up a girl, because that's what he's into.

 

[dupersuper]

Wrong. Superman has not only killed Zod across different adaptations, but as noted time and again, he was killing villains from the earliest years of his published life. Mort Weisinger's era is not an original or some etched-in-stone standard of the character. The Super Friends and the Salkind's films are not, either. For anyone who knows the full history of the character, its undeniable that he's not, nor was he intended to be Santa Claus, or savior.

Yes, for the first 2 or 3 years of his 80 year history, back when he was influenced by the pulps of the day, he occasionally let a gangster fall or crash to his death, forever providing fodder to people who bafflingly want a bloody Superman.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Yes, for the first 2 or 3 years of his 80 year history, back when he was influenced by the pulps of the day, he occasionally let a gangster fall or crash to his death, forever providing fodder to people who bafflingly want a bloody Superman.

Posted like someone who never read much of Superman's comics (and not just in two titles). This was a character who hurled airplanes into the ground, taunt criminals choking to death from poison, and a host of other acts not only in that period, but as others have pointed out, he's killed since that time. You can pitch the fantasy that Superman was meant to be a Holy Man / Santa, that silly version from the Weisinger period, or anything like the Super Friends version, but he a has a published record that stands in opposition to said fantasy.