@DougMasters @JayRelling although Reeve wasnt a fan doesnt mean he didnt study for the role. Surely an Actor would study what makes such an iconic role appealing and then bring his/hers interpretation. If i was an actor and offered the role of sherlock holmes  i'm not a fan but i would surely study Holmes. 

@JayRelling @andrewarnold1 also check out this photo from the Immortals-http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iEml1ZAiVNY/TsgEgDEtelI/AAAAAAAACGE/m5eQcM0JSzo/s1600/the-immortals-still-henry-cavill_500x333.jpg&imgrefurl=http://hokahey-littleworlds.blogspot.com/2011/11/immortal-imagery-immortals.html&h=333&w=500&sz=39&tbnid=trDu6Bik4i2j0M:&tbnh=85&tbnw=128&zoom=1&usg=__q3kEGG5YV2_CpXzR-1q-5CjAL04=&docid=9zDMTjhe79ft9M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ScyUUfTENYmOygGWvYHwDQ&ved=0CGsQ9QEwEA&dur=516

@JayRelling @andrewarnold1 Read this article yet another subject you ARE WRONG about roflmao-http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2056219/Henry-Cavill-bulked-authentic-Superman-body--relying-CGI.html

@JayRelling @andrewarnold1 SHow me how I insulted you first, I didn't say anything vile until you started the name calling first so another thing you are WRONG about. 

@JayRelling @andrewarnold1  How did you prove me wrong, you should me an article that said He imagined how he would play the part. If you feel telling someone is wrong about something then you are a very sensitive person, who insulted whom first by calling someone names,  You are laughable ddue.

@andrewarnold1 @JayRelling It's funny - I just said the same thing, after proving him wrong about his assertion that Reeve didn't study the character. He's disrespectful, when - up until now, people were able to speak without insults and other acts of stupidity. I'm ignoring him, also - he's toxic and a waste of...well, everything. One thing I'll give him credit on, though - the movies were kind of cheesy, but definitely not in a bad way. I own all except for 4 - which was just terrible, and they are great. I would even venture to say that it's because of Reeve's portrayal that they began emphasizing the "Boy Scout" aspect of Superman. He's very likely why they created the troubled friendship between him and the Batman : the Idealist and the Realist/Pessimist. He brought a great deal of depth - and he made Superman what he's supposed to be. Superman is not supposed to be dark. It's an insult to do so - he's never been dark anywhere, except for when he's corrupted, in one or another various means. I know that this movie won't compare to Reeve's : this guy didn't commit to the character in the same way. He did use padding, and there's less freedom for actors. now. Corporate interest runs everything. It's a shame, too - it's so easy to make movies the right way, but they keep failing to do so.

@JayRelling @DougMasters Also you put the article up showing us this LOLOL yup MORON.

@JayRelling @DougMasters  Wow name calling that is really rude, All because I pointed out that you were totally wrong, He thought about the way to play Kent/Superman on the Plane ride over to London, that hardly constitutes studying Superman,  Show me these early interviews that document this so well, I have yet to find any Because if this were the case then he wouldn't have to have thought about how to play Superman/Kent on the plane ride you Jackass, You are so dumb and I outted you for being Dumb and you got pissed, you sir are a true definition of a Moron.

@DougMasters@JayRellingThough he was 6 feet, 4 inches tall, he was a self-described "skinny WASP." On the plane ride to London, he imagined how his approach to the role would be. He later said, "By the late 1970s the masculine image had changed... Now it was acceptable for a man to show gentleness and vulnerability. I felt that the new Superman ought to reflect that contemporary male image." He based his portrayal of Clark Kent on Cary Grant in his role in Bringing Up Baby. After the screen test, his driver said, "I'm not supposed to tell you this, but you've got the part."[26] 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Reeve

 It's you, actually, who knows nothing. It's well documented - including in earlier interviews, that he took to studying the contrasts in the growth of Superman from the beginning, to when he got the part. You're a stupid piece of shit that feels big being rude to strangers, likely because you're rather impotent in every other area of life. WE have nothing left to discuss. Your opinion is as pointless and stupid as are your manners.

@JayRelling Well you were actually wrong about 2 things first you said in the 50 years of Superman, but Superman has been around for 75 years, and the 2nd being that Reeve studied Superman, this i a direct quote form Reeve-Reeve was never a Superman or comic book fan, though he had watched Adventures of Superman starring George Reeves. Reeve found the role offered a suitable challenge because it was a dual role. He said, "there must be some difference stylistically between Clark and Superman. Otherwise, you just have a pair of glasses standing in for a character."[29][30]

So you see before you start organizing your thoughts or facts maybe you should research them first, just saying.

@JayRelling You were wrong when you stated Reeve studied Superman, he didn't. This just goes to show that you know nothing

@JayRelling I was agreeing with you jay and stating that Doug was wrong in saying, among other things "Wrong Christopher Reeve knew hardly anything about Superman, he studied at Julliard, he just fit the mold they were looking for, they almost didn't use him."  Then Doug goes on to say that Christopher's portrayal was 'cheesy' and 'geeky'  Him saying that is actually reassuring because it lets me know that he has absolutely no idea what he's spouting off about and I can ignore anymore comments from him.

