Superman the Movie- Again

[manduck37]

As Manofsteel1979 said, that scene from Clark to Superman and back again made me see how he could fool people with his disguise. Christopher Reeve once said that the approached it as he was playing two different characters, which really sells it. I thought that was a brilliant move.

This movie is definitely of a certain time but I love it all the same. One subtle thing that I always loved is that when Superman flies through Metropolis, people stop to look up in wonder. I just love that. It's such a little thing that says so much.

[Jim Kelly]

There are things in the movie that I don't think the creators intend to be taken as realistic. Our first clue is the weird opening that sets up the whole movie as like a fable or a story within a story.

In the Smallville section, "Rock Around the Clock" is playing, which was released in 1956. Of course, that doesn't mean these scenes are in the 1950s--it could be the 1960s. But if it was 1956 and we say that Clark is 16, that would make him 38 in the Metropolis of 1978--in Lois Lane's car, just before her death scene, Supertramp's "Give a Little Bit" is playing, which was released in 1977.

Of course, when they were trying to cast the movie, they were looking for big name actors to play Superman--guys like Burt Reynolds, Robert Redford and Paul Newman. So Clark being 38 wouldn't be that unusual. And in BATMAN (1989), Michael Keaton's Bruce Wayne is supposed to be 38.

However, if there's a twenty year gap, was Clark in the Fortress for all that time? Or did he travel the cosmos? Or did he have other adventures on Earth as a super-hero before coming to Metropolis?

Donner's movie is like SUPERMAN'S GREATEST HITS. It sticks with the big moments in the story and skips over events that don't advance the narrative. The big moments are the mythic elements that every school-age child mastered before learning their fractions. So I guess we're supposed to make up our own minds about the unexplained stuff.

[Osiris-Rex]

There are things in the movie that I don't think the creators intend to be taken as realistic. Our first clue is the weird opening that sets up the whole movie as like a fable or a story within a story.

In the Smallville section, "Rock Around the Clock" is playing, which was released in 1956. Of course, that doesn't mean these scenes are in the 1950s--it could be the 1960s. But if it was 1956 and we say that Clark is 16, that would make him 38 in the Metropolis of 1978--in Lois Lane's car, just before her death scene, Supertramp's "Give a Little Bit" is playing, which was released in 1977.

Of course, when they were trying to cast the movie, they were looking for big name actors to play Superman--guys like Burt Reynolds, Robert Redford and Paul Newman. So Clark being 38 wouldn't be that unusual. And in BATMAN (1989), Michael Keaton's Bruce Wayne is supposed to be 38.

However, if there's a twenty year gap, was Clark in the Fortress for all that time? Or did he travel the cosmos? Or did he have other adventures on Earth as a super-hero before coming to Metropolis?

Donner's movie is like SUPERMAN'S GREATEST HITS. It sticks with the big moments in the story and skips over events that don't advance the narrative. The big moments are the mythic elements that every school-age child mastered before learning their fractions. So I guess we're supposed to make up our own minds about the unexplained stuff.

I don't think there was supposed to be any unexplained stuff. Clark left Smallville and became Superman upon arriving in Metropolis. The age of the actor has nothing to do with it. George Reeves was in his 40s when he
played Superman but in the pilot episode of Adventures of Superman Clark leaves the farm and tries to get a job at the Daily Planet, but Perry White rejects him, so to get the job Clark becomes Superman, rescues a man
dangling from a rope on a blimp, and gets an exclusive interview with the man. The movie had a similar scenario. You are looking at the movie through a 21st century lens if you think there is missing parts of the story.
There is no gap between when Clark left the farm and Superman showed up in Metropolis as far as the movie is concerned. As I recall it was the same with Lois & Clark. They only did this kind of thing in Man of Steel.

[_Feely_]

There are things in the movie that I don't think the creators intend to be taken as realistic. Our first clue is the weird opening that sets up the whole movie as like a fable or a story within a story.

...

However, if there's a twenty year gap, was Clark in the Fortress for all that time? Or did he travel the cosmos? Or did he have other adventures on Earth as a super-hero before coming to Metropolis?

The intro; not only does a comic panel become the literal frame for the rest of the movie, but it's narrated by a kid, no less.

