Follow

    Superman

    Character » Superman appears in 18886 issues.

    Sent to Earth as an infant from the dying planet Krypton, Kal-El was adopted by the loving Kent family and raised in America's heartland as Clark Kent. Using his immense solar-fueled powers, he became Superman to defend mankind against all manner of threats while championing truth, justice, and the American way!

    Why does everyone diss Superman 1 and 2 for being camp but...

    Avatar image for jphulk26
    jphulk26

    2401

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    ... no one says anything about Spiderman 1 and 2, which were equally camp, completely derivative of Superman 1 and 2, had worse lead performances than the compelling moxie of Margo Kidder and chameleon like turn of Christopher Reeves and didn´t even have the excuse of being a product of their times since Spiderman came out in the 90s, post the much darker Batman movies?

    It´s just funny to me, because fanboys and girls seem to claim MOS was a superior movie to the original Superman movies just in virtue of it´s tone, whereas those same fanboys prefer the original campy Spiderman movies over The more mature The Amazing Spiderman series. I have a theory, but I was curious as to what you think?

    Avatar image for squalleon
    Squalleon

    9994

    Forum Posts

    3193

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 6

    User Lists: 7

    Wait...didn't the S-M films came out during the zeroes.

    Anyway. Its all partly because of bandwagoning.

    Also to be fair, the Superman films show their age heavily but they still are great. Like anything old, it is a matter of how open you are to overlook the dated elements.

    Avatar image for jphulk26
    jphulk26

    2401

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    Wait...didn't the S-M films came out during the zeroes.

    Anyway. Its all partly because of bandwagoning.

    Also to be fair, the Superman films show their age heavily but they still are great. Like anything old, it is a matter of how open you are to overlook the dated elements.

    Even worse if the Spiderman films came out in the 2000s. I mean the animated series of spiderman was far less camp than the movies. X-Men was darker, Batman was darker, so Spiderman had no excuse to be that camp. To be honest I love the original superman´s and I think the camp fits in a much smarter, much more comedic way in those movies, with all the zingers by Lois and Perry White and all the physical comedy by Reeves. It´s a much smarter script that pays homage to alot of the great physical comedians from the silent movie era.

    Spiderman is just plain childish. Not that I don´t like the Spiderman movies, but they are basically a really, really childish cartoon come to life, with whacky science and campy characters.

    Avatar image for jogga
    Jogga

    1050

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    @jphulk26 said:
    @squalleon said:

    Wait...didn't the S-M films came out during the zeroes.

    Anyway. Its all partly because of bandwagoning.

    Also to be fair, the Superman films show their age heavily but they still are great. Like anything old, it is a matter of how open you are to overlook the dated elements.

    Even worse if the Spiderman films came out in the 2000s. I mean the animated series of spiderman was far less camp than the movies. X-Men was darker, Batman was darker, so Spiderman had no excuse to be that camp. To be honest I love the original superman´s and I think the camp fits in a much smarter, much more comedic way in those movies, with all the zingers by Lois and Perry White and all the physical comedy by Reeves. It´s a much smarter script that pays homage to alot of the great physical comedians from the silent movie era.

    Spiderman is just plain childish. Not that I don´t like the Spiderman movies, but they are basically a really, really childish cartoon come to life, with whacky science and campy characters.

    The first Spider-Man was pretty campy, but, like NC had said, they are still quite memorable. The problem is that the first movie had very dated CGI, as you can see with the action scenes, not to mention that it took the route of being very faithful to the original comics. It's still a good movie, but it was quite goofy when I take a good look back at it

    Spider-Man 2 is probably my favourite Marvel movie EVER, so there is obviosly nothing wrong with it at all... ;P

    Also, the first two Superman Movies show their age because of the special effects. Other than that, it probably one of the best Superhero movies there are. The stories were top notch, courtesy of Mario Puzo (The Godfather 1&2), they had amazing cinematography, courtesy of Geoffrey Unsworth (2001: A Space Oddessy), and stellar acting by the one and only Christopher Reeves.