@JayRelling@DougMasters me personally liked christian bale as batman however i really liked heath ledger as the joker. I wouldn't  call the dark knight trilogy silly they were a new fresh take on the batman i would say that i wanted more of a comic style batman movie. See every one thinks Tim Burton's batman was the best well it wasn't in those movies batman actually killed people such as the joker and the man he throws down the church bell tower. Back to Christopher Nolan's batman i think the direction of the batman was wrong in the sense that in the dark knight rises Bruce wants to escape his life as batman when really its suppose to be more of an obsession that he cant hold back and i quote from the dark knight returns comic and animated film "you tried to hold me back but you can't your weak your nothing but a hollow shell" So really no batman movie apart from the animated ones has done him justice. 

@DougMasters @JayRelling I'm actually done with this talk - and have to get to work, but I'll share my opinion - which is what it is, about why The Batman movies were all stupid. #1 - He was stealing from himself. As the majority shareholder and it being his company, he would not have gone to jail. #2 - The whole point of what makes him great is that he plans for everything, and has taken the time to train for every eventuality. In the movie - he goes to ninja school, and graduates with his B.A. (sarcasm). #3 - He beats other people who also graduated at the same level as he did, who are more in number and who were likely spending more time training. #4 - His surrogate father, because that's what he is, despite being a butler- encourages him to go out there and likely get killed against a ninja army, rather than buy a task force to take them out. #5 - The woman who supposedly loves him tells him at the end that she won't give him any cookie until he single handedly saves the city - and he didn't pull a "I'm Rick James, bitch!" and go sleep with the million of women who would. The key to Batman is that he is damaged; he is compelled on his path, no one compels him. People, rather, are begging him to let others do it, to find ways to be happy....Batman #2 - The Joker sucked. RIP Heath, but if you watch the Joker of the cartoon and if you read the Joker of the comic - you will notice something missing. I'll tell you what it is : pure chaos. Mark Hamill, with his V/O work, was better able to capture the Joker than Heath. Heath's was a killer and evil...but he wasn't chaos, no matter how the butler tried to make it seem so with his "world burn" speech. Also - for the first movie : the Bat tank would have had him arrested from day one. Batman would never drive a tank down the streets...but I digress. For the last one : #1 - Talia is the woman who ends up having Batman's only son, but they make her into something else - and they kill her off. The constantly killing off thing is stupid, which also was bad for the series. Moving on, #2 - Bane : that's a great story. He's actually a fairly interesting character. Rather, though, than actually make it make sense, they made him into some weirdo who wears a stupid helmet and who is barely understandable. It was disgusting. The "pit" also made no sense. It made no sense to not explain how he got home. It made no sense that anyone could ROB BATMAN. Again - his fanaticism, his psychopathy, is on par with nothing else. That's why he stands toe to toe with people with powers that would otherwise make him laughable : it's his incredible mind and will and pre planning and resourcefulness. They, essentially, made a movie that would have been ok had they called it "cool guy in black does stuff" - but, when you call a movie by a name, there's some expectations that those of us who recognize it and so will pay to see it have. That's at the heart of why almost all the hero movies have sucked, and those that didn't were entertaining - but not the awesome "bringing of these stories to life" that they easily - easily could be. They had the right actor for Batman and - of course - we are in the era for the right graphics...but that wasn't Batman. Nothing made sense about those stories. They were an insult to him, actually - and they (and this is the most disturbing part) REMOVED the referring back to the parents, which is central to who Batman is. Even though he was eight, he will NEVER forgive himself for letting his parents die in front of him. THAT'S why he has to do it all by himself. THAT'S why while someone else with that kind of money would hire a special SWAT team, he does it himself. It's why he never marries and never has anything at all of a life outside of being Batman. In short, he's a tragic hero that becomes something that overshadows every other hero, but all of that is missing from the movies. That's my opinion, and I'm sharing with you because you asked. I took the time to offer it, so you can choose to agree or disagree, but I'm moving on. All the best.

@andrewarnold1@JayRelling@DougMastersThere are little one lines in there that speak of how he took the time to understand the dynamics of the character and that's what people tuned into - back then it really was more about embodying the character. There are also interviews that speak of what he did - but, as it's a done topic with a fool who needs attention, I'm moving on. He imagines I should care, so he keeps sending me messages. Just a sad and pathetic troll, surfing for ways to make himself feel better about himself.

