Well i dont see how different is wrong. In that case, the characters presented in EVERY CB movie are wrong. Thats not true IMO. Changes are necessary IMO as long as they make sense, its just when they dont as in X3, that things go horribly wrong.
I guess I wasn't entirely clear, sorry. It's not that it's just different, I meant to say that in this case the particualr differences make it wrong.
To be succint.
In the comics, SUperman values marriage and commited relationship with Lois. He reveals his identity before they get too serious. They are in love they get married.
In SR, they don't get married. He doesn't reveal his identity to her. He doesn't seem to value the committed relationship, otherwise, why leave w/o being honest with her.
Becasue these two views are diametrically opposed, it makes the characterization wrong. The values presented in the two scenarios are opposites, if these basic things about the character are contradicted in the movie, then it makes the characterization wrong. SOrry I wasn't more clear.
What decade was all the post-crisis stuff? That seems to be the era that SR is based on most from what i can make out. Thanks again, just bought Kingdom Come, think that'll be the last one for a month or so.
KIngdom Come is good, I think you'll enjoy. I just reread it myself about a week ago.
The Crisis in question was in 1985/6. I'm not sure what era SR is suppposed to be based on, b/c to me it doesn't resemble enough any era I'm familiar with.
Pre-Crisis, SUperman chose not to be in a relationship with Lois b/c he wanted to commit himself to his responsibilities as SUperman. This is the situation that is being presented in Superman and Superman II the Donner Cut. The difference is that the films go through a different reasoning and motivation to get to this point. THe films use Jor-El's mandate to set up the situation and then Supreman rebels against his father's wishes only to end up realizing that his father was right in the first place. In the comics he just does it b/c he decides of his own free will that it is the best route to go so that he doesn't endanger those he cares about or divide his attention from being SUperman by having a family life. Hence when in "Whatever Happened To The Man of Tomorrow?" when he decides he's crossed the line and depowers he then gets married to Lois Lane under an alias b/c his Clark Kent I.D. had already been exposed to the world.
Post-Crisis, SUperman is made more 'human.' His power levels have dropped significantly and there is a lot more attention paid to his relationship to his parents, now both still living. Superman is faced with more moral dilemas and his character is explored. The results in my opinion though are that both arrive at the same destination, just through slightly different means.
The two areas that are different are that post-Crisis he does choose to to kill Phantom Zone criminals from an alternate timeline and he chooses to go ahead and reveal his ID to Lois, have a relationship with her and marry her. I don't think there are any other significant differences. At least none come to mind right now. The difference are more in the journey to becoming the hero.
Personally, I don't think I see either of these in SR to say SR is based more on one than the other. I see elements of both, but the journey is completely different than anything we've seen before. I think it SR uses the concept of Superman being unable to be in a relationship w/ Lois ala pre-Crisis, but instead of it being a conscious decision to focus his responsibility on being Superman, it's becasue he made mistakes that make a relationship with Lois impossible. Also, b/c he was previously in a relationship w/ Lois within the SR continuity it seems that they are borrowing from the post-Crisis idea that he would be in a relationship if he could be and Lois was willing and available. SInce she's not, he is stuck in the no-relationship mode, but not becasue he chooses to be, but rather becasue he's behaved so poorly circumstances make it impossible. I see it as a blending that is not similar enough to either pre-Crisis or post-Crisis version and the actual essence of the character is lost because of the way the elements are blended into thie particular story told in SR.
As far as Lex is concerned, he's straight out of the Donner movies. Certainly, he owes a lot to the pre-Crisis version, but even at the time he was quite different from his prison-grey attired comic book counterpart. Hackman's Lex seems much more refined and aristocratic than the Lex of pre-Crisis comics, and that was something that was incorporated into the post-Crisis Lex. However, by making him the business tycoon who operates clandestine criminal operations while appearing to be a valued and respected member of society is completely new for the character and not found in the movie version.
The depiction of Clark is different in both eras as well. Post-Crisis Clark was a star high school athelte. Pre-Crisis, he was Superboy and had to mask his powers from others. Pre-Crisis he's already developing that mild mannered Clark Kent attitude as a teenager. He's never depicted as buffoonish as he is in the Donner movies, nor as inconsequential as he is in SUperman Returns. IN the post-Crisis comics he stands out a bit more, he's more physically imposing and Clark is developed as a real character. In pre-Crisis comics, Clark had real development as well. He had friendships with others, he was a TV news anchorman, so he had a personality and charisma, he was just not really forceful. HE would take a risk and step in to help, he just had to feing being hurt to keep up appearances. Post-Crisis, Clark could do similar things, but he had more vitality and could stand in a little longer before having to feign being hurt or overcome. It's really about degrees in the characterization of Kent. IMO, the SR version of Kent is just wasted film. He doesn't add anything to the film or the Superman character,he just seems like a throw away character that no one in the film takes seriously or even cares about, except maybe Jimmy. Lois treats him as if he weren't even there. Post-Crisis, there was a good rivalry built up between Clark and Lois over getting to the story first. Check out The Man of Steel mini-series to see this played out. Pre-Crisis, they were depicted as friends and co-workers, but she was never as dismissive of him as she is in SR. Even in the Donner films, there is a building chemistry and friendship.
You've read the Greatest Superman stories Ever Told, Vol.2, what do you think? What stories do you feel are more like the characters in SR?