Your opinion on the Superman movies starring Christopher Reeve.

[Jon-El]

I don’t know how much the films connect with a modern audience. I’m sure they seem to represent a simpler time. The current films try to address how we would be suspicious of a Superman if he we real. That makes complete sense given the uncertainty of the world we live in. A mall near me has had several stores close recently and the comment heard most often is “I don’t feel safe coming to the mall”. That’s just the reality we live in it makes the older films seem quaint I guess.

I love those films though. It’s hard to grasp their impact when there are several quality comic book based films released every year. It was an amazing thrill for me! Still my favorite super hero film.

[Vampire Savior]

The problems with Superman and the trucker are numerous:

a) Superman is the one who wants to escalate the situation to fisticuffs when it wasn't necessary. They could have ignored the MFer and left the diner. Or they simply could have chosen other seats. However, Superman wants to act macho and gets severely beat down.

b) Which makes Superman look utterly useless and weak without his powers, and overall like a chump. The scene is uncomfortable to watch because of how pathetic he is. I guess that was the point, but that is probably why some people prefer Batman. Could you imagine that ever happening to Bruce Wayne? It wouldn't.

c) Superman goes back to beat the trucker up when the trucker has absolutely no chance of beating him. It wasn't a fair fight, so it doesn't really feel like the hero is redeeming himself. True the trucker fought dirty, but Superman is the hero.

[Comic-Reader Lad]

Glad I'm not the only one who's DVD'S from that set stopped working. I ended up replacing them with the Anthology blu-ray set which is nearly identical in content. I paid 40 bucks for mine like three years ago.

The movies themselves... For nostalgia reasons I will always love them, warts and all, and Chris Reeve pulled off a miracle with his portrayle. He doesn't have a badly acted scene in all 4 of those movies IMO and he's the reason to see those films. That being said , the first one aside , the films just haven't aged well and if not for Reeve and John Williams score, they probably wouldn't be as fondly remembered.

And I've said it before, while I do like the movies, and they are important in the genre, I do think they in some ways have had an inadvertent negative effect on the character because some creators and fans hold the films as the end all be all when it comes to Superman and has hurt his evolution in comics and other media compared to his contemporaries. For awhile in the mid 2000's I was starting to get the impression DC Comics thought Superman began in 1978, not 1938. In other words you don't see Batman being held up against the 1989 Batman movie or the Adam West series as THE standard blueprint. Superman in many ways is still held up against the Reeve films as the only proper way to do the character.

I agree with a lot of what you said here. I'm still ok with Superman II because I was so glad to see Superman go up against super powered foes. This scenario was better realized in Snyder's Man of Steel, but for 1981, Superman II gave us a great super-fight. If you think about it, we never really had that before. Not in the George Reeves' series and not in the Superfriends cartoons where they wouldn't show punching. So, Superman actually getting physical at the level of Superman II was really a novelty in media adaptations!

However, like you, I also have felt that writers who profess to be Superman fans are really just Superman MOVIE fans and that's all they know of the character. So, for a lot of writers they want to bring back their childhood and keep Superman trapped in 1978. This is another reason why I loved Man of Steel so much. Snyder wasn't having that.

Media adaptations becoming so predominant in writers' minds was also evident in Allan Heinberg's Wonder Woman One Year Later arc after Infinite Crisis. He made Diana a non-superpowered identity, brought back the spinning change, and made her a government agent. And it seemed like he patted himself on the back for this! Again, bringing Wonder Woman back to 1977 is not a good way to show us how much you love and understand the character.

I know people loved Christopher Reeve and Lynda Carter from their childhoods, but we have to let go and let the characters stay current. I know Zack Snyder is polarizing, but he did give us Henry Cavill and Gal Gadot who both did great jobs and allowed the characters to move forward from their previous media incarnations.

Another thing I agree with you, and Jim Kelly, about is the quality of the tin case DVD set of the Superman movies. Over time, the surface of the discs has become damaged. It still might be partially playable, and sometimes you can work around it because when the playback skips over a damaged area, you can often rewind close to where you left off, but basically the damage to the disc surface is not fixable as it is "disc rot" rather than mere scratches. If your disc surface looks something like the below, forget it. Buy the Blu-Ray, which are better quality discs or better yet, see if there's digital copies of the movies on, say, Vudu that can be bought.



