The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Your best Clark Kent and/or Superman portrayal
bychance
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Since the Hercules thread kind of died and was admittedly kind of uninteresting, I thought this would garner more participation. Please be objective and not be afraid to criticize Christopher Reeve's performance because of his passing. You can be respectful, that's what matters. Now depending what Superman comic version you prefer (pre-crisis, post-crisis) may deeply change your opinion.
Reminder:
- Kirk Alyn (The serial) 1950?
- George Reeves (The New Adventures of Superman) 1951-1953
- Christopher Reeve (Superman I - IV) 1978-1987
- Dean Cain (Lois and Clark, The New Adventures of Superman) 1993-1997
- Brandon Routh (Superman Returns) 2006
-Tom Welling (Smallville, 2001-forever) is kind of out of the running for now. Gerald Christopher (Superboy) also doesn't count.
For me, the best Clark Kent was Dean Cain. I couldn't get into the bumbling over-the-top Clark that Christopher portrayed, however, his Superman was the best by far. Dean Cain's Superman, however, was lackluster. But to no fault of his own, being that the show is called Lois and Clark, which gave him little left to really nail the Superman aspect.
Reminder:
- Kirk Alyn (The serial) 1950?
- George Reeves (The New Adventures of Superman) 1951-1953
- Christopher Reeve (Superman I - IV) 1978-1987
- Dean Cain (Lois and Clark, The New Adventures of Superman) 1993-1997
- Brandon Routh (Superman Returns) 2006
-Tom Welling (Smallville, 2001-forever) is kind of out of the running for now. Gerald Christopher (Superboy) also doesn't count.
For me, the best Clark Kent was Dean Cain. I couldn't get into the bumbling over-the-top Clark that Christopher portrayed, however, his Superman was the best by far. Dean Cain's Superman, however, was lackluster. But to no fault of his own, being that the show is called Lois and Clark, which gave him little left to really nail the Superman aspect.
bychance on
0
Posts
Christopher Reeve for live action.
I think Routh could be good in time with a different director.
Steam: YOU FACE JARAXXUS| Twitch.tv: CainLoveless
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0770828/
His Superman wasn't too bad either, but Reeve's will always be my favorite.
For Clark Kent I LOVE Christopher Reeve's portrayal. I was resistant at first to see the movies but my dad finally forced me to sit down and watch them when I was 15 and I instantaneously fell in love with the adult Clark Kent. Unlike Superman he was never really cheesy to me. He wouldn't say something that would make me cringe. When I was a child Dean Cain was my pick but now that I've seen more Supermen, Christopher gets my pick followed very closely by Routh only because he still has a bit of that awkward shyness to him but he has some of Superman's traits spilling out into Clark and its kinda tainting my love for him.
As for Superman, I'm not sure. I loved Reeve's in Superman 1&2 (minus some cheesy moments) but 3&4 I hated and in turn made me dislike that Superman. Routh I haven't seen enough of and what they're doing with that character and the whole new element tossed in is kinda interesting and makes me want to see more but he isn't my favorite. I don't watch the cartoons religiously to really have a favorite there either. I don't remember much of Cain's portrayal of Superman minus this one sex scene between him and Lois in a camp I think and they were floating...after that my mind goes hazy.
I guess I have to go with Routh if only for
I never asked for this!
Now see, I was thinking vice versa.
Reeve definitely pwns Kent and was a really good Supe. Do I get street cred if I say George Reeves?
I thought the latest Superman was okay, but really, would a clean break with the past have been so bad?
I also think Superman Returns was an all-around great movie, for the record.
XBL: QuazarX
I thought it was awesome as well, but I can definitely see where people are coming from when they say the action was pretty dumb.
I mean, they certainly could have made a better climax than Superman vs. Giant Rock of Kryptonite.
However, I did think that the movie did capture what made the characters who they are very well, even if no one got the shit beat out of them.
It's sort of hard to come up with suitable bad guys when your hero is invincible and pretty much infinitely strong and fast. Which is why Superman is such a shitty superhero.
That said, Reeves made the best Kent and anyone who says differently is wrong and also smells funny. Routh had a good look, though, and made a good Superman. Reeves's only problem is that he's fucking huge, and his Kent was a little too formidable looking. Like, he looked as if he could beat the shit out of anyone. His expressions and mannerisms were spot-on, though.
I think flavor-of-the-week villains are what make superhero comics dull. Keeping the stories epic, focusing on the mythology and the character interactions, that's what keeps me interested.
Agreed. That's the major failing of most superhero movie franchises - they feel the need to always have a villain origin in every movie, then they play the villain out, and then they kill him at the end. That's one of the best things about the X-Men movies - they have a recurring cast of villains that they're able to flesh out more. Magneto is probably the best movie supervillain ever, largely because they gave him three films to work with. As compared to, say, Venom, who gets 5 minutes of screen time and then dies for no good fucking reason.
