Rank your favorite Superman interpretations

[DisneyBoy]

Based off comments in another thread, I thought it would be interesting to see how people ranked their favourite Superman interpretations.


For me, I think it boils down like this:

1 - Lois and Clark: For me, this was the show that made Superman a real person I could relate to, respect and enjoy. Dean just embodied that down-to-earth person in a way Chris R couldn't, with his cold blue eyes and bizarre face. Sorry, but he had a weird face. Plus, Teri Hatcher just became Lois. It's her definitive role. The spunkiness, the sexuality, the vulnerability. She made you believe a woman could always end up at gun point and still be smart enough to win journalism awards. Sure, the villains weren't the best, but there were a few really goods one (namely, Lex!) and I liked that this wasn't some special FX heavy, serious show. Plus, it had an awesome theme song.

2 - S:TAS: Everything that Lois and Clark couldn't deliver, this show did. The great Sci-fi elements, fantastic villains, Supergirl, massive battles, humor and high drama. Too bad I don't like the theme song that much.

A very, very distant 3rd place - Smallville: Yes, the show is a joke now, a total failure and disappointment for more reasons than I care to list...but it gave us Chloe Sullivan, who I love, and Lionel, who I love too. Martha, Davis, Oliver and Tess were all memorable in this series...and some of the special FX were quite good. So there you go...some gems amidst the rubble.

Bottom of the list: The Donner films and comics. I really can't get into either. Chris R scares me, as does Lois in these films. The comics really never kept my interest, and now that they're so obviously relying on elements from the S:TAS show and Donner movies...that's even more true.


So....how about you? How does it break down?

[carnage89]

1 - Superman TAS - really the best version of Superman & his world IMO.

Never got into all the other cartoons or TV series. The Fleischer cartoon is beautiful even now, but thats it. Superfriends - total garbage. The Ruby-Spears cartoon is not so bad, but so good either.

2 - Superman The Movie - yeah it has some pretty dumb and illogical moments, but overall its a good version of Kal-El.

The sequel are crap though.

[Bat-Fan Beyond]

Outside of comics...

1. Superman: The Animated Series
2. Superman: The Movie
3. Smallville
4. Fleischer's Superman cartoons

[Joker1238]

1 comics.

2 Fleischer cartoons.

3 Lois and Clark

4 Radio Superman

5 STAS.

6 Donner films.

7 The 1950's Superman show. I loved that as a kid back in the 1990's on classic nights I belive.

[BigFatHairyDeal]

The Donner films were my first exposure to Superman, and they rate pretty highly. Superman 3, 4, and Returns are not worthy titles, though.
I still think the best comic stories are still untouchable, IMO. They are the birthplace of Superman, and really, are still home for his greatest stories.
STAS rates lowly for me. I love the DCAU, but STAS was painfully mediocre. Superman's easily my favorite comic character, and STAS took the direction that having him be as plain as possible was the right way to go. Didn't work for me. I did, however, think that by the time season 2 of JL rolled around, Superman became one of the better characters.

Smallville was a terrible idea, IMO, because I really feel the life of Kal-El, before he became known as Superman, is easily the least interesting part of his life. I sort of liked Lois & Clark when the show first came out, but its latter seasons weren't good and even the good ones don't really hold up well after time. I'm sorry, but the line "Clark is who I am and Superman is what I do" is really not the right take on the character. It works as a contrast, sort of like an Elseworlds, but it can never be the definitive Superman. I liked the Fleischer cartoons, but I didn't really grow up with them and didn't truly get acquainted with them until much later. I never bothered watching the George Reeves TV series.

So here's my ranking:

1. Comics (though there are some terrible Superman stories)
2. Donner movies
3. JLU
.
.
.
(Big gap to represent drop-off in perceived quality)
.
.
.
4. Fleischer cartoons
5. STAS
6. Lois & Clark

Everything else is either something I'm not qualified to rate, or not worth rating.

[JTMarsh]

Outside of comics (the big ones) -

1) Superman TAS/Justice League/JLU - while I didn't care for Superman/Clark Kent's eyes being these undefined black dots (kinda sucked the humanity out of his facial reactions) and thought he occasionally got knocked around too easily (granted, his power levels tend to be all over the place no matter what the medium), this was over all a very fleshed out and enjoyably modern take on the character, and in many ways helped me get over certain negative stereotypes that worked against my appreciation of the character in the past.

2) Lois & Clark - for the simple fact that it proved Clark Kent doesn't have to be a bumbling idiot.

3) Donner Superman film - Hasn't aged well in certain areas, namely the tacky and hopelessly outdated characterizations of Clark Kent (bumbling idiot), Lois Lane (chain smoking illiterate scatter-brain with stalker undertones) and Lex Luthor (slumming stand up comedian - seriously, the Super Friends version of Lex was a more formidable villain than this) but I respect it for proving that a large scale superhero film could be a success at the box office and accept it as a snapshot of the Silver Age/Bronze Age Superman.

[Superpan]

Yes! I'm going to have some fun with this.

1. Siegel & Shuster- I have a great affinty for characters in their original form. I like the tight storytelling, the social justice aspects, and how it reflects the times. Plus, Clark and Lois are fun to read, and it's weird how much of a vigilante Superman was in the early years.

2. Johns, Moore, Byrne, etc.- All the other great stories in the comics. Up, Up, and Away in particular is my favorite Superman story of all time. As for the current stuff? I got burned on event story-telling by DC and Marvel after 4 years of it, so not following it.

3. Superman: The Animated Series- One of my favorite TV shows and my favorite superhero one. While it had its flaws, it had the most likable cast and embraced the history of Superman while making it's own way into the mythos.

4. Fleischer/Famous shorts- See Siegel & Shuster, except with fantasy instead of social justice. Just fun snippets, but only above Donner because of more consistent quality.

5. Superman: the movie- ONLY THE FIRST ONE. That said, the reason these rate so highly is because of Christopher Reeve. The guy was Superman! I think no one will ever come close to topping him.

6. Elseworlds- I was going to say New Frontier here, but really all Elseworlds. That was a fun concept that I wish DC didn't get rid of.

Most of the rest either didn't leave an impression (DTVs), sometimes entertain me (Superfriends, the old Filmation cartoons), I've seen next to nothing (Lois and Clark, George Reeves) or were mediocre (Superman Returns). The worst however....

Smallville- Maybe it's because I started watching at Season 4, but this show was painful to watch. Now it's just boring. Characters that sometimes seem like cardboard cutouts, some of the most random and indecisive acting, and some of the worst filler episodes ever. Half the time, it's just downright boring. I'll admit that this show had my favorite versions of Lois Lane, the Kents, Lionel Luthor, and I admire Michael Rosenbaum's effort as Lex. I can take or leave Chloe Sullivan.

[BigFatHairyDeal]

I was thinking that there are actually a few ways to interpret the OP's question. What were the best overall Superman stories, and what stories presented Superman the best.

The Donner movies, for instance, aren't really great stories, and they don't hold up all that well in a lot of ways. However, the parts that do hold up well, involve the characterization of Superman, and Christopher Reeve's portrayal of him. So, I can say Hackman's Luthor is corny, his lackeys are a ton worse, the special effects suck, there are holes in the story, the endings are copouts, etc., but to this day I don't know if anyone really captured Superman better for mass media than Reeve and Donner. On the other hand, I could see how a lot of people liked Mike Rosenbaum's portrayal of Lex Luthor on Smallville, but the show itself is mediocre, and Tom Welling as Clark Kent hasn't been Superman-like other than wearing the colors, resembling a young Christopher Reeve, and demonstrating super powers through TV magic. So Smallville might be a good show (I don't agree) because of the old supporting cast, but its version of Superman is unspectacular.

The big slam on Reeve's Superman is that his portrayal of Clark Kent is often over-the-top nerdy, and doesn't do a great job of blending in. I agree with that on a lot of points. "Mild-mannered" shouldn't mean "socially inept," it should mean he doesn't stand out in a crowd, and Reeve Kent's awkwardness sort of sticks out like a sore thumb. However, the idea was always that it's all a bogus act, he's not buffoonish at all, he's really street-smart and confident, etc. Conversely, Lois & Clark and Byrne's take on Clark is almost too smooth. It sort of makes little sense to have Clark Kent as a disguise if he's just as savvy and competent as Superman, except everyone assumes Clark doesn't have super powers. My taste has varied throughout the years, but I prefer Clark to remain truly low-key, not Rico Suave but not Screech Powers. As far as gunning for Lois, I can understand wanting Clark Kent to get her without revealing he's Superman, but I don't need to feel badly about it, because "Clark Kent" is self-sabotaging anyway, whereas Superman can pretty much do whatever he wanted, assuming he wanted to.

