Best or Worst Superman Actor, you guys be the judge.

So a day or two ago, Newsarama posted an article on the worst comic book movie performances and Christopher Reeve/Brandon Routh came in at number 9. Apparently some people, Mark Waid and friends, got upset over this and seeing this is the internet. One thing lead to another and then this article shows up.

So with the new Superman movie coming up next year. Wanted to know what everyone here's thinks of Reeve's performance as the Man of Steel. Do you guys feel that it was iconic, classic, okay, average, campy, hammy, cheesy, needs improvement? For me, I enjoyed Reeve's performance as Superman/Clark Kent and thought that it was a very good interpretation of the character.

Iconic in my mind, yes Superman: The Quest for peace is bloody awful but that's down to the script more than anything.

As I've said several times he has been the only actor that can play both Clark Kent and Superman, some actors can play one or the other but none have matched him for both.

I had the odd experience of seeing Superman Returns before the original Superman (technically that's not true, but I certainly hadn't seen Superman since reaching an age that I could actually remember seeing it), and seeing Brandon Routh's rather wooden performance, and then Christopher Reeve a few weeks later, made me appreciate Reeve's take on Superman even more. He really brought a likeable, "aw shucks" humanity to Clark Kent, and he could make Superman's stalwart patriotism actually feel genuine and convincing, rather than either cardboard or ironic. It's a shame the Christopher Reeve Superman movies were mostly written before the "Clark Kent is Superman's real personality" idea had caught on, because I think he could have knocked that interpretation of Superman totally out of the park.

As a kid I enjoyed Superman: The Quest for Peace. However it's the only Superman movie that I haven't revisited as an adult. I have Superman, Superman 2, Superman 2 - The Richard Donner Cut, Superman 3 but not part 4. Maybe it's just the fear of seeing that movie as an adult instead of a kid that enjoyed wearing a cape out of a blanket that's preventing me from watching Quest for Peace.

Iconic, bar none. Reeves' stage training meant he brought a lot of nuance to the role, and he took it seriously as a role model for kids, something he mentioned a lot in interviews.

In terms of performance, go back and watch the original movie where just after being interviewed by Lois, he for a moment considers telling her he's Superman, and you notice the incredible change in body posture, stance, voice...he's clearly thought about the seperation of personas and how to play them. A lot of the other actors in this role have never even considered the performance of the secret identity and the hero persona, but he did the first time.

And seriously, that smile at the end of the film and noone gives a damn that he breaks the fourth wall? Iconic bar none.


S.

His performance was brilliant. Look at what they asked him to do as an actor, it was the full range plus acting out all those super powers. It's just that the movies haven't dated well.

All we had before Christopher Reeve's Superman was the old B+W (later color) TV Superman. That Clark Kent wasn't all that much different than Superman as a hard hitting reporter covering crime, friends with the police and thorn in the side of gangsters.

Compared to him, the movie Kent did seem like a buffoonish, pushing the country bumpkin first time in a big city, but was able to make this Kent someone other than Superman in glasses, trenchcoat and a hat. The scene in the 2nd movie where he was about to tell Lois, when he took off the glasses and simply with a few changes in expression and posture became Superman was memorable.

Actually I like to call this the 'Christoper Reeve' problem.

The problem being that Reeves was so iconic and played the role so damn well that every other actor who now takes on the role as Superman is always going to be measured up to him.

The Christopher Reeves problem also extends to such things as "any animated version of the Joker not voiced by Mark Hamil" on the same note, "Any animated version of Batman that isn't voice by Kevin Conroy" "any none Frank Welker voiced Megatron". There are some actors who just freaking nail the role and are so iconic that anyone else following them is in for a tough ride.

He wasn't the first person to play Superman but he has been the only one to really nail the role in live action.

The comments in that first article are just absurd and not worth a further thought, as far as I am concerned.

Regardless of all other factors, his performances were stellar (and absolutely iconic).

It's easy to forget or miss how much acting he is doing when just being Superman... That's because he's just that good at it. And his performances as Clark are both hilarious and amazing. And, indeed, his performance of playing all those roles within one character that we actually believed in so much... Give me a break... "worst" or "9th worst", lol.
Best? Yeah, probably.
Best Superman? Without question. I do like George Reeves, but it's not really close at all.


