`Superman' Star Christopher Reeve Dies

Remove all ads!

i had much childhood fantacies with superman movies. In fact ... my first movie in theater was Bamby and the second one was Superman 2 or 3, quite a great gap. Great movies that were.

If Kerry is a great person as he said, he shouldn't use this to his advantage.

 

I only caught part of the announcement on the radio this afternoon as I walked out the door so I had a feeling this was what it was talking about. Damn shame about it too. I may not have seen much of his film work but he was a great Superman and from what little I knew about him as a person, I admired him greatly for his courage and strength of character.

 

What killed him? I was under the impression that he was, outside of the paralyzisation, a healthy man in his middle age?

 

Too bad that a human died, however, my opinions of Reeve are pretty mush like Maddox' thoughts.

 

Evidently it was a heart attack.

 

Taken from the DC comics Superman message boards.

Rest in peace big guy.

 

It seems like ít was an infected bed sore which had weakened him or something.

I do somewhat agree with what Caleb posted but I wouldnt hold it against Reeves, that is just how we people work.

 

Caleb - I can understand that that quote is a backlash against all the over-the-top heroism attributed to the guy, but I think it goes a wee bit too far the other way.

I mean, there are far worse things that a person could do than "open up a paralysis foundation......"

 

I also 'somewhat' agree with what Caleb posted but unless the writer of that doesn't run his own charity or he's not a cripple himself then he's got less of a leg to stand on than Chris did after the accident. You don't know how hard it is for people untill you suffer what they suffer from. Chris found out the hard way by going from a very fit body (fit enough to play 'Superman' of all things) to only being able to move his head. The feeling that his situation can't improve must have been horrible. However, he was devoting all of his time and energy to people just like him, often using himself as a test subject.

However if someone does a good deed it's still a good deed. The motive will almost always be selfish (e.g. that warm fuzzy feeling inside, fame, enterance to heaven... whatever) so it is unfair to hate Chris for his charity to stem-cell research.

 

Give the guy a bloody break

RIP Reevsie.

 

As my friend said, theres no kryptonite in heaven. R.I.P. Chris Reeve!

 

Yeah, there may be some truth to what Caleb posted, but I guess that's just the way things go. I mean, it's hard for some people to truly appreciate how much one can be affected by something like paralysis, cancer, HIV, or even something as "simple" as depression or family-unit breakdown UNTIL it happens to them, or someone close to them. As a bit of an example, I personally have no idea how badly the Bali bombing a couple of years ago affected those involved, and so I have a difficult time caring on that level. Fair enough I am human enough to understand that it was a tragedy, but I can't feel the emotions felt by those directly impacted.

For that reason, I just think that an attack like that on anyone is just a bit harsh.

Anyway, if the saying that bad things come in threes then I guess Mr Reeve is the 'third' of this three - first Janet Leigh, then Rodney Dangerfield, now Christopher Reeve. And I also heard that each was heart-related.

 

It's a conspiracy! The CIA is killing them all off to get their evil hands on acadamy awards!

 

Despises the word "cripple" when refering to someone with a handicap.

 

Do you also refer to how King George tried to "wrap himself" in the legacy of the late Ronald Reagan just recently? Till Reagan's son called him on it? I guess turnabout is fair play.

 

I agree. There's no such thing as "selflessness"(sp?) if you consider the fact that every person commits an act according to their own, not just advantage, but perception. It's not fair to criticize the dude if he became a philantrophist/etc. after having a similar traumatizing experience. Like someone else said,(sorry, too lazy to quote ) there are worse things a person could do than open up a charity/support foundation.

 

(1) Of course there is no such thing as a purely selfless act - at the very least there will always be the personal satisfaction of having done a "good deed".

(2) Of course Reeeve would almost assuredly not have become involved in paralysis related charitable activities if he (or someone he cared about) were not paralyzed.

If you look at the people who are involved in any given charity you will find that the people who contribute the most in terms of effort as well as money tend to be those who have been directly impacted themselves by the cause that they are fighting for.

Does this make them selfish people - I would say ABSOLUTELY NOT. After Reeve was paralyzed he could have used his money to make himself as comfortable as possible but instead he decided to try to help himself and others with similar problems. Of the two possible choices I would have to say the latter is certainly more noble in my mind.

If Christopher Reeve is just a selfish a****** does that make Terry Fox one too? I think that an awful lot of people around here would take great offense if you were to suggest that.

 

Never heard of Terry Fox. Anyway, one of our Tv stations made a late change to a movie they're showing this week - listed in the TV guide is The Talented Mr Ripley, but they've started advertising Superman as being on. Not that I mind, I haven't seen Superman in years.

 

/me raises his glass

To Christopher Reeves. May he always be remembered for the good he has done.

 

I really can't understand the fuss about Maddox's text. Anywhere you see a mention of Christopher Reeve's death, you see someone quoting Maddox. Maybe it's because I'm not a believer of altruism in the first place but that site is filled with obvious. Every single person on this planet works the same way. You survive war, you start to object to it, you become a selfish bastard because you only object to it for experiencing it yourself. Your friend gets murdered, you start to give cash to foundations that act to prevent juvenile delinquency (sp?) and in general try to reduce the amount of crimes. Again, you're nothing but a selfish bastard. Rather poor examples. Still I see no point in this. It's like saying that everyone who breathes is a selfish bastard for taking oxygen from others. No person can willingly help something they don't even understand. And simply knowing that something exists is not even nearly enough for understanding. Wether that be a loss of your loved one, or the natural follow-up of feeling the mental and physical pain coming from various things not directly connected to you, you always learn things the hard way in the end.

Most importantly, by Maddox's idea no man can ever redeem himself in the eyes of his God. For after one mistake, anything you did to fix that mistake would be nothing but a selfish reaction for you doing that mistake in the first place.

I don't know a whole lot about the man, except that there is no-one who would've fit Superman and Clark Kent as well as he did. And that he did a lot of good in the world as a cripple (yes it is a cripple, handicap is just a PC term for the same thing, unless my knowledge of English fails me). There are a lot more people that would be more deserving of the scorn and hate that this Maddox seems bent on sharing, than Christopher Reeve.

One of the best (hopefully soon-to-be immortal sentences) I've heard said:

"So many of our dreams at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we summon the will, they soon become inevitable." -Christopher Reeve