Superman (casting, rumors, pix till release)

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I believed Christopher Reeve was Superman, though - Clark Kent, not so much.

I've always felt the opposite. Reeve was a mediocre Superman, but the definitive Clark Kent.

Nope. His Kent was a caricature, so broadly played as to verge on slapstick in some scenes.

I know that works well within the "Tarantino theory" of Supe's alter ego, but I don't buy that either.

I suppose it could be somewhat justified as part of the uneven comedic tone of the Reeve Superman movies.

 

[Shazam!]

I believed Christopher Reeve was Superman, though - Clark Kent, not so much.

I've always felt the opposite. Reeve was a mediocre Superman, but the definitive Clark Kent.

Nailed both for my money. Kent is an insufferable dullard in most Superman stories so I enjoyed seeing him as a bumbling caricature. Maybe one or two over-the-top moments but not enough to influence my admiration with what Reeve did with both roles.

 

[Gojira]

I believed Christopher Reeve was Superman, though - Clark Kent, not so much.

I've always felt the opposite. Reeve was a mediocre Superman, but the definitive Clark Kent.

Nope. His Kent was a caricature, so broadly played as to verge on slapstick in some scenes.

I know that works well within the "Tarantino theory" of Supe's alter ego, but I don't buy that either.

I suppose it could be somewhat justified as part of the uneven comedic tone of the Reeve Superman movies.

I think somewhere in between Reeve's portrayal of Clark Kent and George Reeves' portrayal of Clark Kent would be a good balance. George Reeves played Kent as a pretty tough guy.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Reeves was good in a lot of ways. I liked Dean Cain fine, too. Reeve, not so much.

 

[Thestral]

I've never seen the Reeve films or Superman Returns myself, so Dean Cain's my who I think of for live-action Clark (sorry Tom Welling).

 

[EnsignRicky]

I thought his bumbling portrayal of Clark Kent was pretty consistent. You have to remember that this is the same Superman who actually thought that spinning the Earth backwards would reverse time.
(Thank God it was only a movie.)

The guy was pretty much operating on the same level as Ferris Bueller.

 

[TheSeeker]

I started reading Superman in the 80s when Byrne took over so I am not much of a fan of the bumbling fool version of Clark Kent. I much prefer the calm, assertive, and confident Clark Kent much more.

 

[EnsignRicky]

In Superman's case, I don't even see the need for a secret identity, he's Superman!!

He should just say; "Hi the name's Clark, just provide me all my basic earthly needs and I'll save your asses every five minutes. And I don't work weekends."

 

[Gojira]

In Superman's case, I don't even see the need for a secret identity, he's Superman!!

He should just say; "Hi the name's Clark, just provide me all my basic earthly needs and I'll save your asses every five minutes. And I don't work weekends."

That's the difference between the DC and Marvel Universe. For the most part Marvel's superheroes let everyone one know who they are. In the DC universe the secret identity seems much more important.

The older I get the harder it is for me to suspend disbelief that people don't know Clark Kent is Superman.

 

[Nerys Myk]

In Superman's case, I don't even see the need for a secret identity, he's Superman!!

He should just say; "Hi the name's Clark, just provide me all my basic earthly needs and I'll save your asses every five minutes. And I don't work weekends."

That's the difference between the DC and Marvel Universe. For the most part Marvel's superheroes let everyone one know who they are. In the DC universe the secret identity seems much more important.

The older I get the harder it is for me to suspend disbelief that people don't know Clark Kent is Superman.

Most of Marvels heroes had the secret ID thing too. Spider-man still does. Iron Man, Cap and DD held on to theirs for a pretty long time. Thor's was probably the earliest one to fade out. Some of them went to elaborate measures to preserve them. (Cap especially). The FF are the only ones who truly had no secret IDs at the start. Well, maybe Dr. Strange, but even his "heroic" ID was sorta secret.

 

[TheSeeker]

In Superman's case, I don't even see the need for a secret identity, he's Superman!!

He should just say; "Hi the name's Clark, just provide me all my basic earthly needs and I'll save your asses every five minutes. And I don't work weekends."

I don't know, it would be hard to have any kind of meaningful personal life if everyone knew who he was.

I'm willing to bet just about any celebrity today who is relentlessly hounded by the paparazzi would love to have a secret identity which would allow them to function normally in society.

 

[Gojira]

In Superman's case, I don't even see the need for a secret identity, he's Superman!!

He should just say; "Hi the name's Clark, just provide me all my basic earthly needs and I'll save your asses every five minutes. And I don't work weekends."

That's the difference between the DC and Marvel Universe. For the most part Marvel's superheroes let everyone one know who they are. In the DC universe the secret identity seems much more important.

