Reeves: what if?

[JustJack]

This might be a touchy subject, but what the heck?

How different do you think things might be for the Superman franchise, if Christopher Reeves didn't have his accident? If he wasn't Paralized?

I've been writing up a Kingdom Come script thing lately(just in my spare time), & I was dreaming about what it'd be like with Chris as the elderly Supes? Ahhh...that would be schweet.

[Karkull]

This may sound like blasphemy, but, in retrospect, I don't think that Christopher Reeve was that good--or maybe it was just the way the script portrayed Clark and Supes. Either way, I didn't like the films.

[X-human]

Well, although seeing the serials is number one on my list after the Batman serials and Batgirl pilot, I'd have to say Reeves was the best Superman I've seen. He really did fit the part for me, although he isn't a mirror image of the comic, I think it was better that they went with Reeves.

I don't want to sound mean now, but maybe it is best that Reeves basically is out of question for playing Superman. I'd like to see Superman try and start on the right foot again. This would require a new actor for Superman, and I wouldn't like to read fanboys screaming, "but Reeves looks really good for his age." Like some are saying for Michael Keaton.

[Calhoun07]

Reeves isn't my favorite Superman, but I am sorry he had his accident, and in the end, I don't think the franchise is hurting all that bad because of it. So I don't think it would be much different if he hadn't been paralyzed. I think we would be about right where we are at now on Superman, tho maybe he would have had some guest spots in Smallville if he could.

[Failure]

Well the franchise, as far as the movies go, was well over by the time Reeves had the accident, wasnt it?

[MattL.]

Well, you have to understand that the movies portrayed the most archetypical version of Superman as it was at that point. We've become very used to the idea that Superman *is* Clark Kent.

But for most of the characters life and mythology, he was primarily Kal-El, and Clark Kent was a disguise. Dispite what some Byrne fanatics would have you believe, taking this type approach to the character IS NOT an intrinscally bad thing. You *can* feel for and relate to Kal-El with his feeling of isoloation and longing. Especially with the added Fortress scene in the DVD.

You can debate of course which apporach is better, but my point is that *both* apporaches are valid. You can do Clark Kent as the real personality with Superman being an extention of that or Superman as a lone messiah and stranger in a strange land disguising himself as a human being.

Either way is a fun, intresting, and even human way of doing Superman. I can connect with him as Clark or as Kal-El.

(I give the animated series kudos for doing what is for my money the single most balanced Superman ever of the Kal-El and Clark elements.)

To be more on topic, Christopher Reeve brought the character to life for me. I was five years old and I saw the movie in a theatre. It was amazing. Superman was alive, and he flew. Reeve always played the part with dignity and respect, but also with a certain wry smile to him. He could say a really square line and make it seem cool because you got the sense that Superman himself knew it was square to.

Its like, Reeves Superman was cool *because* he was uncool.

My favorite picture of any and all things Superman is at the end of the films. He flys over the Earth, looking back at it then at us with that great smile.

That moment...is so symbolic of the magic of what Christopher Reeve brought to Superman.

Even before the accident he was too old to play the part, but I would've gotten a kick out of him playing Jor-El or something.