Superman '78 is 35

[Hamato Yoshi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cpcdv2T51PM

Superman '78 = grand father of super hero films in modern times 8)

[Leo656]

Still holds up amazingly well, too. Especially considering it was considered - literally up until the minute it opened - to be the biggest blunder in Hollywood history. Then once everyone saw it, obviously, they all embraced it. But that kind of storytelling, in that scale, had NEVER been done before. It took what Star Wars did a year or so earlier and expanded it even further. I still feel like Krypton's destruction plays a tiny bit bigger than the destruction of Alderaan and even the Death Star (pre-Special Edition CGI, anyway). And that MUSIC. :o The main theme, obviously, but less-remembered but equally powerful is the Krypton theme. SO powerful, so moving, when it came on at the opening of "Superman Returns", with Marlon Brando's narration, I already had chills and was on the verge of tears. It's almost more of a biblical-style piece, which fits perfectly with the Christ metaphor that's historically been enforced in the Superman films.

It's not a perfect movie, and it's dated in some spots (that pimp who was the first one to see Superman... yeah...), but in many ways every other super-hero movie is still borrowing from it. Several movies later, consensus remains "The First was still The Best". I don't 100% agree - I enjoy "Returns" a little more for being a little closer to the comics, as well as Routh's more subdued and less-nerdy take on Clark, not to mention the original movie has an AWFUL ending - but it's basically the only movie that feels entirely like a complete Superman movie in and of itself. The direct sequels went from okay to flat-out sh*t, "Returns" was really good but relied too heavily on the original to be completely enjoyable as its own piece, and "Man Of Steel", also great, is more of a set-up for future films, and thus also not really its own complete Superman movie, although it excels in many places the other films lacked.

I still prefer the original's deliberate three-act structure, with each act having its own unique music, visual filter, tone, and character behavior. It fully shows Kal-El's journey from Krypton to Kansas to Metropolis, and explains everything you would need to know about who he is and why he does what he does. It's such a great movie.

I've seen it enough to know every beat by heart, even the Extended Cut, but I still enjoy watching it at least once a year. Sometimes I follow up with the Donner Cut of Part II and then Returns. It makes a nice little trilogy, although it'll never have complete closure. It was a fun ride, though.

It's a shame how things go, sometimes, because Reeve had informally agreed to the Salkinds to do Part V before he had his accident. We'll never know what might have been, but if Ilya Salkind had his way, it would have been the closest film ever to the Superman mythos, complete with Brainiac and the bottle city of Kandor, and possibly even Superman's death and resurrection. We can only imagine what might have been, since WB had started re-committing themselves to Superman by then after the disaster that was IV. Barring Reeve, even the excellent Gerard Christopher from "Superboy/The Adventures of Superboy" was being strongly considered to "graduate" to Superman V, but Warner decided they wanted to push "Lois & Clark" on TV instead of doing another movie. I still wish that had come through; watching the Superboy DVDs now, that show was a lot of cheese at times and Christopher was occasionally kind of stiff or melodramatic, but he still did a great job on the show and actually, to me, looked a good bit more like Superman than even Reeve did, at least the 1990 version of the character.

Amazing how many things have come about all because of that movie that everyone 35 years ago predicted would be a complete and utter failure.

[CyberCubed]

Amazing how many things have come about all because of that movie that everyone 35 years ago predicted would be a complete and utter failure.

To be fair you can say that about anything. Nobody knew the first Star Wars movie would be a success, that the original Star Trek series would spawn anything, that Batman '66 would work, etc.

Virtually everything that became big and went on for years was a complete and utter surprise when it first debuted. Not to mention Ninja Turtles itself, which was originally a one-shot indie comic.

Nobody can ever predict what will become the next big thing.

