The line between Cinema and Comics...

[WeaponXProject]

So if you have been reading the Captain America threads then you would know that there are an awful lot of people who want Cap to be a body builder. I want to clear up the issue of people wanting to see exactly what the comic books have shown. The look doesn't always make the character right on film.

So there obviously is a difference visually. I mean we have a younger 20 something too-pretty-boy playing Superman, a 6 foot 3 Wolverine, 40+ not too tough and kinda old looking Tony Stark and a very old but great actor who played Magneto. So there you have it. The visuals are not always there.

As for stories, they have been very different. You have two or so hours to tell a story of so many characters but you still need to stay true. Most of the movies have done that well outside of X-Men (and don't get me wrong I love the X movies but they strayed from the characters a little). Wolverine was the focal point, Rogue was a whinny weak teenager, Cyclops was an ultra-*****e compared to the comics.

What I am saying is that fans need to understand that there is going to be a difference where the directors and writers have to chop a story down and still get the character right (their story and visuals). Which must be difficult to do to still make a movie for an audience who has never heard or seen the character, the movie has to sell outside of us you know.

The whole point of this is to discuss why Cinema has done well with the characters or has not according to you and why they should or should not be different on the big screen. I have a mixture of opinions on how this character is this way and that one is that so...I am all ears.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I've argued forever that what you can draw & what you can do with real live human beings are not the same thing. I'd say over the last 10 years or so, we've gotten far more good comic book movies than bad. And I feel that by & large, the filmmakers know when to adhere to the material & when to follow their own vision.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Well, here's my two cents, as it were...

As far as "Cap" is concerned, I saw the TV movie years ago as a kid, and have read some of the recent comics...but my knowledge of Steve Rogers doesn't go far beyond that. As a result, I doubt I'd have many criticisms about any filmic version. The only thing I'd really hate to see happen is for his mantra to become generic (like Singer did with the "American Way" tag in Returns). The character should be about upholding and protecting this country, so I'd be very disappointed if the filmmakers turned him into another "Earth's hero" type.

As for other characters, I've taken many changes in stride (short of the aforementioned tactic from Singer). I don't consider myself a comic-book purist at all (though I do know a few), so there aren't many changes that truly upset me. however, here are a few, just from my own viewpoint...

Superman's Morality Change

As created by Siegel & Shuster in the 1930s, Kal-El had a very simple attitude regarding right and wrong, especially where crime was concerned. Good and evil were clearly separated, and Supes wasn't above knocking punks around to prove a point. He wouldn't outright murder an opponent, but he wasn't a so-called "softy", either. For the most part, those moral traits have remained intact, but 1980's "Superman II" changed one crucial aspect of it: premarital sex.

Now, I'm not trying to turn this into a debate, but I personally believe that premarital sex is 100% wrong, regardless of popular trends...and for deacdes, Superman exemplified that virtue as well. But by having Clark sleep with Lois (a change even Margot Kidder says she's now against), that entire dynamic of the character was changed, and not for the better. Superman was supposed to be this ultimate icon of responsibility, integrity, and moral justice. He was a character that people were supposed to look up to...but how can they admire someone on so great a level, when he makes the same foolish decisions as they do? Situations like this make him too human, shattering his "example" in the process.

The CW's "Smallville" hasn't rectified this one bit, going so far as to have Clark sleep with Lana, and nearly as much with the villain Maxima just a couple weeks ago. And of course, we all are familiar with the "super-kid" storyline from Singer's film. I have nothing against the character of Jason White, but I'd have preferred a more traditional (and proper) conception, regardless of the "vague history" created for the film.

Susan Storm "Alba-fied"

I read the "Fantastic Four" comics as a child, and was a fan of the cartoons as well. In those mediums, Susan was definitely no pushover, but she wasn't ultra-combative, either. She was depicted as a woman who trusted and respected her husband...not because he was superior to her at all (which he wasn't), but because he treated her with the same amount of honor, love, and integrity. She and Reed were equals in nearly every way...quite unlike Jessica Alba's version in Tim Story's films.