    Avatar image for deactivated-5d2b83d5a0d79
    deactivated-5d2b83d5a0d79

    12104

    Forum Posts

    19

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 1

    What does it even matter?

    Avatar image for gilladro
    GillaDro

    301

    Forum Posts

    1

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #7  Edited By GillaDro

    @farkam said:

    What does it even matter?

    No Caption Provided

    Avatar image for kfabz-23
    kfabz-23

    6135

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    Spider-Man 1 was super corny so were Superman movies. Man of Steel is better than the first Superman films on so many levels.

    Avatar image for jphulk26
    jphulk26

    2401

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    @kfabz-23 said:

    Spider-Man 1 was super corny so were Superman movies. Man of Steel is better than the first Superman films on so many levels.

    On what levels. Superman 1 was witty, had a much stronger relationship between the protagonists, as cheesy as Lex was in that movie he was still more memorable than Zod, it had better more iconic performances, was more beloved in it´s time and captured the spirit of clark and superman much better than Man Of Steel did. "Oh but there were loads of explosions in Man Of Steel so it must be better."

    Avatar image for kfabz-23
    kfabz-23

    6135

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    @jphulk26:

    - Better costume design.

    - Extremely good detail on Krypton much better than anything from the previous movies.

    - Better fight cheography.

    - Better First flight scene.

    - A much better conclusion to Superman killing Zod.

    - Zod IMO was better than every villain from the previous Superman films.

    I could go on...

    Avatar image for w0nd
    w0nd

    6806

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    @jphulk26: I see people complaining about those too.

    but it comes down to how old it is, and what others have said.

    "like NC had said, they are still quite memorable. The problem is that the first movie had very dated CGI, as you can see with the action scenes, not to mention that it took the route of being very faithful to the original comics. It's still a good movie, but it was quite goofy when I take a good look back at it"

    Seems like logical reasoning

    Avatar image for silverpool
    SilverPool

    4562

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    S-M was hilarious. Superman was just goofy without being very funny. Except for some unintentionally funny parts like Lois being so goddamn dumb that she can't spell rapper or massacre.

    Avatar image for jphulk26
    jphulk26

    2401

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #13  Edited By jphulk26

    @kfabz-23 said:

    @jphulk26:

    - Better costume design.

    - Extremely good detail on Krypton much better than anything from the previous movies.

    - Better fight cheography.

    - Better First flight scene.

    - A much better conclusion to Superman killing Zod.

    - Zod IMO was better than every villain from the previous Superman films.

    I could go on...

    1. CGI costumes from Kryptonians. Costume design? In Superman maybe, but so?

    2. CGI (and TBH atleast the crystal planet was novel and actually alien, rather than some wierd Pandora rip off with dragons and knights. It made no sense, it looked nothing like you´d expect from an advanced civilization. Comicbook Krypton is so much better. Read Earth One or Birth Right to see what Krypton should have been)

    3. CGI (you have to care about whose fighting, this film gave us no reason to care about the people in the fights)

    4. CGI

    5. CGI

    6. So superman snapping Zods neck rather than actually outsmarting Zod like in the first movies is better?? You think a satisfying, epic ending to a battle with two indestructible men is one suddenly, inexplicably snapping the others neck?? Bc it isn´t.

    7. You done lost your mind if you think Zod was better than the original Zod from Superman 2. Superman 2´s Zod was much much much better. I wasn´t a big fan of Lex in the originals, but I still think he was better than MOS Zod (but that is debatable. I´ll give you that)

    You could go on, but you would be wrong. CGI is the ONLY thing that MOS does better. Things look more realistic because of advances in CGI. But the core story, dialogue, and characters in SM 1 and 2 are all superior to MOS. Superman may be goofy, but at least that was what it was trying to be. MOS was trying to be this deep, dark, meaningful movie and failed.

