In this day and age, if you are a form of media that covers another form of media, eventually you will come up with a list. Rolling Stone has put out special, oversized volumes about what songs, albums and guitarists are the best in their eyes. Entertainment Weekly can be counted on at least one issue a year feature a list of some kind, most recently it was the “50 Best Films You’ve Never Seen” and “25 Best Cult TV Shows From the Past 25 years.” And VH1 and E! have made it a staple of their programming.

The reason why they turn to list making is simple–because it’s popular. In a world full of opinionated people, any collated list  that represents the authoritative ranking of anything will get attention. People want their tastes validated. Or, they want to see how wrong these media outlets are. These lists sell copies.  They garner high ratings. They get shared on Facebook. They get linked to. And the more controversial the better, For example, take Sight and Sound‘s yearly poll’s swapping of Citizen Kane with Vertigo and the furor that kicked up.

But sometimes, it appears that there’s more that goes into constructing these lists than just picking the best or worst of a particular medium. Some lists seem to be compiled just to garner controversy. Yes, there will be “no brainer” items on the list, but there will also be notable omissions as well. There will be items included that seems to serve no other purpose than to make people angry. And even if you agree with every item put on and left off, you have the rankings themselves to quarrel over.

A sterling example of this are two lists that have appeared on Newsarama.com, one of the oldest comic book news sites on the Internet, over the last week. One was the “10 Best Comic Book-Based Movie PERFORMANCES Of All Time” and the “10 Worst Comic Book-Based Movie PERFORMANCES of All Time.” Both lists were compiled by the “Newsarama Staff,” and both are controversial in their own right. At best, the lists were sloppily compiled with mind-numbing gaps of logic, at worst, the list were compiled deliberately to anger comic book movie fans and generate controversy.

Here is Newsarama’s 10 Best List:

1. Heath Ledger, The Joker, The Dark Knight
2. Robert Downey, Jr, Tony Stark/Iron Man, Iron Man, Iron Man 2, & The Avengers
3. Gary Oldman, Commissioner Gordon, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises
4. Hugh Jackman, Wolverine, X-Men, X2: X-Men United, X-Men: The Last Stand, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, X-Men First Class
5. J.K. Simmons, J. Jonah Jameson, Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2, Spider-Man 3
6. Tom Hiddleston, Loki, Thor & The Avengers
7. Chloe Grace Moretz, Hit-Girl, Kick-Ass
8. Andrew Garfield, Peter Parker/Spider-Man, The Amazing Spider-Man
9. Anne Hathaway, Selina Kyle, The Dark Knight Rises
10. Chris Evans, Jensen, The Losers

The lists are “best comic book-based performances” not “Best SUPERHERO comic book-based performances”: Granted, Newsarama focuses mostly on the mainstream superhero genre, and adding another word to the already gangly title would have made it even ganglier, but we have to take the titles of these articles to heart. That means, this should be the definitive list of ALL performances from ALL movies based an ALL kinds of comic books. Yet, there is no Paul Giamatti from American Splendor on this list. Nor is there Thora Birch or Steve Buscemi from Ghost World or Tom Hanks, Paul Newman or anyone else from Road to Perdition. 

I could go on. But what these titles are doing is advertising one thing and selling us another. And that is a recipe that is custom made to generate the kind of “you left XXX of the list” controversy that builds up links.

The Green Hornet? The Phantom? Comic Book-Based?: You’d think a news website with 10 years of independent coverage of the world of comic books would be able to tell what films were made from comic books and which ones weren’t. Baring that, you’d think they’d be able hire writers with an active connection to the Internet and the ability to access Google from it. Newsarama apparently is able to do neither.

The Green Hornet was based on a radio program that began in January1936. The Phantom was based on a comic strip that began in newspapers a few weeks after the Hornet made his first broadcast. . While both were adapted into comic books, neither originated there nor were their comics their most remembered incarnations. Calling The Green Hornet and The Phantom “comic book-based” would be like calling Star Wars and Star Trek comic book-based. And you can find far worse actors than Seth Rogen and Billy Zane in those franchises.