[Leo656]

Oh absolutely, but Superman was supposed to be not just a bomb, but the biggest one ever dropped, the folly that was going to ruin the Salkinds and bankrupt Warner Bros. all by itself. From conception date to release date, Warners didn't even want the damn movie, which allowed the Salkinds to obtain and retain ownership rights to the character for the next dozen or so years (something WB deeply, and immediately, regretted as soon as the movie became a hit). Even then, when Part II was almost finished, WB actually almost gave up distribution rights when it turned out it wasn't going to be finished on time. That would have been an even bigger disaster.

It cannot be understated how little faith WB had in the Superman franchise from the beginning, and even after the first two films were huge hits. That lack of confidence is what ruined III and IV, and stalled any further projects for the next 20 years. When the Salkinds offered to buy the Superman rights in the 70s in order to make the first movie, a Warner exec literally said "Go ahead, sell it (to the Salkinds), it's not worth keeping the rights, you can't make a good movie out of it." There's having little to no faith in a project, and then there's WB's feelings about Superman at the time, which was "an unfilmable money sink". If they had any idea it would have been a hit, they never, EVER would have sold it to the Salkinds and then spent the next 25 years waiting for all the various copyrights to run out so they could actually own their own character again. That pissed them off SO bad, and it was their own fault.

Kind of symptomatic of WB as a whole. They've never had a damn clue what they're supposed to be doing and could f*ck up a wet dream. The fact they thought so little of their franchise player that they sub-let him to fly-by-night producers like the Salkinds and Cannon Films says a ton. It hurts to say it, as they own a ton of characters that have brought my life great joy, but by and large, a lot of what they touch turns to sh*t. They're a very "bottom-line, dollars-and-cents" company, and sometimes that works great and sometimes it leads to sub-par, shallow, sterile entertainment that's been focus-grouped into existence. That's kind of been how they roll for a while, now.

[chrisdude]

As good as Man of Steel was, Superman: The Movie had it all.

You got to see Krypton, Clark growing up, Clark becoming a man and seeking out his purpose. And you got to see a fully-realized Superman. And, with all that, they still knocked the relationship between Superman and Lois out of the park.

I like Superman even II more, because of its story. But Superman: The Movie is really the only of the original Superman movies that I'd be hard pressed to complain about.

[Krutch]

It cannot be understated how little faith WB had in the Superman franchise from the beginning

And, really, has that really changed? :lol:

[Leo656]

^^Nope.

chrisdude: It just sucks that the "official" version of II had its story gutted due to the Donner/Salkind fiasco and the studio not wanting to pay Brando for his likeness. The writers have said numerous times that the story of I and II was specifically conceived to be entirely about Kal-El and Jor-El, with Jor-El finally, ultimately giving the last of himself to save his son once and for all by giving him his powers back in II. Replacing Jor-El with Lara and excising him entirely from II's subplot was a neat bit of sleight of hand, but it entirely drains the emotional weight out of the sequel (as well as makes Kal-El regaining his powers a fairly nonsensical scene).

Also, the "comedy" all sucked. The rough cut footage in the Donner Cut is a little jarring, but I can overlook it entirely for the sake of a movie that feels more like a real sequel to the original. It's the only version of II that I watch anymore, mostly, except when MoS was about to come out I watched all the earlier films for comparison purposes. The theatrical cut of II didn't bother me as a kid, but nowadays knowing how far it was from what was intended makes me a little annoyed with it. Donner Cut has some rough footage and another lousy ending (honestly, to date only MoS has really had a decent ending for a Superman movie... weird) since they never got to shoot the "real" one, but it still fits better with I than the Lester cut.

Agreed about everything else, though. All I'd change really about the original movie is to make that horrible "Can You Read My Mind?" scene an instrumental. It's so hokey and it stops the movie dead. It doesn't help that it seriously sounds like Kidder's whistling through her dentures the whole time, and I'm not even sure she had them yet.

[Andrew NDB]

Doesn't hold up well at all, sorry. And every time "Lex" and his cronies grace the screen is utterly groan-worthy.

Most of Superman II is watchable bordering "pretty good." As are some scenes in Superman Returns. The rest of the Superman movies until Man of Steel are largely unwatchable today otherwise, and anytime I've ever tried to force unwitting, uninitiated guests to watch any of the Reeve stuff it's never gone off well at all.