That's not true at all, it just requires people to come up with villains who aren't cut from the usual mold. A guy with the powers of [animal] isn't going to cut it. You need dudes like Solaris, The Tyrant Sun - an evil, sentient sun, or Darkseid, the god of evil. It's not Superman's fault that a lot of writers suffer from crippling failures of imagination.
Anyway, have you read All-Star Superman? You should read All-Star Superman. Coincidentally, it's also the answer to the OP's question.
For the live action, I'll take Reeve for Superman (in 1 and 2, anyway). He nailed the performances... he just didn't make a good Kent physically because there was no disguising him even with a bad combover and horn-rimmed glasses. If I were that mugger, I certainly wouldn't have tried to rob that big sumbich.
For the black & white era, my issues were also ones of presentation, but not because they were black & white or had archaic special effects. It was because George Reeves looked like someone's dad and Kirk Alyn looked like an accountant, even as Superman. I realize that Superman is supposed to be a man, but... damn.
It is the perfect Superman comic.
In the context of comics, it's probably more workable. In the context of movies, though, it's harder, because you have less time to work on suspension of disbelief. In the comic universe, we're used to wacky notions like sentient suns and evil gods because they happen all the time as part of the same mythos. In the DC universe, for example, we have Superman and Batman and Wonder Woman and a whole host of other superheroes and villains. Crazy shit is more commonplace. In the movies, though, these things happen in a vacuum. Superman is the only instance of superheroism anywhere in the world. The movie's universe just like ours, only it happens to have this one superhero who accidentally wound up on Earth. And so the supervillains are made to work within that context. We have evil rich bad guys who are just human, or we have cosmic supervillains who happen to be from Kal-El's home planet. It's all internally consistent.
Spiderman is another good example - Peter Parker gets powers from a science experiment gone awry. So do all his enemies (except Venom, who wasn't handled all that well in the film). The audience buys it because the internal logic is consistent.
Batman's enemies are all just regular guys who're insane and have access to technology. Sometimes they're deformed, but they rarely have any real powers.
If you were to take the Superman movie and ask the audience to just accept an evil god, or something similar, they'd think it was dumb. It would seem too out-of-left-field. They've already bought into the idea that an alien landing on our planet suddenly gets superpowers because of the color of the sun - anything beyond that, and they're going to cry foul. Within those limitations, it's really hard to come up with foreboding villains. The only thing you have to work with is the villain engineering massive crises, and then trying to figure out how Superman is yet again going to get zapped with kryptonite so he can get beat up by the regular-Joe villain.
Lock the thread.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
See, I don't know if that's true, or if it was true at one point, I'm not sure it is any longer. Between movies, games, and shows like Heroes and Lost, even the most casual moviegoers have been steeped in nerd culture for the better part of a decade now, and are probably familiar with the grammar of superhero stories at this point - some might even be getting bored, and could welcome something new. Part of Superman Returns' sluggish box office could be that it didn't really do anything people hadn't seen in the original movies. Superman rescuing a plane is pretty old hat by now.
Fair point. You may be right.
I still think I have a valid point on internal consistency, though. I'm an avid Spiderman fan, used to read all the comics, and yadda yadda. The origin of Venom in the third film bothered me, though, even though it was fairly accurate to the comics. Venom is supposed to be an alien, but in the context of the movies, it felt... weird. I think it should've been made to be the result of some experiment gone wrong. The inconsistency bothered me, and I'm as steeped in nerd culture as they come, because it struck me as in violation of the film universe's own mythology. Superpowers come from technology, not from aliens.
That said, my nerd-dom could be acting against me by making me super-extra pedantic, so it's hard to say.
All that said, I sort of disagree that SR's major failing was in not doing anything dramatically new. By way of comparison, Bond films never really have anything dramatically new, and they can still be very entertaining. Contrarily, the main reason the Batman films went to hell in the 90s was because they kept trying to outdo themselves. They wanted more villains, more hijinks, more crazy shit. I thought that was the main problem with Spiderman 3, as well. They tried to do to much.
It's been said that Superman succeeds by virtue of being a morality play - the challenges are always moral or spiritual rather than physical. Does he save the world or the girl? How can he choose? Oh noes! If that's the case, you don't need him to battle the personification of evil, or anything. You just need compelling emotional arcs.
Superman has always seemed like a commentary on modern society. Look at Clark Kent -- Underneath his facade he has every quality Superman does, but no one ever recognizes him because of his superficial appearance. Not to mention he's a very good reporter, but never gets any recognition. Nor does he get the girl, or even noticed by anyone. He keeps his head down, doesn't take any risks, and consequently does not achieve any fame.
Superman, an alien from another planet, gets his fame and attention not from putting his life at risk, but simply for saving other people's lives. That is his sole occupation, and it's a pretty thankless role, as people turn on him very quickly.
I've always thought it was an interesting commentary on how neither of those roles are perticularly attractive, and lead to a lot of isolation and lonelyness on Supes' part. In a lot of ways, being Clark Kent is just the same as being Superman, and it seems like he actually enjoys being Clark Kent a lot more.