Bringing this bloated post back to animation, weak and barely-gets-by Superman kills the image for me. I'm never concerned about the idea that he needs a true physical challenge every episode, because that's mostly irrelevant toward making a good Superman story, or any story. You take any series about a man of action, be it Superman, Batman, MacGyver, whoever, and the point is you want to see unique problems solved in entertaining ways. I mean, if MacGyver is trapped in a hopeless-looking situation, you don't think, "Uh oh, he might be toast this time!" You think, "How is he getting out of this mess this time?" If Batman is surrounded by a dozen gunmen, you don't think, "They might ice him for real!" The ultimate result is always a foregone conclusion, you just want to see Batman beat the thugs and elude the bullets in an interesting and fascinating way.

So with Supes? I just want to see him use his powers creatively, and nerfing his powers is just a lazy shortcut that reflects stifled imagination, and possibly misses the point of the character. These are examples where Lois & Clark, and (begrudgingly I say) Smallville exceeded the Animated Series, because the writers didn't treat his powers as a story-handicap and instead just looked for ways for the character to interact with good guys and bad guys with appropriate and fun-filled use of his super abilities. Even JLU topped the original Animated Series, because come season 2, they not only didn't ridiculously nerf Superman, the stories also were better than the previous season. But I'll always appreciate the Animated Series for giving us five or six really outstanding episodes that were exciting, engrossing, and held up well against good stories throughout the ages from other media.

[theRedDeath]

It's irrelevant to list the comics in this topic, because Superman's interpretation in the comics changes drastically from writer to writer and generation to generation. And almost each of those interpretations are represented in other media one way or the other anyhow. (Though I will say that I do read the comics, and I do love them.)

ANYWAY...

Am I the only one who loved LOVED Superman/Doomsday? That was by FAR my favorite representation of the character, and that's all just coming from one film. They got his powers right, they got his balance between being Clark and Superman right, they got his relationship with Lois right (and had the balls to mature it past the lame status quo that's in everything else), and they presented him as an intelligent and capable mind in addition to his powers. Not to mention that animation design looked FANTASTIC.

So my list goes:

1) Superman/Doomsday

2) S:TAS: They got his characterization right which is huge, but his powers were too weak, and his relationship with Lois was the same old stunted relationship we've seen a thousand times.

3) Donner Films. I was actually tempted to put "Lois&Clark" above this, because "Lois&Clark" succeeded in moving Clark and Lois' relationship forward and beyond (That and Teri Hatcher is gorgeous), but the actual presentation of Superman's ADVENTURES in that show were lack-luster and unimpressive. The Donner films really did an extraordinary job of showing Superman in action and that's never been met since, not in animation or television.

And after that, the absolute worst WORST presentation of Superman would have to be in: "The Batman". They lazily re-used George Newbern, despite not being right for that show or model. The face of the model was ugly, mostly in an attempt to differentiate it from their Bruce Wayne face. They attempted to portray him as darker and more untrusting, but that only comes up in like two lines, and he eventually trust's Batman and gets punked by Luthor AND Batman anyway. So his whole "Distrusting" angle didn't even matter, from a story point of view. It was poor writing and poor design. The worst of the worst.

---

[DisneyBoy]

I'm sorry, but the line "Clark is who I am and Superman is what I do" is really not the right take on the character. It works as a contrast, sort of like an Elseworlds, but it can never be the definitive Superman.

Yay - a chance to actually discuss this issue! Okay, I can't get into the idea of Superman being all that this person wants to be, and Clark just being what he has to do the rest of the time to fit in. This alien was raised as human. He discovers he has powers and yes, must feel free when using them, but I don't think the costume and the displays of abilities are really where he locates his sense of self.

Now you talk :p Why do you disagree that Clark is who he is?


Am I the only one who loved LOVED Superman/Doomsday? That was by FAR my favorite representation of the character, and that's all just coming from one film. They got his powers right, they got his balance between being Clark and Superman right, they got his relationship with Lois right (and had the balls to mature it past the lame status quo that's in everything else), and they presented him as an intelligent and capable mind in addition to his powers. Not to mention that animation design looked FANTASTIC.

LOTTO studies knocked it out the park. I was really impressed by them. The designs in the movie were annoying though because they differed only slightly from the DCAU, and it felt like they tweaked them only because they had to.

As far as the Lois/Clark relationship in that movie, having them sleeping together was mature for a kid's property, yes...but having them not even be dealing with his secret ID issue was...odd. It could have worked better, but the way they were presenting it in the film, it was like Lois was intentionally ignoring Clark in the office. You'd think you would recognize the person you slept with mere hours earlier! I didn't enjoy that. It just felt...crass. These two characters, in my mind, shouldn't have that disfunctional a relationship. Like Brainaic Attacks, this movie felt like an off version of S:TAS and that wasn't good for me. Plus Anne Heche as Lois was so overhyped. The way they went on about her "tearing up" scene with Martha Kent in the special features makes me roll my eyes. It wasn't that good. Any time you have to make the camera slow-zoom into someone's face to remind the audience how this a deep, emotional moment...the acting isn't doing it's job.


6. Elseworlds- I was going to say New Frontier here, but really all Elseworlds. That was a fun concept that I wish DC didn't get rid of.

How did those work? Was it one comic series with one alt Superman? Or was each issue a different take on Superman?

[theRedDeath]

LOTTO studies knocked it out the park. I was really impressed by them. The designs in the movie were annoying though because they differed only slightly from the DCAU, and it felt like they tweaked them only because they had to.

What?! The designs for S/Doomday were NOTHING like the S:TAS designs. Superman's musculature, his constant backlighting, his facial structure, the different blues and reds on his costume. You couldn't make the design's MORE different and still keep it as the traditional Superman costume. Luthor was similarly drastically altered. (And BTW, I loved 'Doomsday's interepretation of Luthor as well)

The only design in the movie that was at all derivative of the DCAU version was Jimmy Olsen's...and honestly...who cares? How much can you really do with Jimmy?


As far as the Lois/Clark relationship in that movie, having them sleeping together was mature for a kid's property, yes...but having them not even be dealing with his secret ID issue was...odd. It could have worked better, but the way they were presenting it in the film, it was like Lois was intentionally ignoring Clark in the office. You'd think you would recognize the person you slept with mere hours earlier! I didn't enjoy that. It just felt...crass. These two characters, in my mind, shouldn't have that disfunctional a relationship. Like Brainaic Attacks, this movie felt like an off version of S:TAS and that wasn't good for me. Plus Anne Heche as Lois was so overhyped. The way they went on about her "tearing up" scene with Martha Kent in the special features makes me roll my eyes. It wasn't that good. Any time you have to make the camera slow-zoom into someone's face to remind the audience how this a deep, emotional moment...the acting isn't doing it's job.The whole Lois subplot of the movie was about dealing with the secret identity issue. She knew Clark was Superman before the very first scene of the movie. THAT's why she was so dismissive of Clark in the office, because she knew he wasn't REALLY going anywhere. They even confirm this on the commentary. She just wanted him to trust her enough to tell her himself...which he does at the end of the movie.

And I don't think holding some toonzone interview against the movie is really fair at all.

---

[BigFatHairyDeal]

Yay - a chance to actually discuss this issue! Okay, I can't get into the idea of Superman being all that this person wants to be, and Clark just being what he has to do the rest of the time to fit in. This alien was raised as human. He discovers he has powers and yes, must feel free when using them, but I don't think the costume and the displays of abilities are really where he locates his sense of self.

Now you talk :p Why do you disagree that Clark is who he is?


I oversimplified things, and will probably do so in this post, but here goes. Yes, Clark was raised human, and has a human mentality, but you can't forget once he learned of his heritage, he followed a higher calling to be more than just a man with super powers. In the Donner movies, the calling came from Jor-El. In Byrne's reboot, it was from Pa Kent. So from the "classical" hero point of view, you sort of lessen Superman as a hero if his ultimate goal isn't to try to save the world over and over again. Not to say Dean Cain Supes didn't necessarily do that, but when you start implying that saving the world is somewhat secondary to living a normal life, the character is less of a hero. I mean, look at the personal sacrifices Batman made. "The never-ending battle" should always be job one for the capes, with the personal lives acting as garnish.

[Lucho]

Outside comics:
1. Fleischer.
2. Christopher Reeve/Donner films.
3. Superman: The Animated Series.
4. Justice League: New Frontier.
5. HB: Superfriends :o Yep I said so.