[Krutch]

and anytime I've ever tried to force unwitting, uninitiated guests to watch any of the Reeve stuff it's never gone off well at all.

thqtw because yuou and your friends suck hahaha

[Jester]

Go home, you're drunk...

[Leo656]

Who'd'a thunk... the guy who hates everything, indeed, hates everything. What a shock. :lol:

Applause to Krutch on his Epic Typo, also. Not sure if drunk or thumb texting, tho...

[ObiWanFan4life]

35 Years later, and its still the best Superman film made to date.

[ZariusTwo]

Still a movie I can watch again and again, and even the time travel thing doesnt bug me at all anymore, mainly because of that fear of god-inducing howl Reeves lets out prior. Powerhouse acting that nobody in any superhero movie has matched since. Ever.

[Jester]

Kevin Clash turns in a pretty solid performance as Splinter...but I'm biased.

[chrisdude]

^^Nope.

chrisdude: It just sucks that the "official" version of II had its story gutted due to the Donner/Salkind fiasco and the studio not wanting to pay Brando for his likeness. The writers have said numerous times that the story of I and II was specifically conceived to be entirely about Kal-El and Jor-El, with Jor-El finally, ultimately giving the last of himself to save his son once and for all by giving him his powers back in II. Replacing Jor-El with Lara and excising him entirely from II's subplot was a neat bit of sleight of hand, but it entirely drains the emotional weight out of the sequel (as well as makes Kal-El regaining his powers a fairly nonsensical scene).

Also, the "comedy" all sucked. The rough cut footage in the Donner Cut is a little jarring, but I can overlook it entirely for the sake of a movie that feels more like a real sequel to the original. It's the only version of II that I watch anymore, mostly, except when MoS was about to come out I watched all the earlier films for comparison purposes. The theatrical cut of II didn't bother me as a kid, but nowadays knowing how far it was from what was intended makes me a little annoyed with it. Donner Cut has some rough footage and another lousy ending (honestly, to date only MoS has really had a decent ending for a Superman movie... weird) since they never got to shoot the "real" one, but it still fits better with I than the Lester cut.

Agreed about everything else, though. All I'd change really about the original movie is to make that horrible "Can You Read My Mind?" scene an instrumental. It's so hokey and it stops the movie dead. It doesn't help that it seriously sounds like Kidder's whistling through her dentures the whole time, and I'm not even sure she had them yet.I, of course, wish Donner could have finished his work, but I can't say I watch the Donner cut often. It's certainly better, but there's a constant voice in the back of my mind, whispering, "This isn't the real movie, Chris." But I am grateful that it was released, and I do show it to people.

I do feel like Returns ended well, though. Superman had his last hope of Krypton's survival dashed, the love of his life was with someone else, and he lost the crystals that connected him to his father. To find out he had a son, when he was completely alone? I thought it was beautiful.

I can understand objections to Can You Read My Mind. I guess it just doesn't bother me much...

[Andrew NDB]

Who'd'a thunk... the guy who hates everything, indeed, hates everything. What a shock. :lol:

No, just the first movie, a few small elements of II, most/all of III, most of IV (Nuclear Man aside, though, I will say it's a much stronger movie than III), and most of Superman Returns. Christopher Reeve never doesn't give a great performance but he has the misfortune of being knee-deep in some pretty corny, now-horribly dated material (whether it's the truly bizarre new superpowers they pull out of thin air to give Superman at times, Luthor and his cronies sucking the life out of every scene they're in, or just wanton cheese). A few logic problems aside there's nothing I really dislike about Man of Steel.

So no, I don't hate everything... I just have a low crap threshold.

[UsagiYojimbo]

^That's okay though. I mean, I guess it depends on how you view the film. I find it funny (not funny) how, as we get older, our feelings to tend to change and we get unnecessarily overly critical of movies we once loved.