This might seem to be just a matter of semantics. But I believe it is indicative of the hap-hazard way these lists were constructed. Because you don’t have to look too hard to find two more bad performances in a film that was actually based on a comic book.

To Newsarama, “all time” means “within the last 12 years”: With the exception of The Phantom, the Schumacher Batman films, and the early Superman movies, all the films on the list were made after 2000. That means out of over 70 years of comic books being made into films, only a little over a decade of films were being seriously considered.

Yes, there have been a whole lot more comic book films to chose from in the last 12 years. But, as I realized doing my History of the Comic Book Film feature, the comic book film did not begin with X-Men. What? Newsarama couldn’t find a top ten worthy bad performance in Sheena, Red Sonja, Howard the Duck or in Dolph Lundgren’s Punisher? And on the good side, what about Brandon Lee’s Crow, Jack Nicholson’s Joker or Wesley Snipes’ Blade? The fact that there wasn’t one performance from the above that made either list is a disservice to what Newsarama was trying to create. It shows tunnel vision, something that handicaps any attempt at creating a comprehensive list.

Their selection process is dubious and abitrary at best:  They pay lip service to the quality work Chris Evans has done in a number of comic book films, yet make a point of telling us that they can pick only one performance of his for the list (and the pick his least well-known role at that). Yet, Hallie Berry gets slammed for playing both Storm and Catwoman. They lump the combined casts of two films as one entry, and two actors who had played the same role almost 20 years apart as another selection.

You get the feeling they were making up the rules as they went along. Or, rather, constructing the rules of selection so that it suited them best.

Take, for instance, this “ground rule” from the introduction to the worst list.

…it would be way too easy and frankly not all that much fun to pick-on a lower class of Hollywood actor in barely feature-quality train wrecks like Roger Corman’s Fantastic Four or the 1980s Captain America. So yes, Shaquille O’Neal, you get immunity this day.

Okay, I’m no fan of Shaquille O’Neal, and I’m sure he would want his being left off a list of bad actors argued, but the reason Newsarama left him of the list just doesn’t make sense. When Shaq made Steel, he had already made two feature films (Blue Chips and Kazaam). And Steel was a $16 million dollar film made by Warner Brothers, not some film made for $200 and a bag of potato chips in someone’s basement. Could Shaq be considered a “lower class of actor”? Probably. But so could Billy Zane, king of the B-movie. Maybe if Shaq had a small part in Titanic, then Newsarama would have considered him worthy of inclusion.

This is how they defend their position:

Well, Tobey’s Peter Parker was naive and earnest enough, but he just didn’t have Parker’s inner beauty.

Yes. Really.

Putting Christopher Reeve on the list of worst actors might have been done just to anger people: I’m trying not to believe that they’d do something so wrong just to generate site hits, but Newsarama is not making it easy by how they open their defense of their opinion:

Yes, we’re going there, and in advance, we’re genuinely sorry you’re upset.

Yes, they went there, but did they go there thinking their opinion would be controversial, or knowing it would be controversial and get a lot of reaction?

Listen, whenever you have a list like this, there will be items on it that butt up against conventional wisdom. But seldom has there ever been a case where something flew in the face of overwhelming public opinion like Newsarama is is doing here.

If you are going to “go there,” then you’d better have an incredibly strong argument to back up your position. Unfortunately, Newsarama doesn’t.

…Reeve just wasn’t that accomplished a film actor.

In defense of this position we could point to his lack of much of a post-Superman resume, but the truth is now 30-plus years later with a more critical eye we simply don’t find his portrayal of Superman and Clark Kent very much like any Superman or Clark Kent we know… or like, for that matter.

His Clark wasn’t mild-mannered, he was a cartoonish buffoon. His Superman far too earnest and eager-to-please for someone with the power of a god. In short, he was a mild-mannered Superman, frankly lacking in the charisma you’d expect from an actor playing a cultural icon. A more theatrical rather than natural actor, Reeve’s Superman was a caricature of a comic book Boy Scout superhero and not a fully developed character.