[Bat-Fan Beyond]

And after that, the absolute worst WORST presentation of Superman would have to be in: "The Batman". They lazily re-used George Newbern, despite not being right for that show or model. The face of the model was ugly, mostly in an attempt to differentiate it from their Bruce Wayne face. They attempted to portray him as darker and more untrusting, but that only comes up in like two lines, and he eventually trust's Batman and gets punked by Luthor AND Batman anyway. So his whole "Distrusting" angle didn't even matter, from a story point of view. It was poor writing and poor design. The worst of the worst.

---

I totally don't agree! I love the design and what they did with Superman. Of course, it wasn't as great as Superman: TAS, but within The Batman series it was cool.

[DisneyBoy]

RedDeath, I have to admit that changes were made between S:TAS and SD design-wise, but at the same time...I think it boils down to the style of the film. This was the first of the new DTVs wasn't it? It kinda set the tone in terms of the style of animation...and I was expecting something more like the comic-book. Maybe more "sketchy", as hard as that is to pull off in animation. I think ultimately that if you show this to someone who isn't super familiar with the DCAU, but has seen it, they'll mistake this movie for that. They aren't very different visually, or even in terms of the approach to the animation. There are differences, but they still look cut from the same cloth.


The whole Lois subplot of the movie was about dealing with the secret identity issue. She knew Clark was Superman before the very first scene of the movie. THAT's why she was so dismissive of Clark in the office, because she knew he wasn't REALLY going anywhere. They even confirm this on the commentary. She just wanted him to trust her enough to tell her himself...which he does at the end of the movie.

And I don't think holding some toonzone interview against the movie is really fair at all.

---

Um....okay. Why are you upset? I'm not "holding some toonzone interview" against this movie. Heck, people are just talking about which versions they like best. No one is trashing anything, and everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I get that Lois already knew that Clark was Superman, I'm just saying I don't think the way that was played out on-screen really worked for me. It didn't make the relationship sympathetic to me...it made it more pathetic LOL. For Lois to have to actively ignore Clark because she doesn't want him to realize she knows...that's just playing games. People do it in real life, I suppose, but it's a game there too.

Not saying I hated the movie though...

[launchpad20]

Here are my favorite media incarnations of Superman.

1. Superman TAS
2. Justice League/Unlimited
3. Superman 1 & 2
4. Justice League: The New Frontier
5. Superman Doomsday


The big slam on Reeve's Superman is that his portrayal of Clark Kent is often over-the-top nerdy, and doesn't do a great job of blending in. I agree with that on a lot of points. "Mild-mannered" shouldn't mean "socially inept," it should mean he doesn't stand out in a crowd, and Reeve Kent's awkwardness sort of sticks out like a sore thumb. However, the idea was always that it's all a bogus act, he's not buffoonish at all, he's really street-smart and confident, etc.That's one of the things I've noticed in the animated series. Clark is actually 'mild mannered' around his coworkers, and doesn't have to act 'socially inept' to hide his secret identity. Tim Daily dose this really well with his voice acting.

[Superpan]

How did those work? Was it one comic series with one alt Superman? Or was each issue a different take on Superman?

They were one-shots that allowed comic creators to do their own takes on DC superheroes (by that, I mean mainly Superman and Batman) and whatever they wanted to do with them. Some of the big ones were Speeding Bullets (if Kal-El was adopted by the Waynes and became Batman), Kingdom Come, Superman: Red Son, Superman/Batman: Generations, and some others, such as the one where Superman is raised by apes and becomes Tarzan. I find them at least interesting reads, if nothing else.

As for Superman's true idenity (I always find it interesting this always comes up with Superman and not as much as other superheroes), I'm for the 3 in 1 persona. There's Superman (the brave hero who saves everyone), Clark Kent (the gu who always fades into the background, but is genial. He's not neccessarily a weakling, just not outspoken.) and Kal-El, the base personality, is most like Superman with the mindset of Clark Kent. Of course, I don't Superman has multiple personalitys, so much as he downplays some aspects as Clark Kent, and amps up some for Superman. He's not as drastic as, say, Batman in his idenities.

[JTMarsh]

Would anyone here agree or disagree that the strong association of Superman with the late Christopher Reeve have worked AGAINST the character over the years, limiting people's perceptions of who/what the character of Superman is and who/what Superman can be? Sometimes I honestly do feel like the identification of Superman with Reeve has worked against the character when it comes to pitching him to audiences.

[Yojimbo]

Would anyone here agree or disagree that the strong association of Superman with the late Christopher Reeve have worked AGAINST the character over the years, limiting people's perceptions of who/what the character of Superman is and who/what Superman can be? Sometimes I honestly do feel like the identification of Superman with Reeve has worked against the character when it comes to pitching him to audiences.Definitely. I'm barely able to remember but when they cast Dean Cain for the New Adventures of Lois and Clark, they was a huge uproar because of his Asian ethnicity, wasn't there? Then by season one, the show was a cult hit.

[k.s.]

Would anyone here agree or disagree that the strong association of Superman with the late Christopher Reeve have worked AGAINST the character over the years, limiting people's perceptions of who/what the character of Superman is and who/what Superman can be? Sometimes I honestly do feel like the identification of Superman with Reeve has worked against the character when it comes to pitching him to audiences.

I don't think so. In animation, we fans cling to several voice actors who have truly made their roles their own (Kevin Conroy, Mark Hamill, etc.), but their versions haven't prevented us from appreciating new versions or at least being receptive to new interpretations. Some fans will always be stubborn, to be sure, but I think the majority of fans have accepted the new versions and voice actors even if the previous actors are the "definitive" ones.

I believe the same holds true for the general public. We've had Dean Cain, Tom Welling, and Brandon Routh all play Superman in live action after Christopher Reeve. My impression is that even the most adamant Reeve fans were at least willing to give these guys a chance and many people have come to enjoy these interpretations in their own right even if they still believe Reeve did it best.

Overall, I agree that limiting our idea of Superman to one person's interpretation is a disservice to the character, but I don't think that's happened. The majority of people I know think of Christopher Reeve when they think of Superman, but those same people also enjoy Lois and Clark, Superman Returns, and Smallville.

As for the Superman interpretations, I'm not familiar with the comics so I'll refrain from commenting on them. As for live action and animation, here's a rough list of everything I've seen (this isn't a strict ranking except for the 1st one, but a general feeling of the different versions I've seen):

1. DCAU Superman - I could distinguish S:TAS from JL/JLU, but since it's the same Superman in both shows, I'm going to lump them together. I could go on and on about why I love this version, but the bottom line is that I feel that this is the best version of Superman ever made and it will probably always be the definitive version to me. The shows themselves weren't perfect - although they were pretty much as close to perfect as they could be - but the character itself was perfect in my eyes. Just as the majority of the populace thinks of Christopher Reeve when they think of Superman, I will always think of the DCAU Superman.

(I'm also going to throw in all of the later animated Supermen from the DCU movie line and The Batman here because they're all very similar to the DCAU version. The Batman's version is only a little different because that Clark is like Reeve's, but since we see very little of Clark and a lot more of Superman, overall it reminds me more of the DCAU version than the Donner Superman)

2. Donner Films - as with most, this was my first exposure to Superman, so I'll always have fond memories of it. It's not the best version, especially after I've seen so many different ones, but this introduced me to the character and his world so it will always have a special place in my heart. Plus, Reeve's Superman exuded a certain charisma that I haven't seen since, although I think that's because later live action versions focus more on Clark than Superman.

3. Max Fleischer Superman - I've recently come to appreciate the Golden Age of comics more and more and this cartoon exhibits everything that's great about a Golden Age Superman. The characters are stories and simple and straightforward, the villains are pretty much one-dimensional (in a good way), and there's very few supervillains - it's mostly Superman fighting random evil scientists, monsters, and terrorists/thugs/corrupt officials. Unlike modern-day superhero stories that can be unnecessarily complex, this cartoon is fun for its simplicity. The animation is second to none too, except for maybe B:TAS.

4. Smallville - this was by far the toughest one to place because this version has been really awesome some seasons (1-4, 1st third of 5, most of 8 and 9) and utterly unbearable other seasons (most of 5, all of 6, most of 7, and some of 8 and 9). The dichotomy is mind-blowing - how do you rank a version that sometimes makes you proud to be a fan of Superman and other times makes you embarrassed to be watching what could be the worst version of Superman ever made? I suppose I could separate Smallville's Clark into two sections, but I when I think of Smallville, I tend to think of Season 4 and the 1st third of Season 5, so that's how I based my final ranking.