I find that yes, Superman: The Movie is especially dated. Lex is way more hokey than he should be... but hey, I sit down to watch the movie to remember. I want to remember how I felt when I was a kid and to be stirred by that magic of watching Superman fly. The movie still has that for me.

If I were to pick apart every little teensy thing from hairstyle to wardrobe, I'd never enjoy any film, and I refuse to do that. Try it yourself and you just might get a little more enjoyment out of things.

P.S. I'm as old as the film this year. :ohwell:

[Andrew NDB]

^That's okay though. I mean, I guess it depends on how you view the film. I find it funny (not funny) how, as we get older, our feelings to tend to change and we get unnecessarily overly critical of movies we once loved.

I find that yes, Superman: The Movie is especially dated. Lex is way more hokey than he should be... but hey, I sit down to watch the movie to remember. I want to remember how I felt when I was a kid and to be stirred by that magic of watching Superman fly. The movie still has that for me.

See, I get that these people get this warm sense of nostalgia when they watch Superman I when they had watched it a lifetime ago as kids... I just think there is no way to sit here in 2013 and look at virtually any part of Superman I and say, in sound mind, "Nope, it hasn't aged at all!" It has, and terribly. To say otherwise is either lying to yourself or just not quite understanding what it means to say "a movie has aged poorly."

[CyberCubed]

Yeah, Lex and his henchmen being bumbling comic relief remind me too much of the 60's Batman show. Back then you couldn't have a main villain without him being silly as his henchmen like Otis being complete morons.

But I guess it reflected 60's and 70's era comics at the time, so you have to remember the time period it was written.

[Krutch]

Apologies for the drunk post, guys :goofygri:

Anywho, Superman: The Movie has aged in many ways for sure. I find it most obvious with Lex, with that kooky theme song he seemed to have play whenever he and Otis were around. The theme he had in Returns was much better.

I'm curious to know what Leo meant by "holds up", though. Holds up could mean a lot of things.

-How undated and timeless it feels.
-How its still enjoyable after countless viewings
-How important it is after all these years, still having influence.
-How the effects are still believable
-How the movie can be shown to a newcomer and still have the exact intended effect the filmmakers intended it to have 35 years ago

Sometimes a films age can actually enhance the experience. In my opinion, the late 80's/early 90's setting of the first Ninja Turtles movie gives it a lot more atmosphere and gives it a certain kind of charm(especially to new first time viewers, I find.) Superman I seems to be hit and miss with its visual aging, though. As well as its over-acting of Otis and others. But I still love it for what it is :)

[Whatswiththeheadbands?]

I've never actually seen Superman the movie. I do plan on watching it, next time it's on TV.

[Leo656]

I, of course, wish Donner could have finished his work, but I can't say I watch the Donner cut often. It's certainly better, but there's a constant voice in the back of my mind, whispering, "This isn't the real movie, Chris." But I am grateful that it was released, and I do show it to people.


See, I'm the other way, since it's more along the way the story was originally written and meant to be presented (more or less), despite being only 9/10s finished I've since accepted the Donner Cut as the "real" movie. Not as far as what was released in theaters and the public at large may be familiar with, but "real" as in "This Is What We Were Supposed To See The First Time". The only thing I wish they kept from Lester's cut was Superman's "General... would you care to step outside?" line to Zod. That, and bringing the flag back to the White House at the end. But nothing's perfect.

Krutch: Most of that, really. I can poke fun at it whenever I see it, but nothing about it screams "bad" (except the flying poem, and we all know everyone was doing at least an hour's worth of cocaine through the entire 1970s, so some things just have to be overlooked). It does still have influence, because a ton of films in the same genre still borrow from it. Not only were most of the effects invented as they were making the movie, but a lot of the wire-work still looks more real than a lot of the CGI flights we've seen since. And I do still get the chance to introduce it to people of various ages who've never seen it, and most don't really care it's from the 70s. I was surprised how much my niece and nephew liked it. I mean, I can see some people not liking it, but honestly, most of those people I've talked to seem kind of cynical and apparently have something against whimsy. Generally speaking. It's not really like watching "Batman"; it's a fairy-tale movie, not an action movie.