Where to begin. Hmmm.

I wonder who this editorial “we” is? Perhaps it is someone who  is 12 and has only known the John Byrne interpretation of Superman. But, the character was around for 50 years before Byrne revamped him. Back when the film was made, the comic book Superman was a more staid version of the one found in the film. The mental image the editorial “we” has of Superman is so contrary to what the character’s image really is that it makes it seem that this entry came from a website that wouldn’t know a comic book if it fell in their lap, not a “respected” comic book news site.

I’m so glad they didn’t use Reeve’s lack of a post-Superman career as their only defense for their position, because is a defense that could be swatted away with one word–typecasting. Typecasting is the reason why Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher had less than stellar careers after Star Wars, and why Harrison Ford’s post-Star Wars career is so extraordinary. It is what the cast of the Harry Potter films are struggling with now, and what the cast of Twilight is working hard to avoid. Once you become so associated with such an iconic character, it’s hard for Hollywood to see you in any other role. This was the reason for Reeve’s lackluster post-Superman career, not lack of talent.

But Reeve’s performance was pitch perfect as Superman. I don’t know what the editorial “we” was thinking, but Superman doesn’t stand “Sarcasm, Bullying and Badassery”, he stands for “Truth, Justice and the American Way.” Yes, Reeve’s Superman was earnest–and honest and forthright–but that IS Superman. And Reeve played him in such a way that he never was hokey or corny.

As for Clark Kent, Reeve played Kent as a role Superman was himself playing. Superman portrayed Kent as an awkward and bumbling fool so no one would see through the flimsy disguise and put two and two together. It’s a brilliant piece of acting, and if you aren’t able to pick that up, then you have no business talking about acting performances whatsoever.

I have to laugh at the  ”30-plus years later with a more critical eye” part. Like that is supposed to win us over, that they’re looking at the performance in a serious manner as an adult, and therefore, he is right. That might have held more water if Chris Sims and David Uzumeri didn’t take a similar look back on the first Superman back in March for rival comic book news site Comics Alliance.  They ripped the film to shreds, but still called Reeve’s performance, and these are direct quotes, “amazing” and “darn near perfect.” So much for that argument.

Taking this into consideration, it’s hard to not believe the trashing of Reeve was done purely to garner controversy. If so, at least it worked. Not only am I talking about it, but also many comic book professionals, the people Newsarama make a living covering, took umbrage with the list as well.

Creators like Amazing Spider-Man writer Dan Slott:

Marvel Comics editor Steve Wacker:

And legendary comic writer Mark Waid:

That tweet set off a Twitter war between Waid and Newsarama editor Lucas Siegel,which is not the behavior you expect from an editor who should be keeping a journalistic distance from one of people he would be covering, but it is the kind of behavior you’d expect if you want add more controversy to the already controversial matter.

Another sign that this whole thing might be hit bait is that they spun of the controversy to another article on the site, an OP/ED piece by frequent Newsarama contributor Vaneta Rogers , glorifying Reeve’s performance and giving yet another page full of ads for Newsarama from the controversial list.

I hope this isn’t the case, that Newsarama is manipulating the popularity of lists to gain hits for itself. Presenting honest, well-formed and well-thought out opinions is always something that should be striven for. But putting out incendiary opinions in a clumsy and hap hazard manner isn’t. And it looks like Newsarama did the latter and is trying to pass it off as the former.

In a multi-part series, Comic Book Film Editor William Gatevackes will be tracing the history of comic book movies from the earliest days of the film serials to today’s big blockbusters and beyond. Along with the history lesson, Bill will be covering some of the most prominent comic book films over the years and why they were so special. This time, we’ll cover the Maid of Might’s arrival on the big screen and why the Superman franchise leaving the Salkinds’ hands wasn’t a good thing.

It wasn’t until just recently that the comic book film had any effect on the comic books they were adapted from. Now, it’s relatively common to have the comic book change to better mesh with the film version, but back in the 1980s, it was rare—with one major exception.