5. Ruby-Spears Superman - this cartoon was very interesting because it's funny to see how it acts like a bridge between the campy Superfriends and the more serious DCAU Superman. It's also very underrated compared to the rest in this list, so I recommend it to anyone who hasn't checked it out yet. Overall, it's not quite as good as the Fleischer cartoon, but still a good, enjoyable interpretation of Superman and it's definitely worthy of praise.

6. Superman Returns - I have to make a very important distinction here - while I don't think much for the movie as a whole compared to other Superman endeavors, I did like Superman himself quite a bit. Brandon Routh had a lot to live up to, and I think he passed with flying colors. While a lot of the character was just an emulation of the Donner version, there were some differences that I liked. Clark wasn't as much of a disguise and more of a real person in the Daily Planet, and Routh's Superman also seemed to be more down-to-earth and compassionate while also retaining the charisma of Reeve's Superman. The rest of the movie was ok, though.

7. Lois and Clark - While this was a good tv show overall, it was barely a Superman show. As the name implies, it was more focused on the lives of Lois Lane and Clark Kent and Superman was just kind of there. Dean Cain's Clark was great, but his Superman was just a day job for Clark rather than a fundamental part of his identity. Still, it was a fun, lighthearted Superman show that gave great characterization to Clark, Lois, and their relationship, so the pros far outweigh the cons.

8. Superfriends - oh, Superfriends, how could we forget about you? While I like all of the versions I've listed here, this is the only one I would actually say was bad. I get that the fun was in its campiness, and in that light, the show is actually really good, but that still doesn't get past the fact that it pales in comparisons to other versions of Superman.

[BigFatHairyDeal]

Would anyone here agree or disagree that the strong association of Superman with the late Christopher Reeve have worked AGAINST the character over the years, limiting people's perceptions of who/what the character of Superman is and who/what Superman can be? Sometimes I honestly do feel like the identification of Superman with Reeve has worked against the character when it comes to pitching him to audiences.

I don't think there's a negative effect, because fundamentally there are no real errors with the representation of the character. Looking at Superman Returns, there's one particular scene I thought that was critically wrong on so many levels. I was irritated when Superman used his x-ray vision and super-hearing to eavesdrop on a private conversation between Richard White and Lois. At best, that's inappropriate and stalking, at worst criminal. Then there's the idea of Superman as absentee dad and the fallout, I was among the masses of close Superman followers who left the theatres shaking their heads incredulously at how badly Bryan Singer messed up certain aspects. I could go on, but that's probably out of scope of this thread and the forum in general. The big key, though, is that the Reeve movies helped solidify the general public's interpretation of the character, and those movies are a big reason why you could grab a random person off the street and he or she can tell you three distinct facts about Superman.

I guess I'm curious about how you feel Reeve's Superman was "limiting." What did you want to see out of his interpretation that you didn't? What have other interpretations of the character presented that Reeve's Superman should've?

[theRedDeath]

The only legacy of the Reeves films that I think has been detrimental to Superman's other interpretations over the years is it having used Lex Luthor almost exclusively as Superman's nemesis. In nearly EVERY incarnation since those films Luthor has been front and center as the main villain, in some cases even sharing the central role.

Lex Luthor has become such a prevalent part of Superman's mythos because of those films, that the character IMO is over-used and has taken so much potential out of all the following Superman properties. Even Batman with his immensely popular nemesis the Joker, doesn't force SO much focus on that one character. Had those films not focused on Lex Luthor so much, and had used any of the number of GREAT Superman villains, (and had used them without using Lex Luthor ALSO) we wouldn't be playing "catch-up" now.

S:TAS also suffered from this legacy, and when it DID attempt to usher in new and more significant villains in Superman's world (which was a noble attempt) even then they were reduced to being in some way equal or subordinate to Luthor. Both Darkseid AND Brainiac were eventually saddled with or defeated by Luthor at some point in the DCAU.

---

[JTMarsh]

I don't think there's a negative effect, because fundamentally there are no real errors with the representation of the character. Looking at Superman Returns, there's one particular scene I thought that was critically wrong on so many levels. I was irritated when Superman used his x-ray vision and super-hearing to eavesdrop on a private conversation between Richard White and Lois. At best, that's inappropriate and stalking, at worst criminal. Then there's the idea of Superman as absentee dad and the fallout, I was among the masses of close Superman followers who left the theatres shaking their heads incredulously at how badly Bryan Singer messed up certain aspects. I could go on, but that's probably out of scope of this thread and the forum in general. The big key, though, is that the Reeve movies helped solidify the general public's interpretation of the character, and those movies are a big reason why you could grab a random person off the street and he or she can tell you three distinct facts about Superman.

I guess I'm curious about how you feel Reeve's Superman was "limiting." What did you want to see out of his interpretation that you didn't? What have other interpretations of the character presented that Reeve's Superman should've?
Reeve's Superman was basically the Silver Age Superman (arguably with some Bronze Age elements thrown in). How good of a reflection is that of the Superman who's been flying around since John Byrne's "Man of Steel" reboot in 1986?

[BigFatHairyDeal]

Since the Donner films were shot in the latter portion of the 70's, reflecting the Silver and Bronze ages was all it could do. Well, it could've radically reimagined Superman, but I'm not sure it'd be a smart idea. The problem I think you see is that Warner Bros. shied away from earnestly revisiting Superman for two whole decades, and once they did they went back to the old model. That said, they did try with two primetime series that went in far different directions from the Reeve Superman, so I wouldn't say the creators weren't handcuffed by Reeve's portrayal.

[theRedDeath]

The only thing that's dated about Reeve's portrayal is his power level, where he can fly around the world and turn back time.

In modern comics, Clark still acts extra goofy around his co-workers, but is relaxed and himself when he's at home. Though, that "home" often includes Lois since they're married now.

---

[launchpad20]

I don't think there's a negative effect, because fundamentally there are no real errors with the representation of the character. Looking at Superman Returns, there's one particular scene I thought that was critically wrong on so many levels. I was irritated when Superman used his x-ray vision and super-hearing to eavesdrop on a private conversation between Richard White and Lois. At best, that's inappropriate and stalking, at worst criminal. Then there's the idea of Superman as absentee dad and the fallout, I was among the masses of close Superman followers who left the theatres shaking their heads incredulously at how badly Bryan Singer messed up certain aspects.I agree. Having Superman as a 'stalker', and a 'deadbeat dad' literally ruined that movie for me. I could see Superman eavesdropping on the bad guys, but on Lois? No way. And while I could see the possibility of Superman having a son after he married Lois, or Lana (Or even Wonder Woman) in an 'Elseworld' story, this was just wrong on so many levels. Synger, and his writing team could've handled those scenarios differently, but unfortunately, they didn't. :(
The big key, though, is that the Reeve movies helped solidify the general public's interpretation of the character, and those movies are a big reason why you could grab a random person off the street and he or she can tell you three distinct facts about Superman.That is so true. Unless you've read some comics, or even watched the various shows since 'Superman 4', average people tend to associate Reeve's portrayal of Superman as the definitive version of the character.
The only legacy of the Reeves films that I think has been detrimental to Superman's other interpretations over the years is it having used Lex Luthor almost exclusively as Superman's nemesis. In nearly EVERY incarnation since those films Luthor has been front and center as the main villain, in some cases even sharing the central role. Lex Luthor has become such a prevalent part of Superman's mythos because of those films, that the character IMO is over-used and has taken so much potential out of all the following Superman properties. Even Batman with his immensely popular nemesis the Joker, doesn't force SO much focus on that one character. Had those films not focused on Lex Luthor so much, and had used any of the number of GREAT Superman villains, (and had used them without using Lex Luthor ALSO) we wouldn't be playing "catch-up" now. S:TAS also suffered from this legacy, and when it DID attempt to usher in new and more significant villains in Superman's world (which was a noble attempt) even then they were reduced to being in some way equal or subordinate to Luthor. Both Darkseid AND Brainiac were eventually saddled with or defeated by Luthor at some point in the DCAU.Very true. Especially since Lex Luthor is the dominate villain in all the movies while the various cartoons have explored Superman's other adversaries like Brainiac, Bizarro, and Mr. Mxyzptlk. While 'Superman 2' should get some credit for making General Zod a serious threat, even he was reduced to a subordinate for Lex to gain the upper hand.