Pretty much all I find really dated about the first one is the clothing. Could use a little less Otis and a lot more Tessmacher, but nothing's perfect. It's not perfect but it's as close as any comic movie ever got to the "heart" of the material it was adapting.

As for anything else, yeah when you watch it you can tell, "OK, this was made in 1978" but really, is that an issue? Does CGI always automatically look better than the stuff they gimmicked up back then? Does the fact they have crisper lens filters now take away from everything the movie does right, things 90% of comic movies since have borrowed from, from pacing to music to FX shots to camera angles? I fail to see how being visibly obvious a movie was made in a certain era means it has "aged horribly". It's definitely among the most enjoyable movies of the 70s. Everything is freaking "dated" or "aged" once more than a quarter century has gone by, that doesn't mean it's bad. Damn, son, it's just a movie. "Gojira" is still about as good as it gets in its genre. So what if it looks like sh*t? Everything they've done to "improve" it in retreads and rip-offs since then looks even more fake. "Man Of Steel" was a really good movie. Objectively, it could be said it was a better movie than "Superman". It's not, however, a better movie about Superman.

The first movie, for one, did a much better job positioning the main character in a heroic light than MoS did. I'll swallow a little bit of forced humor and over-sized bowties, gladly, in exchange for a hero who doesn't accidentally knock over all the buildings in a heavily populated major city he's supposedly "protecting". I kid because I love, it's a great movie, but it's only better at being "a movie about how he became Superman". The first is still the best "Superman Movie". It's the only one that feels like a complete movie and touches on all the broad and familiar strokes of the mythology, including several the new one left out or minimized.

If you know Superman, in the first movie you get everything you expect to get. In MoS, you can't help but ask in your subconscious "Where's Lex?", for example, because "movie villain burn-out" or not, you know he has to be there, he's "supposed" to be, even though you know he won't be because he's already been in five movies and this one needs to be "different". I get it. It's not like he's mandatory for every movie. It still feels "wrong" to introduce a Superman universe that doesn't, from the very beginning, include Luthor. Or Kryptonite. Or the full Clark disguise. It's obvious why they didn't bother this time out. Doesn't matter, it still hurts MoS as a complete, self-contained "Superman movie", in that vital parts of the mythology are left for the sequel. Dated or not, only the first one "got it right" in one shot, and I feel it deserves credit for that, and it's those big and small things all mixed together that make the original the best overall of the lot (although I prefer "Returns" on a personal level, and "MoS" was the closest to the comic in some amazing and obscure ways).

Zarius: I'm with you on that roar when he takes off. That freaked me out when I was 3. I just hate the older movies' "arbitrary new super-abilities we pulled out to make the script work because WB is leaning on us to finish this damn thing already" trope. I mean, I get it, but it's not even something he would do if he could, and it muddies up the ending (if he saved Lois instead... did all those other people die?!). All the Superman movies have kind of weak endings, although I did like the end of "Returns" but it still feels weird and kind of stalker-y, even though him and his kid was a really touching scene (Tip: if you pull an all-day Superman, Donner Cut and Returns back-to-back marathon, you will cry at this scene when he gives his father's soliloquy, even if you didn't love the movie). MoS's final scene was fitting and clever, but depending on where you fall on what happened at the end of the Big Fight, it might be too late. I'm pretty sure the theater I was in hated it. Not sure why, but nobody stayed to see if there was a "stinger" in the credits and there were a lot of pissed-off faces and grumbling. I wanted to clap, and usually I do whenever I feel a film deserves it, but this one time, I was actually afraid what might happen if I dared. :lol:

I love this kind of stuff. I'm glad there's so much attention and activity around Superman these days. I didn't have the internet when "Returns" came out so I didn't really get to acknowledge or participate in these kinds of talks.