Superman I & II: not all that

[Flyspeck23]

Personally, I don't consider super heroes all that interesting, Superman least of all. I mean think about it - the guy can fly, he can't be killed with bullets, a sledge hammer to the noggin, or by any other method that us mere mortals are susceptible to, he can shoot laser beams out of his eyes, and he has no personality flaws. So the guy's perfect, so what? What's the point?

You're describing D&D characters of levels 12+

Now Batman, that's a superhero, starting with the fact that he isn't a superhero. He's a man - mortal, fallible, and with enough personality issues to keep a psychologist busy for years. The only "superpower" Batman has is money, which leads to his technology, but so what? That's not a superpower.

In addition to what Umbran said about characterization (btw, the 90s have been full of flat and uninteresting superheroes) I'd like to add that while superheroes can do some amazing stuff, so can the supervillains. (Btw, that's a part of D&D too.)

That said, you're right, Superman can get very boring very fast in the hands of a mediocre writer. IMHO because his villains in particular weren't always of the same power level. Just as if an epic-level hero had to fight kobolds...

 

[Pants]

You're describing D&D characters of levels 12+

Yeah, but DnD characters of such a level are rarely shining beacons of perfectness.

I find Superman boring. In fact, unless this movie is so superbly awesome that not seeing it renders you physically impotent for 20+ years, I probably won't see it. The old movies are snooze fests, hell the old comics are snooze fests.

I'd rather watch SpiderMan, Batman, or X-Men any day of the week.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

Superman I and II were filmed together, more or less. But the original director was given the boot and another called into build II, largely from pieces not used in I.

The special effects are what they are – i.e. dated in age where entire movies can be built using a half-dozen linked desktop computers.

On the other hand, some elements have aged poorly, mostly because of the way our culture has moved. Superman simply capturing Luther and turning him over to the authorities now seems naïve after two decades of movies where protagonists are – more often than not – inflict massive collateral damage in an effort to kill a single bad guy. Superman’s wide smile at the camera at the end seems painful naïve.

But they were the best the 1980s had to offer until Burton’s Batman.

 

[Storm Raven]

I don't care what you say about the Superman movies; I think that Supe's fight against Zod et al. on the streets of Gotham is fan-tastic. I love the product placement for Coca-Cola , and I love the part when the bystanders think Superman is dead and start going after the villains (only to be blown back by super-breath).

One of my favorite "perhaps you should think about that" scenes in movies.

Bystander A: "He killed Superman!"

Bystander B: "Let's get them!"

Bystander with a Brain: "They just killed Superman. Do you really think that attacking them is a good idea for normal people like us?"

 

[WizarDru]

Mark me down as someone who still holds the films as enjoyable. I think the big issue is that you have to view the movies in context. Superman has some pretty silly moments in it, but both movies have some fantastic moments, as well.

In fact, Christopher Reeves' portrayl was so iconic that the comic version adapted to HIS version. When John Byrne rebooted Superman so expertly in the mid-80s, he cited Reeves' as a major influence. When the movie came out, remember, Clark Kent in the comics was working as a TV anchorman, and still possessed those Silver Age abilities that made him so difficult to write for.

Superman can be a very interesting character, in the hands of a writer worth his salt. His internal conflict is every bit as powerful as Batman's, it's just different. Now Burton's Batman? There's one that hasn't aged well.

 

[Arnwyn]

Anyone care to comment?

I own the DVDs, and still very much like the first two movies to this day. *shrug*

 

[Captain Needles]

I'm a huge fan of Terrence Stamp as Zod, and I also enjoy his voiceover work on Smallville as Jor-El. That being said, the first two movies were cheesey at times, but I love them. As for Superman not having a personality, that's just a reflection of the writers ability to handle plot and chracter at the same time. Want another interesting view of superman, see the piece of dialogue about him at the end of Kill Bill .

 

[Klaus]

The appeal of Superman to me was best summed up by the wonderful animated movie "The Iron Giant".

[sblock] While learning about the ways of this world with the kid, Hogarth, the Iron Giant came across two comic books. One had a giant robot on the cover, attacking the city. The other was a Superman comic. In the final confrontation of the movie, the US fire a nuclear missile at the Giant, who was standing smack in the middle of the town, surrounded by humans. Hogarth tells the Giant that if that missile lands, everyone will die. The Giant takes to the sky and flies head-on into the missile as it starts to fall on the upper atmosphere. He remembers Hogarth's words "You can choose who you want to be", closes his eyes and mutters "Superman...".

BOOOOM!
[/sblock]

Forget the pansy-ass character that is gracing the comics for the past 10 years (alongside the Bat-jerk, btw). John Byrne's early portrayal of him was damn-near perfect (and heavily influenced by the scene where Supes arrests the cat burglar and the robbers in the speedboat).

 

[Umbran]

On the other hand, some elements have aged poorly, mostly because of the way our culture has moved. Superman simply capturing Luther and turning him over to the authorities now seems naïve after two decades of movies where protagonists are – more often than not – inflict massive collateral damage in an effort to kill a single bad guy. Superman’s wide smile at the camera at the end seems painful naïve.

There's some truth to this. And while I know this thread isn't about social commentary - I'll be darned if I can see that change as a positive one. Would that the way Supes dealt with things were seen as cool today...

 

[Duncan Haldane]

Superman I was released in '78, Superman II in '80.
So it's closer to thirty years than twenty.

I'm sure the graphics look pretty crappy these days, and the first movie was certainly long.
And some of the romance parts are cheesy.

I still think Superman I is a good film, and I like that II was set up in I.

But I too find Superman generally to be too goody-two-shoes and two dimensional - Batman is a character I find much more interesting.

Duncan