Superman: The Movie Superman the Movie = STILL the greatest superhero movie

[mego joe]

Accuracy to source material isn't always the recipe for a good movie. Let's face it, some comics just suck. But there might be a spark of interesting material there that could be made into a good movie, provided they ditch everything else that's lame. Thus it would not be very faithful to source material but still a good movie.

My criteria for adapting a comic to film is necessarily tied to the accuracy. Perhaps not eveyone feels this way. But IMO, you have to do both- be accurate AND dramatize it effectively. If you're not goint to be accurate then you shouldn't bastardize an existing property.

The converse is true as well. Some are very faithful and that's why they suck. FF Spidey 3, DD, etc.

It's not necessarily the 'faithfulness' which makes them stuck, it's how well they are executed.

FF- this should almost have been a period piece- it's the clunky dialogue and lack of character development that hurts this film, not the faithfulness.

Spidey 3- Too much. Raimi didn't really want Venom in it. If they had eliminated using Venom, it would have been much better. If they had concentrated a little more on the personal conflicts instead it would have helped. With that said, it is still a good comic book film.

DD- Sorry, I think this is a great comic adaptation. I can forgive some bad CGI when you get the spirit, tone and characterization correct and effectively adapt about 4 years of DD comics into a 2 hour film. What did you not like about DD.

I'm a comic book fan first, so accuracy to source material- character, spirit and tone are the most important criteria. Next is a good story. I can accept changes for film to an extent. I can forgive effects/ CGI issues. But it all starts with the accuracy to the source material.

 

[El Payaso]

Without a doubt. Rocketeer is one of the BEST adaptations, it's almost identical and what it adds new works very well within the framework of the story.

Daredevil, esp the Director's cut is excellent- no cheese to be found here at all.

There you have clear examples of accuracy giving birth bad/weak movies. Bad choice to set as the main standard for a good superhero movie.

 

[mego joe]

There you have clear examples of accuracy giving birth bad/weak movies. Bad choice to set as the main standard for a good superhero movie.

Just a differenc of opinoin.

Rocketeer- almost exactly like the comic which was great.

Daredevil- THE classic Frank Miller storyline adpapted for a film.

Why didn't you like Rocketeer or Daredevil?

 

[El Payaso]

Just a differenc of opinoin.

Rocketeer- almost exactly like the comic which was great.

Daredevil- THE classic Frank Miller storyline adpapted for a film.

Why didn't you like Rocketeer or Daredevil?

I don't remember much of Rocketeer. just that it was nothing specially exciting or new.

And Daredevil was too much of fake CGI and Batman's rip off. Then we have moments amazingly ridiculous as Matt and Electra starting a fake coreographed fight out of the blue in a park, or Bullseye killing an old lady on a plane. And the villians were terrible. A black Kingpin (accuracy?) that other than dressing and looking like the comics' one did little. And Bullseye was in the middle of being serious and comedic, and was none in the end. Easily the worst villiain ever on a screen (not to mention that he looked nothing like the comics' one, accuracy again?). It was better than I thought after all the bad comments I heard but bad nevertheless. I thought the Daredevil's oriogin was far better handled than Spiderman's in Raimi's movie though.

 

[mego joe]

I don't remember much of Rocketeer. just that it was nothing specially exciting or new.

I like the period piece aspect of it and thought it did a good job of adapting Dave Steven's story. Ever read the comic?

And Daredevil was too much of fake CGI and Batman's rip off.

The CGI I can forgive, it didn't make or break it for me. And the funny thing about it was- it was better at being Batman than any of the Batman films up to that point had been.

Then we have moments amazingly ridiculous as Matt and Electra starting a fake coreographed fight out of the blue in a park,

They did have a similar but nor quite so protracted encounter upon their first meeting in the comics.

or Bullseye killing an old lady on a plane.

Because he's not insane or anything, he's really just a nice guy..

??????

And the villians were terrible. A black Kingpin (accuracy?) that other than dressing and looking like the comics' one did little.

I don't think the Kingpin's race is essential to his character. His methods and characterizations were quite good however, including his physical prowess.

And Bullseye was in the middle of being serious and comedic, and was none in the end. Easily the worst villiain ever on a screen (not to mention that he looked nothing like the comics' one, accuracy again?).

They chose costumes that would make sense in translating the concepts to the screen. Bullseye's comic costume would look goofy as hell in a movie. In the comics he didn't start out with a costume-

It was better than I thought after all the bad comments I heard but bad nevertheless. I thought the Daredevil's oriogin was far better handled than Spiderman's in Raimi's movie though.

