AS far as acting goes, I think it's a level playing field with Downey way ahead of Reeves on the field. Downey had to play an extravangant, self absorbed genius, playboy turned extravagant, self-aware and humane genius playboy trying to do what he can to make things right. Reeves plays, to the very core, a one dimensional super-hero with a one-dimensional personality out to save the world with no other reason than it being his will and responsibilty.
:?
I don't know what movie you're talking about, but I know it can't be
Superman: The Movie, and I'm POSITIVE it can't be the extended edition of that.
Then you have to think of the time period again in that Superman, as for other superhero movies, has had how many years to win your heart and become a classic? Iron Man just came out and has already made a huge impact. Why hasn't the same been said of the X-Men films or the Spiderman films?
First of all, this is ridiculous. I loved
Superman: The Movie the first time I saw it, as did half the world. It was number one at the box office for twelve straight weeks when it came out, for pete's sake! The impact it made was
staggering, leagues ahead of
Iron Man. IM may have revitalized a kind-of-stalling film genre, but S:TM
invented that film genre in the first place.
And I don't know what it is about this site and the Spider-Man films, but are you kidding me?
X-Men got a ton of credit and pretty much kicked off the new and most successful era of superhero movies ever, and
Spider-Man was the definition of instant classic pop-culture wise, referenced and quoted and parodied and revered ever since. I still see merchandise and photos from that film everywhere. I really think you're overestimating Iron Man's impact.
On top of that, everyone and their mom knows about Superman and his origins and Clark Kent and Lois Lane. The same can be said for Spiderman and The Hulk but I doubt everyone knows about Iron Man. You can do a Superman movie without having an origin story because of so many things. Mainly the fact that there have been various tv shows over the decades from the old Superman cartoons and show starring the tragic George Reeves to the Adventures of Lois and Clark all the way to Smallville; different generations all hearing the same story. Iron Man didn't have any of that aside from a short lived cartoon that aired at 6am every Saturday morning.
Iron Man achieved alot more in the movie than just smashing the box office. It told the the origin and told it well. It showed the transition from Tony Stark the industrialist to Tony Stark the humanist. Best of all, it showed the birth of Iron Man and rocked it like a hurricane.
And nobody's arguing that. Everybody here, Gothamite and I included, love the movie, but it doesn't somehow prove it's a better or more impactual film than S:TM or that RDj trumped Reeve.
Besides, it's not like you could have a guy in a metal suit hanging by strings (like Superman) and make it work. Cgi was almost more than necessary to pull it off.
This is not what Gothamite was saying.
DSF said Downey beat Reeve because Reeve didn't sell him on the "action side" of Superman, which Gothamite pointed out was extremely unfair because Downey has almost no screen time during Iron Man's action scenes. CGI or not, it's a metal suit. Not an actor.
