Superman Through the Ages! Forum

All this talk about Kirk Alyn lately got me pulling out my VHS tapes of the 2nd serial, "Atom Man Vs. Superman"...

I just finished watching it for the first time in YEARS and was surprised at how GOOD it was, especially for a serial.  I have the 2 Batman serials and the Capt Marvel one, too...  Cap's serial is a classic and problably the best serial of all time, BUT Atom Man sure holds it's own!

First, Kirk Alyn was amazing.  His facial expressions... when using super hearing or X-Ray vision, well you didn't NEED special effects... his face WAS the effect.  You could tell he was using the appropriate power without flash or glitz.  At the end of the 15th chapter, I was wishing that it was he, and not George Reeves, that was the TV Superman (no slight at Reeves... he WAS classic, but even as a kid I never felt he WAS Superman).  The opening cast credits don't list Alyn... instead it's SUPERMAN who's starring in the serial.  His Clark Kent was manly and meek at the same time.

Noel Neill... nothing else can be said about her... she WAS Lois!

Lyle Talbot, as Luthor, WAS the comic book Luthor.  He looked like him and acted like him. Very much the classic villain and it's too bad future Luthors couldn't follow his act properly.

The effects were spectacular for the time.  Even the "cartoon flying" shots were ahead of their time, forshadowing CGI.  It also gave ther serial a "comic book" feel, in my opinion.  The empty doom was a great phantom zone foreshadow and there were even flashbacks to the origin of Superman, as Luthor explained to his lacky the reason why Superman was around.

I can actually see this serial as fitting into the actual history of the Earth-Two Superman, in a way.

Next, I'll watch the first serial with the diabolical Spider Lady!

A couple of other thoughts...

Kirk Alyn came across as a small town guy in a big city... no wonder, he was born in Oxford NJ and I know he lived in Wharton NJ for a good part of his early life (I lived in Wharton for about 8 years... 94 to 02 and it is STILL a small town).  I think he, above all other Superman actors, reflected Supes' small town roots.  The only other actors that came close were Reeve and Rousch.

As other have mentioned, Alyn's Superman looked like he had fun being Superman.  He was like a big brother who was there to help out... His Superman was very human and humble.

I really wish he did more Super projects!

He and Noel Neill played Lois Lane's Parents in the 1st Superman film, the scene was cut but if you brought the extended cut of the movie on DVD, you finally got to see it. It happens when young Clark is running pass the Train, they are in the train.

Depending on who's telling the story, Kirk was either passed up for the TV show, or was offered it and turned it down.  Either way, I think it worked out for the best.  He did a great job playing Clark and Superman as two distinct personalities (without turning Clark into the Nutty Professor, as Chris Reeve did) but if you look at the way the TV show was structured, the typical episode had about 22 or more minutes of Clark and 45 seconds to 3 minutes of Superman.  Frankly I have to wonder if audiences would have sat still for a half hour of a cowardly nebbish getting picked on all the time.

Sure, George's tough-as-nails, two-fisted Clark makes it hard to believe anyone would fail to see through the disguise, but he also comes off as the most interesting and admirable Clark on film to date.

I agree the animated flying effects are fun if you keep an open mind.  But from what I've read, even audiences of the day thought it was a cheap way out, and a disappointment.

Still looks better than any of the CGI work in the last Bond movie, though...

I was thinking of the Die Another Day CGI too... very poorly done!

BUT, if Kirk Alyn was picked up for the TV show, things may have been a bit different.  Maybe he would have had the clout to give Superman more screen time (who knows?) and maybe the TV show would have been closer to the comics, like the serials were.  I had often wondered, even as a kid, why Luthor and other villains weren't featured on the TV show....

Oh, and as Monk said, yeah he played Lois' parents and I have the DVD version... but I also had the trading cards and there was one that featured him in that missing scene.  I just meant that I wish he played Superman again!

Well, I don't know what "clout" had to do with it.  My understanding is that the TV show was launched by a lot of veterans of the radio program, notably Bob Maxwell, and the rock-em, sock-em sensibilities of that medium came with them.  At the start, anyway, they seemed to want to do "noir" type stories, lots of murders and suspense and horror stuff, as opposed to the serials which were more a case of straight adventure and sci-fi.  It's hard enough making a super-powered guy in his longjohns fit into a film noir setting, but using a buffoonish Clark would've made it fall apart completely.

I'm not sure why Luthor never showed up on the TV show, though he'd have been a natural.  Rather than come up with the umpteenth absent-minded scientist, why not have Luthor responsible for some of those inventions run amuck?  And considering how often the same actors kept being re-used for one gangster role after another anyway, why not have an actual recurring villain? 

I am a huge fan of Kirk's work as Superman, but I love George, too.  It's great to have them both. 

Nightwing:


I'm not sure I agree, Nightwing. The problem is, Clark is tough in a completely different way to Superman. As Clark is perceived, he can be injured or killed, whereas Superman, for the most part, is invulnerable. By that I mean Superman is not being "tough". He hasn't anything to worry about.

