The controversies over BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN remind me:
I heard so many people whom I admire and respect praise the George Reeves SUPERMAN TV series that I was eager to see it — and I’m sorry to say that it disappointed me.
I could accept the cheap-looking sets, costumes and visual effects. The show obviously labored under a low budget, and the craftspeople were doing the best that they could.
But the element that people liked most — George Reeves as Superman — was my biggest problem.
Part of it was age. I think of Superman as mature but young, somewhere in his late 20s or at most early 30s. But George Reeves was 37 when the show began (by contrast, Christopher Reeve was 25 or 26 when he filmed the first Superman movie), and his slicked-back widow’s peak gave the impression of a receding hairline. He looked more like a burly suburban dad than a dynamic action hero.
And part of the problem was Clark Kent. The show de-emphasized presenting Clark as the meek, soft-spoken opposite of tough, forceful Superman, and thereby flattened the show’s dramatic potential.
I mean no disrespect to people who adore the Reeves version, but it’s not for me.