Superman I & II: not all that

[Klaus]

I'd have to disagree. I think they're just as good as when they were first released. The special effects might look a liitle lame compared to what we can do now, but then they were bleeding edge; it took them years just to get the flying done right.

I apparently dunno what people use the word 'cheesy' for anymore, but it certainly can't be applied to either film.

Yeah, it has it's flaws as far as a comics fan goes: the battle in the fortress is just flat-out weird, with Superman suddenly able to teleport and turn his S-shield into a snare, but... eh. It's a small part in a great film.

I always thought Superman and the Kryptonian criminals were using superspeed in that scene.

But the shield-to-snare... too bad there weren't any action figure tie-ins. That'd be a perfect action feature!

 

[Silver Moon]

My friend Tim recently rewatched Superman II and summerized it as "The parts that are good are very, very good. The rest of it, not so much."

The first Superman will always be special for me because I saw it in on the biggest movie screen that I ever was at, in and old New York City Times Square 1920's theater that still existed back when the movie premiered. The Krypton scenes were rather blinding but the rest of it was perfect when presented on such a magnificent scale.

 

[Villano]

Ah, my other problems: 1) Zod & Co supposedly have the same powers as Superman, but apparently Zod can also levitate things with some kind of energy ray. Superman can't, or at least doesn't.

You had to wait until Quest For Peace for that, when Superman rebuilds the Great Wall of China by just looking at it.

 

[Darthjaye]

Ok, in preparation for Superman Returns, and as a supplement to my enjoyment of Smallville on TV, I recently watched the first two Superman films. I had vague recollections of enjoying them greatly as a kid.

Whoa. Disappointment.

The pace was glacial. The effects were cheesy. The villains were goofy. Margot Kidder ... wha?? Only Reeve's charasmatic performance lifted the films anywhere above "bleh" level.

Anyone care to comment?

BLASPHEMY!!!!!!

That being said, yeah, it is hard to look back at these two movies after what we've come to expect and think they are epic pieces, but remember, you were a kid when you first saw it, and it was awesome then. It's the same with classic horror movies for me, or any genre for that matter. What was once cool/ scary/ or interesting has now been trumped by better writers, cooler effects, and a laundry list of other things that make movies better now. That being said, Reeve's was, and always shall be The Man of Steel.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Personally, I miss movies with grownups in them.

You too, huh?

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?

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.

 

[ddvmor]

...when Superman rebuilds the Great Wall of China by just looking at it.

What's the problem with that? Everyone knows Superman has Cement-Vision!

 

[Umbran]

Now Batman, that's a superhero, starting with the fact that he isn't a superhero.

No, Batman is a character.

This is a common problem in fiction of all sorts (not just superhero work, not just SF-genre, but all fiction). The hero has to spend so much time beign the hero, it is difficult for him to have much character. And if he had strong specific personality traits, those traits would be too easy fo the villain to exploit.

You can see this in Harry Potter, for example - Harry himself is pretty bland and predictable. The interesting personalities are in the sidekicks of Ron and Hermione. You see it in that Superman doesn't have much in the way of distinctive personality either.

It takes great storytellers to put together a hero with substance - and this is why we revere Indiana Jones so much

 

[Kai Lord]

I haven't seen Superman II in a number of years, but count me in as someone who still loves the original. Sure the "Can you read my mind" poetry sequence is pretty embarrassing now but overall the movie still works on pretty much all levels. I would rank only the two Spidey flicks and Batman Begins above Superman The Movie.

 

[Joshua Randall]

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). I especially like when Superman realizes that he has to stop fighting, because the city is getting destroyed -- there's no dialogue; just a look. Good stuff!

 

[Kesh]

No, Batman is a character.

This is a common problem in fiction of all sorts (not just superhero work, not just SF-genre, but all fiction). The hero has to spend so much time beign the hero, it is difficult for him to have much character. And if he had strong specific personality traits, those traits would be too easy fo the villain to exploit.

You can see this in Harry Potter, for example - Harry himself is pretty bland and predictable. The interesting personalities are in the sidekicks of Ron and Hermione. You see it in that Superman doesn't have much in the way of distinctive personality either.

It takes great storytellers to put together a hero with substance - and this is why we revere Indiana Jones so much

I think that sums it up for me, too. Supes was never much more than the "Big Blue Boy Scout" in my experience. I'm hoping that the new movie and post - Infinite Crisis comics will fix that, and actually give him some personality.

Batman, while not being the shining hero, at least has a personality. Though it gets a bit odd as different writers get a hold of him, at least the basics are consistant, and there's a man behind the mask.

Same thing with Spider-Man, for me. Parker really has a personality, he deals with real everyday problems, and still takes to the streets to try and be a hero.