Your opinion on the Superman movies starring Christopher Reeve.

[Linda Lee]

They're my introduction to Superman. I'm sure to a lot of people it's still the standard by which the concept of Superman will always be compared.

As for the movies themselves, the special effects didn't age well (I think something like The Ten Commandments with Charlton Heston have more timeless special effects, for instance; ditto The Wizard of Oz), and the modern moviegoer probably would care for the tone of the movies. It'll always have its place in history, but I don't think it's a movie that should be emulated. I do think it's kind of funny to think that the movie came out when Superman wasn't weighed down so much by unfair or unrealistic expectations. I feel like back then, you could just tell a Superman movie and not worry about what Superman is or isn't, what Superman does and does not do.

Thanks for writing. I agree that people in general are to critical of what they think superman is or stands for. I kinda disagree with the special effects and practical effects not holding up or not aging well.

[Slim Shady]

I and II are both superhero greatness. III and IV are typical sequel letdowns. I do enjoy Richard Pryor tho, love that guy.

[Linda Lee]

I and II are both superhero greatness. III and IV are typical sequel letdowns. I do enjoy Richard Pryor tho, love that guy.

Maybe I have the unpopular opinion of lll and lV.

[Slim Shady]

Maybe I have the unpopular opinion of lll and lV.

I could probably rephrase it as, I don’t dislike III and IV like a lot of people, but I don’t think they come close to I and II. Those first two told real stories where the last two felt like Hollywood sequels that just tried to keep things going. They were just movies, if that makes any kind of sense. Kind of like Tim Burton’s first two movies being followed up with Forever and Batman and Robin.

[Jim Kelly]

I got the steel case 2007 SUPERMAN COLLECTORS' EDITION 14 DISC DVD SET back when SUPERMAN RETURNS came out. But I found SUPERMAN III and SUPERMAN IV hard to watch. I never did go to see III when it was in the theatres originally and never really wanted to see it, but I did get the comic book adaptation, which was good enough. I did see IV in the theatres back in the day--and I got the comic book--but it doesn't hold up. Sadly, now when I try to watch most of the DVDs from that steel case, they don't play--I don't know if it was a poor quality in their manufacture or if it's because of being in the case for over a decade, but they all seem to have damage. I might be pushed to replace them all, but it's a bitter pill.

The first and second Christopher Reeve movies were never allowed to be adapted as comic books. Which is why DC put out tabloid editions that paid tribute to the movies, but didn't actually adapt them--and why they released the original novels by Elliot Maggin, rather than novelizations. It was something to do with the contract signed with Mario Puzo that prohibited using that material in any other form. Likewise they couldn't use any original characters created for the movies--like Ursa and Non. But given that SUPERMAN RETURNS seemed to be freed from that restriction and as the comics have used some of those characters and ideas, I wonder if it would be possible to do an adaptation of the first two movies in comic book form. I'd like to see SUPERMAN THE COMIC BOOK DONNER CUT--adapting the whole story as one big epic.

[Powerboy]

Please write or gif your opinions on the Superman films starring Christopher Reeve.

I like superman more than superman ll because I have never enjoyed the part when kal-el gets beat up by rocky in the diner. Even though it gave us the perfect " Gee that's funny I've never seen garbage eat garbage before" and "I've been working out " lines.

I loved the first one. Yes, even the time travel. It had it's issues but it served a greater narrative point which was Superman becoming his own person and breaking free of his father. And, yes I know, the time travel was never meant to be there in the first one. It got thrown in. Yet the irony is that it was a great culmination of Superman finally breaking free of his father's control.

Not that it was perfect. I loved the Smallville stuff the most. In fact, the best parts are before he becomes Superman. Yet I loved Reeve's portrayal of Superman and even his cartoon version of Clark Kent seems to fit that era.

I liked Superman II far less for what I think are obvious reasons. He goes back and beats up Rocky which was pure revenge and Superman is not about revenge. He crushes Zod's hand when it was completely unnecessary. I'm not in the "he killed them" camp. But he used mind control which besides being a power he pulled out of his posterior was revolting.

Superman III had nice moments but it was way downhill overall and criticizing Superman IV is just too easy.

