I’m very curious about this too.
Take Superman returns, I film I’ve seen heavily criticised by Superman fans.
The average critic seems not have liked it because it wasn’t true too the comics and because Superman’s moral compass was out of whack, peeping, home wrecking etc. I mostly didn’t like SR because it wasn’t L&C, but I seem virtually alone in that. These people don’t like Smallville either because Clark isn’t the upstanding guy he I supposed too be, but at least that series is mentioned in the context. L&C doesn’t exist. Teri Hatcher was a good Lois Lane, that about as much recognition I’ve seen the series receive.
I believe Singer said something about making SR a romance movie to reel in the ladies so it wouldn’t be all explosions and heroics. Presumable this dark brooding Superman and the unrequited love in the story is that.
Now I’m a guy, so I don’t know if it works but I just find the love story tedious in SR. and in contrast, I do I find the romance in L&C really touching, evidently there are some ladies that think so too.
So why couldn’t they use they use the L&C concept? It’s Byrne comics after all, it’s not like it was invented for the show.
Many Superman fans doesn’t seem to have liked Caine’s portrayal of Superman. He lacks the kind of grace and majesty that Reeves had. Instead Cain projects a kind of gentle giant persona with charm and a great deal of warmth he seem to radiate an unpretentious goodness. People seem to expect Superman to do a lot of flexing, showing that he is the top dog, but really why? If he possessed such immense powers what would be the point? Instead Clark in L&C wants to be appreciated for who he is not what he can do. Which is what makes the concept work for me.
I don’t find any other Superman incarnation particularly interesting. even the iconic Reeves is boring. L&C has a depth and believability that I just haven’t encountered in the superman mythos. I find it strange that not more people think like me. Ah well.
