I was thinking last night while watching smallville. People do not reconise Superman as Clark Kent due to the glasses, but in "Smallville" Clark does not wear glasses and is good friends with Lex Luther but in the near future Lex can not tell the see that Superman is Clark Kent Why? Can anyone help me?

Because when he grows up and becomes Superman he's played by Brandon Routh.

To be honest, I never got into Smallville much, I preferred 'Lois & Clark'



Smallville seems to try too hard to be a 'teen angst' type show.



But I'm looking forward to the new Superman film, the trailer looks great!

but isn't this set between the second and third chris reeves movie so he then changes from chris to brandon back to chris.



seeing the preview unlike batman and spiderman there is no way of making the superman costume look anything but camp.

Be interesting to see how the incorporated Marlon Brando footage is like in the new film.



I'm glad Bryan Singer is linking his film to the first 2, very clever idea.

OK. He starts out as the naked kid in Superman--the Movie. Then he becomes Tom Welling, Gerard Christopher and if seen in the cinema Jeff East. Then he grows up, goes to Metropolis and becomes Christopher Reeve, Dean Cain and on black and white days George Reeves unless if he's seen in the cinema when he's Kirk Alyn. Then he's Brandon Routh. Then possibly all of the above again on a week day rotation. The animations are dreams, and the Superpup pilot is a nightmare.

Seems very strange people trying to link all of the Superman tv/movie things together.



So are we to take it that the Batman 60s tv series is connected to the films????

No, because of the huge disparity in the quality. Before Batman Begins the only Batman film worthy of the title was Batman (1966).

My fave Batman films are Batman Forever and Begins.  I never liked the Tim Burton ones - much too self indulgent - although I do generally like Burton's films.



The less said about Batman & Robin the better!!!

What I really didn't like was the tendancy to cast the villains as actors who play themselves. Nicholson plays Nicholson as no one else can, and Carry can look down the camera as no one else would. But these guys are the Joker and the Riddler? Batman Begins breaks the mold by the radical move of using actors who act!

yes but in batman begins they casted the actors on talent not names, all except Michael Caine. Alos the majority wher non Americain and the Two who were, are Morgan Freeman a great actor and Katie Holmes who is permently cast as love intrest (that was until she hook up with the most over rated and under talented actor of our time, now she is now as misses most over rated and under talented actor of our time.)

I'm not sure it was because they were all name actors, I'm sure they can all take direction and actually act. It's just that they were cast to be same old.



The other thing that leves me cold about Batman (1989) was the decision to give the Joker a name. He'd done well without one for fifty years!

If I remember correctly, I think the Joker's name was already revealed before the film came out.



The graphic novel 'The Killing Joke' was published a year before the film came out, and mentioned his name, plus that he was married with a daughter.



Cesar Romero was the definitive Joker in my opinion, he was great.

Absolutely not; the Joker's origin was a retroactive job in Detective Comics 168 (where you are invited on the cover to guess the identity of the Red Hood). This is returned to over the years (as in his short lived self titled comic in the '70s) with the next big shift being the rather more sympathetic treatment in The Killing Joke. But while Alan Moore may change things he's not an idiot; it takes some one with absolutely no appreciation of the character to totally stuff him up. And that man's name is Sam Hamm. Hope you're reading this Sam. Your work stinks.

Well I do agree that the first 2 Batman films weren't that good.



One of the few genre films that have been reasonably faithful to their source material would be the X-Men and Spider-Man films.



I think if a comic book film gets the general tone/idea of the story, then some small liberties can be taken with some of the characters.



As long as there aren't any major changes.  The Daredevil and Hulk films were woeful in my opinion.

I didn't mind the Daredevil one myself, but dreaded the Fantastic Four one. Blake asked myself and Melanie what was wrong with giving Doctor Doom the power of his skin turning into living armour. My comparison was if they were going to make a Batman movie and decided to give him the powers of being "Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerfull than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings at a single bound...."



I re-read Killing Joke last night after your cite, ta, not one of my favourite Moores, but that still makes it pretty good!

The Killing Joke is great, what they did to Barbara Gordon in it was truly shocking.



Fantastic Four was just ok.  The plot definately should have been beefed up much more.



Be interesting to see what they do with the Puppet Master in the sequel though.



Patrick Stewart as the Puppet Master - good casting??

The Barbara Gordon development was more a compromise than anything; it's genuinley surprising that this hasn't been undone by someone else. The art was excellant as usual, but beyond that it was pretty much scripted as if Moore was going through the motions.



I'm sorry there will be a sequal to that film; waste of talent. I shudder to imagine what they'll decide to do with the Puppet Master. Give him angelic wings? Or a red white and blue shield he can throw like a boomerang? Or a green, strong, angry alter ego? There's no end of other people's powers they can inappropriatly drop in there!



I'm not a purist, that fact that I like (most) of what Moore's done with other people's creations demonstrates this. Take the Spiderman movies. They've decided his web is part of his mutation. This works for me, better than it being the backyard concoction of a smart teenage chemistry major! I hope in some universe where the Marvel characters co-exist with these film makers Colossus knocks on their door and asks if he can have his superpower back now.

They will probably undo the Barbara Gordon thing one day - some writers can't resist  're-inventing' things.



The Spiderman films were well done.  Even though they did do some minor changes, they didn't detract from what the character was all about.



The actor playing Reed Richards in FF was mis-cast.  Someone older would be have been more suitable.  He didn't look like the scientific type.

I really don't know what they were thinking of, or indeed have been with the FF. The Ultimate Fantastic Four depicted Reed as a bespectacled kid. Possibly it's just me, but I've always seen him as more of a cold war warrrior--working on nuking the commies all day and coming home to hang up his hat and yell "Hi honey, what's for dinner?"



Thanks to his star turn in Hornblower, Ioan Grufford is associated with the young hero in most people's minds. I know when I heard he was involved I just assumed he was playing the young hot headed kid.



The other thing the Ultimate Fantastic Four did was give Doom and the FF a common origin, which is I suspect why they did this in the movie.