Hadn't heard that, is cool. Bet he kept his Executive Producer paycheck though.
Superman
- Thread starter urbandefault
- Start date
He's always been a Christ image: the visitor who brings healing in his wings so to speak; but I believe it's in this book the author perceives or believes him to be Jewish, being the quintessential outsider, and created by Jerry Siegel. The Routh movie almost overplayed the Christ symbolism: he goes way out to bask in the sun near the end iirc, extends his arms like the cross and even crosses his legs a bit, ot at least keeps em together. Here 's a pic, though you all probably remembered it better than I did.
78 had enough action in 78. Since I'm from then, maybe that's why I hate all the modern blockbusters that seem hyperkinetic (and literally too loud!): JJTrek, I'm lookin at you.
My son warned me not to see Man of Steel. I can't do superhero movies because there is so much hate and violence in the world I don't want to watch representations of people smashing each other with their fists. Just no thanks. Wimpy, I know. Blasters and sabers don't bother me though. Weird.
My son warned me not to see Man of Steel. I can't do superhero movies because there is so much hate and violence in the world I don't want to watch representations of people smashing each other with their fists. Just no thanks. Wimpy, I know. Blasters and sabers don't bother me though. Weird.
Little did Superman know that his high school crush Lana Lane was actually his mom from another reality.
Jason
Lana Lang.
I love Superman directed by Richard Donner and I would like to add the Director's edition of Superman II; it's fun to see the scenes he shot and footage shot with Marlan Brando.
Personally, I have enjoyed nearly every incarnation of the Man of Steel on the small and Silver Screen--some more than others.
I like Dean Cain's portrayal, though I find that I enjoyed his Clark Kent more than his Superman. But his was the first post Crisis version of the character and what I liked was it was a perfect example of the human side of Clark. He wasn't a bumbling idiot, and while as Superman, he was still the hero, as Clark, he was able to portray his human side and his own issues.
I’ve never been a huge fan of Superman just cause I like it better when heroes have more balanced abilities and have to use their brains more to win.
But I can see the point of view that Superman is meant as a character with certain unassailable virtues and diminishing them diminishes the character.
I also agree that newer superhero movies can be too hyperkinetic. I like the improved visual effects but when so much is going on on the screen moving so fast you can’t pick out individual maneuvers well it loses the quality that made 80s action so compelling.
But I can see the point of view that Superman is meant as a character with certain unassailable virtues and diminishing them diminishes the character.
I also agree that newer superhero movies can be too hyperkinetic. I like the improved visual effects but when so much is going on on the screen moving so fast you can’t pick out individual maneuvers well it loses the quality that made 80s action so compelling.
Agreed on a lot of this. Whether Superman is your favorite is certainly an opinion and valid either way, but there is a right way to write Superman, and it hasn't been done recently. The comics even have strayed.
DC can't be right until they get Superman right. Cavill's version didn't work because Snyder wanted to make Superman into Batman and then have him get trounced by Batman. It was stupid. Just because Frank Miller wrote a story 30 years ago doesn't make it any less absurd that Batman could compete with Superman physically. The only way Superman loses is if you depower or dumb him down.
Superman can be knocked down and hurt. But when he is pissed off, not even Darkseid can stop him. He just never cuts loose, and THAT sometimes can cause him to lose.
But Superman knows his purpose and inspires all the other heroes.
The action in the Cavill movies also wasn't great. You need to be able to follow along and throw punches with him. You don't need high speed jittery cameras.
To me this is sort of the big issue with Superman. What makes the character work is hard to make work because the things that make him appealing are very different from almost any regular character. He can be very boring if written one way or he can loose the things that make him special if you go another way. Writing for him must be what it was like trying to write for TNG and having to follow the Roddenberry rules yet also still having to make it all work.
Jason
I don't actually think it's all that hard, as evidenced by the many, many comic book writers and film/TV scenarists who have given us wonderful portrayals of the character over the past eight decades.
But if you insist on approaching the character on the false premise that nobody can actually be good or selfless, or that such a character is inherently boring, then that's really on you, not him. And yeah, at that point you've set your version of Superman up for failure.
Well, I agree for the most part. When written well, Superman is awesome. The 1996 cartoon was amazing and had the best Superman story I have ever seen portrayed on TV. The movies no so much, but aside from Tyler so far, and that can change, he has been done very well on TV.
Superman doesn't aspire to be a hero. He already is one. What makes him so amazing is with all his power, he is an exception to the rule that absolute power corrupts absolutely. The only selfish thing he does is keep his identity as Clark Kent, so he can have some level of a life outside of being a hero. He can't be Superman all the time. Call that a weakness or a strength, but it's an integral part of the character.
Correct. The function of a character like Superman is to elevate and inspire. And that's a worthy, even vital thing for art to do. It's a fallacy that meaning and relevance are only found in darkness and despair.
For me, it's less about Cain's portrayal of Superman as it is his look. You're probably right about his portrayal as Clark being better, but to me, his look as Superman is as close as any live-acton production has gotten to the way Joe Shuster drew him back in the day. Especially when he smiles. That does it for me every time.
It's true the movies have had their ups and downs. But they did give us Superman '78, arguably THE defining portrayal of the character across all media, and Exhibit A against any argument that Superman has to be "fixed" somehow in order to work on the big screen.
They also gave us Superman and the Mole Men, which, for all its low-budget B-movieness, captures much of the character's essence, in both George Reeves's authoritative performance and in Superman's stern opposition to bigotry and xenophobia.
Even the less successful movies have elements to treasure, including Superman III (the junkyard battle, a wonderful metaphor for Clark's essential humanity asserting itself to save the day), Superman IV (that lovely moment when Superman needs a sponsor to address the UN, and every hand in the room shoots up to endorse him), and MoS / BvS (all things Clark/Lois).
That's a great scene in a horrible movie. Well-directed by Richard Lester and brilliantly acted by Christopher Reeve.