[BigFatHairyDeal]

S:TAS also suffered from this legacy, and when it DID attempt to usher in new and more significant villains in Superman's world (which was a noble attempt) even then they were reduced to being in some way equal or subordinate to Luthor. Both Darkseid AND Brainiac were eventually saddled with or defeated by Luthor at some point in the DCAU.

---

The DCAU might've suffered from it, but TAS did not. In the last episode, Luthor's last appearance was on the news, with a broken jaw, being all sour grapes about Superman and his gifts. Darkseid's last appearance was losing a fight, but still one-upping Superman (I loved that, BTW, best villain moment in the DCAU IMO). TAS proper revolved more around Darkseid. Darkseid didn't take a back seat to Luthor until the very last episode of the DCAU, which aired about 6 years after the last TAS episode.

Regarding Brainiac, I don't think he ever really was subjugated or anything by Luthor. Luthor just happened to be able to sweet talk Brainiac into making a deal, and then was fortunate enough to outlast Brainiac after getting whooped by a speed-force powered Flash.

[Superpan]

Luthor has been a central part of the Superman Mythos since 1940. He has been the arch-foe of Superman and is as important to him as Magneto is to the X-Men or Dr. Doom is to the Fantastic Four. If he wasn't a big part of Superman, I think we'd be missing a very important character as I delinated over in Greatest Superman Villain.

[theRedDeath]

Luthor has been a central part of the Superman Mythos since 1940. He has been the arch-foe of Superman and is as important to him as Magneto is to the X-Men or Dr. Doom is to the Fantastic Four. If he wasn't a big part of Superman, I think we'd be missing a very important character as I delinated over in Greatest Superman Villain.


It's funny how you just made two examples of OTHER over-used villains.

---

[k.s.]

The DCAU might've suffered from it, but TAS did not. In the last episode, Luthor's last appearance was on the news, with a broken jaw, being all sour grapes about Superman and his gifts. Darkseid's last appearance was losing a fight, but still one-upping Superman (I loved that, BTW, best villain moment in the DCAU IMO). TAS proper revolved more around Darkseid. Darkseid didn't take a back seat to Luthor until the very last episode of the DCAU, which aired about 6 years after the last TAS episode.

Regarding Brainiac, I don't think he ever really was subjugated or anything by Luthor. Luthor just happened to be able to sweet talk Brainiac into making a deal, and then was fortunate enough to outlast Brainiac after getting whooped by a speed-force powered Flash.

Yeah, Luthor never got the upper hand over Brainiac. If anything, there's been countless encounters between the two of them where Brainiac subjugates Luthor. Even in JLU, I thought it was pretty clear that it was an equal partnership, so it's not like Luthor outshone Brainiac in Divided We Fall.

As far as Darkseid goes, they only interacted in 2 episodes of the entire DCAU, and Darkseid never took second billing. And Luthor using the anti-life eqution can hardly be considered outsmarting Darkseid when it was just revenge for Darkseid making Luthor look like an idiot in the previous episode, especially when we have no real clue what happened. For all we know, they both died in the explosion, and Luthor killing himself to kill Darkseid isn't really outsmarting Darkseid even if he got his revenge. Finally, and most importantly, the final season in JLU was really Lex's arc about reconstituting Brainiac, so why wouldn't he the spotlight in the final episode?

It's true that the live action films feature Lex a little too much over the other villains, but the DCAU made it pretty clear Brainiac and Darkseid were on the same level as Luthor.


It's funny how you just made two examples of OTHER over-used villains.

---

They're the top dogs in their respective superheroes' rogues galleries. Wouldn't you expect them to be a little overused? You might argue that he's featured too much even accounting for that, and I'd actually agree, but that's still no fault of the Donner films. Like Superpan said, Luthor was number one long before those films came out, so it's only natural that they would put him in that role.

[theRedDeath]

the DCAU made it pretty clear Brainiac and Darkseid were on the same level as Luthor.

Which is kind of my point. Luthor SHOULDN'T be on their level.


Like Superpan said, Luthor was number one long before those films came out, so it's only natural that they would put him in that role.Oh, and where's the Ultra-Humanite? Superman's first arch-nemesis and the very first true Super Villain in history? He eventually appeared in JL (subordinate to Luthor), but he's all but unknown to the public at large.

---

[k.s.]

Oh, and where's the Ultra-Humanite? Superman's first arch-nemesis and the very first true Super Villain in history? He eventually appeared in JL (subordinate to Luthor), but he's all but unknown to the public at large.

---

Well, how did Luthor become Superman's arch-nemesis then? I'm seriously asking, because I have little to no knowledge of the comics, so I'm actually curious.

I'm willing to bet it was some story that made Luthor stand out from the other villains, and writers built off of that in the years to come, turning him Superman's arch-nemesis. It's the same thing with Batman - Joker wasn't his first villain, but he became the Batman's arch-nemesis as writers took advantage of the character's potential in the years after he was introduced.

Also, forgive me if you've said it earlier, but I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing. Are you saying Luthor shouldn't be at the top of the rogues gallery at all, or are you saying that people are overusing the character because of the Donner films at the detriment of other villains?

[Dreyfus]

Well, how did Luthor become Superman's arch-nemesis then? I'm seriously asking, because I have little to no knowledge of the comics, so I'm actually curious.

Luthor went bald and blamed Superman.

[theRedDeath]

Also, forgive me if you've said it earlier, but I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing. Are you saying Luthor shouldn't be at the top of the rogues gallery at all, or are you saying that people are overusing the character because of the Donner films at the detriment of other villains?

I'm saying that Luthor is overused because of the Donner films, at the detriment of other villains, yes. In the specific case of the DCAU, i'm also saying that Luthor shouldn't have been revered as much as Brainiac and Darkeid were.

Why Luthor became such a popular villain over the Ultra-Humanite I couldn't say. In their classic appearences the two villains were nearly identical, and it's even rumored that the reason Lex Luthor was drawn bald (He originally had a full head of red hair) for the first time, is because the artist mistook him for the Ultra-Humanite who WAS bald.

---

[Superpan]

Well, how did Luthor become Superman's arch-nemesis then? I'm seriously asking, because I have little to no knowledge of the comics, so I'm actually curious.

I'm willing to bet it was some story that made Luthor stand out from the other villains, and writers built off of that in the years to come, turning him Superman's arch-nemesis. It's the same thing with Batman - Joker wasn't his first villain, but he became the Batman's arch-nemesis as writers took advantage of the character's potential in the years after he was introduced.

Also, forgive me if you've said it earlier, but I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing. Are you saying Luthor shouldn't be at the top of the rogues gallery at all, or are you saying that people are overusing the character because of the Donner films at the detriment of other villains?

The Ultra-Humanite put his brain in the body of a young actress and then in Action Comics #21 JUMPED IN A VOLCANO. This was in the Golden Age when death was more permanent, and so the Ultra-Humanite died and wasn't brought back until the 1970's.

Two issues later, in Action Comics #23, it was revealed that the war in Europe (it was 1940, so many superheroes were fighting wars in Europe) that Clark and Lois were covering was being caused by the mysterious Luthor. In his first appearance, he had a full head of red hair, and wore robes and hoods. He was much more like Fu Manchu or Ra's al Ghul, and his henchmen looked more like his later incarnations than he did! He actually ESCAPED Superman in his first appearance, and in his later appearances, was much like the Hackman Luthor, challenging Superman and always escaping. It was around his fourth appearance that the error occurred and he lost his hair, became a mad scientist, and got a first name.

As long as we're on the subject of overused villains, why does Flash Gordon always have to fight Ming the Merciless? Why Holmes vs. Moriarty? Why Peter Pan vs. Captain Hook? What about God vs. Satan? They all need more variety. ;)

[theRedDeath]

As long as we're on the subject of overused villains, why does Flash Gordon always have to fight Ming the Merciless? Why Holmes vs. Moriarty? Why Peter Pan vs. Captain Hook? What about God vs. Satan? They all need more variety. http://www.toonzone.net/forums/images/smilies/wink.gifThe difference is, those characters don't have better villains.

Except for Holmes, Holmes goes against people who aren't Moriarty all the time. Moriarty wasn't even the main villain in the recent movie.

---

[Anthonynotes]

IIRC, Luthor never gained his first name until "Adventure Comics" #271 in 1960, where his Silver Age origin is first revealed (the Superboy/Luthor lab accident story).