There were definitely a lot of problems with the movie besides its retreading of the originals, and I know what you mean about consistency, but by the same token, since the old movies were twenty years ago, a new Superman movie could have been a good place to set a new tone. People in the 70s might have needed some hand-holding to accept the crazier shit, but going to the movies and seeing trailers for Mummy 3 and Hellboy 2, I don't know if that's the case anymore.
Speaking of reboots, has there been any word on a sequel to SR using Routh again? If it really did that poorly, I wonder if we could be in for a disowning of the film by way of a new one, a la Hulk.
Best advice ever.
I still think Christopher Reeve was the best Kent and Superman, in large part because of the acting chops he brought to the role. Watching the first movie, I'm always amazed at how Reeve portrayed the physical difference between Kent and Supes. As Kent, Reeve physically withdraws into himself to a certain extent. He slouches, he folds his chest in a bit, etc. Reeve as Kent is still a big guy, but he doesn't come across as big. When he becomes Superman (particularly in the scene where he wants to reveal his secret to Lois and he takes off his glasses), Reeve expands himself into the role. His shoulders go back, his chest comes out, and he starts radiating a sense of authority and confidence. It's subtle, but very effective. I haven't seen any other actor portraying Superman portray that physical difference nearly as well (although the artist of All-Star Superman takes care to do the same thing to Kent and Superman when he draws them, which is awesome).
ElJeffe, I love you in the politics thread but here you are just damned wrong.
Read Superman: Red Son. Read Kingdom Come. Read Superman: For All Seasons. Fuck, read Grant Morrison's JLA and All-Star Superman. When written well, Superman is the best superhero around.
Sure, he's gotten tons of shitty stories. Tons. I'm a comic fan, I've read a lot of them, but that doesn't make them less shitty. When a character's around for 70 years, the crap tends to accumulate. You know what? Batman has tons of shitty stories, so does Spider-Man and every single popular character you could name. The unpopular ones have them, too.
Judging a character based on very, very few portrayals is wrong. I love the Reeve Superman movies, and Superman returns, but those aren't anywhere close to how the character is portrayed in the comics. Yeah, Superman's got more powers than I do appendages and he can haul planets about, but when one of your main bad guys is the god the devil prays to, methinks some higher powers are okay.
I will say this. If you like big, grandiose stories like many Greek myths, you'll probably like Superman. The majority of his stories are grand in that nature. If you don't, you probably won't like Superman or most superheroes for that matter.
/rant
Anywho, on topic. George Newbern's Superman in the Justice League series was seven shades of kickass. He did the inspirational thing really well and he really nailed the character. Second place is Kyle Machlachlan in Justice League: New Frontier. Chris and George did a great job witht he character, but in my opinon the animated versions are much better.
For Clark Kent, I have to go with Dean Cain. Bumbling, goofy Clark Kent really doesn't do anything for me. How am I supposed to believe that a guy who is, for all intents and purposes, lucky he can tie his shoes in the morning a well respected investigative journalist? Cain's Clark Kent was charismatic, dorky, and most importantly, believable. He reminded me a lot of the Clark Kent that was portrayed in the comics of that era, a smart, competent guy who is good at his job and that's how Lois Lane falls for him.
Presumably the bumbling schtick actually helps him to investigate, like Columbo. Also, Clark writes like a motherfucker.
You know what all this reminds me of, though? I'd love to see a film version of Lex Luthor who isn't trying to pull off some complicated land-grab scheme. Let's try something a little different in the evil plot department next time.
The President Lex arc remains my favorite usage of the character. Evil businessman Lex as President was the best goddamn thing.
Nah, I may well be wrong. I've read maybe two comics and seen the movies, so my basis of opinion is pretty damned narrow. I'd like to say I'd read some of the better arcs, but I'd be lying.
Note, he's the best Lex. I understand the Gene Hackman love. I really do. But, Rosenbaum's the only Lex I've thought would actually sink the world to get his way.
I was expecting a thread full of YouTube videos of D&Ders pretending to be Clark Kent and/or Superman.
Anyway, Christopher Reeve is Superman, Dean Cain is Clark Kent.
I really encourage you to read Kingdom Come (because it's fantastic, and Superman is in it) and Superman: For All Seasons (because it's a fantastic Superman story).
If you want to get an understanding of how Superman ticks and why the character has stuck around for 70 years, you'll find the beginnings of an answer in those two books.
Animated Lex is also the best Lex outside of the comics. Michael Rosenbaum was great as Flash but I never felt any menace from him as Luthor. Clancy Brown, though... man, his Luthor drips with evil. Season 2 of Justice League Unlimited was made, in no small part, by his portrayal of Lex.
I'm really, really hoping Lex has at most a bit part in Man of Steel. He's had 5 goddamn movies as the main villain, it's time for someone new. Sure, make it someone lame like Metallo, I don't care, but I'm so damn tired of Lex Luthor all the time. It's like if the Joker was the villain in all of the Batman movies, only he's not funny after the first one.