Make ONE tweak to each Superman movie.

[JAK]

Is'nt that what happened in bvs? The fight was interrupted by doomsday and martha.

Not really - unless Martha's name counts as Martha.

I'm talking about actually interrupting the fight: either by coming forward in a big "I am villain" announcement with threats to the city or something (think Luthor in Superman: The Movie except everyone can hear it), or by taking shots at the fighting heroes. That would have been a typical 80's style fight-breakup.

[manwhohaseverything]

Not really - unless Martha's name counts as Martha.

I'm talking about actually interrupting the fight: either by coming forward in a big "I am villain" announcement with threats to the city or something (think Luthor in Superman: The Movie except everyone can hear it), or by taking shots at the fighting heroes. That would have been a typical 80's style fight-breakup.

I found this thought you might like it.

[Powerboy]

I found this thought you might like it.

That's fantastic. I'd definitely go see that if it was real. I think there was a Chris Reeve/ Adam West version of Batman vs. Superman trailer done too. Hopefully, there's a George Reeves, Adam West, Lynda Carter Justice League trailer out there somewhere.

[Adekis]

Thing is, the ONE "tweak" I'd make to the first Chris Reeve Superman: The Movie would have such ramifications for the franchise as a whole that I'm not sure it even qualifies as a "tweak", but I figure if rewriting Superman III to involve Brainiac is a "tweak", then so is this I guess.

Basically, I resent that the film treats Superman as a man out of time, a Rockwellian embodiment of Old Timey Values, standing at odds with a cynical modern world, winning that world over with sheer charm. Frankly, this conception of the character is where Frank Miller gets the idea that'd he'd work for Ronald Reagan - because they're both trying to go back to the Good Old Days, morally speaking.

Here's the thing: we had Superman during those "Good Old Days," and he sure didn't act like they were a good thing to be maintained. He wanted to strive beyond them. From Jerry Siegel to George Reeves, "Classic" Superman was always a progressive figure. The Salkinds, perhaps not being as familiar with the character (since Alexander Salkind had apparently not even really heard of him when Ilya proposed the movie?) didn't seem to factor that element of Superman's core into their film as much - and then for a generation, Chris Reeve's Superman became the new normal, the new heart of the character. And I truly think the fact that the Salkinds' Superman got portrayed as retro lessened his potential for engaging with the true evils of the contemporary world.

My change, if it's not obvious by now, is to restore the "classic" characterization - not necessarily making him less idealistic or more "political," but giving him a stronger baseline to work off of, to relate to modernity.

I don't know how the movie would be different, if it treated Superman as more in line with his characterization from Superman and the Mole Men, but one thing's for sure: it'd change the next forty years of his development as a character within pop culture, to say nothing of the next three movies.

Might add more movie changes later, to other films!

[manwhohaseverything]

Thing is, the ONE "tweak" I'd make to the first Chris Reeve Superman: The Movie would have such ramifications for the franchise as a whole that I'm not sure it even qualifies as a "tweak", but I figure if rewriting Superman III to involve Brainiac is a "tweak", then so is this I guess.

Basically, I resent that the film treats Superman as a man out of time, a Rockwellian embodiment of Old Timey Values, standing at odds with a cynical modern world, winning that world over with sheer charm. Frankly, this conception of the character is where Frank Miller gets the idea that'd he'd work for Ronald Reagan - because they're both trying to go back to the Good Old Days, morally speaking.

Here's the thing: we had Superman during those "Good Old Days," and he sure didn't act like they were a good thing to be maintained. He wanted to strive beyond them. From Jerry Siegel to George Reeves, "Classic" Superman was always a progressive figure. The Salkinds, perhaps not being as familiar with the character (since Alexander Salkind had apparently not even really heard of him when Ilya proposed the movie?) didn't seem to factor that element of Superman's core into their film as much - and then for a generation, Chris Reeve's Superman became the new normal, the new heart of the character. And I truly think the fact that the Salkinds' Superman got portrayed as retro lessened his potential for engaging with the true evils of the contemporary world.

My change, if it's not obvious by now, is to restore the "classic" characterization - not necessarily making him less idealistic or more "political," but giving him a stronger baseline to work off of, to relate to modernity.

I don't know how the movie would be different, if it treated Superman as more in line with his characterization from Superman and the Mole Men, but one thing's for sure: it'd change the next forty years of his development as a character within pop culture, to say nothing of the next three movies.