The Salkinds, who produced every Superman film up to this point, also held the rights to Supergirl. After Superman III went into production, they decided to make Supergirl next. Only one problem—they thought the Supergirl costume in the comics was old and boring. They wanted DC to change the heroes costume in her series to something the hip, trendy, aerobics-loving young women of 1984 would wear. DC obliged giving the Girl of Steel a new uniform that gave her more coverage up top, more coverage on the bottom, jaunty red accents on her shoulders, a perm and, best of all, a big, honking red headband. The costume might have been hip and modern, but only for about five seconds before it became hideously dated.

Well, at least they used the costume in Supergirl, right? Uh, no. They kept the costume from the waist down, using the same design as Superman for her top. There was no perm either.  One of the worst costume changes in the history of comics and they didn’t even bother using it in the film. Awesome.

The Salkinds and director Jeannot Szwarc followed the same casting formula that the Salkinds and Richard Donner did with the first Superman: cast an unknown in the lead (Helen Slater), a legendary actor with decades of experience as the doomed father of the hero (Peter O’Toole), a respected actor of the time as the villain (Faye Dunaway) and a quality character actor as the villain’s comic relief sidekick (Brenda Vaccaro).

The one thing they did differently was make the tone campy from the get go. If you ever wondered what Superman would look like if the Salkinds got their way back in 1978, well, here you go. But if they did, we probably wouldn’t be devoting so many weeks to the Superman franchise now.

Christopher Reeve appears in the movie only as a poster on the wall of a dorm room. The only character that appears in the film in order to connect Supergirl with the main franchise is Marc McClure as Jimmy Olsen. No offense to Mr. McClure, but that’s like starting a Lady Indiana Jones series and casting Short Round as the connective tissue to the main series.

While the film debuted at number one at the box office, it did a quick fade and ended up being a flop. Warner Brothers appeared to be a genius for bailing on distributing the film (it was picked up by Tri-Star) due to the less than stellar returns on Superman III.

Warner Brothers has no excuse for not walking away from Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, the 1987 film they produced in conjunction with Cannon Films.

After the failures of Superman III and Supergirl, the Salkinds sold the rights to the Superman franchise to Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus, Israeli brothers who owned Cannon Films—a studio known for such fare as Missing in Action, Delta Force, and The Last American Virgin, not to mention Breakin’ and the now classic Breakin’ 2: Electric Boogaloo.

The lead up to filming was positive. Christopher Reeve was wooed back with the promise of script input (the nuclear disarmament plot line was his) and the promise that Cannon Films would produce a film for him. The film Reeve chose was Street Smart, which is most famous for turning Morgan Freeman from “that guy who used to be on Electric Company” to “Oscar-nominated actor.” Golan and Globus were able to hire Gene Hackman back as Lex Luthor and most of the cast back in the roles they originated. Annette O’Toole’s Lana Lang is missing, Margot Kidder’s Lois Lane is back once again only as a cameo, so the romantic lead falls to Mariel Hemmingway as Lacy Warfield, the daughter of the new owner of the Daily Planet. Jon Cryer joins the cast as Lex’s nephew, Lenny.

However, once filming began, even the stars realized the film was going south. Cannon Films had spread themselves too thin with their productions, and were in a desperate struggle to cut costs wherever they could. Superman IV was a classic case of this. The film looks flimsy and cheap.

But that wasn’t the only problem with the film. The film’s Nuclear Man was supposed to be a clone of Superman, but looked nothing like him and had a different set of powers. Superman addresses the U.N., tells them he is going to destroy all the nukes, and gets cheered. The world pretty much goes along with it. “Here, Mr. Powers of a God Guy. Take away our only means of defense against you! We don’t mind!”

The film debuted at #4 the weekend of its release, the lowest ranking of any Superman film. It failed to make its miniscule budget back and killed a planned Cannon sequel. And it also killed the Superman franchise for almost 20 years.

Not that there weren’t attempts to restart the franchise over that time. There were many. That’s what we are going to cover next week, and it’s not going to be pleasant.

