-
[QUOTE=Marvelgirl;4835781]Garfield was emo in the second movie.[/QUOTE]
Those two movies are magnets for complaints I can't agree with.
[QUOTE=Comic-Reader Lad;4836658]I'll say something controversial here in that I don't think Christopher Reeve's Superman was comics accurate.
It was a good portrayal, and it was popular enough that it made everyone think that Superman should act like Reeve (which I think has hurt the character in comics stories immensely), but I don't think that the Superman in the movie was how the character was ever written in the comics.
The movie was more of a romantic fairy tale with a woman meeting a Christ-figure, which the comics really never were -- certainly not pre-movie.
I think the George Reeves TV series was more comics accurate in that, like the comics, the TV characters were more one-dimensional and the stories were more simplistic. The relationship between Lois and Superman was more chaste and didn't ever move forward just like in the comics.
Also, the George Reeves Superman would casually hang around with normal folks and the Daily Planet staff in a very matter-of-fact way like in the comics with no dewey-eyed worship of a godlike figure like in the movie. Superman was always "just folks" in the comics and the Reeves show.
Of course, the movie was grander and better, but we're talking comics accurate in terms of the Superman character.[/QUOTE]
Superman is not one dimensional, never been that shallow as a character.
Golden Age Clark Kent had the habit of pretending to be too soft, I think Superman's line in [I]Justice League Unlimited[/I] finale sums up that era of Clark Kent more than any other version "Feels like living in a world made of cardboard, I have to take constant care not to break something, to break someone". Reeve's Superman was more Bronze Age Superman with Golden Age Clark Kent, so he's been pretty faithful, and around that time is when Superman of Earth-2 was newly wedded to Lois Lane of his earth.
-
I don’t know how accurate Reeve’s Superman is to 50s through 70s Superman. I think that Max Fleischer’s cartoons which were Superman and Lois’ earliest movie appearances and where he flew for the first time had a more confident and impish take on the character than in Donner.
The strength of the first Donner movie is that Reeve made Superman and Clark Kent convincing. The romance with him and Margot Kidder likewise worked in a way it never did before. I think Margot Kidder really saved Lois as a character. Hackman though was the worst thing that happened to Luthor. Great actor but poor direction and weak writing froze him.
Donner’s Superman is a good movie for most of the first half. Up till the date and flight with Lois it’s excellent. Then Luthor arrives and the movie gets weak and weak. The climax with turning time back is not good. Lois dying was bad itself.
I know people respect it for being the first superhero movie but I think it’s not aged well. The sequel is flawed too.
Mostly people look at Superman too much as an icon and folk hero and not enough as a character
-
Teri Hatcher is the best Lois to me.
-
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4836794]I don’t know how accurate Reeve’s Superman is to 50s through 70s Superman. I think that Max Fleischer’s cartoons which were Superman and Lois’ earliest movie appearances and where he flew for the first time had a more confident and impish take on the character than in Donner.
The strength of the first Donner movie is that Reeve made Superman and Clark Kent convincing. The romance with him and Margot Kidder likewise worked in a way it never did before. I think Margot Kidder really saved Lois as a character. Hackman though was the worst thing that happened to Luthor. Great actor but poor direction and weak writing froze him.
Donner’s Superman is a good movie for most of the first half. Up till the date and flight with Lois it’s excellent. Then Luthor arrives and the movie gets weak and weak. The climax with turning time back is not good. Lois dying was bad itself.
I know people respect it for being the first superhero movie but I think it’s not aged well. The sequel is flawed too.
Mostly people look at Superman too much as an icon and folk hero and not enough as a character[/QUOTE]
Yeah Superman's such a symbol to most people that the perception of him hasn't changed really since his creation. Just like Batman and Wonder Woman have evolved over time so has Superman but yet people don't know that. Don't know if it's the fault of the directors or what. Hopefully the rumors are true and JJ Abrahams makes a good Superman film that shows a newer Superman from the comics rather than the classic one everyone is used to.