Might add more movie changes later, to other films!

I don't think that was the intent. But, i do believe that is the result. Why? I don't think they haven't read goldenage or aren't familiar with the character in that way. The first half is basically goldenage with clark racing the train(that was a markout moment) , that bit with pa reprimanding clark for showing of leading to his death and Clark's inability to save him and clark deciding to leave for the big city. Ofcourse, donner just put a kryptonIan twist to it. We also have clark basically bullying a couple of guys in those movies. Moreover, i believe it's more the perception than the reality of that iteration that causes typecasting of superman. I mean, with the backdrop of farmlands and the whole goofy guy in cynical world might have had people thinking that's superman. When in the actual movie, that guy(clark kent with glasses and his naivete ) is fake and he decides to leave that life behind. Moreover, there is this struggle of clark to unite the world as he sees it from the space. Granted, chris reeve superman didn't have the zorro-esque dashing debonair fire nor the grit of that Superman. But, i do believe that happened due to the general evolution that occurred to the character especially after comicscode became a thing. This is still what superman should be.(granted, superman was the one man vigilante force and a friend,he was both.Hence, the champion. More importantly, it was empathy making clark act and not self righteous indignation . He did make political statements. His first s symbol was a statement)

And no a rule clinging boyscout isn't what donner ever had in mind, i believe.He was going for an idealist that values ideals like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Even if that was what became of that sortof portrayal's outcome

[Jon Clark]

I think part of the problem is that Superman the Movie was a product of the 1970's. It reflects an America (in Metropolis) that has just lost it's first war (Vietnam), had faith in government totally shredded (Watergate) and the economy going down the sewer. Chris Reeve was portraying a guy whose idealism went out of fashion sometime between November 22, 1963 and August 1974. The only heroes were guys like Eastwood's "Dirty' Harry Callahan or Charles Bronson in Death Wish who violently dealt with criminals. And Superman wasn't like that anymore. He hadn't been like that ever as far as most moviegoers in 1978 knew.

So as shown in his interview with Lois, Superman embodied ideals that no one took seriously in the 1970's. His idealism wasn't made a character flaw that he needed to move beyond. but it also made clear that Superman was out of step with general society. And that idea stuck even if the movie showed Superman as right and heroic.

[manwhohaseverything]

I think part of the problem is that Superman the Movie was a product of the 1970's. It reflects an America (in Metropolis) that has just lost it's first war (Vietnam), had faith in government totally shredded (Watergate) and the economy going down the sewer. Chris Reeve was portraying a guy whose idealism went out of fashion sometime between November 22, 1963 and August 1974. The only heroes were guys like Eastwood's "Dirty' Harry Callahan or Charles Bronson in Death Wish who violently dealt with criminals. And Superman wasn't like that anymore. He hadn't been like that ever as far as most moviegoers in 1978 knew.

So as shown in his interview with Lois, Superman embodied ideals that no one took seriously in the 1970's. His idealism wasn't made a character flaw that he needed to move beyond. but it also made clear that Superman was out of step with general society. And that idea stuck even if the movie showed Superman as right and heroic.

Funny enough, captain america is an idealist. But, he doesn't feel out of touch. Especially, when we get to winter soldier. It's like his ideals make him give an edge

[JAK]

I found this thought you might like it.

Ok, that's freaking awesome!

I don't think that was the intent. But, i do believe that is the result. Why? I don't think they haven't read goldenage or aren't familiar with the character in that way. The first half is basically goldenage with clark racing the train(that was a markout moment) , that bit with pa reprimanding clark for showing of leading to his death and Clark's inability to save him and clark deciding to leave for the big city. Ofcourse, donner just put a kryptonIan twist to it. We also have clark basically bullying a couple of guys in those movies. Moreover, i believe it's more the perception than the reality of that iteration that causes typecasting of superman. I mean, with the backdrop of farmlands and the whole goofy guy in cynical world might have had people thinking that's superman. When in the actual movie, that guy(clark kent with glasses and his naivete ) is fake and he decides to leave that life behind. Moreover, there is this struggle of clark to unite the world as he sees it from the space. Granted, chris reeve superman didn't have the zorro-esque dashing debonair fire nor the grit of that Superman. But, i do believe that happened due to the general evolution that occurred to the character especially after comicscode became a thing. This is still what superman should be.(granted, superman was the one man vigilante force and a friend,he was both.Hence, the champion. More importantly, it was empathy making clark act and not self righteous indignation . He did make political statements. His first s symbol was a statement)

And no a rule clinging boyscout isn't what donner ever had in mind, i believe.He was going for an idealist that values ideals like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Even if that was what became of that sortof portrayal's outcome

Beautifully put!