Now, to give Jessica proper credit, there were many aspects of Sue's character she got right: her bravery, her love for Reed, Johnny, and Ben, and of course the sibling rivalry. But she was also oversexed in my opinion, and would even use that against Reed, to try and control him through passive-agressiveness. This kind of behavior is probably most notable in "Rise of the Silver Surfer", where instead of honestly confronting Reed about his antics at Johnny's party, she simply smirks while saying "mine was hotter" (or words to that effect). That's not love - it's selfish manipulation, and has Susan literally stepping down to Reed's level. What he did was irresponsible, and IMO Sue should've called him on it. I was much more pleased later in the film, where she uses a forcefield to flatten him so he'll talk to her...rather than playing the "I'll beat you at your own game" card.

 

[Chris Wallace]

While I'm not defending the route taken with Superman, I don't think we can hold superheroes to the high moralistic standards set for them 40+ years ago.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

While I'm not defending the route taken with Superman, I don't think we can hold superheroes to the high moralistic standards set for them 40+ years ago.

Ordinarily, I'd agree with you...except for the fact that Superman was created (at least partially) to be that "supreme standard" for people. I'm all for making heroes relatable...but I also believe it can be taken too far, and in this case, Superman has sadly fallen victim.

 

[The Major]

I've argued forever that what you can draw & what you can do with real live human beings are not the same thing. I'd say over the last 10 years or so, we've gotten far more good comic book movies than bad.

IMO the best adaptions are those made by people who know, correctly understand and respect what they're adapting.

And I feel that by & large, the filmmakers know when to adhere to the material & when to follow their own vision.

Some film makers can do that well, not all of them.

Moviefan:

Sue Storm has been very combative in the last few decades in the comics.

 

[Chris Wallace]

And yet, you have a SMallville pic in your avatar-a show in which he's slept with Lana twice-one of those times being AFTER she bedded down his greatest enemy, and pushed up heavily on Lois, Chloe, Maxima, & Sarah Carter's teleporting character. (whose name escapes me at the moment.)

 

[Moviefan2k4]

And yet, you have a SMallville pic in your avatar...

I'm still a fan of the show in general, but like any series, there's aspects I simply don't agree with. Thankfully, the total number of objectionable episodes overall is extremely low, otherwise I wouldn't be wasting my time. I don't want to see "Smallville" become another "Gossip Girl", "Sex & the City", or "90210" type of deal.

...a show in which he's slept with Lana twice-one of those times being after she bedded down his greatest enemy, and pushed up heavily on Lois, Chloe, Maxima, & Sarah Carter's teleporting character. (whose name escapes me at the moment.)

All instances which I'm against. The show's cast and crew have done things which I strongly disagree with, but at the same time such events have been kept to a minimum (thank God).

Oh, and the teleporter was named Alicia Baker.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

While I'm not defending the route taken with Superman, I don't think we can hold superheroes to the high moralistic standards set for them 40+ years ago.

Of course we can. If we don't have them, we don't have anything.

The point is that we've reached a point in culture where, instead of the audiences having heroes to look up to, the audiences want the heroes dragged down to their level.

That's why so many young people can't understand Superman. "If he's invulerable, where's the excitement? If no-one can kill him, what's the point?" The point of Superman is, will he be able to save the day? Will he get there in time? It's the selfless act, it's lives in jeopardy, it's preventing evil.

Anyway, this is way off topic.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Well, here's my two cents, as it were...

As far as "Cap" is concerned, I saw the TV movie years ago as a kid, and have read some of the recent comics...but my knowledge of Steve Rogers doesn't go far beyond that. As a result, I doubt I'd have many criticisms about any filmic version. The only thing I'd really hate to see happen is for his mantra to become generic (like Singer did with the "American Way" tag in Returns). The character should be about upholding and protecting this country, so I'd be very disappointed if the filmmakers turned him into another "Earth's hero" type.