As for my favorite versions of Superman, in no particular order:

1. Bronze Age comics: my favorite comic versions of him is his Bronze Age version, the one from the 70s and 80s, as drawn by Silver Age great Curt Swan and written by Cary Bates and Elliot S. Maggin. More toned down than the Silver Age-proper version (who's also entertaining, but Lois in the 70s acts like her modern self vs. obsessing with marrying Superman), but without the John Byrne revamp elements I never liked (like, well, John Byrne's revamp in general ;-) ).

2. The Flesicher Superman shorts: classic animation, and a big influence on the DCAU shows.

3. The Super Friends: one of my first childhood exposures to Superman and the rest of the DC superheroes. Corny, yes, but Danny Dark's Superman voice still sticks out in my mind...

4. The first two Christopher Reeve movies: classics, even with the goofy powers of the second film. We'll ignore the latter two films (and Superman Returns... as the "I'm a Marvel and I'm a DC" YouTube shorts stated, they wanted to make Supes "relevant" by making him an illegitimate father?! Um, no.).

5. Superman: TAS: An entertaining update of the Fleischer shorts, even if it felt like Darkseid or one of his Apokolips minions showed up virtually every other episode... :-p

6. The 50s Adventures of Superman TV show: I still sometimes watch the reruns of this that air here on Sunday mornings (on a local TV station). Very low budget, but George Reeves has a nice personality as Supes and Clark.

7. Superboy (Kal-El version): If this counts as a "version" of Supes, this one was one of my earliest exposures to Superman overall as well, via watching his Filmation shorts with Krypto. I still like Kal-El Superboy (Kon-El Superboy's OK, but still hold a torch for the original one)... he seemed to be unique: the world's only superhero (no JLA or anyone to turn to for help, with Bruce Wayne still in training, Hal Jordan still an ordinary teenager Clark meets once while visiting Coast City), and having to learn how to be a hero on his own (well, with the guidance/parenting of Ma and Pa Kent too, of course). Plus it gave him experience in becoming the hero he became as an adult, versus the more "going in blind"/"wait until his mid-20s to become a hero" approach of the post-Crisis Superman (that "several years of operating in secret" stuff aside). That, and it was fun...

Do wonder if the Kents and Clark were influenced by the JSA comics that were published in their world in how to operate as a superhero (just as Barry Allen was a fan of the Golden Age Flash comics published in their world), given the lack of superpowered superheroes before Superboy on Earth-1? Might've been an interesting story...

-B.

[Superpan]

The difference is, those characters don't have better villains.

Except for Holmes, Holmes goes against people who aren't Moriarty all the time. Moriarty wasn't even the main villain in the recent movie.

---


[on Moriarty]
Irene Adler (http://www.toonzone.net/name/nm1046097/): Please don't underestimate him. He's just as brilliant as you are. And infinitely more devious.
Sherlock Holmes (http://www.toonzone.net/name/nm0000375/): We'll see about that.

Yeah, but that's because they were setting him up as the big bad of the series.

Also, how can you find a better villain than SATAN? The point I was trying to make was that with very few characters do not have an archenemy who's as important as them in their stories. Off the top of my head, Batman, Spider-Man, and the Flash are the only ones that don't. Even then, the Green Goblin and the Joker are rapidly appearing in everything, so they are on their way to pushing those rogues gallery to the side.

[theRedDeath]

[on Moriarty]
Yeah, but that's because they were setting him up as the big bad of the series.

Yes, but the film-makers knew that they NEEDED to set up Moriarty, and that if they did indeed make a franchise of sequels, they're not going to want Moriarty to be the villain in ALL of them. They did the same thing with "Batman Begins" by not using Joker right away. Whereas Luthor's been the bad guy in 4 out of 5 live-action Superman films, and in the one where he wasn't, the bad guy was essentially just a made-up Luthor copy anyway.


The point I was trying to make was that with very few characters do not have an archenemy who's as important as them in their stories. Off the top of my head, Batman, Spider-Man, and the Flash are the only ones that don't. Even then, the Green Goblin and the Joker are rapidly appearing in everything, so they are on their way to pushing those rogues gallery to the side.The point I was trying to make was that none of those heroes franchise's use their "main" villains with NEARLY as much dependence as Superman does. Superman stories are crippled by the over-use of Luthor, and the very sentiment that your expressing here is because you have this notion that Luthor's this great main villain to counter Superman...but the only reason you believe that is because of the enormous dependence on Luthor in the past because of the Reeve's films.

In a backwards sort of way, the very fact that you're arguing with me proves my point.

---

[Superpan]

No, I believe Luthor is Superman's greatest foe because that's how the story's been for 70 years...if you mean that Luthor has an exclusive monopoly on being in a Superman movie, then yes, I agree with you. I would like to see Metallo and Braniac and others. In fact, the producers wnated Braniac, Mr. Myxyzplk (however you spell it), and Bizarro in the last two, but the studio wouldn't let them because they were too "out there".

If your point is that Lex Luthor was a minor Superman villain until the movies and the Donner/Reeve movies made him his archenemy, well, he was in the first movie because in the 70 years since his creation, he's become one of the three pillars the mythos is built on, along with Lois and Superman. He has to be involved in some capacity in the mythos, no matter what version we're talking about.

Also, Peter Pan isn't dependent on Hook? Flash on Ming? Christianinty and Satan? Those are the only villains that they have!

[BigFatHairyDeal]

I wonder if Lex Luthor has become so ingrained in the general public's consciousness such that they feel that Luthor is somewhat necessary. I'm not sure how much blame, for lack of a better word, should go to the Reeve movies, but after Superman IV, the main Superman movie and television projects that come to mind are Ruby-Spears, Superboy, Lois & Clark, the Animated Series, Smallville, and Superman Returns, and Luthor was a perfect 6/6 for being the main villain, with the only possible exception of TAS in which Darkseid overshadowed Luthor. Whatever the reason for why Luthor's number is always being called, there does appear to be a vicious perpetual cycle of Luthor appearing, people thus expecting Luthor, and Luthor appearing because people expect him to be there.

I don't know how exactly Luthor will fit into the following equation, but the public can identify Superman in ways they don't with other comic superheroes. Much more than other popular characters Batman, Spider-man, X-Men, etc., aspects of Superman's mythos are used to define aspects of everyday, regular life. If someone is ridiculously good at something, he's a "superman." People exceptional at their given crafts who fail to meet their lofty expectations are called "Clark Kent." "Kryptonite" is now synonymous and about as prevalent as "Achilles heel." I don't really believe that the words "Lex Luthor" is a truly common metaphor for "nemesis," but it's a possibility I would entertain.

All that analysis aside, I would like someone creative out there to work with someone else from the mythos and make an entertaining story with him. If Spider-man can, Iron Man, and Batman (Begins) can do well with far lesser popular characters, I don't see why Superman cannot.

[Superpan]

Well, Luthor was also in the Superfriends cartoons and the Filmation ones. He was also the first comics supervillain to appear outside of the comics in Atom Man vs. Superman back in 1950. He's probably made the most appearances in film and television than any other comic book supervillain combined!

Luthor is as essential to the mythos, maybe more so, than the Joker is to Batman and I don't see anyone complaining that he appears in EVERYTHING Batman-related. I'm not sure what a Superman movie 100% Luthor free would be like, but I think it would lose an important counterpoint to Superman. Luthor is the smartest person alive, the cream of the crop, but he uses his talents to make humanity work for him, not the other way around. I feel that's a good character to have in a Superman stroy.

[DerekPowers]

1 - Superman TAS - really the best version of Superman & his world IMO.

I agree.

Superman: TAS is as definitive as it comes. And out of all the Timmverse shows, I believe it has the most TMS animation. Its one of the finest cartoons ever made.

[BigFatHairyDeal]

Well, Luthor was also in the Superfriends cartoons and the Filmation ones. He was also the first comics supervillain to appear outside of the comics in Atom Man vs. Superman back in 1950. He's probably made the most appearances in film and television than any other comic book supervillain combined!

Luthor is as essential to the mythos, maybe more so, than the Joker is to Batman and I don't see anyone complaining that he appears in EVERYTHING Batman-related. I'm not sure what a Superman movie 100% Luthor free would be like, but I think it would lose an important counterpoint to Superman. Luthor is the smartest person alive, the cream of the crop, but he uses his talents to make humanity work for him, not the other way around. I feel that's a good character to have in a Superman stroy.

Luthor has had more involvement in Superman projects than Joker in Batman, and I agree that Luthor is more essential. As mentioned in a prior post, though, of the 5 Superman live-action major blockbusters, Luthor was involved in 4. Joker was only involved in 3 of 6 Batman films, and one of those 3 only referenced Joker in the end. Batman didn't have as many live-action TV series as Superman, but while the Joker was not singular main villain in the West series, Luthor was the villain in a few of the Superman series.