I think part of the problem is that Superman the Movie was a product of the 1970's. It reflects an America (in Metropolis) that has just lost it's first war (Vietnam), had faith in government totally shredded (Watergate) and the economy going down the sewer. Chris Reeve was portraying a guy whose idealism went out of fashion sometime between November 22, 1963 and August 1974. The only heroes were guys like Eastwood's "Dirty' Harry Callahan or Charles Bronson in Death Wish who violently dealt with criminals. And Superman wasn't like that anymore. He hadn't been like that ever as far as most moviegoers in 1978 knew.

So as shown in his interview with Lois, Superman embodied ideals that no one took seriously in the 1970's. His idealism wasn't made a character flaw that he needed to move beyond. but it also made clear that Superman was out of step with general society. And that idea stuck even if the movie showed Superman as right and heroic.

This is my thinking, too. In the 40's, Superman was a reaction to corruption. in the late 70's, he was a reaction to cynicism. It was right for the time, and can work now too, but it might not be quite what modern times call for. Honestly, now is probably the best time for a Golden Age portrayal (as Adekis had in mind) than we've seen since the 30's/40's - and that only becomes more true with time.

Funny enough, captain america is an idealist. But, he doesn't feel out of touch. Especially, when we get to winter soldier. It's like his ideals make him give an edge

Imo, this might have more to do with how the movie presents the two in their respective contexts than the characters themselves. The dialogue in S:TM specifically frames Clark/Superman in this way several times, even if he's shown to be right. Cap, partially because of the more serious setup, isn't framed that way.

it really wouldn't take much to get Superman to where Cap is, WB just has to put the work in. And I'm honestly not 100% sure they're up to it.

[Powerboy]

I think part of the problem is that Superman the Movie was a product of the 1970's. It reflects an America (in Metropolis) that has just lost it's first war (Vietnam), had faith in government totally shredded (Watergate) and the economy going down the sewer. Chris Reeve was portraying a guy whose idealism went out of fashion sometime between November 22, 1963 and August 1974. The only heroes were guys like Eastwood's "Dirty' Harry Callahan or Charles Bronson in Death Wish who violently dealt with criminals. And Superman wasn't like that anymore. He hadn't been like that ever as far as most moviegoers in 1978 knew.

So as shown in his interview with Lois, Superman embodied ideals that no one took seriously in the 1970's. His idealism wasn't made a character flaw that he needed to move beyond. but it also made clear that Superman was out of step with general society. And that idea stuck even if the movie showed Superman as right and heroic.

That's basically it. StM was a movie made in the culture of it's time and making a statement about that culture. It was a time when trust in government had just been lost coming out of an America where people had generally not just assumed that every government official was evil and self-serving.

Arthur C. Clarke once said that all it takes is fifty years to change a culture beyond recognition. Well, forty years is most of the change. It's a big mistake to watch something from that far back with the assumption that the thoughts, ideals, social norms and knowledge are the same as now because then you're reading stuff into it that wasn't intended at all.

An example is the Amnesia Kiss which I later found revolting as awareness of certain things changed but disliked then only because it meant the relationship would go nowhere in future movies.

A classic example is the Honeymooners with the "To the Moon, Alice" jokes which modern people might think were a defense of actual wife abuse. But the awareness that such things really happened and happened a lot just wasn't there at the time and it was just meant as a joke.

But the late 1970s had become a time of such extreme cynicism that, indeed, the Superman of that movie was meant as an optimist and a symbol of what was lost and needed to get back to. But it wasn't meant as him being a dork but as a positive role model in a move landscape of killer cops. As George Lucas said, his own movie was in some ways a reaction to all the negative role models of the time.

In my opinion, M o S would have benefited by not playing into the negatives of the culture of our time but making a positive statement somewhat against it.

[Güicho]

Somewhere between:
1987- Superman IV: The Quest for Peace and 1989 - Batman
Christopher Reeve (36)
Lynda Carter (37)
Michael Keaton (37)
all about the same age
DC/WB has the vision for a parallel Trinity team-up film with all three.

