Superman: The Live Action TV Series

[Christopher]

I prefer the Donner version of the reveal for two reasons. One, showing Reeve's performance from the front really showcases what an amazing transformation he pulled off between Clark and Superman, far more so than showing it from the rear. Two, Donner's version is much more empowering for Lois: She's smart enough to figure out Superman's secret on her own and takes the initiative in proving it, while in Lester's version she doesn't have a clue until she stumbles across it, then is successfully fooled, and doesn't find out until Clark chooses to "accidentally" reveal himself. So Lester's Lois is much more passive and much less intelligent, which really weakens her as a character.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

The first season of Adventures Of Superman with George Reeves, filmed in b&w, had a different tone than what came later. While there was humour it could also be edgy (for its time). The b&w also added a mood to it much like the Lost In Space's first season being shot in b&w.

The first season of "Adventures" is one of my favorite on-screen versions of Superman. It's really a noir crime drama with an emphasis on the journalism, even if it's not really portrayed accurately. Also, Phyllis Coates is the best damn on-screen Lois Lane. She's a hard-noised reporter who stands up to Clark and criminals alike, more like the early Siegel and Shuster comics. Also, love that Clark and Lois are more rivals than friends.

 

[Christopher]

I think the best on-screen Lois is the one Dana Delany played on Superman: The Animated Series. But Coates's Lois was pretty cool too.

 

[Warped9]

Phyllis Coates and Dana Delaney are my favourite for Lois.

 

[Christopher]

I actually liked Noel Neill better than Coates, though Coates was a tougher Lois and a more attractive one.

 

[EnriqueH]

I like Teri Hatcher best.

 

[The Old Mixer]

My vote in that department goes to Stacy Haiduk as Lana!

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Phyllis Coates and Dana Delaney are my favourite for Lois.

Dana was pretty good too!

I like Teri Hatcher best.

Teri was charming in the role, but her Lois wasn't really well-written after the first season.

 

[mos6507]

In the minds of pop culture, I think Zod is seen as a Superman's most capable adversary, mostly because of his portrayal in Superman II, which is why they brought him in for Man of Steel instead of Lex again. For the time, the amount of destruction wrought in Superman II was the high-water mark of superhero vs. supervillain slugfests. It was that kind of disaster-movie wrestling match that's always been unable to visualize in a television series, and always kind of makes superheroes more mundane in the process.

 

[RandyS]

I like Teri Hatcher best.

So do I.

 

[tomswift2002]

Hey, by the way, Tom, did you really think Superman II was worse than Superman IV?

Did I really think? I KNOW it was worst than Superman IV! I've watched all 5 Christopher Reeve movies, and if I had to rank them, they would be in this order:

1. Superman: The Movie
2. Superman III
3. Superman IV: The Quest For Peace
4. Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut
5. Superman II: The Richard Lester Cut

But, I will say that, at least I was able to get through the Richard Lester Cut of Superman II, whereas Superman Returns I was bored to death and only stayed in the theater to say that I had seen the movie right to the end (plus the theater I was in was running the movie from film, and in a number of scenes (especially when Superman was hovering over Lois's apartment that was rather quite un-Superman) it looked like the movie had been transferred from video tape to film (which according to Panasonic's page, the Genesis camera, which was used to shoot the film, used a dockable HDCAM SR VTR) since I was seeing smeared pixels (like what you would see on a VHS whenever someone has a red shirt on and you can see blue and green streaks from the red pixels).

And "Man Of Steel", while I've got the Blu-Ray/DVD combo set, I never saw it in the theater and I started to watch it about 4 months ago, and I only got through an hour where I finally turned it off and I haven't bothered to pop the Blu-ray back in as the movie was such a waste of film. I won't say that the CGI effects were better than the model and in-camera effects done with the Christopher Reeve-era movies, but really that was all that was going on in the first hour while the movie was missing it's story. And if this is how Warner Brothers is intending to start a DC Cinematic Universe, then I don't want to see any of the other DC movies in this universe: I'll go back and re-watch the 1950's Superman series from start to finish before watching anymore "Man Of Steel" or other movies in it's continuity.

The last two Superman movies (and even Smallville to an extant) seemed to put most of their focus on the CGI and then came up with the story at the 11th hour.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I think the best on-screen Lois is the one Dana Delany played on Superman: The Animated Series.

Agreed. She was perfect. And I've said before I think she would've been great in a live-action setting also. Heck, she still could; the woman does not age!

 

[tomswift2002]

Best Lois would have to be Teri Hatcher. (In the movies it would be Margot Kidder.)

 

[EnriqueH]

Hey, by the way, Tom, did you really think Superman II was worse than Superman IV?

