Watching Superman: The Movie 1978 for the first time

[CyberCubed]

After watching Man of Steel I decided to go back and finally watch through the 1978 Superman movie. I had seen bits and pieces of it when I was a kid when it was rerun on TV but I never actually truly sat down to watch it from beginning to end. So I don't have any nostalgia for it but I wanted to see if I could enjoy it despite its age.

Thankfully the movie is actually quite enjoyable. I can now understand why people still have much love for this movie and most of it holds up quite well. Christopher Reeve is an excellent Clark/Superman and Lois and Luthor's roles are done very well. The chemistry between the main cast is the best part of the movie, including young Clark with his parents.

Lex Luthor and his underlings remind me of the Adam West Batman show, but in a good way. Otis is the bumbling villain sidekick and Luthor is a bit too campy and humorous but it works very well in the context of this movie.

Overall I liked the movie and think it holds up well. I'll have to watch Superman II next.

My only gripes:

- Some scenes went on way too long. The Superman/Lois flying sequence was too dragged out for my tastes, same with Jor El explaining Clark's past during that full sequence with the stars and a voice over.

- Luthor with hair. Yeah I know why he had it, but its really weird seeing Luthor with hair for the entire movie when I've always known him as being bald.

I'm going to watch Superman II in a few days hopefully its as good.

[ZariusTwo]

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

I'm going to watch Superman II in a few days hopefully its as good.

Which cut will you watch? There are two versions of SII, one by Richard Donner and one by Richard Lester

I'd recommend Donner's version for consistency's sake.

[Shreddhead]

The Richard Donner Cut is definitely the superior film, none of that cellophane superman logo crap.... Though I think the scene with the gun is a little over the top.

[gobo]

Do you believe a man can fly now?

[chrisdude]

When I and II were being shot together, the focus was shifted to finishing I, and Donner left the project before finishing II. So the Richard Donner Cut of Superman II is Superman II, the way Donner intended it, before he completed Superman: The Movie.

The Richard Donner cut of Superman II is the better movie, but it doesn't fit the canon of I, III, IV, or even Returns. I would definitely watch the theatrical version first.

EDIT____________
That being said, I still consider Superman II my favorite superhero movie of all. The Donner cut is better, but I can't really call it a "movie," being an alternative cut.

I'm glad you enjoyed Superman: The Movie. I'm about to show the movie to the biggest Superman fan I know. He's always avoided it, and resented the series for being goofy, but he's about to find out that it excels at everything Man of Steel doesn't.

[CyberCubed]

Honestly the thing I found most amusing in the movie was in the Daily Planet how everyone was on typewriters instead of computers. For some reason I didn't expect that and when I saw the desks full of typewriters I laughed and remembered what year this movie was made.

When did companies start to use computers over typewriters? I thought the home computer was around by the late 70's and early 80's?

[ZariusTwo]

You'll find Superman III is the movie that deals a lot with computers, in their very basic forms despite being depicted as state-of-the-art

The Richard Donner cut of Superman II is the better movie, but it doesn't fit the canon of I, III, IV, or even Returns.

How does it not fit the canon of I? It compliments it pretty well up to the repeat of I's ending.

And noone in their right mind wants to count the canon of III, IV and even Returns

There are a lot of fanedits of II which you can find at www.fanedit.org. My pick's always been "The Booshman Cut"

[chrisdude]

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

How does it not fit the canon of I? It compliments it pretty well up to the repeat of I's ending.

Spoiler:

You said it, right there. The ending Donner planned for Superman II was instead used for Superman I, because they were in a hurry, and hadn't come up with an ending for I. Then Donner left the project before writing an ending for Superman II that would fit with the final version of Superman I.

And noone in their right mind wants to count the canon of III, IV and even Returns

There are a lot of fanedits of II which you can find at www.fanedit.org. My pick's always been "The Booshman Cut"

I do. Good or bad, canon is canon, and fan edits are not. It's not our call what to "count." Of course Returns isn't a perfect fit, but it is an official release.

[ZariusTwo]

II's repeated ending isnt even a flaw, just a bit of creative lazyness. However, it actually makes sense for Supes to do that again since it's a handy power. Logically, Donner's cut makes more sense because it's the culmination of the arc between Clark and Jor-El, which is not consistently upheld by Lester's cut. You're obviously not thinking about this from a storyline standpoint.

The general consensus from fans is that you can easily end II with Lois knowing who he is and being left on the balcony, which actually would have synched up a lot with the ideas in the comics at the time and would have made an old movie look very concurrent.

Originally Posted by chrisdude

I do. Good or bad, canon is canon, and fan edits are not. It's not our call what to "count." Of course Returns isn't a perfect fit, but it is an official release.