I found this thought you might like it.

I'm gonna swipe your comment as if it was also in reply to me.
Cause that is just awesome!!

I imagine if this had actually happened at the time somewhere between 89-90 , Christopher Reeve and Lynda Carter (who yes were still the right age compared to Keaton and Nicholson) , would have gotten updated costumes, to match the (rubbery sculpted one piece) aesthetic of the Keaton Batman and Shipp era Flash, and likley a more Xena/MCmovie Kitana style for WW.
And yeah Elfman would have scored.

[stargazer01]

Just ONE hmm..

Superman the Movie - Don't kill Lois Lane, so don't turn back time, it makes Superman look very selfish and OP. It didn't age well, IMO. Maybe someone else rescues Lois, or she gets out of the car somehow just in time. We don't see it until Superman discovers it himself.

Superman 2 - Don't erase Lois' mind with the kiss.. It's stupid. Let her know who he is and deal with it like an adult. I would later find a way for them to be together like the comics.

Superman 3 - Make it more about Superman/Clark and less comedic, and introduce Brainiac pulling the strings from behind.

Superman 4 - Less goofiness and more drama. Bigger budget and instead of Nuclear Man, introduce Bizarro.

Superman Returns - This is challenging.. He tells Lois he has to go to find Krypton, or instead of lifting the island, he fights a supervillain created by Lex. Maybe Bizarro, Parasite or Metallo.

Man of Steel - This is easy, kill Pa Kent in a way that even Clark can't save him in time. Maybe Clark saves a child and later realizes Pa was also dying at the same time. Just don't make Clark look and do nothing, that's not Superman, imo.

BvS - Show a more upbeat Superman helping AND interacting with regular people he helps and their reactions of love and gratitude. Make us really care about him and show him a lot less mopey.

Justice League - I would delay this movie a whole year to fix the script.. I still like it quite a bit.. I guess I'd make sure the CGI was a lot better. I loved Supes in this movie, but I wanted more of him I guess.

[Soubhagya]

I will go from latest to oldest

Justice League: Don't remove the mustache. Add a beard.

images.jpg

BvS: Removing Luthor and everything he did would let you focus on Batman v Superman. But since that's a big change i would change only the titular fight. Batman and Superman should be fight of the century. Its the fight between a guy who can do anything and a guy who prepares for everything. Why is it limited to a 5 minute skirmish in a bathroom?

It shall be longer. Maybe shot in daylight. But definitely be more then some tiny distractions before devolving into punches, kicks, a sink and some cable. What if Batman gets into a jet and shoots down Superman with a dozen missiles? What if he fries Superman with power of the entire city? (Which actually happened) What if Batman lets loose 3 Bat-tanks which Superman destroys by a wrecking ball? (Morrison's Superman is dope!) What if Batman sends a hundred drones from a satellite, but Superman destroys the satellite itself. Be creative.

If the titular fight was memorable people would have something to talk about other then Martha.

Man of Steel: The film would be better off without that Zod fight. Its high point is the time when Superman chooses Earth over Krypton. One can say Kal's character arc is complete. Zod fight is a window dressing because he did not show any special concern for saving life. He was busy saving his world which was the conflict.

Superman Returns: Transform Kal Penn into Parasite. Or any villain for that matter who could physically challenge Superman. It blows my mind that after the likes of Spider-man and X-Men showed the way, there are no fights with supervillains. Even Superman 4 had Nuclear Man. If the final act had a good superhero brawl most people will go out of the theater talking favorably even if it was boring before that.

Superman 4: I forget the name of the company who made the film. Just don't give it to them. The story had a far bigger scope then what they could afford. If no one else was willing, don't make it.

Superman 3: Remove Richard Pryror. I have heard that he was pretty good. But seeing some wannabe Charlie Chaplin hijacking a Superman movie with his unfunny antics is embarassing.

Superman 2: Remove that mindwipe kiss. Its weird and creepy. If you don't want the couple together break them up in the sequels. That is far more preferable to this trash.

Superman: Remove the Lois monologue while flying with Superman. Letting the excellent love theme play over silent expressions would lend the feel of a classic silent movie. That poem is not needed. For me the movie is close to perfect. This maybe the one change i actually want.