    By the way Superman isn´t better than MOS bc it´s some perfect masterpiece. Both are very flawed movies. The reason SM 1 and 2 are better than MOS is because MOS sucks. It is absolutely the definition of mediocre.

    Avatar image for cloakx14
    Cloakx14

    9136

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 3

    Superman was too soft in 1 and 2. Mos is a better portrayal.

    Avatar image for kfabz-23
    kfabz-23

    6135

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    @jphulk26:

    1: you can't but so because costume design is an important part of comic book movies. And both MOS and Kryptonians look better than their older counter parts.

    2: I've read all the books you mentioned, just because the comic book done it that way it doesn't mean the movies have to be a slave to that. If you don't think that Krypton didn't look more advanced than earth then you're just flat out lying.

    3: CGI doesn't enhance fight cheogrophy at all. And you didn't care that the entire planet was going to get killed if Superman didn't win? Where's your morals?

    4: Well yeah, also the inspiring music.

    5: How does CGI improve the conclusion to a fight. Avengers fight concluded much better than Age of Ultron CGI had nothing to do with that.

    6: It was more than just Superman snapping Zod's neck. You realise the emotion in that scene alone is better than the first Superman's ending. He had to kill the last of his kind with his bare hands because he was left with no choice. That scene was the birth of Superman so yes I do prefer that ending. It's not like a human snapped Zod's neck it was freaking Kal-El.

    If you think MOS is mediocre then good for you. I think it was a great film one of the best CBM's. That's more than I can say for Superman 1 & 2.

    Avatar image for jphulk26
    jphulk26

    2401

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #16  Edited By jphulk26

    @kfabz-23 said:

    @jphulk26:

    1: you can't but so because costume design is an important part of comic book movies. And both MOS and Kryptonians look better than their older counter parts.

    2: I've read all the books you mentioned, just because the comic book done it that way it doesn't mean the movies have to be a slave to that. If you don't think that Krypton didn't look more advanced than earth then you're just flat out lying.

    3: CGI doesn't enhance fight cheogrophy at all. And you didn't care that the entire planet was going to get killed if Superman didn't win? Where's your morals?

    4: Well yeah, also the inspiring music.

    5: How does CGI improve the conclusion to a fight. Avengers fight concluded much better than Age of Ultron CGI had nothing to do with that.

    6: It was more than just Superman snapping Zod's neck. You realise the emotion in that scene alone is better than the first Superman's ending. He had to kill the last of his kind with his bare hands because he was left with no choice. That scene was the birth of Superman so yes I do prefer that ending. It's not like a human snapped Zod's neck it was freaking Kal-El.

    If you think MOS is mediocre then good for you. I think it was a great film one of the best CBM's. That's more than I can say for Superman 1 & 2.

    I´m not even going to bother cause we can go back and forth on this all day, but if you´re saying the action is better in MOS, I agree, but part of the innovation of the original is all the tecniques they used to make fight scenes that were thought impossible back then work.

    As for pòint six, the guy was smiling and joking in the next scene. He didn´t seem that hung up about snapping the last of his race´s neck in the most gruesome way, even though the whole movie set the tone that this guy is supposed to be some aspirational figure and symbol of hope.

    I´m glad you enjoyed it, I don´t want to rail on a movie you enjoyed, bc if it brought you happiness that´s always a good thing. I just personally thought it was one notch above transformers, and yet it was pretending to be this deep, sophisticated, philosophical story. I prefer Birth Right or Earth One and I think the movie would have been a lot better if they had have adapted either of those stories.

    Avatar image for heavenlydarkdragon
    HeavenlyDarkDragon

    2220

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    @jphulk26:

    And MoS was superior. If not for the simple fact that it was a real reboot and at least the characters were more credible. Has was the movie has a whole.

    I also found it funny how people gave so much crap over MoS Superman kiling Zod, that was equally powered and willing to kill just to make a point. But when Christopher Reeve Superman killed a depowered Zod, and let both Non and Ursa die, no one complained about it. And in Superman 2 he had a choice, something MoS Superman didn't have.