As for other characters, I've taken many changes in stride (short of the aforementioned tactic from Singer). I don't consider myself a comic-book purist at all (though I do know a few), so there aren't many changes that truly upset me. however, here are a few, just from my own viewpoint...

Superman's Morality Change

As created by Siegel & Shuster in the 1930s, Kal-El had a very simple attitude regarding right and wrong, especially where crime was concerned. Good and evil were clearly separated, and Supes wasn't above knocking punks around to prove a point. He wouldn't outright murder an opponent, but he wasn't a so-called "softy", either. For the most part, those moral traits have remained intact, but 1980's "Superman II" changed one crucial aspect of it: premarital sex.

Now, I'm not trying to turn this into a debate, but I personally believe that premarital sex is 100% wrong, regardless of popular trends...and for deacdes, Superman exemplified that virtue as well. But by having Clark sleep with Lois (a change even Margot Kidder says she's now against), that entire dynamic of the character was changed, and not for the better. Superman was supposed to be this ultimate icon of responsibility, integrity, and moral justice. He was a character that people were supposed to look up to...but how can they admire someone on so great a level, when he makes the same foolish decisions as they do? Situations like this make him too human, shattering his "example" in the process.

Well, that's the whole point of Superman II. Superman so desperately wants to be human that he makes a huge error in judgement, he neglects his responsibility. And he is punished. You can look at pre-marital sex as the mistake, or just part of the larger mistake he makes, but the film doesn't condone Superman doing it. I mean, Supes is f****** Lois while the world is falling to Zod. That's pretty much a condemnation of his selfishness.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Of course we can. If we don't have them, we don't have anything.

The point is that we've reached a point in culture where, instead of the audiences having heroes to look up to, the audiences want the heroes dragged down to their level.

Unfortunately, this seems to often be the case, and I don't really understand it. Very few characters are inherently dark (like Batman or The Crow), but so many films seem to be leaning that way. It's kinda sad.

That's why so many young people can't understand Superman. "If he's invulerable, where's the excitement? If no-one can kill him, what's the point?"

Such complaints are the reasons why Kryptonite, magic, and fellow aliens have been introduced over the years as handicaps. But I think Supes' greatest weakness in the stories is his compassion for people.

The point of Superman is, will he be able to save the day? Will he get there in time? It's the selfless act, it's lives in jeopardy, it's preventing evil.

Exactly, and some tales have seen him fail in that regard. As cliche' as it sounds, "even Suprman can't save everyone", and it's a trait many literary and filmic heroes share today.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Well, that's the whole point of Superman II. Superman so desperately wants to be human that he makes a huge error in judgement, he neglects his responsibility. And he is punished.

That punishment was never fully realized until the Donner Cut came out though, because Clark originally slept with Lois after rejecting his powers. In the second version, he approaches Jor-El later, who rightfully chastises him for his choices. It was nice to see someone hold the "last son of Krypton" accountable for a change.

You can look at pre-marital sex as the mistake, or just part of the larger mistake he makes, but the film doesn't condone Superman doing it.

My point was that such a scene gave future storytellers the excuse they needed to drag Superman's cape even further through the mud.

I mean, Supes is [sleeping with] Lois while the world is falling to Zod. That's pretty much a condemnation of his selfishness.

That's one reason why I prefer the Donner Cut in some aspects. The theatrical version has Lara pleading with her son, and leaves his restoration unexplained. Alternately, Brando as Jor-El "drives the point home" that Clark's mission is a higher calling, not to be lightly thrown aside (although I wouldn't take it to the point of excluding all else).

