Clinging to Christopher Reeve

Why do people still cling onto him as the Superman actor? It's pretty much unanimously agreed that the old Superman films have aged really poorly, yet people are still fervently yelling that he is Superman. It's been nearly 40 years since Superman The Movie; there has been (EDIT: Dean Cain), Brandon Routh, Tom Welling, Henry Cavill, and the myriad of voice actors, and still people are still clinging to him. Can anyone answer why they're still doing this?

edited 23rd Feb '14 8:19:34 AM by WaxingName

Well first off, Brandon Routh had the misfortune of being attached to Superman Returns, which was poorly regarded. And Tom Welling belongs to Smallville, which has its fans but still seems to be a massive Base Breaker, as is Man of Steel (though I liked Cavill).

Maybe it's nostalgia goggles but there simply hasn't been a live-action take on Supes that has been as well regarded as the original two Reeves films yet.

Have I slept too much? Last time I checked, there was no unanimous agreement. Unless you're talking about Superman IV and maybe III.

I feel that this could become a complaining thread. Careful, everyone.

edited 21st Feb '14 12:21:03 PM by Quag15

Sorry, it's just that I've yet to see someone not ridicule the old films because of their old-time Silver Age campiness.

I dunno, most people I talk to regard them very highly.

Different reference pools, I guess.

He was the proverbial right man in the right place.

It also helps, out of all the actors, he's the one to strike the best balance between Clark and Superman; most actors can do a good Superman and average at best Clark, or the other way around. Reeve excelled at both, as long as you keep in mind that's the geeky, shy pre Crisis Clark rather than the more forceful Golden Age and Post Crisis versions.

He's the best thing about the films, and the first film is really good all things considered. I don't revere him as the ultimate Superman actor or anything, it's just that he's clearly better than any other actor to play Superman so far.

Though I've never really associated any of the actors who played Superman as definitive (mostly because very adaptations capture how I really envision the character in the way, say, BTAS did for Batman), I'll admit that Reeve's Superman brings a lot of charm and really embodies a lot of what makes Superman great on the surface in a way that a lot of other adaptations don't - that is, without getting into his character too much - so it makes a lot of sense that people would connect to him more than others.

Though imo Dean Cain played a much better Clark Kent (his Superman wasn't too bad either, but damn was his Clark Kent good). Reeve's Clark Kent was terrible - though that's probably more because it was embodying Silver Age. Despite being a modern take, I kind of consider All Star Superman to be the great take on Silver Age Superman, and it runs with the idea of Clark Kent being this terrible caricature of a character too.

edited 21st Feb '14 1:28:29 PM by KnownUnknown

edited 21st Feb '14 2:27:08 PM by PhoenixAct

Maybe it's simply because the Donner Superman films were bright and optimistic, whilst a lot of newer superhero films have headed in to darker, deconstruction territory? So the older films kind of stand out in that regard?

Sorry about the double post, I'm not sure how to delete post on this forum.

edited 21st Feb '14 2:30:21 PM by PhoenixAct

You can't, actually.

But Superman has always been about the camp,that's his character,just as Batman is supposed to be Darker and Edgier.

And frankly I don't see the Silver Age camp in there at all,that'd imply the film wasn't taken seriously and it'd be winking at the camera,but it doesn't....well at least the Donner films don't.

Reeves had the charisma to be both the mundane Clark Kent and the truly Super Superman. The others never really could do both. Or in the case of Routh couldn't do either.

Here's a better question,....why is it Michael Keaton's Batman has all but fallen into obscurity 25 years later while West still has a decent base? Even Clooney's Batman gets more attention,even if for the wrong reasons.

Overshadowing happens that's why.

Just like why no one even mentions George Reeve's Superman from the late 50's show.

I think the best thing about Reeve's portrayal was his ability to play BOTH Clark Kent and Superman. He played the two sides completely differently, in a way that makes the Secret Identity seem plausible. In addition, his Superman came across as a really humble Nice Guy, despite being a being of godlike power from another planet (such as his embarrassment when Lois asks him to use his X-Ray vision on her).