Also... I know this will sound questionable and/or make people feel badly for me (lol), but I really don't have that much hate for Quest For Peace.
I really don't.
Don't get me wrong... Superman III and IV are bad with capital W, T and F... but I honestly find III to be the worst abomination to crawl out of a movie studio and labeled a superhero movie/sequel.
IV has some terrible... terrible... TERRIBLE aspects, no doubt. Mostly Jon Crier's dialog... WHY OH WHY...
But I, personally, loved the boldness of taking Superman in the direction they did regarding the nukes and there are some okay moments and one last chance to see the real Superman.
Again... it's bad... but if you're capable of surviving III, then I'd suggest watching IV again. Understand what it is and accept that and... Well, I found it somewhat enjoyable. Just flip that thinking part of your brain to the off position... and understand that Jar Jar has nothing on Jon Crier.

As far as I remember anyway... I picked up a four pack of the movie a year or two ago and we watched all four and that's how I felt after watching them.
The specifics have faded a bit... but I'm willing to watch IV again... III? Nah... no thank you!

I actually liked III, though the part where the computer assimilates the bad guys creeped me out. I'd rather watch the Supergirl movie than Superman IV.

I'm not quite as overwhelmed by Reeves's performance as the others here, but even I have no hesitation about calling it "iconic." Indeed, what he does best is establish Superman as an ideal as well as a character, as an icon, and he makes this icon believable within the context of the film. Even his Clark is an iconic buffoon.

As others here have pointed out, it's the minor gestures Reeves makes that really show the quality of his performances. Several good examples have already been pointed out by other posters.

I think one reason it's hard to appreciate the quality of his performances on their own, as opposed to appreciating them out of loyalty, is that the Reeves Superman films aren't directed/written/whatever in the naturalistic style that provides lots of opportunities for those kinds of glosses on a role by an actor. Rather, they're more like movies of the '30's and '40's, which tend to be far less naturalistic (though that doesn't necessarily make them less believable or entertaining; see The Best Years of Our Lives or Gone With the Wind for examples of what I mean). I hadn't really thought of this aspect to the Superman movies until now, and it makes them much more interesting to me, so I thank this thread for that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr_MechanoEU The problem being that Reeves was so iconic and played the role so damn well that every other actor who now takes on the role as Superman is always going to be measured up to him.

Not only is this correct, but it's shaped every subsequent performance, too. (I'm sure that's also a result of the fact that most men of the right age to play Superman these days grew up, like me, with the Reeves Superman as "the" Superman to them.) I think this is the real problem with Brandon Routh's performance in Superman Returns. When I see it now, knowing what I know about the film, he seems like Routh playing Reeves playing Superman, rather than Routh's own interpretation of Superman. Trying to duplicate someone else's performance is never going to work out as well as doing something original; that's why we have actors in the first place.

Put another way, if Mark Hamill's Joker had just been a repeat of Jack Nicholson's Joker from the Tim Burton Batman film, I doubt it would be as remembered today, even if it hadn't lasted as long as it has in so many media.

Well, I'll confess I own all the movies, and the original 1940's animation courtesy of a steelbook set that a friend very kindly bought me as a birthday present years ago. I agree that Superman IV took a risk in having the central character make a very political stand, but this is what brought Chris Reeve back to the role after not wanting to do it.

He's even one of the co-writers of the screenplay, I think. Superman III I still like to this day for that brilliant acting he does with good and evil Superman going against each other, with his actual identity as Clark in there too. I can watch those portions of the film quite happily.

I did want to pick up on Olantern's point on the style of the original film; Richard Donner fought bitterly with the Salkinds who wanted to do the film in almost a slapstick way and he argued (and rightly so) that Superman was genuine Americana, a real cultural artifact. He argued it deserved reverence and portrayal in the most iconic way possible with all the attributes most people knew of the character. His Kent farm was in his words meant to be 'a Norman Rockwell painting', for instance. So you're right O'lantern, it is heavily stylised, but something I think gives it a true timeless quality.

And Superman Returns...alas. Bryan Singer was lost in his hero worship of the original, unfortunately. He openly acknowledges it as a tribute to Richard Donner and Routh pretty much is the Chris Reeve version. They mention in the commentary that it's meant to be in a lot of ways a follow on to the ending of Superman II. There are moments to be sure, but 'Super-stalker' as he became known was a horrible misjudging of the character.