It demands that the viewer put aside their sense of disbelief and consider the subject matter. I find that this pays off when delivering that thoroughly human, emotional gut-punch at the second act climax. The fantasy is grounded hard by familiar reality.

My reading of the fortress stuff is that he's little more than 18 when he enters and goes tripping the light cosmic with Dad. But that's just my reading of the film from what's presented on screen. Your milage may vary.

I'm confident tho that Clark is kept busy there for twelve years and arrives in Metropolis around 30 years old. Haven't watched the film in a few weeks (not joking) but I'm sure Brando's line is something like, "by the time we return to your Earthly confines, twelve of your years will have passed". There's also that Reeve was only 26 at the time of filming.

Again, your milage may vary.

Good comment re: Superman's Greatest Hits. Couldn't be more apt.

[Jim Kelly]

Oh yeah the "twelve of your years" thing. Right. I think that's the thing, the very first time I watched the movie, that stumped me. Because I had assumed it was the 1950s when he left for the Fortress and I could do the math in my head. It just didn't add up, but then comic books were kind of goofy about time, as well. So I assume it's some weird temporal paradox created by the Fortress.

[_Feely_]

Oh yeah the "twelve of your years" thing. Right. I think that's the thing, the very first time I watched the movie, that stumped me. Because I had assumed it was the 1950s when he left for the Fortress and I could do the math in my head. It just didn't add up, but then comic books were kind of goofy about time, as well. So I assume it's some weird temporal paradox created by the Fortress.

I've always just assumed that while Metropolis is deliberately contemporary, Smallville was deliberately timeless. A cinematic Rockwell painting of sorts, whose 50's style aesthetics are movie shorthand for Small Town Mid West America and not an indicator of a specific point in time.

I'm geeking hard here. I just love this movie so much

[superduperman]

There are things in the movie that I don't think the creators intend to be taken as realistic. Our first clue is the weird opening that sets up the whole movie as like a fable or a story within a story.

In the Smallville section, "Rock Around the Clock" is playing, which was released in 1956. Of course, that doesn't mean these scenes are in the 1950s--it could be the 1960s. But if it was 1956 and we say that Clark is 16, that would make him 38 in the Metropolis of 1978--in Lois Lane's car, just before her death scene, Supertramp's "Give a Little Bit" is playing, which was released in 1977.

Of course, when they were trying to cast the movie, they were looking for big name actors to play Superman--guys like Burt Reynolds, Robert Redford and Paul Newman. So Clark being 38 wouldn't be that unusual. And in BATMAN (1989), Michael Keaton's Bruce Wayne is supposed to be 38.

However, if there's a twenty year gap, was Clark in the Fortress for all that time? Or did he travel the cosmos? Or did he have other adventures on Earth as a super-hero before coming to Metropolis?

Donner's movie is like SUPERMAN'S GREATEST HITS. It sticks with the big moments in the story and skips over events that don't advance the narrative. The big moments are the mythic elements that every school-age child mastered before learning their fractions. So I guess we're supposed to make up our own minds about the unexplained stuff.

In Superman 3 I think they said he graduated about 1964-65. So, yeah, it would have been maybe ten years after the song came out. If it was just playing on the radio, that would make sense. Which raises an interesting question: What if Clark had been drafted to fight in Vietnam? What would Martha have told the draft board? "Sorry, Clark can't go, he's up in the arctic learning about his history".

[Jim Kelly]

I've always just assumed that while Metropolis is deliberately contemporary, Smallville was deliberately timeless. A cinematic Rockwell painting of sorts, whose 50's style aesthetics are movie shorthand for Small Town Mid West America and not an indicator of a specific point in time.

I'm geeking hard here. I just love this movie so much

Yeah, that's what I was trying to drive at before--but I think I got caught in the wrong lane--that the movie selects scenes for how emblematic they are and it cares less about the time period. So it just seems right that the teen years are in the rock & roll '50s. Partly because we had so much nostalgia for that period back in the '70s. Metropolis is both contemporary and yet old-fashioned. And the beginning intro in the 1930s indicates that the movie is going to be about different eras and not tied to one time period.