In a multi-part series, Comic Book Film Editor William Gatevackes will be tracing the history of comic book movies from the earliest days of the film serials to today’s big blockbusters and beyond. Along with the history lesson, Bill will be covering some of the most prominent comic book films over the years and why they were so special. This time, we’ll explain why there are two Superman II’s and what happens when the Salkinds eventually get their way.

Superman was a hit. Richard Donner had already filmed part of Superman II. So how did Richard Lester become director of the latter? Well, you see…

Donner and the Salkinds had an acrimonious relationship, to say the least, during filming. The Salkinds had an issue with Donner going over budget and taking longer to shoot than necessary. They did have a point, even if Donner said he was never informed of the budget or schedule. The Salkinds were angry as they saw more and more control over the film slip away as Warner Brothers put more and more money into it. And Donner had 75% of Superman II filmed by the time Superman was done, yet the release date of Superman had to be moved from the summer to the winter due to filming issues. One can assume the one had something to do with the other.

Donner’s beef with the Salkinds was over the tone of the movie. The Salkinds were fighting for a more campy tone much like the original script. Donner was holding out for the more serious and respectful tone he developed with screenwriter Tom Mankiewicz. If you look at the film, you can see where some concessions were probably made. Mankiewicz has stated that no line of dialogue from the Puzo/Benton/Newman/Newman script remained, but there were campy elements in the final film. The scenes with Luthor, Miss Tessmacher, and Otis were pretty much comedy scenes. And while Lois’ “You’ve got me? Who’s got you” is a witty line, Superman being complemented by a street hustler who says “That’s one bad outfit” is a jarring and out of place bit of camp.

The situation got so bad that eventually Donner and the Salkinds stopped speaking to one another. Richard Lester, a director with his own issues with the Salkinds over payment issues dealing with him directing The Three Musketeers and The Four Musketeers, was brought in to act as a mediator under the promise that he would be made right financially. Lester promised Donner he would remain hands off during the filming, but the Salkinds hoped he would be a back-up in case Donner didn’t work out.

Donner did work out and the first Superman was a hit. But Donner refused to return to finish shooting the sequel unless he could be left alone. The Salkinds told him his services were no longer necessary and installed Lester in the director’s chair and charged him with completing Superman II.

The final film was a mix of Donner’s and Lester’s work. Donner had finished around 75% of the film, so reshooting all of his scenes would not be cost effective. But, to get full credit as director, Lester had to shoot 51% of the film. He ended up reshooting enough of Donner’s scenes to get to that 51%.

However, reshoots were complicated. Marlon Brando was fighting with the Salkinds about payment of his contract, so his scenes for the sequel, much of which was exposition, were removed and replaced by Susannah York (Lara) instead. Gene Hackman flat out refused to come back for reshoots so Lester had to use Donner’s footage of Luthor or use a body double in such a way that his face could not be seen.

In a way, I liked a lot of this movie better than the first film. My one main problem with Superman is that he is too darn powerful. It’s hard to put him up against a threat that is a challenge. This film put him up against three exiled Kryptonians, all of whom have the same powers as he does but with none of the compassion. They presented a threat that very much was a challenge.

Of course, during the big battle scene in Times Square, which should have been nothing but a crowd-pleaser, we have gags such as toupees flying off and people holding umbrellas being spun around when the bad guys use their super-breath. We also have some stunning additions to the Superman power set such as the red, cellophane “S” and the kiss of forgetfulness. These were all Lester additions and all added to boost the camp factor. This makes the film a war between two diametrically opposed styles, and any film that has that can’t be a great film.

The unused footage shot by Donner often made it into TV cuts of the film. This allowed fans in 2005 to create a bootleg copy of what Superman II would look like if Donner did the whole film. This gained popularity over the internet until Warner Brothers’ lawyers got wind of it. But the idea proved popular enough that they did their own, professional in-house version called Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut, released on home video in correspondence with 2006’s Superman Returns DVD release.

Superman II was a big success which pretty much guaranteed a sequel. With Donner completely out of the picture, the Salkinds could finally get the campy film they wanted. Lester was kept on as director and David and Leslie Newman, whose campy treatment for the first two films was rewritten, handled the script. And thusly, Superman III was born.