I'm very happy to have someone redefine the character (and who knows, Henry Cavill may yet do that), but Chris Reeve is a standard that most definitely should be aimed for.


S.

Reeve's Superman was what I had in mind when I dressed up as him for Halloween one year. Just that fact that when he passed, news outlets used the line "the death of Superman" should tell you what kind of impression he made on people as "The Man of Steel". I doubt the same would be said of Routh, Dean Cain, or the new guy from the upcoming movie (Tom Welling might get it just based on how long he played Kent) when their time comes.

Reeve's Superman is pitch-perfect, brilliant, sublime, and beautiful.

As someone who is in no way, shape, or form a fan of Superman:

Reeve did a great job and actually brought something worthwhile to the character and the role.

No question that Christopher Reeve did a wonderful job playing Superman. I remember seeing that scene when he straightens up to become Superman, and then changes his mind and slumps back to Clark as a defining moment -- it finally made it understandable how people could not immediately know that Clark and Supes were the same person.

The one problem I had with his performance was really the tone of the film in the second half . . . The original Superman was made in the days that directors thought that a "comic book movie" had to be "comic." I disliked that Clark Kent, this award winning reporter, was a bumbling buffoon. As was everyone else in the movie. Not at all the fault of Reeve, as his Clark Kent fit the overall tone of the film to a "T."

I saw each of the Superman movies in the theater when they came out. The ad campaign for the first one was great -- "You will believe a man can Fly!" And unlike the advertising today, we never got to see Superman in the suit until the movie came out. I remember having mixed feelings about Superman the Movie -- Christopher Reeve was fantatic, the special effects (for the time) were great, and the movie up through the Airplane scene was fantastic . . . but the story after that was stupid as hell. And WTF with the "You can't change time" speech followed by Supes changing time with NO CONSEQUENCES AT ALL? I felt cheated by the hand-wave, deus ex machina resolution. (Supes 2 followed the same kind of stupidity.) If the tone from the first half of the movie (up through the airplane rescue) had stayed all the way through, it could have been arguably the greatest superhero movie ever. Instead, it suffered major flaws due to the change in tone and a poor plot.

I don't know if Henry Cavill will be able to capture the key dichotomy of Clark vs. Superman, but I hope and pray that Zack Snyder has a story that makes sense without massive plot holes.


By the way, George Reeves had a small speaking role in Gone With the Wind before he became Superman.

I think this sums up my take on the article:

I think when it comes down to Reeves, it's not so much he was bad. But that acting has changed since then.

You can just watch a lot of old movies (which I do) with actors who are considered "the best" at the time, and see such a big difference in performances from then and now.

The same applies to Reeves (whether he was eve considered the best or not).

For Routh, I think he just got the shaft. He wasn't hired on to play Clark/Supes, he was hired on to play Reeves Clark/Supes.

It's no different than say watching on old movie, where before the special effects where OMG SO REAL, and now you look at them when compared to newer movies and go SO FAKE!

Reeves is on the list because his performance is just older. Really, that's what makes it bad. You also see it and go "Okay, it's just corny now" because that's not what you're looking for.

I don't think people hate there being corny/comedy in their comic to film, but the old Superman movies come off now as a bit like they didnt want to take some things serious. It's a movie based on a comic book which is for kids, we can't take this serious (taking it serious in this case doesnt mean no comedy).

And really, I think that's why the one's picked on that original list got put on that list.

It didn't feel like they were taking the script and their parts serious as an actor, but rather, "Eh, it's a paycheck, phone it in, this is a comic book movie lol, who'd see that?"

Even with Cage on there, it's because as many say, he played himself rather than Ghost Rider.

I'd put some of the blame on the director, writers and likely studios and not just the actors.

After all, I doubt it was Halle Berry who thought up the line about the toad. But she also seemed to give a more phoned in acting job, maybe because she wasnt the main star or because she didn't take it seriously.

What I am surprised at is I almost sure Green Latern and DareDevil would be on the list as people seem to hate those movies (I didnt). But maybe that's because while people may have had problems with their acting or the script, they thought they took the part serious? *shrug*