[Kuwagaton]

The first film is hugely important in the worlds of adaptation films and fantasy films. So much of everything most people know about the character starts there, which is crazy because it's basically a drop in the ocean of mythos if we're talking content. It's also radically different from the comics although it proved backwards influential. I don't know what comic movies would he without this template. But... that's all history. I was born in 1987 and while I greatly appreciate what this film means, it can't begin to impress me in the ways older viewers are impressed. The effects are extremely dated which matters in a film about a guy whose life is one big special effect. The cast is very top heavy with Reeve and Kidder mostly carrying something like two of three hours. But fwiw I think it's aged much better than Star Wars from the year before.

Superman II I don't like. Less charming moments for Reeve and a bad plot. Basically it's like he gets rid of everything forever to be a human, but he's a bad human and his ideas are bad, so everything just stops being changed forever so the film can wrap up properly. People love Stamp as Zod but it bugs me that he's called Zod. He's a really random disco looking guy and although they gave Superman some people to punch, that fight scene to me is unmemorable. It should also be top heavy in the small cast, but the other two are just kinda there. Hackman is still pretty good as Lex though I guess. IMO superhero sequels like Thor Dark World were born from this movie.

Superman III is fun. The effects are arguably worse but more clever. The original characters were memorable, except I find Gus annoying. I never really got Pryor and this is Pryor lite dropped into some unrelated product. Where Kidder as Lane should be so difficult to replace, O Toole as Lana is quite strong. Lorelei is also a good character and I like how she's a foil to Lana without beating you over the head with it. The plot wasn't so strong and poorly dated (Video Man type stuff) but it's kind of just an excuse for the character interactions and imo, the only decent fight scene from 1978 until 2013.

Quest for Peace should be bad, but I really haven't seen it in so long. There are ways I liked it as a kid, and it's kinda for the best I let those memories stand I think.

[Jim Kelly]

While it was a deus ex machina, the trick with the Earth (was it time travel or something else) is Superman's apotheosis and ties in with the god themes of Puzo's original script. The Cloud Father is telling the Sky Son that he can't do this, but he does it anyway. And I think that means he can't do it again--it's a one time trick that breaks reality and puts it back together again but different. It shows Superman acting like a god, but what pushes him to do that is his humanity--he already lost his father on Earth, Jonathan Kent--and now he doesn't care if it's against his Cloud Father's rule, he's going to break time to save Lois Lane.

What really sells that scene is Christopher Reeve. When he digs through the Earth and finds the lifeless Lois and then breaks down and let's loose that shout. It's such a big cinematic moment that it's allowed. Anyone who questions the logic is being petty and not watching the movie. Movies work on emotions, not logic. The whole cinematic experience is a lie you tell yourself and it can't hold up under logical examination. It works because you want it to work.

[Linda Lee]

While it was a deus ex machina, the trick with the Earth (was it time travel or something else) is Superman's apotheosis and ties in with the god themes of Puzo's original script. The Cloud Father is telling the Sky Son that he can't do this, but he does it anyway. And I think that means he can't do it again--it's a one time trick that breaks reality and puts it back together again but different. It shows Superman acting like a god, but what pushes him to do that is his humanity--he already lost his father on Earth, Jonathan Kent--and now he doesn't care if it's against his Cloud Father's rule, he's going to break time to save Lois Lane.

What really sells that scene is Christopher Reeve. When he digs through the Earth and finds the lifeless Lois and then breaks down and let's loose that shout. It's such a big cinematic moment that it's allowed. Anyone who questions the logic is being petty and not watching the movie. Movies work on emotions, not logic. The whole cinematic experience is a lie you tell yourself and it can't hold up under logical examination. It works because you want it to work.

Thanks you for writing this. I agree with you 100% that the time travel moment is epic and is very emotional for me. ( almost as much as Luke Skywalker screaming "never" In ROTJ)

[Linda Lee]

The first film is hugely important in the worlds of adaptation films and fantasy films. So much of everything most people know about the character starts there, which is crazy because it's basically a drop in the ocean of mythos if we're talking content. It's also radically different from the comics although it proved backwards influential. I don't know what comic movies would he without this template. But... that's all history. I was born in 1987 and while I greatly appreciate what this film means, it can't begin to impress me in the ways older viewers are impressed. The effects are extremely dated which matters in a film about a guy whose life is one big special effect. The cast is very top heavy with Reeve and Kidder mostly carrying something like two of three hours. But fwiw I think it's aged much better than Star Wars from the year before.