Did I really think? I KNOW it was worst than Superman IV! I've watched all 5 Christopher Reeve movies, and if I had to rank them, they would be in this order:

1. Superman: The Movie
2. Superman III
3. Superman IV: The Quest For Peace
4. Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut
5. Superman II: The Richard Lester Cut

But, I will say that, at least I was able to get through the Richard Lester Cut of Superman II, whereas Superman Returns I was bored to death and only stayed in the theater to say that I had seen the movie right to the end (plus the theater I was in was running the movie from film, and in a number of scenes (especially when Superman was hovering over Lois's apartment that was rather quite un-Superman) it looked like the movie had been transferred from video tape to film (which according to Panasonic's page, the Genesis camera, which was used to shoot the film, used a dockable HDCAM SR VTR) since I was seeing smeared pixels (like what you would see on a VHS whenever someone has a red shirt on and you can see blue and green streaks from the red pixels).

And "Man Of Steel", while I've got the Blu-Ray/DVD combo set, I never saw it in the theater and I started to watch it about 4 months ago, and I only got through an hour where I finally turned it off and I haven't bothered to pop the Blu-ray back in as the movie was such a waste of film. I won't say that the CGI effects were better than the model and in-camera effects done with the Christopher Reeve-era movies, but really that was all that was going on in the first hour while the movie was missing it's story. And if this is how Warner Brothers is intending to start a DC Cinematic Universe, then I don't want to see any of the other DC movies in this universe: I'll go back and re-watch the 1950's Superman series from start to finish before watching anymore "Man Of Steel" or other movies in it's continuity.

The last two Superman movies (and even Smallville to an extant) seemed to put most of their focus on the CGI and then came up with the story at the 11th hour.

Superman has been my favorite superhero since I was a kid and I personally grew up on the Christopher Reeve series.

Even so, I like to think I've kept an open mind about other interpretations: I like the George Reeves series, Lois & Clark and Smallville.

But I thought Man of Steel was pretty bad for a modern day superhero film.

The scenes on Krypton reminded me of Attack of the Clones, during the Geonosis battle.

I'm not looking forward to Batman vs. Superman after Man of Steel.

Anyway, Superman IV over Superman II, Tom????

I think that demands an explanation!

I can understand Superman III over Superman II. (I personally think Superman III was a bad idea done well, but Superman IV was a good idea done badly.)

But Superman IV over Superman II???

That's kinda like saying: I prefer Godfather III over Godfather I, or Star Trek V over Wrath of Khan, or The Phantom Menace over Empire Strikes Back, or Karate Kid III over Karate Kid I, or Batman & Robin over The Dark Knight (or any other Batman movie), or Elektra over The Avengers. Or Spock's Brain over City on the Edge of Forever.

What is it about Superman II that makes it that bad for you?

I know that the behind the scenes were a mess, but that's rather extreme.

 

[kirk55555]

I think the best on-screen Lois is the one Dana Delany played on Superman: The Animated Series.

Agreed. She was perfect. And I've said before I think she would've been great in a live-action setting also. Heck, she still could; the woman does not age!

Yeah, she's definitely my favorite Lois. Second would go to Lois from Smallville. None of the movie Lois's ever really made an impression on me, although if I had to choose my favorite movie Lois it would probably be the Christopher reeves movie's Lois. She made at least a little impression, unlike the Man of Steel and Superman Returns Lois's.

 

[tomswift2002]

What is it about Superman II that makes it that bad for you?

I know that the behind the scenes were a mess, but that's rather extreme.

I found the story just plodded along, and never really gained any momentum. Donner's cut managed to make the story more interesting, but I just found Zod was very uninteresting and his associates never really added anything.

When I watch both Superman I and Donner's cut of Superman II, I can see the interconnectivity of the two movies, and where the story was moving, but even in I the opening court room scene with Zod I thought was done fine and there really was no need to revisit the characters in II, and no need to have a story just about Zod and his cronies. You know it was done and over, time to move on. II I find was closer to Returns and Man of Steel where it was more about the visuals than the actual story.

IV I find the story did move faster than II and I was able to enjoy it more than II.

None of the movie Lois's ever really made an impression on me, although if I had to choose my favorite movie Lois it would probably be the Christopher reeves movie's Lois.

You realize that Noel Neill starred in the 1950 Atom Man Vs. Superman and 1948 Superman theatrical serials, while Phyllis Coates played Lois in the 1951 Superman And The Mole Men theatrical serials/movies, and then both played Lois on the 1950's Adventures of Superman? There have really only been 3 film Lois Lanes who have not appeared as Lois in the TV shows (although Margot Kidder did make a few appearances on Smallville as Dr. Bridget Crosby).

 

[EnriqueH]

What is it about Superman II that makes it that bad for you?

I know that the behind the scenes were a mess, but that's rather extreme.

I found the story just plodded along, and never really gained any momentum. Donner's cut managed to make the story more interesting, but I just found Zod was very uninteresting and his associates never really added anything.