-
[QUOTE=ComicJunkie21;4834562]Haha why did I not know wolverine was that short in the comics. What run does it state his height?[/QUOTE]
I couldn't even begin to tell you off the top of my head a specific comic that labels his height but 5'3" is the standard used by all wikia's and databases including this one: [url]https://characterprofile.fandom.com/wiki/Wolverine[/url]
Beyond just the art where he is normally shown as being much shorter than his teammates there is also fact that Sabretooth usually refers to him as runt and other nicknames meant to make fun of his height.
-
[QUOTE=TriggerWarning;4836897]I couldn't even begin to tell you off the top of my head a specific comic that labels his height but 5'3" is the standard used by all wikia's and databases including this one: [url]https://characterprofile.fandom.com/wiki/Wolverine[/url]
Beyond just the art where he is normally shown as being much shorter than his teammates there is also fact that Sabretooth usually refers to him as runt and other nicknames meant to make fun of his height.[/QUOTE]
It' a necessary change, if you really make him that short it's gonna look really weird in live action.
-
[QUOTE=Slowpokeking;4836903]It' a necessary change, if you really make him that short it's gonna look really weird in live action.[/QUOTE]
Is anyone short in live action?
I'm serious, everyone who isn't the Rock or some special thug always seems to be about the same height (excluding those with dwarfism, obviously)
-
[QUOTE=The Cool Thatguy;4836924]Is anyone short in live action?
I'm serious, everyone who isn't the Rock or some special thug always seems to be about the same height (excluding those with dwarfism, obviously)[/QUOTE]
It might work on some other characters, but I don't think Wolverine is among them.
-
[QUOTE=The Cool Thatguy;4836924]Is anyone short in live action?
I'm serious, everyone who isn't the Rock or some special thug always seems to be about the same height (excluding those with dwarfism, obviously)[/QUOTE]
Technically they do ALOT of camera maneuvering to make most people look the same height as much as possible but that's because many Hollywood actors as well as musicians and dancers are short. That's why when someone is at least 6 feet they tend to look like they tower over everyone else.
Its understandable why they do height manipulation for films as it helps us buy into the characters being portrayed especially if they are male as height is correlated to people's perception of masculinity and toughness. I mean if we saw a 5'3 wolverine on screen whose whooping ass on people over 6 feet, most people would probably find it comedic.
-
[QUOTE=TriggerWarning;4836897]I couldn't even begin to tell you off the top of my head a specific comic that labels his height but 5'3" is the standard used by all wikia's and databases including this one: [url]https://characterprofile.fandom.com/wiki/Wolverine[/url]
Beyond just the art where he is normally shown as being much shorter than his teammates there is also fact that Sabretooth usually refers to him as runt and other nicknames meant to make fun of his height.[/QUOTE]
Hugh Jackman did not have the body build. He had the face and the attitude. Getting two thirds of the accuracy right is passable.
-
Found mostly in northern Canada, the wolverine is incredibly strong and vicious for its size. That's why visually, Wolverine should look short yet powerful--it goes with the animal from which he gets his name. I think that when you have smaller people on screen performing violent actions it's actually more impressive than big burly types doing the same action.
Bruce Lee was only 5'7" and he looked it on screen. I don't think there was ever an effort to cheat and make him appear as tall as Jim Kelly.
-
[QUOTE=Slowpokeking;4836931]It might work on some other characters, but I don't think Wolverine is among them.[/QUOTE]
Yea not a live action Wolverine. He isnt gonna work at 5"3. Someone 5"8-5"10 would work though. Honestly it's not about the height for me. Jackman was long, a stalky thick actor no matter there height would work. Not that Jackman didnt,he was a great Wolverine. But someone stalky like Tom Hady would be perfect, but someone 5"3 wouldnt work in live action. Or atleast not with any actor I can think of. Wolverine just needs to be short and thick. Also someone who's less Male model level handsome. More of a caveman attractive like Hardy,Mamoa, or Bernthal. They have model looks but also have a little more caveman in them. But obviously Jackman worked great so I guess those things would be nice but arent mandatory.
