Who is the best actor to play Clark Kent?

[Mojochi]

It depends on what you think Clark Kent is, because while I enjoy Christopher Reeve's the most, his is a definitive departure from what Kent had been, a departure which I think was a brilliant decision in trying to find a way to make Kent more relevant to modern times

However, the original idea of the Kent alter ego is to be a disguise that's successful simply by being bland and unnoticed, an every man that no one would ever look twice at, sort of the way David Carradine describes him in Kill Bill, a wholly & deliberately unremarkable man.

Reeve's Kent hardly fits that archetype. He is a bumbling & awkward dunce almost to an extreme. That is not someone who goes unnoticed. He gets noticed as being a fool or chump, but he gets noticed. Don't get me wrong, because I love Reeve's portrayal. It's a different take on being the opposite of Superman, & is far more cinematically entertaining, but not the original intention, and the actors who played Kent before Reeve, played it more along those lines. So if that's the Kent you prefer, then you should like them better. I found the portrayal in Max Fleischer's animated series to be my favorite, but of the post-Reeve's Kents, Reeve is still my favorite

 

[Christopher]

However, the original idea of the Kent alter ego is to be a disguise that's successful simply by being bland and unnoticed, an every man that no one would ever look twice at, sort of the way David Carradine describes him in Kill Bill, a wholly & deliberately unremarkable man.

I don't think Bill's interpretation of Kent should be mistaken for the creators' actual intention; I think it says more about Bill's own cynical character and worldview than about anything to do with Kent or Superman as actually written. Yes, Kent was originally conceived to be a passive milquetoast who'd never be mistaken for a hero, but he wasn't consistently portrayed that way in the comics or on radio and TV, since that wouldn't have been that interesting. He was the Daily Planet's star reporter, someone who got noticed for being very successful at his job and constantly getting impossible scoops on stories that Superman was involved with. The radio version of Kent was actually a bold, intrepid, crusading reporter; it was often incongruous to have Lois written as feeling contempt for his cowardice, since that didn't fit how he was actually portrayed, as someone who didn't hesitate to stand up to bullying racketeers and politicians and the like because he had no reason to fear for his safety. So there was a disconnect between the "mild-mannered reporter" Kent was supposed to be and the fearless way he actually behaved. George Reeves's Kent wasn't quite that fearless, but he was still a crusading star reporter who certainly got noticed -- and he was an influence on the DC Animated Universe version of Clark, which also played him up as a tough investigative journalist rather than a timid bumbler. Then there's the Byrne/Lois & Clark/Smallville version where Clark is popular and well-liked in his own right and extremely attractive to women.

So I can't think of many versions of Clark Kent that actually have been portrayed as bland and unremarkable. Maybe that was the original thinking, but it's rarely been consistently applied. So Reeve's Kent is hardly the first or only departure from that model.

 

[Mojochi]

^True, I just remember thinking about Reeve, "Wow, this guy is a lot more awkward than I've ever seen anyone go". Honestly, there really is no way to have any kind of compelling performance of an unremarkable character. They've each had to find a kernel of something interesting to latch onto in their portrayal. I just found Reeve's to be a lot more daring, in that the film lets his mild-manner actually be something of the humorous heart of the film. Having Hackman & Beatty doing their own comedy added to it as well. In a weird way, I don't think there's ever been a more comedic Superman production

 

[Mudd]

Christopher Reeve's Clark was just part of the comedic tone of the Metropolis segments of Superman: The Movie - every character from Perry White to Lois Lane to Luthor and his henchmen were just a half-a-dial's-turn from the 1960s Batman TV series.

That's the only context in which Reeve's Clark was an acceptable portrayal.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

That's the only context in which Reeve's Clark was an acceptable portrayal.

So you haven't had time to check the results of the poll yet, I'll take it?

 

[Leviathan]

Shatner.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I don't get the Dean Cain love. But I barely watched Lois and Clark when it was on, so I must have missed something

 

[Starkers]

Ben Affleck playing George Reeves playing Clark Kent.

Nah I'm just kidding. Christopher Reeve all the way.