At some point, bringing up all the appearances of Luthor stops describing how important he is, and starts explaining that he just might be overused.

I don't remember how good or bad Superman's animation was for its time, but having gone back to a few episodes lately, it really didn't hold up well over time when put side-by-side to JL and JLU.

[Superpan]

Again, it all comes down whether you think that a villain in a superhero story can be important enough to appear everywhere or whether they need variety. In my mind, saying that Lex over used is like saying that Lois Lane or Jimmy Olsen is overused. They're all essential to the mythos and the reason why the other villains are not as exposed is because people don't watch them and movie moguls don't know them. They weren't really exposed in the media until after 1990 and that generation of movie moguls that grew watching the DCAU isn't in power yet. Also, Luthor was only in one season of Lois and Clark, he was overshadowed by Darkseid in S:TAS, and he was the second-most important character in Smallville.

That said, I will agree that he being the only villain in Superman Returns (and acting like Gene Hackman crossed like Daffy Duck) was a mistake, but the main problem with that movie was that Singer was making a remake of the Donner movies and refused to make anything else. He even wanted to do Zod in the sequel!

To be fair, Braniac was going to be the main villain in all the scripts made before 2001, so I don't think Luthor will be the only Superman villain in the movies for long, and the only reason he's not is because Warner Bros. went with the guy who just wanted to remake his favorite childhood movie.

[BigFatHairyDeal]

Not to derail the thread too much, but I just wanted to respond to one particular idea. Luthor is probably as important as Lois (and definitely more than Jimmy). In many ways, though, Lois is less replaceable in storylines than Luthor. Luthor is an enemy, Lois is a co-worker, friend, and love interest. Since Superman battles injustice in all forms, and there's never going to be a shortage of perpetrators, audiences can reasonably expect other shady people to cross paths with Supes. Clark Kent, on the other hand, has a small circle of friends, a smaller group of women he's ever been attracted to (it's pretty much Lois, Lana, Lori Lemaris, and Wonder Woman, in decreasing order), and one occupational partner. So for certain aspects of Superman/Clark's life, Lois can be replaced only temporarily before audiences starting asking out loud, "Where is Lois?" In fact, if a new individual partnered doing journalistic stories with Clark, or a woman started flirting with him, the first thing audiences would ask is how this would effect the Clark Kent/Lois Lane dynamic. I don't think many casual fans would ask, "Why is Superman busting this guy who's endangering Metropolis at this moment, he should be busting Lex instead!"

In short, Lois' extended absence in a Superman story would be far fishier than Luthor's. Really, the only time Lois wouldn't matter is if Supes were on extended Superman business, e.g. almost every JLU story, and even then they couldn't shut out Lois for too long. I am comfortable with "overdoing" stories with Lois, as opposed to "overdoing" stories with Lex.

[Superpan]

Well, the point I was trying to make is that Luthor should at least get a reference in a Superman movie. It may not be weird for the moviegoing public, but I think that Superman fans would like to see Luthor have some kind of presence.

[k.s.]

Well, the point I was trying to make is that Luthor should at least get a reference in a Superman movie. It may not be weird for the moviegoing public, but I think that Superman fans would like to see Luthor have some kind of presence.

Actually, I'd say it's the reverse. For better or worse, the general public only seems to know and love Luthor, so they're probably going to be a little confused if Lex doesn't at least get some mention.

[JTMarsh]

I don't remember how good or bad Superman's animation was for its time, but having gone back to a few episodes lately, it really didn't hold up well over time when put side-by-side to JL and JLU.
Well, the 90s TAS Superman was done back when such shows were still primarily hand drawn. By the time they did JL & JLU they had computers doing half the work for them, which made it easier for consistent episode to episode animation quality. Seriously, look at the early 90s Batman TAS or Gargoyles, you'll see episodes where the animation is really beautiful & dynamic, then you'll see an episode where the animation is painfully weak, most likely rushed to meet deadlines. Most 80s cartoons had that problem as well (just look at The Real Ghostbusters or Thundercats or Silverhawks).

[Jordacar]

Well, the point I was trying to make is that Luthor should at least get a reference in a Superman movie. It may not be weird for the moviegoing public, but I think that Superman fans would like to see Luthor have some kind of presence.I say just have him in prison for the whole movie, Lecter style!

[Superpan]

I say just have him in prison for the whole movie, Lecter style!

"Do you hear the lambs, Lois?"

"You've really got to stop coming around Superman. People might say we're in love."

I can see it now!

[GohanWinner]

For consistency, I'd go with the DCAU Superman.

I love Superman in the comics, but only when people who get him are writing him. There's a lot of inconsistency between writers. Love Geoff Johns' run on Superman.

Every other Superman is forgettable.

[Aaron]

...Bottom of the list: The Donner films and comics. I really can't get into either. Chris R scares me, as does Lois in these films. ...


Reading that made me so very very ... well angry. But since there's no point in acting on my anger, I let it settle into sadness.
Now, I'm just very very sad.

Anyway. I guess for my list.

Best interpretations
Well, aside from the comics, which except for a few inconsistencies (such as a Birthing Matrix and his power level) generally keep him about the same...

1) The Donner/Christopher Reeve Superman Movies (I, II, and The Donner Cut) - Simply the definitive version. The way he separated himself to show essentially his view of who he is and how he sees humans. Amazing.

2) The 40s animated serials from Fleischer/Famous Studios - I just love everything about the charm this version presents.

3) Superman: TAS - A perfect marriage of the Donner/Reeve version and the 40s serials, with enough of Batman: TAS to give it just the right mix.

4) A 6-Way Tie: Kirk Alyn Superman/George Reeves Superman/Lois and Clark/Filmation Superman/Ruby Spears Superman/Superfriends - They're all about the same in my book.

P.S. Worst interpretation goes to... Smallville. Just all wrong. Can NOT defend that show.

I guess that's it.

[GohanWinner]

1) The Donner/Christopher Reeve Superman Movies (I, II, and The Donner Cut) - Simply the definitive version. The way he separated himself to show essentially his view of who he is and how he sees humans. Amazing.


I've always thought that was a fundamental misunderstanding of the characterization. Superman grew up human, he protects humans, he loves humans. Why do people therefore insist that he has such a negative view of the people he was raised by and as? He acts like a boob so that people won't suspect he's Superman. He sacrifices respect in his private life so that he can do real good as Superman.

I am not a fan of the Donner films for a lot of reasons, but Christopher Reeve's work as Clark Kent and Superman are great. But he is not parodying humanity, there's no motivation for that. Superman has never thought himself better than anyone, which is a defining point in his character and always has been. It separates him from Lex Luthor, who is human, but thinks himself better, and to General Zod and countless other bad guys.

[Aaron]

Why do people therefore insist that he has such a negative view of the people he was raised by and as? He acts like a boob so that people won't suspect he's Superman. He sacrifices respect in his private life so that he can do real good as Superman.

I am not a fan of the Donner films for a lot of reasons, but Christopher Reeve's work as Clark Kent and Superman are great. But he is not parodying humanity, there's no motivation for that. Superman has never thought himself better than anyone, which is a defining point in his character and always has been. It separates him from Lex Luthor, who is human, but thinks himself better, and to General Zod and countless other bad guys.

Nah, see that' not it at all. You miss the point.
It's not negative. He DOES love humanity. But he does realize they are weak. It's a "world made out of cardboard". He can flick someone to death. He could breathe wrong and someone could die. And he knows this.

He doesn't act like a boob to blend in. He acts meek and mild so that nobody would EVER suspect him of being something/someone so great.

AND furthermore, he only acts that way generally around people in Metropolis. When he's back on the farm, he's standing up straight and acting like a regular average joe.

[JTMarsh]

But a guy who acts like that much of a buffoon would never be able to hold a job as a reporter, let alone believably win the heart of someone like Lois Lane.

[Yojimbo]

I've always thought that was a fundamental misunderstanding of the characterization. Superman grew up human, he protects humans, he loves humans. Why do people therefore insist that he has such a negative view of the people he was raised by and as?I think some people have read into a scene from Kill Bill Volume 2, related to this conversation, way too much.

[BigFatHairyDeal]

But a guy who acts like that much of a buffoon would never be able to hold a job as a reporter, let alone believably win the heart of someone like Lois Lane.

Two things:

1) He lands a job as a reporter because he turns in good work. I'm not a fan of the bumbling Clark, as stated prior I believe he should be "mild-mannered" and not bring attention to himself. That said, even if he were bumbling, he gets the stories in.

