TheIntellectual
Civilian
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2004
- Messages
- 305
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 11
There's been a lot of discussion about how Clark Kent is treated in Superman Returns. Some say that he gives the character a pathos that Reeve never had, whereas reviews such as IGN claim that "Routh plays Kent as merely a cheap act with no depth or history, someone who is only Superman with glasses.".
What's interesting is that IGN somehow thinks that Reeve's Clark was more than a disguise to the Donner Superman... even though Superman II makes it ABUNDANTLY clear that Reeve's Clark is the disguise act.
It's my most hatest scene between the first two movies... even worse than the "NOOOOO time reversal" and "Crazy new powers Superman II climax". Once Clark has revealed that he's Superman... he takes her to his fortress. Superman then speaks of Clark in the THIRD PERSON.
Why is it that people praise Donner's films for making Clark more than a disguise.... when that whole notion really didn't come around until Dean Cain's version?
What's interesting is that IGN somehow thinks that Reeve's Clark was more than a disguise to the Donner Superman... even though Superman II makes it ABUNDANTLY clear that Reeve's Clark is the disguise act.
It's my most hatest scene between the first two movies... even worse than the "NOOOOO time reversal" and "Crazy new powers Superman II climax". Once Clark has revealed that he's Superman... he takes her to his fortress. Superman then speaks of Clark in the THIRD PERSON.
Why is it that people praise Donner's films for making Clark more than a disguise.... when that whole notion really didn't come around until Dean Cain's version?