Reeve was never a Superman or comic book fan, though he had watched Adventures of Superman starring George Reeves. Reeve found the role offered a suitable challenge because it was a dual role. He said, "there must be some difference stylistically between Clark and Superman. Otherwise, you just have a pair of glasses standing in for a character."[29][30]

On the commentary track for the director's edition of Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut, Creative Consultant Tom Mankiewicz spoke of how Reeve had talked to him about playing Superman and then playing Clark Kent. Mankiewicz then corrected Reeve, telling him that he was always, always playing Superman and that when he was Clark Kent, he was "playing Superman who was playing Clark Kent." Mankiewicz described it to Reeve as a role within the role.

The film grossed $300,218,018 worldwide (unadjusted for inflation).[31] Reeve received positive reviews for his performance:

• "Christopher Reeve's entire performance is a delight. Ridiculously good-looking, with a face as sharp and strong as an ax blade, his bumbling, fumbling Clark Kent and omnipotent Superman are simply two styles of gallantry and innocence." – Newsweek
• "Christopher Reeve has become an instant international star on the basis of his first major movie role, that of Clark Kent/Superman. Film reviewers — regardless of their opinion of the film — have been almost unanimous in their praise of Reeve's dual portrayal. He is utterly convincing as he switches back and forth between personae." – Starlog
• Like I said, there are interviews, also, that speak of how he trained to become - something that no one does, for all the reasons I mentioned, anymore. 
• Anyway Arnold, I wish you a good day, and it was fun on this board sharing thoughts...for a while. The less important the topic and the less I know who I'm speaking with, the less I would tolerate being told I "know nothing", and nonsensical arguments about it being 75 rather than 50 years old, when - without even looking at what I wrote, I am certain that the actual length is besides the point - that it was simply to convey it, and that - if anything, it would make my point even stronger...but that's neither here nor there.
•  Take care.
  

@JayRelling @DougMasters Are  you speaking of the Older Batman films by Schumacher and Burton, because If you think the new ones were garbage then you clearly need help.

@andrewarnold1 @JayRelling @DougMasters  Andrew, it appears to me you are not getting the jest of the convo, You stated the Reeve was the Best Superman, my argument is that you have nothing to base it on, which is what I tried to point out to you, It's ok that you think he is that is your opinion and my opnion is mine, I said it was cheesy acting and they portrayed him  as geeky. If you would bother to read the whole thing I wrote and not just to choose to put in the bad comments but try to quote both sides of the conversation. I do know what I am spouting off about, I have read the Books and comics all my life.

@JayRelling @andrewarnold1 @DougMasters   I was agreeing with you jay and stating that Doug was wrong in saying, among other things "Wrong Christopher Reeve knew hardly anything about Superman, he studied at Julliard, he just fit the mold they were looking for, they almost didn't use him."  Then Doug goes on to say that Christopher's portrayal was 'cheesy' and 'geeky'  Him saying that is actually reassuring because it lets me know that he has absolutely no idea what he's spouting off about and I can ignore anymore comments from him.

@JayRelling @DougMasters I sure hope you're talking about the Schumacher Batman movies.  I think that Batman Begins is the best superhero movie ever made.  That said, Superman The Movie is still my favorite superhero movie.

@DougMasters I can't find where you said that Christian Bale was a good Batman, so I don't know what I said that brought that up - but the only good thing about those films were Christian Bale, in the same way that I am saying only Christopher Reeve has - to this day - captured the essence of Superman. That said, the Batman movies were garbage - and stupid. There are so many things wrong with them that I would have to spend some time organizing and sorting them all out, if you really don't understand. They were dumb.

@andrewarnold1 @DougMasters @JayRelling That's what I said. Moving beyond the actual film, itself - just looking at how Christopher Reeve captured Superman, was what I thought we were talking about. I left this conversation a long time ago - only to be told I'm "wrong" about something, but not understanding what, exactly, that is.

@andrewarnold1 @DougMasters @JayRelling Also I think the 1st person they cast in the title role would have been a way better Clark Kent/Superman if it hadn't been for a very ill father and American Film Icon-John Wayne's son Patrick Wayne would have been fantastic.

@andrewarnold1 @DougMasters @JayRelling , The Christopher Reeve movies were comical at best, Reeve was a cheesy geeky Superman, you can't sit there and honestly tell me you thought the movie plot lines were great, Chessy Lex Luthor, Margot Kidder was ok as Lois, The only reason everyone thinks that Christopher Reeve is the best is that there is no one to compare to him. All of the movies were a joke, and about him having to work out I know that story so you are telling me nothing new there. This new movie is in no way cheesy as the Reeve movies, this is a new telling of Superman which I embrace, Many think Cavill is not a good actor, I think he is a good actor if not great after this comes out.I like the look of the new Battle Armor suit which is in line with the 2011 comic, I am not saying the 1st Superman movie was bad , for it's time it was great, for what they had to work with, Siegel and Shuster to not want the public seeing Superman as a geeky clutzy person but they did embrace it, The publishing company changed him dramtically from their vision. But as I will state again we only have really 1 man to compare The Man of Steel to, that's if you don't' count the one George Reeves movie, but as with the comics everyone will have a different opnion about who is better, Golden Age/Silver Age, Christopher Reeve/Henry Cavill.