I was at first resistant to Hollywood's seeming desire to move us away from owning physical media and to make everything streaming digital copies, but over time I am seeing the wisdom in not having to warehouse physical media -- whether it be books, comics, cartridges, CDs, DVDs, Blu-Rays etc, that take up tons of space and can deteriorate over time -- and switch to digital copies that can be stored in the cloud. It takes getting used to, but there are lots of benefits to going all-digital, and I think that kids today are owning fewer and fewer things in a physical format, so it is the way of the future.

[BBally]

IMO, Superman The Movie is for those who grew up with it. Newer generations aren't impressed by it anymore. At least not the majority.

I think the first 2 movies are solid. the first is pretty great, but today's sensibilities are different. It's why we see lots of young people very into the Snyder Superman films but the older crowd who grew up with Reeve as Supes feel alienated. Not all but many.

I know a number of new viewers who were extremely impressed by the film and they feel that for the most part the film feels timeless

[dancj]

It's been a long time since I've seen the theatrical cut but, in the original Donner cut or as much of it as Donner could piece together, he does it because Jor-El says he has to do it if he's going to live a normal life where he falls in love with someone. It's not because he can't have sex with her while he has his powers because, in the Donner cut, he already had sex with her before [for some reason] asking the lifeless recordings from his father for permission to have a relationship with her. It was basically the prevailing television and movie fiction of the time, that the sheriff can't get married because of the risk to the family.

That's exactly how I remember the theatrical cut - though I think it was Lara instead of Jor-el because they didn't want to pay for Marlon Brando.

[Stick Figure]

Nostalgia for these movies smothers the creativity. If there’s one character that needs shaken up it’s Superman. I loved MOS but ias long the next film is fresh, then I welcome it. Just move on.

[stargazer01]

I know a number of new viewers who were extremely impressed by the film and they feel that for the most part the film feels timeless

That's nice. I can't say the same.

[Gurz]

Christopher Reeve is the one true Superman.

[Stick Figure]

Christopher Reeve is the one true Superman.

That was the attitude of the Superman movie Facebook page I was on. At the time, I thought was just a page about Superman movies and not just the old films. Dude was getting on people for spelling Reeve as Reeves or something fanatic like that. I get liking an actor and he’s your guy but I don’t get thinking one actor defines a role. I love Cavill but I’ll be happy if the next guy is good with a strong story. He doesn’t even need the costume Cavill wore just tell a good story.

[manofsteel1979]

I agree with a lot of what you said here. I'm still ok with Superman II because I was so glad to see Superman go up against super powered foes. This scenario was better realized in Snyder's Man of Steel, but for 1981, Superman II gave us a great super-fight. If you think about it, we never really had that before. Not in the George Reeves' series and not in the Superfriends cartoons where they wouldn't show punching. So, Superman actually getting physical at the level of Superman II was really a novelty in media adaptations!

However, like you, I also have felt that writers who profess to be Superman fans are really just Superman MOVIE fans and that's all they know of the character. So, for a lot of writers they want to bring back their childhood and keep Superman trapped in 1978. This is another reason why I loved Man of Steel so much. Snyder wasn't having that.

Media adaptations becoming so predominant in writers' minds was also evident in Allan Heinberg's Wonder Woman One Year Later arc after Infinite Crisis. He made Diana a non-superpowered identity, brought back the spinning change, and made her a government agent. And it seemed like he patted himself on the back for this! Again, bringing Wonder Woman back to 1977 is not a good way to show us how much you love and understand the character.

I know people loved Christopher Reeve and Lynda Carter from their childhoods, but we have to let go and let the characters stay current. I know Zack Snyder is polarizing, but he did give us Henry Cavill and Gal Gadot who both did great jobs and allowed the characters to move forward from their previous media incarnations.

Another thing I agree with you, and Jim Kelly, about is the quality of the tin case DVD set of the Superman movies. Over time, the surface of the discs has become damaged. It still might be partially playable, and sometimes you can work around it because when the playback skips over a damaged area, you can often rewind close to where you left off, but basically the damage to the disc surface is not fixable as it is "disc rot" rather than mere scratches. If your disc surface looks something like the below, forget it. Buy the Blu-Ray, which are better quality discs or better yet, see if there's digital copies of the movies on, say, Vudu that can be bought.