Except Returns ignores III and IV. Your logic is flawed and you come off as hypocritical.

And yes, it IS our call what to "count". We're the paying public and movies are served to us for consumption, this is also why comics go through reboots and retcons all the damn time because a large crop of writers today started out as fans and part of the consumer public. If we think our turkey is too dry, we'll want to tinker with it so it tastes a bit better. I recommend you watch that episode of MST3K where something the crew found unlikeable occured and they spend a whole skit coming up with better outcomes for the movie they watched. Just because something is "official" doesnt mean you have to accept what is given to you if you feel it lets you and the franchise down. People who sheepishly follow what "canon" dictates ultimately do nothing but stifile creativity.

[chrisdude]

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

II's repeated ending isnt a flaw. It actually makes sense for Supes to do that again since it's a handy power. Logically, Donner's cut makes more sense b ecause iot's the culmination of the arc between Clark and Jor-El, which is not consistently upheld by Lester's cut. You're obviously not thinking about this from a storyline standpoint.

You can have your opinion of what works better. I'm saying that Donner wrote the ending for II before he wrote the ending of I. He then shifted the ending to I, so they could get the movie out on time. Then he left the project before writing a new ending for II. Donner's cut for Superman II is his vision for Superman II, from before he borrowed that ending for I. You may think it works better, but it is an actual unfinished product.

Except Returns ignores III and IV. Your logic is flawed and you come off as hypocritical.

Returns purposely continues after II. But is still doesn't fit with the Donner cut. I don't see how that makes me a hypocrite.

And yes, it IS our call what to "count". We're the paying public and movies are served to us for consumption, and if we think our turkey is too dry, we'll want to tinker with it so it tastes a bit better. I recommend you watch that episode of MST3K where something the crew found unlikeable occured and they spend a whole skit coming up with better outcomes for the movie they watched. Just because something is "official" doesnt mean you have to accept what is given to you if you feel it lets you and the franchise down. People who sheepishly follow what "canon" dictates ultimately do nothing but stifile creativity.

You can't compare an art form to the "customer is always right" world of food service. If you don't want to stifle creativity, don't try to change someone else's work. If you wanna be creative, make your own movie.

These franchises exist as intellectual properties that can change hands, their entries are created by different writers, directors, actors, etc, who may not do things the way you want. But that's the nature of the entity, as it exists. You need legal rights to add or take from it. Like any work of art, you're free to interpret what's there however you want, but it's not yours to change.

Making a fan edit and pretending the parts of the movie you didn't like didn't happen is like pretending that an embarrassing thing you did yesterday didn't happen. You may convince yourself of a false reality, but it's all in your own head. The real event happened, and everyone else knows it.
Whether you like it or not, there is a real movie that exists, and is meaningful to people other than yourself, because it was made within the parameters which the medium sets.

[Krutch]

If you're going back to watch some Superman stuff, I'd recommend watching the pilot for Lois and Clark. It's possibly my favourite Superman "movie"(it's runtime is about an hour and a half).

Just ignore the mullet and the 90sness lol

[ZariusTwo]

Not to mention Lois and Clark is the only Superman show that ever gets to display the badass black Super-suit from the 90s comics in later seasons, and was doing the "New Krypton" stuff way ahead of the books at the time too

Lord Nor>General Zod

[shuriken]

Lois and Clark was Awesome. Haven't seen Man of Steel, but have always enjoyed the first two movies. Hell 3 and 4 are terrible but enjoyable.

[Cure]

Originally Posted by chrisdude

You can't compare an art form to the "customer is always right" world of food service. If you don't want to stifle creativity, don't try to change someone else's work. If you wanna be creative, make your own movie.

These franchises exist as intellectual properties that can change hands, their entries are created by different writers, directors, actors, etc, who may not do things the way you want. But that's the nature of the entity, as it exists. You need legal rights to add or take from it. Like any work of art, you're free to interpret what's there however you want, but it's not yours to change.

Making a fan edit and pretending the parts of the movie you didn't like didn't happen is like pretending that an embarrassing thing you did yesterday didn't happen. You may convince yourself of a false reality, but it's all in your own head. The real event happened, and everyone else knows it.
Whether you like it or not, there is a real movie that exists, and is meaningful to people other than yourself, because it was made within the parameters which the medium sets.

You're alright with me, homie.

[ZariusTwo]

You may think it works better, but it is an actual unfinished product.

Seems pretty complete to me, and you've yet to say why you think the repeated ending taints it somewhat when I gave a perfectly valid reason as to why it didnt. Seems to me you can't come up with one.