Any hopes for a serious treatment were dashed with the hiring of Richard Pryor as computer programmer/petty criminal Gus Gorman. Pryor, as gifted a stand-up as he is, is a hit-or-miss comedic actor, with the emphasis on miss. It’s definitely miss here, as the plot strains to put Pryor in goofy scenes and situations that would supposedly let his comedic talents show. Unfortunately, the scenes were either slapstick in nature (like the indoor skiing scene) which didn’t play to Pryor’s talents or scenes like the one where he pretends to be an army officer that allows him to mercilessly ham it up.

Margot Kidder’s role as Lois Lane is reduced to essentially a cameo (depending on which camp you are a member of, was due to either her story being told in the previous films or her critical comments about the Salkinds’ treatment of Donner) as the love interest is now Lana Lang (Annette O’Toole). Hackman did not return as Luthor, so the bad guy is now a ruthless businessman named Ross Webber, played by Robert Vaughn.

The story was paper thin; the only highlight being Superman fighting with himself after exposure to artificial Kryptonite causes him to turn evil. But as bad as the story was, Ilya Salkind’s original treatment for the film, which would have introduced Supergirl, Brainiac and Mr. Mxyzptlk into the film franchise, would have been in many ways even worse. The treatment set up a love triangle between Supes, Supergirl (who apparently wasn’t his cousin this time around) and Braniac, have a majority of the action take place back in the middle ages, and lead to an eventual wedding between Supergirl and Superman. Yikes.

Superman III only made half as much at the box office as Superman II did, but that was good enough for another sequel. But before that arrived, the aforementioned Supergirl would be adapted to film. We’ll cover both next time.

In a multi-part series, Comic Book Film Editor William Gatevackes will be tracing the history of comic book movies from the earliest days of the film serials to today’s big blockbusters and beyond. Along with the history lesson, Bill will be covering some of the most prominent comic book films over the years and why they were so special. This time, we’ll cover the end of the serial era.

By 1947, the “Golden Age of Serials” was deemed to be at an end. This corresponded with the start of the period where superheroes were growing increasingly out of favor with comic book publishers, being replaced by war, romance, and horror genres.

Hop Harrigan was an aviator rather than a superhero, but he came into existence way before the fall of the superhero. The character first appeared in 1939 in All-American Comics #1, published by DC/National’s sister company, All-American Publications. The character was adapted into a radio program from 1942 to 1948. In 1946, the character made its way to movies screens in a 15 part Columbia serial of its own, titled, appropriately, Hop Harrigan.

The serial focused on Hop Harrigan facing off against a mad scientist called Dr. Tobor. Much like the comic character himself, the serial faded away into obscurity. No video evidence for the serial can be found.

Another DC Comics character hit screens the next year, but not the one you think. It boggles the mind that a rather obscure character such as the Vigilante could have been made into a serial before Superman, but he was. The Vigilante, like Superman, debuted in Action Comics, issue #42 to be exact. Essentially , he was a modern day cowboy whose secret identity was a Gene Autry-esque singing cowboy who wore a disguise to avenge his murdered father.

The Vigilante serial debuted in 1947 and with a few costume alterations notwithstanding, remained true to the comic. In the Columbia serial, The Vigilante must investigate a case of missing valuable gems smuggled into the country.

In the next year, Superman finally, at long last, came to movie theaters in a serial of his own. While Republic tried to get the rights to Superman as early as 1940, making a deal for the property was complicated by National/DC insisting on creative control and Superman being licensed to Paramount for a series of animated shorts (for more on the Fleisher cartoons, check out Rich’s write up on them here). This delayed Supes making the plunge into the live action film world.

By 1948, those rights had expired, allowing Columbia to finally bring one of the most popular comic book heroes to life on the silver screen with Superman. Kirk Alyn was cast as Clark Kent, Noel Neill as Lois Lane, and, in a marketing ploy certainly aimed at the kids in the audience, Columbia stated that there was no actor who could truly do Superman justice, so the Man of Steel played himself (Not to spoil it for anyone who had been holding onto that belief for 53 years, but, in reality, it was Alyn in the costume).