I was at first resistant to Hollywood's seeming desire to move us away from owning physical media and to make everything streaming digital copies, but over time I am seeing the wisdom in not having to warehouse physical media -- whether it be books, comics, cartridges, CDs, DVDs, Blu-Rays etc, that take up tons of space and can deteriorate over time -- and switch to digital copies that can be stored in the cloud. It takes getting used to, but there are lots of benefits to going all-digital, and I think that kids today are owning fewer and fewer things in a physical format, so it is the way of the future.

The irony of my Superman DVD's from the tin set is they still look immaculate. No scuffing or scratches or even disc rot. They just stopped working. With the Superman 2 Donner cut it was literally like within a few days. It was the first disc to die. I had played it three days prior, no problems, then that day popped it in my player to look at something and it wouldn't load. Then the others followed suit, aside from Superman IV , which I tried yesterday out of curiosity and it STILL plays.

As for physical media... I still get it and until they stop manufacturing discs, that's how I'll buy my movies and music. In my mind if I pay 20 bucks for a movie, I want to own it flat out. To me digital is not really owning something. Downloads can corrupt and if you are streaming it, it is on a server somewhere that can disappear at any time. Plus it can be altered at any time.

Ironically I guess Ive gone all digital for comics, but I'm still Leary of that too.

[Last Son]

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.

But it has been emulated, and the movies that emulate it tend to be very successful and well-liked. Nearly every successful superhero movie director I can think of has cited STM and Donner as an influence. Kevin Feige said all MCU movies look at Superman as a template. Sure, emulating STM was bad for Superman Returns but that was much more literally than other examples such as Batman Begins which Nolan has said influenced how he structured the origin story. The reason Superman has a place in history is because it continues to influence the superhero movie genre to this day.

Nostalgia for these movies smothers the creativity. If there’s one character that needs shaken up it’s Superman. I loved MOS but ias long the next film is fresh, then I welcome it. Just move on.

How often does nostalgia for the Donner movies actually smother creativity? Zack Snyder is the first director to actually make a Superman movie that diverged from the Donner style of Superman, and he was getting mixed reactions from critics and moviegoers before Man of Steel. I think all those critics and fans who are supposedly too close-minded to accept modern interpretations of Superman would be willing to open their minds if the movie were actually good. For instance, if the next Batman movie ends up sucking, wouldn't it only be natural for those people to long for the days of Christopher Nolan? Would that really be so unreasonable?

[JAK]

Just an FYI folks, if you're in the US: Vudu is a great way to do the Superman movies - and I mean just about all of them.

Get a Vudu account and an Ultraviolet account and link them using "disc-to-digital" in the Vudu mobile app by scanning the barcodes of your single-movie titles (bundles don't work, sadly) and you can get the digital versions for about $2 + tax. Nice an cheap. No option yet for upgrading to UHD, but I think if you own the DVD you can upgrade to the HDX (blu-ray quality) for $5 each - and there are some titles on there that they don't even have out on blu-ray (classic films, Elvis movies, etc), so it's a nice way to upgrade.

Just wanted to pass that along. Oh, and you might want to do it quick, because Ultraviolet is closing on July 31st - and I don't know what'll happen to the "disc-to-digital" service after that.


Edit: UPDATE! looks like "movies anywhere" might be in the mix now, and I have both that and Ultraviolet as well as Vudu... if that helps at all.

[DrNewGod]

The FX of the films were unquestionably a product of their times, and their relative innocence was an effort to reach even further back in time. The first two films, however, were really gold.

[Jim Kelly]

Well, the effects were products of their time in the sense that the production crew used available tools to create the effects. But they were developing new optical effects just for that movie. It was a step forward in effects work. You could say the same thing about CITIZEN KANE or AVATAR--the director of photography and the production crew developed new techniques using the available tools of the time to do things that no movies before had done.

[Osiris-Rex]

Nostalgia for these movies smothers the creativity. If there’s one character that needs shaken up it’s Superman. I loved MOS but ias long the next film is fresh, then I welcome it. Just move on.

Myself I hate it when a director strays so far from the source material that the character becomes unrecognizable. That is what I hated about the Catwoman movie. Tim Burton shook up the character
but she was still recognizable as the Catwoman. Likewise with Man of Steel, it just strayed too far from what Superman was all about and meant to people, in the theater seats and in his world.
If a director wants to get creative, create his own superhero, like Darkman or Hancock.