The story makes ten times more sense in Donner's cut than it ever did in Lester's cut, regardless of the "incompleteness", which really does come down to a measly 5% difference and only annoys people who saw the first film and/or hate repetition. I don't mind it, the movie is complete, not JUST to me, but several others, but hey, you want to follow a cut of the film that has no coherance or respect for the story that came before, go right ahead.

Making a fan edit and pretending the parts of the movie you didn't like didn't happen is like pretending that an embarrassing thing you did yesterday didn't happen. You may convince yourself of a false reality, but it's all in your own head. The real event happened, and everyone else knows it.
Whether you like it or not, there is a real movie that exists, and is meaningful to people other than yourself, because it was made within the parameters which the medium sets.

What a load of pretentious bollocks

I know what really happened. That's not the point. The point is if I can change it, I'll do my darndest to see if it works with the changes. That's the whole appeal of the process, taking something and molding it into something different. It's not to replace the movie, that's impossible, but it is to provide an alternative viewing experiance.

This is a movement that you're not going to silence with a few snap judgements. It may be an underground thing, but it's been blossoming as of late, fans, aka talented members of the public that pay to watch these movies, are starting to take these products under their own consideration. It does not make them harbingers of "false realitys", it makes them creative and independent thinkers who don't accept the reality the official product has given them. There are different lenses from which to see the world, without variety, the world is a pretty boring place.

You're content to be boring and follow the pack. I do not subscribe to that notion.

[Leo656]

I'll concur that the "Lois & Clark" pilot is awesome. It's crazy close to the comics of the time, a modest budget notwithstanding. I always loved Cain's portrayal; as both Clark and Superman he was a lot more pro-active and aggressive, much more like George Reeves than Chris Reeve. The writing took a serious dive halfway through the show's run but the early stuff was great. And Teri Hatcher may still be the best Lois ever.

[chrisdude]

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

Seems pretty complete to me, and you've yet to say why you think the repeated ending taints it somewhat when I gave a perfectly valid reason as to why it didnt. Seems to me you can't come up with one.

The story makes ten times more sense in Donner's cut than it ever did in Lester's cut, regardless of the "incompleteness", which really does come down to a measly 5% difference and only annoys people who saw the first film and/or hate repetition. I don't mind it, the movie is complete, not JUST to me, but several others, but hey, you want to follow a cut of the film that has no coherance or respect for the story that came before, go right ahead.

My point is that that version of Superman II wasn't meant to go along with the final version of Superman: The Movie. The ending was awaiting a rewrite, and Donner didn't get to do it. I've owned the Donner cut since the day it came out, and I enjoy it. I can just accept that it's not real/doesn't matter. It's a fun little 'what if.'

What a load of pretentious bollocks

I know what really happened. That's not the point. The point is if I can change it, I'll do my darndest to see if it works with the changes. That's the whole appeal of the process, taking something and molding it into something different. It's not to replace the movie, that's impossible, but it is to provide an alternative viewing experiance.

What in the wide hell could be more pretentious than editing someone else's movie?

This is a movement that you're not going to silence with a few snap judgements. It may be an underground thing, but it's been blossoming as of late, fans, aka talented members of the public that pay to watch these movies, are starting to take these products under their own consideration. It does not make them harbingers of "false realitys", it makes them creative and independent thinkers who don't accept the reality the official product has given them. There are different lenses from which to see the world, without variety, the world is a pretty boring place.

You're content to be boring and follow the pack. I do not subscribe to that notion.

Rebels playing with action figures, dude...

Deep.

[CyberCubed]

Watched the Richard Donner Superman II cut, I liked it more than the first movie. It was also really funny which I didn't expect. Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor is hilarious. Also loved all the Lois/Superman/Clark scenes.

One thing I don't understand is why did Superman have to spin back the planet again? Zod and his minions were dead, no good guys dies, and the only difference was Lois knew who Superman was, which I thought he was fine with. What was the point?

[chrisdude]

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

One thing I don't understand is why did Superman have to spin back the planet again? Zod and his minions were dead, no good guys dies, and the only difference was Lois knew who Superman was, which I thought he was fine with. What was the point?

That's what I've been fussing about, man. That's a pre-Superman I version of Superman II, written before they decided to turn back the world in Superman I, so it doesn't exactly make sense. The ending was rewritten for the final cut.

[ZariusTwo]

On the Donner cut documentary, they admitted they were originally going to go with the memory-erasing kiss from Lester's cut but the writer of the movie said, (and even I agree that this reasoning is stupid) "Only Superman should kiss Lois, not Clark Kent", so they went with turning back time again.

Oh and chrisdude...sorry for being a d*ck in this thread