2) In a lot of stories, "Clark Kent" is not gunning for Lois. "Clark Kent" sabotages himself so that nobody thinks too highly of him. I understand why writers shied away from this approach, because it makes Lois seem awfully like a gold digger, but there's a bit of appeal to the stories when Lois is completely enamored by Superman, but the Clark Kent disguise works so well that she doesn't notice him much.

Really, the big thing for me is that if Superman doesn't want Lois to know he's Clark Kent, then there's not a lot of reason for Superman to try to impress her as "Clark Kent."

[JTMarsh]

Two things:

1) He lands a job as a reporter because he turns in good work. I'm not a fan of the bumbling Clark, as stated prior I believe he should be "mild-mannered" and not bring attention to himself. That said, even if he were bumbling, he gets the stories in.

But there's a difference between mild mannered and bumbling, and Reeve went with bumbling. What prospective employer would hire a guy who acts like he can't even tie his own shoes? What prospective employer would believe a guy who acts that inept would be even remotely capable of getting the stories in?



2) In a lot of stories, "Clark Kent" is not gunning for Lois. "Clark Kent" sabotages himself so that nobody thinks too highly of him. I understand why writers shied away from this approach, because it makes Lois seem awfully like a gold digger, but there's a bit of appeal to the stories when Lois is completely enamored by Superman, but the Clark Kent disguise works so well that she doesn't notice him much.

Really, the big thing for me is that if Superman doesn't want Lois to know he's Clark Kent, then there's not a lot of reason for Superman to try to impress her as "Clark Kent."
But we now live in an age where Lois has married Clark, and if Clark continues to behave like an idiot, well, being married to someone like Lois, who's very driven & resourceful, is going to look weird to their coworkers.

I'm sorry if that sounds like a personal attack on you, which it is not intended to be.

[BigFatHairyDeal]

But there's a difference between mild mannered and bumbling, and Reeve went with bumbling. What prospective employer would hire a guy who acts like he can't even tie his own shoes? What prospective employer would believe a guy who acts that inept would be even remotely capable of getting the stories in?


But we now live in an age where Lois has married Clark, and if Clark continues to behave like an idiot, well, being married to someone like Lois, who's very driven & resourceful, is going to look weird to their coworkers.

I'm sorry if that sounds like a personal attack on you, which it is not intended to be.

He can get hired because he can turn in a resume and sample pieces, and say the right things in the interview while not displaying the full bumbling. Once he's hired, it doesn't matter how bumbling he appears, as long as he's good for the bottom line he'll be retained. I'll add there are some fans and writers who believe that Perry White knows that Clark is Superman, but respects him so much he plays along with the charade. I kind of like that and would not oppose it in any story.

Regarding point two, our thinking doesn't appear to be totally in sync. My main point was two-fold. First, I was kind of expressing what my ideal Clark Kent representation would be like. Second, if you wanted to do a Superman story from scratch, you can do a bumbling (again, I prefer mild-mannered) Clark Kent because "Clark Kent" isn't gunning for Lois, as Clark Kent exists as a sort of backwards posturing. If you want the two married, as is the case in the comics, it's not necessarily awkward writing to include a non-slick Clark because Daily Planet stories generally only feature Clark, Lois, Perry White, Jimmy Olson, and rarely Cat Grant, so you're not going to see much about the sideline characters anyway. The ones who are featured like Clark anyway and know he's a good guy so they won't think the idea of marriage is weird. I guess I would agree that it would be weird if Clark were really bumbling throughout his interaction with Lois and she found herself attracted to him, though.

In case you're wondering, I'm on the fence about the marriage. No matter what you do, keep Superman single or have him married, a lot of good new elements can be inserted to the story, and eventually the status quo will grow stale and you'll want it back to the old way.

[JTMarsh]

In case you're wondering, I'm on the fence about the marriage. No matter what you do, keep Superman single or have him married, a lot of good new elements can be inserted to the story, and eventually the status quo will grow stale and you'll want it back to the old way.
I think it's only a matter of time before DC pulls a "One More Day" bomb on Superman's marriage and has him make a deal with the devil to save the life of some other loved one (possibly Batman, 'cause of their bromance, you know;)) that for some reason resets his entire life & the lives of those around him & erases his marriage from existence. Heck you wouldn't even need the devil part, they could just do that the next time they do one of their Crisis across the multiverse type events.

I like that avatar by the way.

[Batman91]

-The Fleischer cartoons are probably the best animated version of Superman to date. I love S;TAS, but the animation of his flying, leaping, etc. has not been surpassed yet.

-S;TAS was a big part of my childhood, like B;TAS. Love the designs, love how they brought all the Kirby stuff into it. Its Bruce Timm, need I say more?

-Smallville for the most part was a really interesting show. Yes, it has its sucky parts, especially towards the end, but I thought it was good.

-Superman Returns-Hmm...it wasn't great but it took all that Nostalgia from the previous Donner films and made it even better. I thought it was a pretty decent movie. Not great but fun.

-Superman Doomsday is definitely towards the bottom of my favorite DC Universe movies, but it was okay. It was more of a Lois Lane movie and her loss that I thought was good.

[JTMarsh]

I thought Superman Returns was pretty boring and bland, and being mindlessly lashed to the old Donnerverse seemed to defeat the point of updating Superman for a new generation. And the illegitimate son served no real purpose.

[Jordacar]

I thought Superman Returns was pretty boring and bland, and being mindlessly lashed to the old Donnerverse seemed to defeat the point of updating Superman for a new generation. And the illegitimate son served no real purpose.Except to make Superman feel bad, which is what most of the movie is about.

[BigFatHairyDeal]

Except to make Superman feel bad, which is what most of the movie is about.

I think a lot of people would argue that the movie can completely emphasize that Superman felt bad for leaving, all the while not making Superman an absentee dad.

On top of that, the end is a mess. Since the movie is supposed to be a sequel to Superman II, it first appears that the chronology goes from Superman II> Superman leaves abruptly > Lois finds a new lover very quickly > Everyone has great reason to believe that Richard is the father. Sounds logical (and ghastly even for an over-the-top soap opera), except at the end of Superman II Lois forgot about her relationship with Superman. On top of that, I think Singer admitted to disregarding aspects of Donner's films rather blatantly, just to tell his movie, all the while claiming it's a sequel.

(FYI I believe Singer also claimed that the events of Superman II led to that scruffy looking kid's conception. I don't remember his name, but I'm inclined to think it's Jason.)

I'm not high on STAS, but at least I can take some comfort in knowing that almost all the retcons done for JLU were pretty well thought out.

[The Great Vega]

I think a lot of people would argue that the movie can completely emphasize that Superman felt bad for leaving, all the while not making Superman an absentee dad.

On top of that, the end is a mess. Since the movie is supposed to be a sequel to Superman II, it first appears that the chronology goes from Superman II> Superman leaves abruptly > Lois finds a new lover very quickly > Everyone has great reason to believe that Richard is the father. Sounds logical (and ghastly even for an over-the-top soap opera), except at the end of Superman II Lois forgot about her relationship with Superman. On top of that, I think Singer admitted to disregarding aspects of Donner's films rather blatantly, just to tell his movie, all the while claiming it's a sequel.
And not to mention, it was like 2 hours of nothing going on. No giant robots? No struggle against nature? Just ONE disaster and it's a plane falling?

All for what? Superman stalking his ex-girlfriend? That's what Singer thought would be a good tribute to the Man of Steel and his legacy? :yawn:

[Bobbywoodhogan]

1. Superman: The Animated Series - probably my favourite interpretation of the Man of Steel ever. Tim Daly just has the perfect Superman voice to me this is what Superman should sound like

2. Superman: The Movie - Christopher Reeve will always be Superman to me and this in my opinion is the greatest comic book film of all-time, it set the standards for everything that came after it.

3. Smallville - My favourite TV show ever and I will be very sad when it comes to an end. I would love to see Tom Welling become Superman for a film as he has grown into the role well.

4. Fleischer's Superman cartoons - Love this version of Superman, one of my favourites

5. Superman Returns - Loved Brandon Routh as Superman even though the film was abit of a letdown he stood out for me. I really hope he gets to play Superman again with a better script.

6. Superboy (Gerrard Christopher) - This show was superb (ok and extremley cheesy) in its final two seasons and Gerrard Christopher played the role superbly. OK so its not Superman exactly but hey neither is Smallville.

DISLIKES

Lois & Clark - the show was just awful, Dean Cain was terrible in my opinion just not Superman for me.