 

[Chris Wallace]

I thought I'd posted this already, but I guess it didn't go through. First off, as much as I hated the whole thing with the kid, Returns was such a crappy movie overall that none of it mattered, IMO. And how can we pick on Superman II without pointing out the three HUGE examples of his unwavering morals, his "supreme standard" going to hell?
1-He swore. "I've got to try, damn it!" Superman & swearing don't go in the same sentence. And even if you dismiss that...
2-He killed the Kryptonians. I'm gonna say that again. He killed. The. Kryptonians. Why? They no longer posed a threat. Without their powers, they could have just stood trial & gone to jail. He appointed himself judge, jury, D.A., public defender-and executioner.
3-He went back to the diner & beat up that trucker. This was at best an act of petty, selfish vengeance & at worst an act of bullying. Neither of which fit the high moral standards expected of the Man of Steel. He abused his power against someone who couldn't defend himself against it, thereby bringing himself down to the trucker's level. And next to that, a one-night-stand is a minor moral infraction.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

1-He swore. "I've got to try, damn it!" Superman & swearing don't go in the same sentence. And even if you dismiss that...

I forgot about that line.

2-He killed the Kryptonians. I'm gonna say that again. He killed. The. Kryptonians. Why? They no longer posed a threat. Without their powers, they could have just stood trial & gone to jail. He appointed himself judge, jury, D.A., public defender-and executioner.

Not in the Donner Cut he doesn't. Their fate in the Fortress is left ambiguous, and when Superman spins the world back again, the "Zod Squad" is reimprisoned in the Phantom Zone.

3-He went back to the diner & beat up that trucker. This was at best an act of petty, selfish vengeance & at worst an act of bullying. Neither of which fit the high moral standards expected of the Man of Steel. He abused his power against someone who couldn't defend himself against it, thereby bringing himself down to the trucker's level. And next to that, a one-night-stand is a minor moral infraction.

In the theatrical cut, Clark's "payback" against that trucker was well deserved; after all, he beat the crap out of him with nary a thought. I always saw it as more of a preventive measure than vengeance. In the Donner Cut, this scene makes no sense, as it follows the "global spin" (which was Donner's original ending).

 

[Chris Wallace]

I'm now glad I've never seen the Donner cut. The reverse time bit pissed me off enough the first time. It's like nothing he does has any consequence. And even if the beating was deserved, that doesn't make it right. It brings him down to the trucker's level. He could've just as easily shown up as Superman, told him to stop being a jerk & not laid a finger on him. But he purposely picked a fight with someone who he knew was no match for him. That makes him a bully. It would be the same as you beating up a small child.

 

[The Major]

Of course we can. If we don't have them, we don't have anything.

The point is that we've reached a point in culture where, instead of the audiences having heroes to look up to, the audiences want the heroes dragged down to their level.

That's why so many young people can't understand Superman. "If he's invulerable, where's the excitement? If no-one can kill him, what's the point?" The point of Superman is, will he be able to save the day? Will he get there in time? It's the selfless act, it's lives in jeopardy, it's preventing evil.

Anyway, this is way off topic.

Superman is vulnerable. Its just for some reason the movies only use versions which are impossible to hurt excluding Krytonite.

They do have hm fight foes on his physical level but they're either Z listers like Zod or made up characters that are bad rip-offs of others and they're still overshadowed by Luthor.

They need to do what the Superman:TAS did. Don't make him as powerful (make him Post-Crisis level, not Pre-Crisis), let him act smarter (but not super-intelligent), allow the audience to see his other physical vulnerabilities, don't add more powers the comics use he's got enough already, fight various enemies that are exotic and mess him up in a fight and give Luthor a break for a few movies or at least make him a background player only while others get the spotlight.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Maybe it's badly explained in the film, but Clark does not beat up the thug at the diner out of revenge. He teaches him a lesson because that's what he should have done the first time, and was unable to. It's redressing the status quo. Superman's purpose is to deal with people like him (Zod is exactly the same, just on a much bigger scale).

 

[Kevin Roegele]

It would be the same as you beating up a small child.

Hey, I told you before, that five year old girl had a stick-!!

 

[Chris Wallace]

Maybe it's badly explained in the film, but Clark does not beat up the thug at the diner out of revenge. He teaches him a lesson because that's what he should have done the first time, and was unable to. It's redressing the status quo. Superman's purpose is to deal with people like him (Zod is exactly the same, just on a much bigger scale).

But again, he does so by coming down to the thug's level.

 

[cerealkiller182]

Believability vs Realism.