The older I get the harder it is for me to suspend disbelief that people don't know Clark Kent is Superman.

Most of Marvels heroes had the secret ID thing too. Spider-man still does. Iron Man, Cap and DD held on to theirs for a pretty long time. Thor's was probably the earliest one to fade out. Some of them went to elaborate measures to preserve them. (Cap especially). The FF are the only ones who truly had no secret IDs at the start. Well, maybe Dr. Strange, but even his "heroic" ID was sorta secret.

Thanks, I never followed Marvel much in the comic books, I was a DC fan, but except for Spider-Man, the movies portray them as not caring too much about their identities.

 

[TheSeeker]

The only reason the movies do that is because the director wants the actor to have his face out there as much as possible. At least that's my theory.

 

[EnsignRicky]

The only reason the movies do that is because the director wants the actor to have his face out there as much as possible. At least that's my theory.

Hence why Superman may be the perfect Hollywood superhero.

They don't have to waste precious screenwriting time trying to constantly get that damned mask off the movie star.

 

[Tom Servo]

The flying in Superman came across as shaky at best in 1978 - a few good shots, a lot of compromises and a few stinkers; no, I did not "believe a man could fly." I believed Christopher Reeve was Superman, though - Clark Kent, not so much.

As for three pages back...I'd sit through Serenity again before I'd tolerate four of the six Star Wars movies, and I do know a few things about film.

I prefer ingenuity, even if it is "shakey" by today's standards, over the so-called panacea of CGI laziness. The scene where Superman first takes off after Lois dangling from a helicopter is amazing,a ndf there's a quick edit in there to perhaps cover the limit of the effects at the time but actually adds to the energy of the shot. I really think that filmmakers have forgotten that art can thrive more on limitations... because with CGI wou can do anything, but you become less creative.

as for your second point, har har har. Without Star wars there would be no stupid browncoat crap, or any blockbusters in the traditional sense, or the idea of science fiction world building. har har har to you!

While I agree that the CG in Superman Returns is a bit dated now, its no more dated then the wire and bluescreen (hell it might have been rear projection, but I would have to look that up) work from the Reeve films. However, can we get over this concept, and it's not just you, it seems to be an internet thing, that somehow practical effects and optical work is ingenuity at its finest, yet anything CG is just being lazy. Yes, to do fast, low grade, shoddy CG can be quick and dirty. However to do blockbuster feature quality work, which SR was AT THE TIME, takes just as much effort, and just as much creativity from artists as the guy doing the optical comps for an older film.

Im sure the filmmakers or the Reeves films would have LOVED to have the technology we have, available to them at the time.

 

[Gojira]

The only reason the movies do that is because the director wants the actor to have his face out there as much as possible. At least that's my theory.

Hence why Superman may be the perfect Hollywood superhero.

They don't have to waste precious screenwriting time trying to constantly get that damned mask off the movie star.

That makes sense.

Now I have to watch Superman Returns to see if the CGI looks dated or not.

 

[Corran Horn]

The only reason the movies do that is because the director wants the actor to have his face out there as much as possible. At least that's my theory.

Hence why Superman may be the perfect Hollywood superhero.

They don't have to waste precious screenwriting time trying to constantly get that damned mask off the movie star.

That makes sense.

Now I have to watch Superman Returns to see if the CGI looks dated or not.

Some shots do. When he brings the shuttle up into space he pushes it away somewhat and the exhaust washes over him - it's a transition from CGI to the actor and the last few seconds of CGI look pretty plastic-y.

 

[Gojira]

Hence why Superman may be the perfect Hollywood superhero.

They don't have to waste precious screenwriting time trying to constantly get that damned mask off the movie star.

That makes sense.

Now I have to watch Superman Returns to see if the CGI looks dated or not.

Some shots do. When he brings the shuttle up into space he pushes it away somewhat and the exhaust washes over him - it's a transition from CGI to the actor and the last few seconds of CGI look pretty plastic-y.

I will specifically look for that.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I started reading Superman in the 80s when Byrne took over so I am not much of a fan of the bumbling fool version of Clark Kent. I much prefer the calm, assertive, and confident Clark Kent much more.

I started reading Superman in the 1950s, but I also prefer Byrne's rebooted version of Clark and the other characters - they're a little more like human beings than the previous incarnations.

It's Byrne's reboot that made a show like Lois And Clark possible - which is a good thing, even if only the first season was worth watching.

 

[Mister Fandango]

I'm pretty sure the Clark Kent from the earlier cartoons and television series weren't bumbling idiots, either. He was more, you know, mild-mannered instead.