 

[LJones41]

I never really liked Christopher Reeve's take on Clark Kent, if I must be brutally honest. I never saw the need for Clark to be portrayed as some kind of klutz or comedy relief. I thought it was just a bit too much and one dimensional. And I was somewhat annoyed that Brandon Routh nearly portrayed the character in the same way. Thank goodness other actors like George Reeves, Dean Cain, Tom Welling and Henry Cavill did not portray Clark as "comedy relief".

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

So I can't think of many versions of Clark Kent that actually have been portrayed as bland and unremarkable. Maybe that was the original thinking, but it's rarely been consistently applied. So Reeve's Kent is hardly the first or only departure from that model.

It's important to point out that however bumbling and awkward Reeve's version of Kent is (on a personal level), he's still a good reporter. Remember how Perry White describes him:

Clark Kent may seem like just a mild-mannered reporter, but listen, not only does he know how to treat his editor-in-chief with the proper respect, not only does he have a snappy, punchy prose style, but he is, in my forty years in this business, the fastest typist I've ever seen.

Now maybe I'm way off base here, but that doesn't exactly seem like the description of a total loser, ya know?

 

[LJones41]

I think this sentimental regard for Reeve's performance strikes me a bit over-the-top. I think this sentimentality has been going on ever since the debut of Cavill in the DCEU. No one barely got this worked up when other actors like Welling and Cain had portrayed the character.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I think this sentimental regard for Reeve's performance strikes me a bit over-the-top.

I don't think so. Reeve's portrayal gets this kind of attention because it deserves it. You can't be over the top about someone if they've earned it.

 

[LJones41]

You have your opinion. I have mine. Even if a lot of people share your opinion. If Reeve deserved his high regard, then the other actors also deserve a high regard for their performances. There was nothing singularly special about Reeve's performance in compare to the others . . . at least not to me.

 

[Mojochi]

I never really liked Christopher Reeve's take on Clark Kent, if I must be brutally honest. I never saw the need for Clark to be portrayed as some kind of klutz or comedy relief. I thought it was just a bit too much and one dimensional.

I get what you're saying, & you're of course entitled to your opinion, but I actually think it was a necessary direction, firstly for the audience of the time to have a more light hearted approach, compared to how seriously it was taken prior, because no one was making superhero movies at all. They needed a more relaxed & humorous approach to warm the movie audiences up to the concept on the whole. Superman & Clark Kent were corny at the time the movie was made. The idea that they'd have a big budget superhero movie was kind of silly in & of itself. They embraced the silliness in the entire production. It was a smart move imho. Look how successful it became. No one even expected that to happen

Secondly, see that last point about the silliness. How odd would it have been for Lois, Jimmy, Mr. White , Luthor & pretty much everyone else in the film to have been doing a comedic take on their characters, only to have Kent not doing that? It would have been extremely misplaced. I mean a pimp yells "Nice Threads" at Superman for god sake. For all intents & purposes, it's a comedy action movie, for good or ill

And I was somewhat annoyed that Brandon Routh nearly portrayed the character in the same way.

That does bug me, for several reasons. 1, hackneyed... Just let it go. 2, Returns is not a comedy action film. It's terribly misplaced. 3, it's just an insult to Reeve, & to Routh to expect some kind of impersonation, & 4, that makes it seem less valid as a film unto itself

It's important to point out that however bumbling and awkward Reeve's version of Kent is (on a personal level), he's still a good reporter. Remember how Perry White describes him

I actually took that as a joke. Maybe Perry is being honest, but it's clear he is old fashioned, & in being so, that Clark appeals to his tastes is reflective of that fact, & kind of funny, because Clark is portrayed as a rube, especially that his biggest compliments revolve around how much Clark is kind of a brown nose to the boss too

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Perry White is not one to tell jokes. If he says something is true, we can assume it is. Up to, and including, Clark's qualifications as a reporter.

 

[Christopher]

I think this sentimental regard for Reeve's performance strikes me a bit over-the-top. I think this sentimentality has been going on ever since the debut of Cavill in the DCEU. No one barely got this worked up when other actors like Welling and Cain had portrayed the character.

Of course they did. There are always objections to any new interpretation of a fictional franchise. It's just that they aren't always remembered years later. We remember the parts of the past we want to remember, and gloss over the messy stuff, so we imagine that the present is messier than the past was.