I thought that the origin was done well, and I think opening up the film in the middle with DD in a bit of a spot was unique as well.

I have no qualms with Spider-Man's origin, I think the two approaches fit the characters. I mean the Spider-Man origin was almost story boarded from Amazing Fantasy #15.

Out of curiosity, have you ever read any of the Daredevil stuff that the film was based on? If not, check out Daredevil- Marvel Visionairies: Frank Miller, Volume 2 and Born Again. It might give you a new appreciation for the film.

It will also point out some inaccuracies, but I think the film effectively translated the character and the story from the source material better than almost any other comic book film. That carries far more weight than the quality of the CGI or some 'new take' or bastadarization of the character. The story and the characters are far more important than CGI or action.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

As a whole the Spider-Man franchise is better than the Superman Franchise, without a doubt. THe films and adaptations are much better and accurate accurate to the comics. More diverse in their depiction of characters.

Read a 1978 Superman comic, then watch Superman the Movie, then please tell me what is innacurate about it.

 

[mego joe]

Read a 1978 Superman comic, then watch Superman the Movie, then please tell me what is innacurate about it.

Jor-El's role in S:TM. In the comics, the Kents are much more significant in Clark deciding to become Superman. So much so that he decides to use his power as a teenager as- Superboy! And he didn't disappear for 12 years to be instructed by Jor-El.

The movie uses this aspect to make his speech and attitude anachronistic.

In the comics he's unable to change destiny- in the movie he turns back time.

Miss Tessmacher, Otis, wigs- nowhere to be found in the comics.

In the comics. Luthor wasn't in it for the money and real estate- he was in it for POWER. Clark and Luthor grew up together in Smallville.

If you really want to get technical- Clark should be an anchorman at WGBS with Lana and not even working at the Planet.

Clark was not a bumbling oaf in the comics either.

That's what I've got off the top of my head.

 

[Dr. Fate]

Clark was not a bumbling oaf in the comics either.

I HATE the bumbling oaf Clark! I don't care if it is fantasy or not, he wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes flipping burgers at McDonalds, let alone get a job at a major newspaper with that kind of behavior.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Jor-El's role in S:TM. In the comics, the Kents are much more significant in Clark deciding to become Superman. So much so that he decides to use his power as a teenager as- Superboy! And he didn't disappear for 12 years to be instructed by Jor-El.

The movie uses this aspect to make his speech and attitude anachronistic.

In the comics he's unable to change destiny- in the movie he turns back time.

Miss Tessmacher, Otis, wigs- nowhere to be found in the comics.

In the comics. Luthor wasn't in it for the money and real estate- he was in it for POWER. Clark and Luthor grew up together in Smallville.

If you really want to get technical- Clark should be an anchorman at WGBS with Lana and not even working at the Planet.

Clark was not a bumbling oaf in the comics either.

That's what I've got off the top of my head.

Exactly, minor things.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Jor-El's role in S:TM. In the comics, the Kents are much more significant in Clark deciding to become Superman. So much so that he decides to use his power as a teenager as- Superboy! And he didn't disappear for 12 years to be instructed by Jor-El.

The movie uses this aspect to make his speech and attitude anachronistic.

In the comics he's unable to change destiny- in the movie he turns back time.

Miss Tessmacher, Otis, wigs- nowhere to be found in the comics.

In the comics. Luthor wasn't in it for the money and real estate- he was in it for POWER. Clark and Luthor grew up together in Smallville.

If you really want to get technical- Clark should be an anchorman at WGBS with Lana and not even working at the Planet.

Clark was not a bumbling oaf in the comics either.

That's what I've got off the top of my head.

Exactly, minor things.

Also, Superman is now more faithful to the comics, as the comics themselves have been altered to suit the movies.

 

[mego joe]

Exactly, minor things.

Also, Superman is now more faithful to the comics, as the comics themselves have been altered to suit the movies.

The only ones that carry substance for me are the goofy oafish Clark, the lame landscheme Lex MO and the overstated importance of Jor-El in his origin.

Plus they shortchanged CLark's years growing up and his friendships with Pete Ross and Lana Lang.

But I think if you look at the other films I rated higher, they all are even closer to the comics in storyline etc....

 

[Dr. Fate]

Also, Superman is now more faithful to the comics, as the comics themselves have been altered to suit the movies.

That is just plain wrong on too many levels. The comics should not be altered to match the films, the films were based on the comic, the comic came first, not the film.

There is more to Superman than just the Chris Reeve movies.

 

[Angeloz]

My criteria for adapting a comic to film is necessarily tied to the accuracy. Perhaps not eveyone feels this way. But IMO, you have to do both- be accurate AND dramatize it effectively. If you're not goint to be accurate then you shouldn't bastardize an existing property.

