|
Post by String on Sept 13, 2021 12:32:31 GMT -5
I am disheartened that no one has mentioned Popeye (1981), yet. It was, in my opinion, the most faithful, to a fault, to its comics source material. It perfectly captured the weird whimsy and wordplay of the comic strip. The set of Sweethaven is incredible and still stands today, and it a tourist attraction in Malta. Besides that, I echo the sentiments about Superman (1978) and Captain America (2011) which both perfectly capture the title characters' nuanced personalities. I also LOVE the 1959 musical version of Lil' Abner, which is also a perfect translation. To see it performed live on stage is awesome, too. Wow, I had totally forgotten about Popeye, brings back memories of how much I hated it as a kid. I found it annoying (then again, I've never liked Popeye). Still, now that I remember it, it ranks up there for me alongside Hook as my least favorite Robin Williams films.
|
|
|
Post by String on Sept 13, 2021 12:41:05 GMT -5
Interesting to find fans who didn't care for Christopher Reeve as Superman/Clark. I've of course encountered critics of he overall movie, and the portrayal of Kent, but never Reeve as Superman. Personally I've never been able to stand anyone else in the role, certainly not George Reeves or Dean Kane who don't look or feel anything like the character to me. I didn't like Henry Cavill either, though I love him as Geralt the Witcher. Reeves was so good that he's more definitive to me than any comic version. The first part of Superman (Clark in Smallville, the death of Pa Kent, his leaving and such), the scenery, dialogue, music, all combines, for me, into a perfect distillation of Americana, absolutely love this part of the film. Yet I would agree that I don't like Reeves' Clark. There is mild-mannered and then there is overdoing it. Looking at his behaviour, one could almost tell that he is putting an act for others. That being said, I liked Brandon Routh in the role. Even if he was picking up from Reeves' portrayal, I thought Routh did well in toning down Clark, making him a tad more believable. Of course, I also agree with the assessment that I like Routh's Superman, just not the particular film/story he was used in.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Sept 13, 2021 13:37:07 GMT -5
Interesting to find fans who didn't care for Christopher Reeve as Superman/Clark. I've of course encountered critics of he overall movie, and the portrayal of Kent, but never Reeve as Superman. Personally I've never been able to stand anyone else in the role, certainly not George Reeves or Dean Kane who don't look or feel anything like the character to me. I didn't like Henry Cavill either, though I love him as Geralt the Witcher. Reeves was so good that he's more definitive to me than any comic version. The first part of Superman (Clark in Smallville, the death of Pa Kent, his leaving and such), the scenery, dialogue, music, all combines, for me, into a perfect distillation of Americana, absolutely love this part of the film. Yet I would agree that I don't like Reeves' Clark. There is mild-mannered and then there is overdoing it. Looking at his behaviour, one could almost tell that he is putting an act for others. I see what you mean, but when I first saw these movies I didn't feel that bumbling Clark was an act. I really felt that he was like that in real life. The best analogy I can think of is that of a kindly and absent-minded professor, who in a normal context puts on socks of different colours and salts his coffee, but becomes intensely focused when working in the lab. I could perfectly imagine a bespectacled Clark alone at home, accidentally sending the dog's frisbee into orbit, and saying "oops". Now when he put on the tights, he didn't have to deal with mundane stuff; and if he did, he could easily explain that he wasn't that good at it because he was a supergod from another planet. The Superman persona allowed him to chill, but it was still something of a role; he didn't have to interact with other people all that much, nor with ordinary details of a mortal's life. Just my interpretation, of course. Same here. I was really happy when Roth reprised the role on TV.
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Sept 13, 2021 15:33:00 GMT -5
Wow, I had totally forgotten about Popeye, brings back memories of how much I hated it as a kid. I found it annoying (then again, I've never liked Popeye). Still, now that I remember it, it ranks up there for me alongside Hook as my least favorite Robin Williams films. Definitely a polarizing film... Everyone I know either loves it or hates it... no inbetween!
|
|
|
Post by foxley on Sept 13, 2021 16:42:46 GMT -5
Definitely a polarizing film... Everyone I know either loves it or hates it... no inbetween! A Popeye movie were Popeye hates spinach? WTF?