Go back to the sci-fi magazines and Star Trek comic book letter columns of the early '80s, and you'll see fans complaining about The Wrath of Khan in exactly the same terms that fans today complain about the Bad Robot movies. Go back to newspapers of any of the past seven or eight decades, and you'll see movie critics complaining that Hollywood is too enamored of remakes and doesn't do enough original stories "anymore." Modern objections are never, ever as new as people imagine they are, because people are far more predictable than they like to admit they are.

In this particular case, I can state from personal experience that you're way off-base. There's nothing remotely new about the idea that Christopher Reeve was a better Clark and a better Superman than his successors. He's been the gold standard ever since 1978. I can never remember a time when he wasn't praised for his work in the role or considered the definitive Superman actor.

I get what you're saying, & you're of course entitled to your opinion, but I actually think it was a necessary direction, firstly for the audience of the time to have a more light hearted approach, compared to how seriously it was taken prior, because no one was making superhero movies at all. They needed a more relaxed & humorous approach to warm the movie audiences up to the concept on the whole. Superman & Clark Kent were corny at the time the movie was made. The idea that they'd have a big budget superhero movie was kind of silly in & of itself. They embraced the silliness in the entire production. It was a smart move imho. Look how successful it became. No one even expected that to happen

Well, that's not entirely true. By 1978, when the movie was made, Superman comics -- and comics in general -- had started to move beyond the campiness of the Silver Age and start telling more sophisticated, intelligent stories, although still in the same continuity as before and thus still including a lot of the sillier aspects. The first Reeve movie reflects that fairly well, that dichotomy between broad, fanciful ideas and grounded, naturalistic execution, although the balance was different. In general, the public perception and media portrayal of comics tended to lag a decade or two behind where they actually were at the time -- for instance, while Burton and Schumacher were doing their campy, hyperstylized, fanciful versions of Batman in the late '80s and early '90s, the Batman comics were being done with a grounded, gritty, violent style that wouldn't be depicted in the movies until the Nolan films in the 2000s. So the Superman movies of the '70s and '80s still reflected a lot of the comics sensibilities of the '50s and '60s, even though the first two made an attempt at grounding them in a more modern style (while Superman III and Supergirl went for pure, unapologetic Silver Age wackiness).

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Well, that's not entirely true. By 1978, when the movie was made, Superman comics -- and comics in general -- had started to move beyond the campiness of the Silver Age and start telling more sophisticated, intelligent stories, although still in the same continuity as before and thus still including a lot of the sillier aspects. The first Reeve movie reflects that fairly well, that dichotomy between broad, fanciful ideas and grounded, naturalistic execution, although the balance was different.

Nope, it is true. If you read Mojochi's post he is strictly talking about films and not comics. Up until 1978 there weren't any serious big budget superhero films with legitimate big movie actors. Superman: The Movie was the first and the template for many decades after.

In general, the public perception and media portrayal of comics tended to lag a decade or two behind where they actually were at the time -- for instance, while Burton and Schumacher were doing their campy, hyperstylized, fanciful versions of Batman in the late '80s and early '90s, the Batman comics were being done with a grounded, gritty, violent style that wouldn't be depicted in the movies until the Nolan films in the 2000s.

Now that's not entirely true. Tim Burton has stated many times that the serious gritty Batman graphic novels of the '80s (The Dark Knight Returns, Year One, The Killing Joke) were inspirations for his 1989 Batman. And his 2 films have no similarities whatsoever with Schumacher's '66-style camp.

 

[MacLeod]

I never really liked Christopher Reeve's take on Clark Kent, if I must be brutally honest. I never saw the need for Clark to be portrayed as some kind of klutz or comedy relief. I thought it was just a bit too much and one dimensional. And I was somewhat annoyed that Brandon Routh nearly portrayed the character in the same way. Thank goodness other actors like George Reeves, Dean Cain, Tom Welling and Henry Cavill did not portray Clark as "comedy relief".

Hardly surprising, given that Superman Returns was in essence a follow on movie to the events of Superman: The Movie & Superman II.

Isn't part of how we answer these questions in part down to who was playing the role at a certain point in our life. If I ask a question like who is the best actor to potray Sherlock Holmes, many of a certain age will say Jeremy Brett, ask those of a different age they might answer differently.