You don't hate the "X-Men" then because Wolverine doesn't wear yellow spandex then (among other uniform changes)? Or are you more flexible?

Jor-El's role in S:TM. In the comics, the Kents are much more significant in Clark deciding to become Superman. So much so that he decides to use his power as a teenager as- Superboy! And he didn't disappear for 12 years to be instructed by Jor-El.

The Superboy lore was added in the fifties. It wasn't there originally. Also if Smallville is a small town in America then it'd be very ridiculous for it to need Superboy anyway. Unless you want to set it up like "Smallville" the series (hallucinogens are wrong and should be avoided ).

The movie uses this aspect to make his speech and attitude anachronistic.

Superman didn't sound that way - only Clark. Also I assume they were trying to explain how he becomes Christopher Reeve after he was Jeff East. Plus he retains his innocence in the very cynical seventies (the Kennedys' deaths, plus Martin Luthor King, Vietnam and Watergate).

In the comics he's unable to change destiny- in the movie he turns back time.

I don't know about the destiny stuff. But he did time travel in the comics. I'll admit while as a kid I didn't mind that aspect now I'm older I don't want it to happen in future films.

Miss Tessmacher, Otis, wigs- nowhere to be found in the comics.

In the comics. Luthor wasn't in it for the money and real estate- he was in it for POWER. Clark and Luthor grew up together in Smallville.

And doesn't that make Lex a dolt for not recognising who Superman was/is. I mean I can understand the ordinary folk. But isn't Lex supposed to be a genius? But seriously that Smallville stuff was added in the fifties and wasn't part of the original version.

If you really want to get technical- Clark should be an anchorman at WGBS with Lana and not even working at the Planet.

That was added either in the late sixties or early seventies. Originally Clark worked for a newspaper (ironically the Daily Star). I'm glad they went with him working for the Daily Planet. 'Cos it'd avoid the Superman Robots at the very least. As well as other issues. Like people recognising him. I know it's a conceit but it gets extremely ridiculous if he's a public figure on television every night. I know there's Super Hypnotism or whatever you want to call it but I like avoiding the silly powers. Also I loved Perry. We'd miss out if there wasn't a Daily Planet.

Clark was not a bumbling oaf in the comics either.

That's what I've got off the top of my head.

I'm glad they downplayed that in "Superman Returns" (I know - I'm naughty mentioning that film ).

Angeloz

 

[mego joe]

You don't hate the "X-Men" then because Wolverine doesn't wear yellow spandex then (among other uniform changes)? Or are you more flexible?

There are changes that work sometimes, and sometimes they don't. Not being an X-fan, the changes don't mean as much either. Wolverine's also too tall and too attractive- but he's got the attitude and essence of the character so that is more important than SOME of the cosmetic stuff.

The Superboy lore was added in the fifties. It wasn't there originally. Also if Smallville is a small town in America then it'd be very ridiculous for it to need Superboy anyway. Unless you want to set it up like "Smallville" the series (hallucinogens are wrong and should be avoided ).

I was just responding to 'reading a Superman comic in 1978' and how accurate Superman: The Movie is.

Superman didn't sound that way - only Clark. Also I assume they were trying to explain how he becomes Christopher Reeve after he was Jeff East. Plus he retains his innocence in the very cynical seventies (the Kennedys' deaths, plus Martin Luthor King, Vietnam and Watergate).



I don't know about the destiny stuff. But he did time travel in the comics. I'll admit while as a kid I didn't mind that aspect now I'm older I don't want it to happen in future films.

I never liked the time travel in the film, but the destiny part was something a number of SUperman stories explored because of his obscene power level in the comics of that time. His time travel in the comics never affected 'destiny' however.

And doesn't that make Lex a dolt for not recognising who Superman was/is. I mean I can understand the ordinary folk. But isn't Lex supposed to be a genius? But seriously that Smallville stuff was added in the fifties and wasn't part of the original version.

In the comics he was a friend of Superboy and Superboy was the cause of the accident that turned a 15 year old Lex bald! It's where his hatred began, up until that they were friends.

That was added either in the late sixties or early seventies. Originally Clark worked for a newspaper (ironically the Daily Star). I'm glad they went with him working for the Daily Planet. 'Cos it'd avoid the Superman Robots at the very least. As well as other issues. Like people recognising him. I know it's a conceit but it gets extremely ridiculous if he's a public figure on television every night. I know there's Super Hypnotism or whatever you want to call it but I like avoiding the silly powers. Also I loved Perry. We'd miss out if there wasn't a Daily Planet.

