Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Dusty Ayres, Jun 20, 2010.
Just because she's a country singer? Let's not indulge in ugly stereotypes.
Actually, I had no idea she was a country singer. That's pretty funny.
Maybe it's just a bad picture, but she sure looks bucktoothed and inbred to me. Look at that brow!
Pretty much right. The Reeves movies, especially 1 and 2, got it right. Unless they have something new to do with the character (just as the Reeve version did new things the Reeves and Alyn versions couldn't), there's no reason to make something new, as Superman Returns proved.
Hell, they're about to "reboot" Spiderman -- why??
She, like Christopher Reeve, was an unknown, who was picked from among thousands of actors. They made a good choice. She had a natural, innocent beauty about her. Thank God they didn't pick some California bimbo as they'd likely do now.
I agree. Slater not only was attractive, and not only did she look the part, but she had a lot of other qualities that really helped, aside from the problems with the film.
I agree with Ebert here:
There is certainly many different Supergirl costumes to choose from, like this HUGE picture at Devianart shows:
I did not honestly know, that there was so many different costumes over the years
Any director is going to get complaints about the costume regardless of how much skin is showing. I don't think there's an easy answer to that one.
Whether or not she was famous wasn't what I was getting at at all.
I am all for picking unknowns for iconic-type roles. My point was Helen Slater, while pretty, was no more different than any of the hundreds of other pretty young blonds trying to make it in movies.
Also, unlike Christopher Reeve, nothing about her performance was all the great. She just kind of went through the motions and never really "became" that character on screen nor made the character her own. Now, it could have been a script issue, but Slater never did much to try to overcome it, imo.
While she did an adequate job in the role, I definitely wouldn't call her casting inspired.
But Superman Returns did do something new with the character. Whether you liked it or not is another matter entirely.
And who says they won't try to do something new with a Supergirl movie? It is not like the 80s movie did a whole hell of a lot.
Is it hard being that classy or does it just come natural to you?
Some are from a time in the early 70s when the readers would submit costume designs. Others look like variations caused by artists drawing it "wrong" and one offs.
I'm a fan of the puffy sleeves, hot pants/short shorts and choker look.
Well, can anybody name a strong Supergirl storyline that doesn't involve other major superheroes? That's problem number one, imo.
How about Allison Mack!
Because some of us would be quite happy seeing another team's take on the material.
No one's forcing you to watch these movies. If you don't think there should be any more Supes movies, don't watch 'em.
Why use an existing storyline?
Well she was only in one episode, and is better known for more substantial roles on Friday Night Lights and Supernatural. Plus the general public doesn't watch Smallville and probably wouldn't recognize anyone associated with the show anyway.
Exactly. Pretty much every big superhero blockbuster has made up an original storyline. Aside from the specific details of the hero's origin, very rarely have the movies just done a straight adaptation of an old comic book storyline. WATCHMEN is the exception to rule.
Just to cite the most relevant example: I don't recall any classic SUPERMAN issues where Lex Luthor tried to drop California into the ocean by launching a nuclear missile at the San Andreas fault. Or a graphic novel where he gave up his powers right before General Zod escaped from the Phantom Zone . . . .
The movies tend to cherry-pick cool images and scenes from the comics, then come up with a two-hour storyline that connects them together. Often this involves boiling fifty years of convoluted continuity into one stream-lined, movie-friendly plot.
I loved this costume - it was the one she wore when I was collecting.
So... I can only express an opinion if I'll engage in the fan-boy circle-jerk.
I think not.
^^ Not at all. By all means, express whatever opinion you like. But you asked a question, and I answered it. My friendly advice that you not watch stuff you have no interest in was in no way meant to discourage you from commenting on it in the first place.
But as this thread demonstrates, pretty much all of us would like to see a new Supergirl movie of some kind, so if anyone can be accused of trying to shut down the discussion, well...
She was different from those hundreds, because unlike 99% of them, she was successful. She's not the failure you're casting her as. She was the lead performer and title character in her first two movies, Supergirl and The Legend of Billie Jean. Not many actresses can say that. She went on to major roles in films like Ruthless People, The Secret of My Success, Sticky Fingers (her third lead role), and Happy Together -- that's six movies in six years in which she was first, second, or fourth-billed. She then had a regular role in a TV series called Capital News the following year, and then had a substantial role in City Slickers the year after that. The year after that, she began a recurring role as the voice of Talia al Ghul in Batman: The Animated Series. The year after that, she was the lead in the theatrical feature Betrayal of the Dove and the co-lead in the TV movie 12:01. And she continued to have lead roles in theatrical and TV movies for years thereafter, though they inevitably began to drop off as she got older. But for at least eleven years, Helen Slater was getting leading-lady roles in films and television on a regular basis, and continued to do so on a less regular basis for at least another seven years thereafter. And she's continued to work steadily as a utility player in film and TV to this day, including lead roles in two films coming out later this year, Beautiful Wave and Power & Pride.
That is a very good career record for any actress. In fact, Helen Slater has slightly more acting credits on her resume than Christopher Reeve did. (And that is a fair comparison despite Reeve's 2004 death, because Reeve started his film career about six years before Slater did, so it's about the same interval. Although it's worth noting that Reeve had nearly twice as many credits "as himself" as he had acting credits, so he was undeniably more famous. But fame isn't the only measure of professional success.) So your dismissal of her career is simply counterfactual.
I think Snaploud's intent may be to question whether Supergirl is capable of carrying a story on her own as opposed to being a supporting player.
If that were an issue, how about a Supergirl and the Legion of Super Heroes film?
Whoa! Back the trolley up! You are reading waay into my post. Whether or not she has had a successful career has no baring on what I was saying as I was focusing my comments strictly around the time in her casting as Supergirl. Also, in no way did I dismiss her career. Please don't put words into my mouth.
My point, as you conveniently left out of your quoting of me, was she did nothing really to define herself as Supergirl and that she was very pedestrian in her acting as Supergirl. Because of that, I don't find her casting to be "inspired".
Since I used the term first, I'll respond:
Slater was cast with some serious heavy hitters - an all-star cast, really -- picking up the mantle of an extremely successful movie franchise.
She conveyed exactly what the movie required her to convey, and embodied its vision of Supergirl. She had no awkward "bad acting" moments (bear in mind she was a trained actress), and held her own within the contraints of the part opposite the affore-mentioned heavyweights.
Separate names with a comma.