Sure, the movie itself was goofy (don't get me started on that bit about spinning the world backwards), but I can't find much fault in Reeve's performance.

West has purposely embedded himself onto pop culture, the entire show has to a lesser extent. Clooney isn't remembered nearly as much, but it's mainly because his career is still going at a level Keaton and Kilmer's aren't. Keaton is the best live action Batman, but not by a wide margin.

Sure, he looks the part, but...

He got saddled with the horrible Space Jesus, son of Space God interpretation that just won't die. Plus Space Dad pretty much brainwashed him in the Fortress of Solitude for twelve freaking years, and so his Clark is totally manufactured, as is his Superman, despite how nice he seems. Reeve didn't even play the real teenage Clark, another actor (Jeff East) did.

Bruce Wayne can put on an act both as Bruce Wayne millionaire playboy and as Batman on patrol, but in the Batcave or in the Wayne mansion he's the real Bruce. At no point is Reeve the real guy. Not his fault, but I don't like it. I hate Brando's Jor-El rather more.

I accept that his movies are products of their time, but the first two sadly didn't connect with me as much as I expected to. Music is nice, effects are nice, story is blah. (And regarding Superman II, if there was one superhero who would wait until marriage it would be Superman! )

Man of Steel was doubly disappointing because they blew the opportunity to get it right with a reboot. I hated the more blatant recycling of the Space Jesus angle, and how he just did what Space Dad told him to do like a robot, but really, the seed of that can be found in Superman: The Movie.

Superman Returns? Building on a shaky foundation. It also dragged out the Space Jesus angle.

edited 22nd Feb '14 4:06:49 AM by fusilcontrafusil

I think you're reading too much into the film if you think Clark Kent is the product of brainwashing.

I thought Christian Bale is current best live-action Batman.

Also, I agree with your points about the story being blah (I especially dislike Hackman's Luthor, but I'm spoiled by the Corrupt Corporate Executive Luthor of today, so eh). And also how they rush Clark through his growing up by having Jor-El give him all the education he needs over the course of 12 years.

But Superman is supposed to be the Space Jesus and Space Moses. The point of Superman isn't to fight mostly aliens, some mad scientists, and a few mutants; it's to inspire the human race to do better.

You say Superman is all about being a greater inspiration,...well pretty much none of the other actors really have that. They either come off awkward and stilted or Wangsty just as the costumes worn.

Routh looks very undignified in the straight Superman costume with the red underwear,if anything it comes off as too campy despite practically being the same costume. And then he acts just as stilted,attempting hard to be Reeve and failing. Except when they added some "emotional torque",where he then gets to Attack Of The Clones Anakin Skywalker levels of Wangst.

And Cavill's costume tries too hard to shirk the fact that's it not meant to be campy and be taken seriously. And how does he act,....Wangst,oh so much damn wangst. A little better than Routh

But Reeve used probably the straightest adaptation of a costume you get and pulled it off. He had his emotional moments,but he didn't go overboard either on it.

The look itself tells enough.

Not to mention Reeve had more than just a film to tell it all,and the Donner/Puzo team weren't afraid to use less-is-more at points (same with the Burton/Hamm and Waters team for the Batman films). While both Bryan Singer in this case [who was a huge fan of Superman,but was only casually so for X-Men] and Christopher Nolan (Because he did this with both went waaaay too far overboard with over-analyzing Superman/Clark Kent and in the process destroyed any mystique and intrigue.

There was still so much left to know or want to know about that Superman, and same thing with Keaton's [and to a much lesser extent Kilmer's] Batman.

When will people stop pointing fingers solely at Nolan, when the actual director for that movie was Snyder?

But the film has a lot more Nolan traits than Snyder traits in it.

You can call The Empire Strikes Back a Kershner film,you can call Return Of The Jedi a Marquand film. But George Lucas will always be treated as the guy who called most of the shots.