The realism approach where almost everything has to be done in terms of our realistic world I think has taken away as much as it has given. I think it is much more believable when theses characters are part of their own committed and complete reality rather than tailoring these characters to our world where they technically dont belong in the first place. The obsession with the realism of comic films has led to "sweating the small stuff", minute details of the character have been reworked pretty much for the hell of it, not exactly taking anything away but not bringing anything to the table as well so might as well not change it in the first place. I think people forget that movies set in our reality do not have the most realistic physics in the first place. Movie physics and science have been disputed constantly on the internet and in magazines but no one seems to care about those elements too much. I do not know why comic movies dont have the same characteristic.

 

[The Sage]

Of course we can. If we don't have them, we don't have anything.

The point is that we've reached a point in culture where, instead of the audiences having heroes to look up to, the audiences want the heroes dragged down to their level.

That's why so many young people can't understand Superman. "If he's invulerable, where's the excitement? If no-one can kill him, what's the point?" The point of Superman is, will he be able to save the day? Will he get there in time? It's the selfless act, it's lives in jeopardy, it's preventing evil.

Anyway, this is way off topic.

Thank you.

 

[WeaponXProject]

I see the point of Superman. But I do think he will be the hardest to put on screen and satisfy fans. I see the dilema, bc Superman is so pure and always for the good of man. Nowadays, filmakers go out of their way to bring characters down to our level so we can relate to them. The next Sups movie will show us what Singer and his crew plan on doing now that they are starting over again with the character.


I think Smallville is the worst idea they have done to Superman thus far. They are making a teen drama, like the O.C., for Superman. Terrible. They are changing the character and adding too much love interests and who to trust. What's next, is he gonna try smoking pot? Smallville is an example of when a property gets butchered on screen. Like this show idea Grayson's, nobody really likes Robin anymore, and how do they think it is gonna sell?

 

[WeaponXProject]

Of course we can. If we don't have them, we don't have anything.

The point is that we've reached a point in culture where, instead of the audiences having heroes to look up to, the audiences want the heroes dragged down to their level.

That's why so many young people can't understand Superman. "If he's invulerable, where's the excitement? If no-one can kill him, what's the point?" The point of Superman is, will he be able to save the day? Will he get there in time? It's the selfless act, it's lives in jeopardy, it's preventing evil.

Anyway, this is way off topic.

Very well said, now if audiences are interested in that still is the next step.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

I think Smallville is the worst idea they have done to Superman thus far.

I respectfully disagree; that "dishonor" goes to the 1970s Broadway musical, the failed "Superpup" pilot, and Richard Lester's "Superman III" (at least in my book). All of those combined have trashed the character far more than "Smallville" has.

Smallville is an example of when a property gets butchered on screen.

While I'll freely admit the series has its problems (premarital sex amongst multiple "ships" being just one example), I wouldn't say its completely butchered anything. The essence of who Clark will someday become still remains, even though it's been taken in bad directions on occasion. Mostly, I keep watching out of hope they'll tie everything together properly.

 

[Ion Kenshin]

In regards to Superman this is a character who came from another planet to ours and growing up discovered that he has nearly unrivaled and infinite power in the eyes of the human world. Already the concept of brigning him down to something more relastic and relatable is not plausible to me. One of my biggest gripes with Supes is that you never actually get to see what he can do. Movies spend to much time focusing solely on Luthor who is a human antagonist. I want to see the Superman that i see in the comics for once. Throw in one these bad guys that can actually go toe to toe with Superman and really have the potential to beat him in fight without the constant use of Kryptonite. The movies make it come across as that is the only way you can bring Superman down enough to knock him out in a fight. those that read the comics know this to not be the case seeing as people like Doomsday and Mongul have taken down Supes on one ocassion or another. Hell someone even managed to "kill" Superman without a piece of Kryptonite in sight.

On the topic of Smallville i just choose to believe that that Superman takes place in a different universe than the current continiuty cause there are just so many things wrong with that show that could never link him to being the Superman we know in the comics