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Sept 13, 2021 17:03:01 GMT -5
Interesting to find fans who didn't care for Christopher Reeve as Superman/Clark. I've of course encountered critics of he overall movie, and the portrayal of Kent, but never Reeve as Superman. Personally I've never been able to stand anyone else in the role, certainly not George Reeves or Dean Kane who don't look or feel anything like the character to me. I didn't like Henry Cavill either, though I love him as Geralt the Witcher. Reeves was so good that he's more definitive to me than any comic version. My favourite Superman is the original Siegel-&-Shuster Superman, my favourite Clark the post- Crisis Clark. Reeves & Cain come closest to recapturing those versions of the character, respectively, than any other actors before-or-since. Chris Reeve may be the most Supermanly in appearance of the three, but there's virtually nothing about his version of the character I find endearing. His Superman and Clark Kent are both facades, the real personality suppressed after twelve years of brainwashing by Jor-El's ghost into being a good subservient foot soldier.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Sept 13, 2021 18:10:16 GMT -5
For some who were so shaken by his killing Zod, I say it was justified, as there was no other option; he was not going to grab Zod by the collar and fly him to the steps of the MPD, admonishing him for breaking the law. There are threats of a level that could not be talked down, tossed in jail, or reasoned with. There was no other option because of lazy writing. The events didn't really happen. They were created whole-cloth by the writer(s). If they had been clever, there would have been a way out, where Superman could have defeated Zod without killing him. Look at the slapdash script for that movie and compare it to something like Back to the Future, where not a single second, not a word, is wasted, out of place, or not important. Face it. The Zod killing was there because Zack Snyder thought Superman would be badass killing the villain. It was lazy, it was pointless, and it was bad. No, killing the villain is necessary when negotiation is not an option. Zod was not to be negotiated with, nor would he surrender or allow himself to be captured. MCU Thanos--the same. MCU Red Skull was transported out of the Valkyrie by the Tesseract, but up until that moment, he was not going to stop on his mission to kill millions, and Captain America was trying to kill--not subdue or take him prisoner. To this end, there's no barrier to Superman reasoning that there's no other way to deal with a villain who will not stop, and kill anyone else to achieve his goals. It was also a reflection of a number of real world situations, which is why Zod's death at the hands of Superman resonated, instead of yet another retread of the tired, finger-wagging, "here you go, officer____" Superman "conflicts" again and again.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 9,541
|
Post by Confessor on Sept 14, 2021 6:29:09 GMT -5
I think you guys are nuts! Superman The Movie is still the gold standard of superhero films, as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Sept 14, 2021 7:51:16 GMT -5
I think you guys are nuts! Superman The Movie is still the gold standard of superhero films, as far as I'm concerned. Yeah--I think it hits the right balance, while having four distinct parts: Alien civilization sci-fi; rural America comic-of-age; 70s Noo Yawk; and (finally) superhero movie.
I probably have a soft spot for Chris Reeve in the role since he was only the second and first "contemporary" actor in the role. (The only new Superman movie I saw was Superman Returns and I really don;t remember it. I was too distracted by trying to figure out the chronology: like if Superman had disappeared five years earlier, why he didn't know about Lois' 8-year-old son.)
|
|
|
Post by mikelmidnight on Sept 14, 2021 11:34:05 GMT -5
I never got the feeling that the 50s TV Lois was unlikable. I'm hoping to get that entire series on DVD some day. It's been decades since I've seen it. When I read the first few years of the comics (thanks to the ARCHIVE books, and the newspaper strips in those TPBs), my impression was, that the TV Lois was what Lois might have evolved into had Siegel stayed in charge. But when S&S got fired after trying to sue for a better contract, a lot of the comics in the 50s became mysogenistic.