Due to National/DC’s influence, the Superman serial stayed close to the comics. Kirk Alyn made an excellent Superman/Clark Kent and Noel Neill did such a good job as Lois Lane that she would reprise the role on the small screen in The Adventures of Superman.

The serial’s plot involved Superman fighting the machinations of a villainess called The Spider Queen, played by Carol Foreman. The serial was enormously popular, garnering a sequel two years later with the same cast. But before then, there was one other comic book serial released that is worth mentioning.

Later in 1948, another National/DC character whose home was in Action Comics hit the world of the film serial. Congo Bill was a serial based on the strip that got its start in 1940 in More Fun Comics before moving over to Action Comics for a lengthy run. Congo Bill was a Caucasian explorer who relocated to the wilds of Africa to keep hius adopted home safe.

While Congo Bill getting a serial before other DC mainstays such as Green Arrow or Wonder Woman might make a modern day comic fan start scratching their head, at the time adapting a jungle hero was a no-brainer. Jungle stories were packing them in at the movies at the time, so Columbia must have naturally thought Congo Bill would have been an obvious choice to bring to the screen.

The serial deals with the character searching the African wilderness for a legendary White Priestess.

It’s a shame that the serial didn’t come eleven years later, as DC decided in 1959 to give Congo Bill the ability to swap minds with a golden gorilla named Congorilla. It would have been interesting to see how they would have translated that to the screen.

Atom Man vs. Superman arrived in theaters in 1950 and marked the first appearance of Superman’s arch enemy, Lex Luthor, in live action. Luthor was played by Lyle Talbot, who also gained fame by originating the role of Commissioner Gordon in the 1943 Batman serial, and would later become famous (or is that infamous) for his work with legendary shlockmeister Ed Wood, Jr, most notably in Glen or Glenda and Plan 9 From Outer Space. Kirk Alyn returned as Superman/Clark Kent and Noel Neill as Lois Lane.

In this serial, Superman must fight to keep the world safe from Atom Man (who was really Luthor in disguise) who has developed a “disinegration ray” to hold the world hostage. Atom Man/Luthor also develops a synthetic kryptonite, a plot point that would be revisited over three decades later in Superman III.

Remember how I told you last time that I would tell you who the Ryan Reynolds and James McAvoy of the serial was? That would be Kirk Alyn, because Alyn, like Reynolds and McAvoy, brought comic book characters from two different companies to life on the silver screen. Reynolds starred as Deadpool in X-Men Origins:Wolverine and Green Lantern in Green Lantern, McAvoy starred as Wesley Gibson from Top Cow’s Wanted and as Marvel’s Professor X in X-Men: First Class, and, as we’ve already said, Kirk Alyn was the first person to play DC’s Superman on screen and, in 1952, he brought Quality Comics’ aviator hero Blackhawk to the screen in his own serial, named Blackhawk.

Blackhawk and the Blackhawks first appeared in Quality’s Military Comics #1 in 1941. The Blackhawks were an international paramilitary force of flyers brought together by Blackhawk himself to right wrongs and fight evil. The flyers were from areas such as France, Sweden and China and were portrayed in the most stereotypical ways their nationalities could be portrayed.

The Columbia serial toned down the stereotypes and set up the Blackhawks as fighting the Communists. One of the Communist agents was a woman named Laska, portrayed by Carol Foreman. Foreman, as we read above, faced off against Alyn’s Superman as the Spider Queen in the first Superman serial.

Being that this was at the end of the serial’s life cycle, the production values were way down. Not exactly the best way to end the era of the superhero serial.

Interesting tidbit, DC Comics eventually bought out all the Quality characters and concepts in 1956 much like they would the Fawcett characters decades later. Blackhawk was one of the few Quality titles being published at that time, and DC continued publishing the series without a break in numbering.

Next time, we cover the foray comic books made into the world of television, and how one TV show affected the way superheroes were portrayed on the big screen even decades later.