The Fortress scene reminds me of the origin story for Dr. Fate in MORE FUN. Kent is just a little kid when he first meets Nabu, then he spends that time learning from him in the valley of Ur, and we see him all grown up ready to become Fate.

Maybe the Jor-El AI has problems translating into English, with his weird syntax and what he really means is that 12 years have passed for Kal-El--as measured in Earth years (not Krypton years). However more than that has passed in the outer world. That helps explain why Lois Lane is a little girl on the train when teen-age Clark speeds past, yet she looks older than Clark when they next meet.

Of course, I'm just wool gathering. It doesn't really need to be that way, but that's how I explain it to myself.

[_Feely_]

Dude, of course! The Lois on the train scene isn't in the cut I own, only on the bonus disk. I forgot it existed.

It doesn't appear in the original theatrical cut and I imagine that that's because it causes exactly the confusion we're discussing. How can they be the same age when just ten years before there was about 10 years between them?

[Powerboy]

My Gripe about SMtMP is that he latched onto Lois super quick for no other reason then she's Lois Lane. I mean yeah he just came out of spending 12 years being homeschooled by his dad but come on. Guys willing to violate the laws of Space and Time for a chick he literally just met. Hell with how accident prone and willing to put herself in harm's way to get the story she was, how hell she'd managed to stay alive long enough to meet Superman has to be one of the great mysteries of modern cinema. How many times did Superman save her life in the movie? Now extrapolate that to a whole lifetime of doing stupid stuff like that and there's no way she'd be alive at the start of this movie. Death should have been stalking her ass like the cats from Final Destination what with all the times she's cheated him.

To be honest, I thought the same thing when I first saw the movie, that the presentation of Lois Lane was a little too off-putting. I get that it was partly comedy and that she was vulnerable inside but she comes across as so petty at first- "Well, of course not, Lois. I mean, why would anyone want to make a complete stranger look like a fool?"- that, except for physical attraction, what does he see in her?

On my last viewing and this one, I did notice that she does these things but, for example, when he says he sends half his check to his mother, she steps closer to him and talks to him more. When he says "Swell", she mocks it but, again, she moves closer to him and talks to him more than before.

It's subtle but I think it's there. Still, not a major fan of the way she's written. One of the things I admittedly didn't like.

As to the risk taking, that's just standard stuff. Lois in the comics did the same thing. How did she survive before Superman was around? It's equally lucky that Lex Luthor didn't do his worst stuff before Superman was around.

[Powerboy]

There are things in the movie that I don't think the creators intend to be taken as realistic. Our first clue is the weird opening that sets up the whole movie as like a fable or a story within a story.

In the Smallville section, "Rock Around the Clock" is playing, which was released in 1956. Of course, that doesn't mean these scenes are in the 1950s--it could be the 1960s. But if it was 1956 and we say that Clark is 16, that would make him 38 in the Metropolis of 1978--in Lois Lane's car, just before her death scene, Supertramp's "Give a Little Bit" is playing, which was released in 1977.

Of course, when they were trying to cast the movie, they were looking for big name actors to play Superman--guys like Burt Reynolds, Robert Redford and Paul Newman. So Clark being 38 wouldn't be that unusual. And in BATMAN (1989), Michael Keaton's Bruce Wayne is supposed to be 38.

However, if there's a twenty year gap, was Clark in the Fortress for all that time? Or did he travel the cosmos? Or did he have other adventures on Earth as a super-hero before coming to Metropolis?

Donner's movie is like SUPERMAN'S GREATEST HITS. It sticks with the big moments in the story and skips over events that don't advance the narrative. The big moments are the mythic elements that every school-age child mastered before learning their fractions. So I guess we're supposed to make up our own minds about the unexplained stuff.

I forgot to mention it before but I think that opening does a great job of setting the tone and making us feel we are about to watch a myth unfold as you said, a magical fable come to life. That it's narrated by a child maybe just says, "Drop your pretenses. Let yourself enjoy this as a wondrous fable about to unfold. Don't worry whether it's kind of for children and kind of for adults. Just experience the wonder".

This story underwent a number of rewrites by different people and you can see that in subtle ways. At one point, AI Jor-El tells Kal that he has been dead for many thousands of years by the time Kal is hearing this. I think Mario Puzo was trying to be realistic about the passage of time in a ship traveling at near light speeds. On the other hand, on the journey through space, AI Jor talks about things like the Theory of Relativity, specifically Einstein's. Now, how does AI Jor know that if he recorded this stuff thousands of years ago?