50s TV Lois was fine, I was referring specifically to the harridan in the comics.
|
|
|
Post by mikelmidnight on Sept 14, 2021 11:37:37 GMT -5
The Umbrella Academy Netflix show is better than the comic.
I agree with this! My wife and I love the series but I have never gotten into the comic.
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Sept 14, 2021 14:41:11 GMT -5
50s TV Lois was fine, I was referring specifically to the harridan in the comics.
Yeah, that's what I mean. The TV people were doing a better job than the then-current comics. Gee-- JUST like the WB BATMAN cartoons in the 90s!!!
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Sept 14, 2021 16:04:06 GMT -5
There was no other option because of lazy writing. The events didn't really happen. They were created whole-cloth by the writer(s). If they had been clever, there would have been a way out, where Superman could have defeated Zod without killing him. Look at the slapdash script for that movie and compare it to something like Back to the Future, where not a single second, not a word, is wasted, out of place, or not important. Face it. The Zod killing was there because Zack Snyder thought Superman would be badass killing the villain. It was lazy, it was pointless, and it was bad. No, killing the villain is necessary when negotiation is not an option. Zod was not to be negotiated with, nor would he surrender or allow himself to be captured. MCU Thanos--the same. MCU Red Skull was transported out of the Valkyrie by the Tesseract, but up until that moment, he was not going to stop on his mission to kill millions, and Captain America was trying to kill--not subdue or take him prisoner. To this end, there's no barrier to Superman reasoning that there's no other way to deal with a villain who will not stop, and kill anyone else to achieve his goals. It was also a reflection of a number of real world situations, which is why Zod's death at the hands of Superman resonated, instead of yet another retread of the tired, finger-wagging, "here you go, officer____" Superman "conflicts" again and again.
Captain America was a soldier with a .45 strapped to his side, in a war where tens of thousands were killed by both sides. Not the same thing. So, in Man of Steel, writing Superman killing Zod was WRONG for a couple of reasons. First, this was literally the introduction of Superman to the world. IF he HAD to have a storyline where he killed someone, he should have been an established HERO for years before he found himself in that situation. To the world, he would be a hero who made a tough choice... some would forgive him, some would see him in a different light. But in the movie, he is introduced to the world and BAM immediately has to kill someone. So he's not a hero, he is, by definition, a murderer. He never had a chance to be a hero. So now, he's a super-powered god who's gonna murder whoever he can't subdue. That's the wrong character. Yes, I know in Byrne's era on the comic, he killed someone, but that was after establishing he was the world's greatest hero for several years in continuity, 60 years in the reader's mind. So it's dramatic and a shock when he makes this decision. And, since he has henceforth been a HERO, with an established pattern of doing no wrong, he is redeemable and forgivable. Who could see Snyder's version as anything other than an alien monster? If Zod had to die in order to put an end to the story (again, lazy writing dictated this, not anything organic about the character), he could have killed himself to soil Kal El's legacy, in the same way Joker twisted his own neck in Dark Knight Returns. At least then, in a theoretical sequel, Superman could at least be vindicated. As it is, on his first tough case, his only solution is "Whelp, I guess I'll just kill him". Yes, I know Snyder was setting up this (probably) trilogy where Superman is eventually vindicated, but, as with every DC movie, they opted to set up a sequel(s) instead of telling a good story. He didn't understand the character, he didn't understand his relationship with Jonathan Kent, and he didn't understand how to tell a story without violence and destruction and "kick-ass action". When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Sept 15, 2021 19:01:26 GMT -5
No, killing the villain is necessary when negotiation is not an option. Zod was not to be negotiated with, nor would he surrender or allow himself to be captured. MCU Thanos--the same. MCU Red Skull was transported out of the Valkyrie by the Tesseract, but up until that moment, he was not going to stop on his mission to kill millions, and Captain America was trying to kill--not subdue or take him prisoner. To this end, there's no barrier to Superman reasoning that there's no other way to deal with a villain who will not stop, and kill anyone else to achieve his goals. It was also a reflection of a number of real world situations, which is why Zod's death at the hands of Superman resonated, instead of yet another retread of the tired, finger-wagging, "here you go, officer____" Superman "conflicts" again and again.