IV I find the story did move faster than II and I was able to enjoy it more than II.

Well, IV was about 90 minutes, so I guess it did move faster, but how can you say it was better than II when IV had DEFINITE story problems? Not to mention embarrassing dialogue and special effects?

Don't get me wrong, you like what you like, but I don't understand how you can criticize II for its story, and then at the same time, rank IV over II when IV had worse problems than II.

Again, you like what you like, but when someone says The Phantom Menace is better than The Empire Strikes Back (or Spock's Brain is better than City on the Edge of Forever/Naked Time, etc.), you kinda think to yourself, "Ok, where's that coming from? How does that make sense?"

When I watch both Superman I and Donner's cut of Superman II, I can see the interconnectivity of the two movies, and where the story was moving, but even in I the opening court room scene with Zod I thought was done fine and there really was no need to revisit the characters in II, and no need to have a story just about Zod and his cronies. You know it was done and over, time to move on. II I find was closer to Returns and Man of Steel where it was more about the visuals than the actual story.

You kinda lost me here.

I thought the story for Superman II was pretty consistent in both the Donner & Lester versions. The difference was the approach (i.e. more or less humor), but the skeleton of the story (Zod invades Earth, Superman gives up powers to be with Lois, Superman regains powers, etc.) was pretty much the same.

I'm also confused by how you think there was no need to revisit Zod when it's pretty clear that this was the intention all along by having Superman going mano a mano with bad guys with his powers. At the beginning of Superman I, it's obvious they left that thread hanging.

 

[tomswift2002]

Again, you like what you like, but when someone says The Phantom Menace is better than The Empire Strikes Back (or Spock's Brain is better than City on the Edge of Forever/Naked Time, etc.), you kinda think to yourself, "Ok, where's that coming from? How does that make sense?"

Well, Spock's Brain is better than The Alternative Factor I don't know how people can say that SB is the worst of TOS, when TAF just doesn't make any sort of sense ("he's got the bandage" "no he doesn't have the bandage" "yes he has the bandage!")

I thought the story for Superman II was pretty consistent in both the Donner & Lester versions. The difference was the approach (i.e. more or less humor), but the skeleton of the story (Zod invades Earth, Superman gives up powers to be with Lois, Superman regains powers, etc.) was pretty much the same.

I'm also confused by how you think there was no need to revisit Zod when it's pretty clear that this was the intention all along by having Superman going mano a mano with bad guys with his powers. At the beginning of Superman I, it's obvious they left that thread hanging.

Really? Sending a criminal to jail who is shouting that he'll get even with the guy or the family of the guy who sent him to jail is suppose to be a hook for a future story line? I've only seen that pulled off successfully once and it was in Dick Tracy's G-Men. Otherwise, it's an overused plot device. So in I, as far as Zod is concerned, the scene gave him a send off and really did nothing, aside from maybe pushing from a future "C" plot line of a 1-dimensional character. And really in II, that's what the writers were trying to do, create an A-story from something that wasn't even "B" plot material.

Plus Zod, as I've already mentioned, I found him to be a very 1-dimensional character---he was written as a villain and then given nothing to get us emothinally involved with his story and why he wanted to kill Superman. Even on Smallville, where the producers seemed to be leading the Zod character up to how Terrance Stamp portrayed Zod in II, I found that Zod's backstory was really nothing that I cared about and it really did not transform this 1-dimensional villain into anything more than a 1.5-dimensional villain. To date, probably the one Zod performance that I really got into was the one from the opening of Season 4 of Lois & Clark. But even then, that Zod was still missing something that was not letting me connect with why he was doing what he was doing.

Superman II could've probably featured Bizarro and had a more emotional connection than Zod.

 

[Christopher]

Really? Sending a criminal to jail who is shouting that he'll get even with the guy or the family of the guy who sent him to jail is suppose to be a hook for a future story line?

Yes, except that it wasn't really a future storyline, but part 2 of the same storyline. The two movies were written as a single, unified script and were filmed back to back. The Salkinds were trying to do on purpose what they'd done unintentionally (and a bit illegally) with Richard Lester's The Three Musketeers and The Four Musketeers. Those were meant to be one film, but it ended up so lengthy that the Salkinds decided to split it in two (and then tried to get away with not paying the cast for the second movie, leading to lawsuits and contract reforms in later films). Here, I assume the cast was properly paid for two films, although the Salkinds still managed to weasel out of paying Marlon Brando for the second by cutting him out of it altogether.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Also, at one point Donner's plan was to have the villains shown escaping the Phantom Zone at the end of the first film as a tease/cliffhanger...freed by the nuke that Supes threw into space in that film rather than a separate nuke as later written into II.

If the plan hadn't been to set them up as later villains, the scene exiling them to the Zone at the start of the first film would have been a pointless waste of time.