    Christopher Reeve Superman movies will remain classics, and at least the first two will forever have influenced Superman origins and even how he's sometimes depicted. But the change was overdue.

    Superman needed a new look, a new atitude, and even bigger challenges. Be it physical, mental and moral.

    Spiderman movies (Sam Raimi) also had their ups and downs, the third one being the worst. How they were able to screw up the black suit Spider-Man is still beyond me.

    They were able to completely ruin Venon and the symbiot suit origin stories. That alone was bad, but ruin the suit... That was unforgivable. Then came Amazing Spider-Man and people started to flip out. Small in the first movie, and gigantic on the second.

    Truth is, that change is hard and not everyone will be pleased, but from what I've seen, the more we oppose change the worst things get.

    When Bryan Singer tried to create a sequel to Superman 2, we all saw the results. People not only weren't able to identify themselves with Superman, but also hated the story. Which was poor, there's no denying that. Even the performances were ridiculous and painful to watch.

    So yeah. MoS had more than a few bumps on the road, but personally I loved it, besides its flaws. And I'm willing to give it the chance to improve.

    Something that I find it hard to understand why Superman fans aren't willing to do.

    Because one thing is certain, if the fans bail out now, there will only the another movie, another reboot, in many more years to come.

    And seeing how Superman comics have also been going, by that time, maybe no one will be interested in character and it will be the end of Superman, for good.

    Avatar image for jphulk26
    jphulk26

    2401

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    @jphulk26:

    And MoS was superior. If not for the simple fact that it was a real reboot and at least the characters were more credible. Has was the movie has a whole.

    I also found it funny how people gave so much crap over MoS Superman kiling Zod, that was equally powered and willing to kill just to make a point. But when Christopher Reeve Superman killed a depowered Zod, and let both Non and Ursa die, no one complained about it. And in Superman 2 he had a choice, something MoS Superman didn't have.

    Christopher Reeve Superman movies will remain classics, and at least the first two will forever have influenced Superman origins and even how he's sometimes depicted. But the change was overdue.

    Superman needed a new look, a new atitude, and even bigger challenges. Be it physical, mental and moral.

    Spiderman movies (Sam Raimi) also had their ups and downs, the third one being the worst. How they were able to screw up the black suit Spider-Man is still beyond me.

    They were able to completely ruin Venon and the symbiot suit origin stories. That alone was bad, but ruin the suit... That was unforgivable. Then came Amazing Spider-Man and people started to flip out. Small in the first movie, and gigantic on the second.

    Truth is, that change is hard and not everyone will be pleased, but from what I've seen, the more we oppose change the worst things get.

    When Bryan Singer tried to create a sequel to Superman 2, we all saw the results. People not only weren't able to identify themselves with Superman, but also hated the story. Which was poor, there's no denying that. Even the performances were ridiculous and painful to watch.

    So yeah. MoS had more than a few bumps on the road, but personally I loved it, besides its flaws. And I'm willing to give it the chance to improve.

    Something that I find it hard to understand why Superman fans aren't willing to do.

    Because one thing is certain, if the fans bail out now, there will only the another movie, another reboot, in many more years to come.

    And seeing how Superman comics have also been going, by that time, maybe no one will be interested in character and it will be the end of Superman, for good.

    a lot of the current perception of superman,, that had significantly added to his unpopularity is due to his depiction in MOS. No, I don´t see the character in MOS as Superman, but Cavill´s character to me, was the least likeable of any of the recent major superheroes in movies. Whether Thor, Cap America, Batman etc. All are more likeable that Cavill´s portrayal of Superman. Not Cavill´s thought. It was the script. I suspect a lot of Superman fans don´t like MOS, bc it´s not Superman.

    Yes, Superman had to change, but you had to keep the core of his persona and modernise it.

    This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

    Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

    Comment and Save

    Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.