Captain America was a soldier with a .45 strapped to his side, in a war where tens of thousands were killed by both sides. Not the same thing. The Red Skull was not some random soldier, but an enhanced megalomaniac with weapons powered by an alien source, so he was a far greater threat than the collective ability of the Axis Powers. As a result, Cap's only mission was to kill--not negotiate with the Skull. Again I also mention MCU Thanos, who was not treated as someone to capture, or talk down, but to kill. According to...? Beings with unimaginable powers threatening all life on earth is not on some schedule, only appearing after the world's only response is seen as a hero. Superman had to act, which--in one of the most rational set of reactions in a superhero film--made him a hero to some, and a threat to others. Further, how the public perceives anyone killing another is also not on a timeline or based on past deeds; the idea of being labeled a "hero" will mean nothing when the one creature who can save them kills super-beings posing an extinction-level threat. Early Superman comics had him kill villains, and some of those panels have been posted on this board in the past, so a Superman who killed was there from the start. He's not the "boy scout" that used to be constantly force-fed through the George Reeves series, the Super Friends, or the Salkinds' films, nor did the published character start out that way. Wrong--he presented a far more relatable Jonathan Kent, one who warned Clark about the fearful, threatening way humans would likely see and treat an alien. That's being a realistic, true parent, instead of other adaptations, where the idea of a superpowered alien is just glossed over, and he's given his marching orders as if the human population would just grin and cheer for something that no one has ever experienced before. Again, even after his defeat of Zod and his companions, the world was split on Superman as a hero or threat, just as it would be in real life. Superman could not remain trapped in the most silly of the Golden and Silver Age and work in any story set in the approximation of the real world. The comics had to change Superman over the decades, along with film adaptations.
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Sept 16, 2021 8:53:11 GMT -5
Captain America was a soldier with a .45 strapped to his side, in a war where tens of thousands were killed by both sides. Not the same thing. The Red Skull was not some random soldier, but an enhanced megalomaniac with weapons powered by an alien source, so he was a far greater threat than the collective ability of the Axis Powers. As a result, Cap's only mission was to kill--not negotiate with the Skull. Again I also mention MCU Thanos, who was not treated as someone to capture, or talk down, but to kill. According to...? Beings with unimaginable powers threatening all life on earth is not on some schedule, only appearing after the world's only response is seen as a hero. Superman had to act, which--in one of the most rational set of reactions in a superhero film--made him a hero to some, and a threat to others. Further, how the public perceives anyone killing another is also not on a timeline or based on past deeds; the idea of being labeled a "hero" will mean nothing when the one creature who can save them kills super-beings posing an extinction-level threat. Early Superman comics had him kill villains, and some of those panels have been posted on this board in the past, so a Superman who killed was there from the start. He's not the "boy scout" that used to be constantly force-fed through the George Reeves series, the Super Friends, or the Salkinds' films, nor did the published character start out that way. Wrong--he presented a far more relatable Jonathan Kent, one who warned Clark about the fearful, threatening way humans would likely see and treat an alien. That's being a realistic, true parent, instead of other adaptations, where the idea of a superpowered alien is just glossed over, and he's given his marching orders as if the human population would just grin and cheer for something that no one has ever experienced before. Again, even after his defeat of Zod and his companions, the world was split on Superman as a hero or threat, just as it would be in real life. Superman could not remain trapped in the most silly of the Golden and Silver Age and work in any story set in the approximation of the real world. The comics had to change Superman over the decades, along with film adaptations. Those are all valid points, and well-taken. That film is just not my cup of tea, whether it be because of the generation I grew up in, or how I relate to the character. It makes me feel strongly about the subject, but it's really just comic books. The character is big enough for everyone to have "their" version, I have to keep reminding myself. But, hey, what do I know.. My favorite comic movie is Popeye, so my taste is not above question!
|
|