Superman II I don't like. Less charming moments for Reeve and a bad plot. Basically it's like he gets rid of everything forever to be a human, but he's a bad human and his ideas are bad, so everything just stops being changed forever so the film can wrap up properly. People love Stamp as Zod but it bugs me that he's called Zod. He's a really random disco looking guy and although they gave Superman some people to punch, that fight scene to me is unmemorable. It should also be top heavy in the small cast, but the other two are just kinda there. Hackman is still pretty good as Lex though I guess. IMO superhero sequels like Thor Dark World were born from this movie.

Superman III is fun. The effects are arguably worse but more clever. The original characters were memorable, except I find Gus annoying. I never really got Pryor and this is Pryor lite dropped into some unrelated product. Where Kidder as Lane should be so difficult to replace, O Toole as Lana is quite strong. Lorelei is also a good character and I like how she's a foil to Lana without beating you over the head with it. The plot wasn't so strong and poorly dated (Video Man type stuff) but it's kind of just an excuse for the character interactions and imo, the only decent fight scene from 1978 until 2013.

Quest for Peace should be bad, but I really haven't seen it in so long. There are ways I liked it as a kid, and it's kinda for the best I let those memories stand I think.

I agree that this is just one movie in a massive collection of content and yet it holds so much power. I believe many movies were influenced by superman l and ll.
Lana was absolutely great, Christopher Reeve and O'Toole have wonderful chemistry.

[DCStu]

First one is the greatest superhero movie ever made.

Both versions of the second one are damn good.

The less said about the third and fourth ones the better.

[stargazer01]

Superman The Movie was game-changing. It's the most important and influential superhero movie still, and all the big superhero directors and creators will say so and use it's template for their movies. Nolan, Singer, Jenkins, Raimi, Feige.

[Powerboy]

While it was a deus ex machina, the trick with the Earth (was it time travel or something else) is Superman's apotheosis and ties in with the god themes of Puzo's original script. The Cloud Father is telling the Sky Son that he can't do this, but he does it anyway. And I think that means he can't do it again--it's a one time trick that breaks reality and puts it back together again but different. It shows Superman acting like a god, but what pushes him to do that is his humanity--he already lost his father on Earth, Jonathan Kent--and now he doesn't care if it's against his Cloud Father's rule, he's going to break time to save Lois Lane.

What really sells that scene is Christopher Reeve. When he digs through the Earth and finds the lifeless Lois and then breaks down and let's loose that shout. It's such a big cinematic moment that it's allowed. Anyone who questions the logic is being petty and not watching the movie. Movies work on emotions, not logic. The whole cinematic experience is a lie you tell yourself and it can't hold up under logical examination. It works because you want it to work.

I was just realizing that fundamentalist religion was, I'll just say, not believable anymore for me when I saw that movie. So my take, metaphorically, was that Superman was indoctrinated for twelve years to obey "God the Father". While he does occasionally do something outside the rules like revealing his existence too soon, he basically obeys. To me, the scene where Jor-El is essentially going, "Thou Shalt Not/ You must not..." over and over and he breaks free is the scene where he truly becomes human. Of course, the next movie, especially in the original cut where it's Jor-El instead of Lara, totally undercuts that. But, for me, that was a magnificent and moving scene.

[Powerboy]

Superman The Movie was game-changing. It's the most important and influential superhero movie still, and all the big superhero directors and creators will say so and use it's template for their movies. Nolan, Singer, Jenkins, Raimi, Feige.

Yes, everything from the comics to other movies have adapted Superman the Movie into their continuity so to speak.

Artificial Intelligence Jor-El. Original Source: Superman the Movie.

The S insignia being some sort of Kryptonian symbol instead of an S for Superman. Original Source: Superman the Movie.

And so on.

[DCStu]

Superman The Movie was game-changing. It's the most important and influential superhero movie still, and all the big superhero directors and creators will say so and use it's template for their movies. Nolan, Singer, Jenkins, Raimi, Feige.

I think whoever does the next Man Of Steel movie should think about bringing back some of that old Superman magic.