Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by Audiophilander (A) on May 31, 2002 at 06:24:22

In Reply to: Re: Apologies in advance for differing with you on this, but the entire Superman series... posted by mikenyc on May 31, 2002 at 01:19:25:

I know some folks have a h*rd-*n for the earlier campy approaches, but I for one am grateful for the satisfying depiction of Marvel's characters. As a fan of comics from waaaay back I like Superman, Batman, Flash, etc., but rarely have they translated as believeable live action characters. About the best envisioned Superman before the recent Smallville series goes back to the first Reeve's essaying of Superman on TV, George Reeves that is, back in 1951. For about a year the character had a serious interpretation with almost pulp-like plots and heroics. After that, the sponsors and DC's publishers requested the character be toned down and the plots made less violent, effectively turning into a campy kiddie-level show for the rest of it's 7 year run. Of course, if you think the the "original Superman still rules" you must mean the Columbia serials with Kirk Allen essaying the role back in '48 & '50, right? ;^)

Your critique of the heroine's orange hair (Mary Jane Watson portrayed by Kursten Dunst) is just plain silly; besides, it was red toned or are you just encountering the early stages of color blindness? FTR, I'm not a huge fan of CGI (i.e., esp. after Star Woes Epistle II, Attack of the Moans), but I thought it was used effectively and judiciously in Spider-Man. Obviously, having Sam Raimi helm the film was a brilliant choice for the studio.

BTW, don't worry about the "Spidey craze" ending soon. There has been a Spidey craze of sorts for forty years and it hasn't subsided yet. Maybe the producers of fantasy heroic films based on comics are finally beginning to get a clue and trust their "Spider-sense" where audiences are concerned (i.e., if the film is good the audience will be there).

AuPh