And even from the earliest shows, Clark was still getting dirty looks from Lois for slithering off when danger threatened. Clark was never consistent, but decided on his course of action depending upon the circumstances.


Personally, I'm glad they never did this. I think they got it right. The re-use of actors notwithstanding, it would have detracted from the show to have a villian as part of the regular ensemble. This is one thing that doesn't translate well from comic books to the screen... Why would Superman tangle with the same man every other week? The Luthor character would become part of the regular cast, and then you'd never get rid of him. He'd be turning up too often, and I'd be asking myself why George's Superman doesn't just give this guy a tap behind the ear and finish him off, because -- honestly -- if Luthor repeatedly caused havoc and loss of life, the TV Superman would take him out. I have no doubt about this. Look what he did to the one-off villains who found out too much about his double identity in the episode which I think was about the stolen costume.

George (Superman) Reeves didn't muck about, and he would make short, sharp work of Lex Luthor.

Personally, I'm glad they never did this. I think they got it right. The re-use of actors notwithstanding, it would have detracted from the show to have a villian as part of the regular ensemble. This is one thing that doesn't translate well from comic books to the screen... Why would Superman tangle with the same man every other week? The Luthor character would become part of the regular cast, and then you'd never get rid of him. He'd be turning up too often, and I'd be asking myself why George's Superman doesn't just give this guy a tap behind the ear and finish him off, because -- honestly -- if Luthor repeatedly caused havoc and loss of life, the TV Superman would take him out. I have no doubt about this. Look what he did to the one-off villains who found out too much about his double identity in the episode which I think was about the stolen costume.
[/quote]

Well, I don't think Luthor should have been "part of the cast" like he is nowadays (Lois & Clark/Smallville).  That would have been wrong... I was thinking like once or twice a season have him appear... MAYBE the Prankster and/or Toyman ONCE a year, just to balance the run of the mill crooks that were on every episode.

Getting back to Kirk Alyn, I do think the TV series would have had a different flavor with him in the starring role.  Personally, I think the fact that Reeves didn't look like Superman (I always thought he was to thin), but was an awesome Clark was the reason why "The Adventures of Superman" was more "The Adventures of Clark Kent with 2 Minutes of Superman".  Alyn may have meant more Superman airtime.

Don't get me wrong, I grew up watching TAoS... I'm just really turned on to the serials right now.  Even my cynical "Superman is so fake I hate black and white" 14 year old stepson is into it.  We started the first serial today and got through the first 3 chapters...

It's funny, because I have the opposite view. Not only did George Reeves look like Superman, he had the right build.

P.S. Look more closely and you can see what a strong man George was in real life.

Aldous writes:


Well it wouldn't have to be every other week.  Repetition is the Achilles Heel of any TV show (and "Adventures" was certainly guilty of it!) so some effort would have to have been made to parse out Luthor's appearances a bit. 

Certainly I wouldn't want him done in the Byrne/Wolfman/"Lois and Clark" style of the untouchable crime kingpin who constantly reminds us of all the things Superman CAN'T do (though at least on L&C he had the decency to die and stay dead). What I was thinking of was more in the mode of Dr. Lovelace on "The Wild Wild West," a character who appeared about 9 or 10 times in the course of four years, popping up between other menaces who came and went and usually were killed.  Every hero needs an "arch nemesis," and you can do that without over-using him (as even the comics have done).  After all, Professor Moriarty only appeared in one Holmes story and look at the shadow he cast.  Less can be more.

davidelliott writes:


Well, first of all, you may be the first person to ever criticize George Reeves for being too THIN!  :D  Usually it's the other way around.

I think there's one reason why Superman didn't get more air time, and it comes down to money.  The show never had much of a budget and as time went on it had less and less.  Even a serial by the notoriously cheap Sam Katzman must have had a bigger budget than the average kid's show in 1951, and when you try to do super-heroics on the cheap that's just how they come out looking.

In the second season, writer Jackson Gillis gave us some neat, Superman-centered and fairly effects-heavy classics like "Superman In Exile," "Panic in the Sky" and even the low-on-effects-but-big-on-Supes "Defeat of Superman."  But overall I think the show started as a crime drama, veered briefly into sci-fi and finally settled down as a light-hearted kid's show.  In the last few years, I think the last thing they wanted to do was get their young viewers' heart rates up, so even with Kirk in the role he probably would have been stuck squeezing charcoal briquettes into diamonds and occasionally busting through a wall, just like George.  But I would argue that with his over-the-top, chest-puffed out posing and prancing, Kirk would have spun the show into "kiddie" mode even faster than it actually happened.