You can say Henry Selick directed The Nightmare Before Christmas,but everyone will rightfully associate it more with Tim Burton more.

That's what Man of Steel is,a Nolan idea that Snyder got attached to. If there was anything distinctly Snyder,I didn't notice it

edited 22nd Feb '14 6:51:33 PM by terlwyth

Christopher Reeve... really just got the character so well. I like cool Post-Crisis Clark more than nebbish Pre-Crisis Clark, but when Reeve plays the guy, it's a different story. You can't help but feel for him. You really get a sense of how frustrated he is with hiding himself from everyone.

Aside from that, I think Superman I is still the best because it makes him the most human. Routh didn't emote, Cavill had to work with Goyer's super serious script. We got to feel for the Donner Superman. We see him when he's a teenager, frustrated because he doesn't fit in, frustrated that he has to hide his talents. We see him struggling at having a normal relationship with his dream girl because he can only be himself when he's wearing tights and using a name the press gave him. And it eats at him! Plus, the deaths of both Pa Kent and Lois show that he can't be perfect, that even Superman, with his incorruptible morals and his endless selflessness, sometimes fails. Speaking of which, I love this movie because it captures the inherent goodness of Superman, and it does it in a way that doesn't feel corny or ironic, which is also why I liked the Captain America movie. When Reeve takes to the sky, and that Williams score plays, you can't help but feel inspired. This movie shows us that Superman is a symbol, a paragon, an example, but thankfully knows when to back off and show instead of tell. Jor-El tells his son that he can be a guiding light to humanity, and then steps back so we can see Kal-El spend the rest of the movie being a really nice guy all the time. Less is more with this film, and it helps. We get to Krypton, which still looks good, set up the plot, and get off. Three scenes, and thankfully, none of them looked like what I saw three years previously in Avatar.

That, and the supporting cast is great. Margot Kidder is a funny, flawed, feisty Lois Lane, and may she never learn that there's no "Z" in "brassiere." The old fart who plays Perry White gets some great lines. Hackman is a delightfully hammy Luthor. And that guy named Mark whose name I'm too lazy to google who was Marty Mc Fly's brother and also that dork in that old Mormon youth video from the 70s is a good Jimmy Olsen. Plus, Brando as Jor-El almost earns the exorbitant sum he got to be onscreen for ten minutes. And let's all give a big hand to not-Kevin-Costner as Pa Kent. No seriously, I love how organic and natural his one scene with Clark is. He gets one scene in that movie, and I still get sad when he dies.

The movie's not perfect, I'll give you that. Flying so fast he goes back in time is stupid for a plethora of reasons, and as much as I like Hackman's Luthor, every scene with Otis and Miss Tessmacher might as well have a big "WA-WA-WA-WAAAAAAAAA..." accompanying it. Don't even get me started on how dumb the sequels are. Yes, even Superman II. But this first movie makes me believe in the ideals behind the character. For all its flaws, Superman I makes me believe a man can fly.

But Superman is supposed to be the Space Jesus and Space Moses.

Moses yes, but

"There's only one God, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't dress like that."

Reeve was saintlike. It's not the role, it's the illness and matrydom people remember. Donner was also a contributing factor. His firing from the original trilogy is the original sin. It left a bad taste in peoples' mouths. So, in that sense, SR was a like a giant Lifetime Achievement Award for poor Donner.

Singer also had Dana Reeve watching over him like Caesar, giving the yay or nay. I can't say I approved of this asshattery. Superman did not belong to Reeve or Donner. If you want to honor their legacy, make a good Superman movie. Don't cast a similar looking actor with the exact same resume and hope lightning strikes twice.

edited 23rd Feb '14 12:29:02 PM by johnnyfog

Reeve was my Superman in the same way that Baker was my Doctor. That's all she wrote on that.

I watched the Brandon Routh attempt. I didn't like it much, though it did have its moments, mostly due to Kevin Spacey.