But at one point, Lex Luthor says that the rocket left Krypton in 1948 and probably touched down in 1950. When Clark travels north and first meets AI Jor, Jor-El specifically states that since Clark is there with him, that means he will have reached his eighteenth year because that's when Jor would call to him though the crystal. So that puts it at 1966. Then we get all sorts of dialogue about how this year we will study this and this second year, we will study that and these other things culminating with twelve years having passed as Superman's returns to the confines of his body. This makes it 1978 or the present at the time of the movie.

"Rock around the clock" playing on the radio instead of something more contemporary to 1966, maybe a Beatles song, was probably indeed to give an "innocent" timeless Smalltown USA feeling than to imply it was really the 1950s. In fact, I read an interesting article once about why Superman seemed so innocent and straightforward in his Truth, Justice and the American Way ideals. When you think about it, his childhood was the 1950s and his teenage years the early 1960s. Then he was in the Fortress. The Hippie Movement, the Vietnam protests, the Civil Rights Movement, the murder of Martin Luther King, the Watergate Scandal and all the changes in social views and the mistrust of government that began there. While all of that was happening, Superman was in the Fortress. He comes out still a product of the 1950s and early sixties plus Jor's teachings.

[Powerboy]

Dude, of course! The Lois on the train scene isn't in the cut I own, only on the bonus disk. I forgot it existed.

It doesn't appear in the original theatrical cut and I imagine that that's because it causes exactly the confusion we're discussing. How can they be the same age when just ten years before there was about 10 years between them?

In the original theatrical cut, there was a scene where we see a girl on the train see Clark running and points and he waves to her. But the rest of the scene where her name is stated to be Lois Lane was not in the original cut although it was quite well known through newspaper interviews and books that the little girl was supposed to have been Lois Lane with Noel Neal and Kirk Alyn (the first live action Lois Lane and first live action Superman) as her parents.

[Jim Kelly]

In the original theatrical cut, there was a scene where we see a girl on the train see Clark running and points and he waves to her. But the rest of the scene where her name is stated to be Lois Lane was not in the original cut although it was quite well known through newspaper interviews and books that the little girl was supposed to have been Lois Lane with Noel Neal and Kirk Alyn (the first live action Lois Lane and first live action Superman) as her parents.

Yeah, as I was about to say myself, I bought every magazine I could find with news about the movie, before it came out. And there was a lot of hype for this movie. And in the articles they said that Noel Neill and Kirk Alyn are on the train and their little girl is Lois Lane. So I knew that before I even saw the movie in the theatre. And when I saw the little girl, I knew that was Lois. I don't think Kirk and Noel were very visible, which was a shame.

[Powerboy]

Yeah, as I was about to say myself, I bought every magazine I could find with news about the movie, before it came out. And there was a lot of hype for this movie. And in the articles they said that Noel Neill and Kirk Alyn are on the train and their little girl is Lois Lane. So I knew that before I even saw the movie in the theatre. And when I saw the little girl, I knew that was Lois. I don't think Kirk and Noel were very visible, which was a shame.

It's nice to pay homage to the stars of previous versions and I prefer that movies do that but rather pointless if it barely gets on-screen. I think you got one quick look at Noel but you only see Alyn's profile and even then he's facing more away from the camera than towards it in the part they showed in 1978. I'm guessing the first television showing was the first time the complete scene was shown.

[Jim Kelly]

I've two minds on the cuts. Because I like to see all that extra stuff; however, the recuts don't feel as well paced as the theatrical release. So I think the cuts were made for good reasons. It's a pretty long movie as it is, so any more stuff slows it down. From a self-indulgent perspective, I can see them wanting to keep all this precious material in the movie--but if they're calculating what will carry the movie forward then I can see the reasoning for the cuts. Of course, there are a few precious scenes in the theatrical release that they could have cut for time yet they kept in the movie.

THE WIZARD OF OZ also has lots of extra scenes that were cut and it's fun to watch those, too. But the theatrical cut is the theatrical cut.