Having said all that, it's interesting to imagine how different things might have been.  I see Kirk Alyn's Superman as the Joe and Jerry version; the laughing daredevil, giddily thrilled with his powers and prone to sudden fits of righteous indignation and swift retribution.  On the other hand, George's Superman was more the all-knowing, paternalistic, patient and calmly noble figure that came to typify the Wiesinger era.  I believe the comics were written to reflect the TV show (Mort and Whit Ellsworth edited both), and if Kirk's version had been the one millions met through TV, maybe Superman would have remained more like his Golden Age self a lot longer.

Something to ponder.

No one else thinks Reeves was SKINNY??? OMG!!!  Even as a tiny tyke, I would look at him and think he didn't look like Superman!!!

But you're right on the characterization... Reeves had that fatherly protector personality and Alyn was that big brother Superman.  Yeah and Alyn's "prancing"... well...

I have to agree with your summation, Aldous!

On film, he always looks a bit thin no matter who portrays him, because a guy in tights always looks a bit thin somehow. Alyn, with his dancer's build, was always thought of as too thin, rather than Reeves. Personally, I've always thought Superman is more effective when he is portrayed as a fellow of average build and height, which Swan suggested in the comics.

Alyn may have had a more of a "v" shaped torso, but no, I never thought of Reeves as skinny in the least...

For all the talk of Superman's moral fibre and manly virtues (of which there are plenty), when you boil him down he's a physical hero, a man of strength.

Likewise, George Reeves was a man of strength. I just don't understand how anyone can look at him and think he was skinny. He was a big man, and strong. He was naturally athletic. Watch some of his fighting moves, especially from the first season; he knew how to use his fists in real life. He makes a great Superman because he is not merely a "bodybuilder" with a "V-shaped torso"... And when you add his physical presence to the charisma and character he brought to the screen, well: in terms of a portrayal, he was the closest real-life man to Superman I have seen.

Well, there was a reason George was good with his fists.  He started off (under his real name, George Bessolo) as a professional boxer.  That broken nose is a dead giveaway. 

However, George did not have very impressive shoulders, which is why as Clark he's never seen without the suit jacket (luckily shoulder pads were "in" anyway in that time period)...okay, except for "Perry White's Scoop," where he's shown in a sweatsuit...with shoulder pads!  :D  In the super-suit, he's also got pads, and not just on his shoulders...his biceps are padded, too.  My impression is this is not because he had "weak" arms, but rather to help disguise the shoulder pads.

Over the years, some folks have figured that the use of padding was proof George didn't have a great build.  I think it goes back to the notion people had back then that Superman should be a Charles Atlas-type with huge, rippling muscles.  Hence all the stories of casting calls where bodybuilders and weight-lifters were auditioned.  Using the pads on George may have been a concession to that expectation of Superman as muscleman.

Anyway, Kirk Alyn was a dancer, and there's no way I consider him more muscular than George.  But he does have great poise and obvious strength, as any good dancer would.  And in my mind, Superman would have more "organic" muscles (as we used to say about Bruce Lee) anyway.  After all, when you can lift a mountain over your head with no effort, there's no way to bulk up to the ridiculous extremes of a bodybuilder in the first place.  Superman should have functional muscles, not "show" muscles. (Hello, McGuinness?)

Anyway, when I said you were the first to complain George was too thin, I was referring to the usual complaint that he was too FAT.

TOO FAT???

See, not knowing any other movies Reeves was in (The only other one was Gone With The Wind) I'm basing my opinion on Superman... yep, he was physical and everything, he was tall, but I never saw him with a Superman type of body.  Maybe I'm seeing him in relation to the Wayne Boring/Al Plastino barrel chested Superman... I guess in relation to the early Shuster Superman, he's spot on...

It actually does work for me in a way... a guy of average build with Super powers.

Jack Larson, to me, looked huskier than Reeves, though... but he was a great Jimmy!

Nightwing:
Well, yes, that's what I was alluding to: he boxed when he was younger, but I didn't know he turned professional. First time I've heard that. Are you sure? That would have meant a whole new career path.

Aldous asks:


Hmm...well now I'm not so sure.  I was thinking of the account in Gary Grossman's "Superman: Serial to Cereal," but it's been a number of years since I dug that out so I could be remembering incorrectly.

A quick Google search shows accounts that could go either way.  One site says George fought as an amateur before his mom put a stop to it (worried he'd ruin his looks), other sites merely cite a boxing "career" and one says he won 31 bouts with no losses by age 20. But it's unclear what his status was as far as "professional" or not.

In my estimation, if you get paid to do something, you're a professional.  But I can't find anything that states unequivocably that he made a living, or even an appreciable side income, doing this. 

Then again, I happily know very little about boxing, so maybe there's a more specific, regulated definition of what constitutes "professional"?

Anyway, as far as a "whole new career path," George was 45 at the time of his death and that's over the hill for just about any sport.

It's quite a step to take, let's put it that way.


I meant if he'd turned pro in his younger years, he might have gone down a completely different career path, ie. boxer instead of TV star.