I'm not saying that S:TM should have featured a newsanchor Clark just responding to the post that asked about comparing the movie to SUperman comics of 1978 and pointing out the differences.

I'm glad they downplayed that in "Superman Returns" (I know - I'm naughty mentioning that film ).

Angeloz

I've always hated goofy oafish Clark. I prefer George Reeves Clark.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

That is just plain wrong on too many levels. The comics should not be altered to match the films, the films were based on the comic, the comic came first, not the film.

Superman is a huge mythology spanning seventy years, it goes beyond any one medium. It only makes sense, regardless of which medium you are working in, to cherry pick the best elements of each interpretation, be it comicbooks, film, radio, animation, live-action, novels....

 

[Retroman]

^^

 

[Angeloz]

In response to mego joe (I don't want to use quotes). I'm not sure now if you like change based on your response to the films changing Wolverine. Is it only Supes this is true for? Kinda curious. Because there has been so many changes over the years. Before I forget I do want to say I love George Reeves version too (it really annoys me they haven't released the last DVD Box Set here). As for Lex. I prefer that him and Supes meet as adults like the 1978 film (not necessarily that exact version and in the Byrne comic reboot that happened). Because the childhood thing isn't ideal (I can accept it but it pushes credibility). So I agree with the premise that what works is fine by me. Although this place sure does like to argue on that bit of detail (i.e. opinions on what works and what doesn't).

Angeloz

 

[mego joe]

In response to mego joe (I don't want to use quotes). I'm not sure now if you like change based on your response to the films changing Wolverine. Is it only Supes this is true for? Kinda curious. Because there has been so many changes over the years. Before I forget I do want to say I love George Reeves version too (it really annoys me they haven't released the last DVD Box Set here). As for Lex. I prefer that him and Supes meet as adults like the 1978 film (not necessarily that exact version and in the Byrne comic reboot that happened). Because the childhood thing isn't ideal (I can accept it but it pushes credibility). So I agree with the premise that what works is fine by me. Although this place sure does like to argue on that bit of detail (i.e. opinions on what works and what doesn't).

Angeloz

I guess the best way to put it is this:

I expect and accept some change as long as it isn't a FUNDAMENTAL change to the character, or somehow changing the essence of the character. The debate then becomes what is FUNDAMENTAL and what is the ESSENCE of the character.

Additionally, the less I know about a character, the more I can accept because I don't know any better if it's told in a good story.

I think it's harder to change some characters than others b/c they are so well known to the general audience already. No one knew anything about Daredevil so it wouldn't have mattered if they'd changed him a lot, but oddly they didn't- he was quite faithful to the comics.

For a character like Superman, it becomes harder to change b/c the general audience knows the Reeves TV show, the Reeve movies (all 4!), the Lois and Clark TV show etc....

As I think everyone here knows, IMO, SR FUNDAMENTALLY changed the ESSENCE of Superman's character. Not everyone feels this way, I know- but that was my experience.

So to finish this concise yet long winded answer- accepting changes is on a case by case basis.

 

[Angeloz]

I can understand people having strong views on the character. Although there have been many versions. Preferences can vary. But not all of the audience know the past. Until the DVDs I'd only seen a few episodes of the fifties series because they only put it on early mornings (2-3am) in the nineties here as far as I know. I taped some of them because I liked the character. But they weren't always on time nor predictable at when they'd be late. I don't know how many they showed either because I missed most of them and they probably didn't show them all anyway. It's been awhile for most other things too ("Lois & Clark"). But as I've said I have loved him since childhood even if I didn't get to see him.

Angeloz

 

[stargazer]

Yes. But it's not better. The movies I mean.

Hi, bud, I'd like to know what your favorite superhero movies are, please. Just curious.

And The Phantom Menace, Sleeping Beauty, Shrek 2, Independence Day, Airport...a lot of films have made more cash than the Superman ones. Doesn't mean anything.

Agreed.

 

[The Riddler]

no exaggeration: superman is one of the worst movies i've ever seen.

 

[Angeloz]

no exaggeration: superman is one of the worst movies i've ever seen.

Any particular reason?

Angeloz

 

[The Riddler]

Any particular reason?

Angeloz

painfully illogical with childish execution, excessive camp, and worst of all, time traveling.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

I just saw Iron Man. It was very good. Not as good as Superman the Movie.

 

[stargazer]

^^Agreed.

To me, Superman Returns, Superman the Movie, S2 and X-2 are much more enjoyable than Iron Man, which I enjoyed by the way. It just never felt epic and compelling like the other movies I mentioned.