Does the "Action Comics" in Donner SUPERMAN exist?

[Jim Kelly]

The opening of Donner's 1978 SUPERMAN movie is weird. It begins, in black and white, with a little boy reading ACTION COMICS but not the actual comic book and then it cuts to an old movie of Superman but not an actual old movie (as far as I know), before it goes off into outer space.

But even though this ACTION COMICS didn't exist in the real world--not in 1938--the physical prop had to exist in the movie. I wonder how that came to be. They had to have artists draw the panels in the comic book and make a comic book from that. I wonder if this was just something the prop department threw together or if they got it from an outside source.

And after they shot that scene for the movie, what did they do with the prop comic book? Was it destroyed? Or does someone still own that comic book?

[Jim Kelly]

If no one knows what the heck I'm on about, here's a refresher (between 0:16 and 0:50)--

[williamtheday]

Good question. Probably the studio art department made the comic book. It might be a real collectors item if it still exists.

[Jim Kelly]

Good question. Probably the studio art department made the comic book. It might be a real collectors item if it still exists.

I expect, if it exists, then someone has it in their collection--or Warner Bros. has it in their vault. Usually with props they have mutliple copies in case something happens to one, they have a back-up.

When I was watching the movie again last month, I got stuck on this idea that the movie starts off showing multiple realities of Superman. This comic book which doesn't exist in our universe--not in June 1938--and then the black and white movie. So there's a universe where this kid saw both, but the comic book and the movie each present another version of Superman. So that's three realities. Then there's the Christopher Reeve Superman. A fourth universe. And then there's our universe where all these other universes are just fictions. So five universes--at least. In other words, a multiverse.

[Powerboy]

The opening of Donner's 1978 SUPERMAN movie is weird. It begins, in black and white, with a little boy reading ACTION COMICS but not the actual comic book and then it cuts to an old movie of Superman but not an actual old movie (as far as I know), before it goes off into outer space.

But even though this ACTION COMICS didn't exist in the real world--not in 1938--the physical prop had to exist in the movie. I wonder how that came to be. They had to have artists draw the panels in the comic book and make a comic book from that. I wonder if this was just something the prop department threw together or if they got it from an outside source.

And after they shot that scene for the movie, what did they do with the prop comic book? Was it destroyed? Or does someone still own that comic book?

I think the Action Comics thing was just to establish a connection to Superman's history and a brief glimpse of the Daily Planet building, presumably in the 1930s with a specific reference to June, 1938, was, again, just a way of generating nostalgic feelings (and it worked)

Not sure about the cover. My suspicion would be that the inner content of the comic was taken from a comic that already existed.

[Jim Kelly]

I think the Action Comics thing was just to establish a connection to Superman's history and a brief glimpse of the Daily Planet building, presumably in the 1930s with a specific reference to June, 1938, was, again, just a way of generating nostalgic feelings (and it worked)

Not sure about the cover. My suspicion would be that the inner content of the comic was taken from a comic that already existed.

I understand the exposition. It's a way of saying, remember Superman--he was in comic books and old movies--well, guess what, there's a new Superman in town, now go on this ride with us into the far stars.

But the self-reflexive bit can be an obstacle. One minute we're reminded that none of this is real, the next minute, we're supposed to suspend our disbelief and throw ourselves into the fantasy. Good that the opening credits are so long, you almost forget all those other contradictions you just watched by the time you get to Krypton.

I don't recognize the comic book from anything and it's not in the style of the 1930s. Nor does the movie look like an actual artifact of the period. Which is cool. They went to all the trouble of making this comic book and this mini-movie just for a few seconds of screen time. It shows the amount of care that was put into the film. And it's fun to think that somewhere out there, there's a prop comic book (maybe with more pages than we saw) and there's a reel of film (maybe more than just the old Planet building was shot).

[Powerboy]

I understand the exposition. It's a way of saying, remember Superman--he was in comic books and old movies--well, guess what, there's a new Superman in town, now go on this ride with us into the far stars.

But the self-reflexive bit can be an obstacle. One minute we're reminded that none of this is real, the next minute, we're supposed to suspend our disbelief and throw ourselves into the fantasy. Good that the opening credits are so long, you almost forget all those other contradictions you just watched by the time you get to Krypton.

I don't recognize the comic book from anything and it's not in the style of the 1930s. Nor does the movie look like an actual artifact of the period. Which is cool. They went to all the trouble of making this comic book and this mini-movie just for a few seconds of screen time. It shows the amount of care that was put into the film. And it's fun to think that somewhere out there, there's a prop comic book (maybe with more pages than we saw) and there's a reel of film (maybe more than just the old Planet building was shot).

I remember a commentary by some of the creative staff on "Smallville" when Christopher Reeve made his appearance. They were talking about how a movie from the late 1970s could still look so great thirty years later with no CGI and so on, to the point that only three decades later was it starting to look maybe not perfect but still reasonably holds up. They gave an example of a scene where Superman was flying and they spent literally three weeks filming that one scene, a scene that would be on-scree for less than ten seconds. They concluded that, when you are willing to put almost endless time and money into something until it looks as good as it can possibly look given the base technology, you can make something that will hold up beautifully for a relatively long time and that's the dedication Donner, Reeve and everyone put into it.

They didn't mention that Warner more or less took control of the movie and left the Salkinds behind, largely from what Donner was conveying to them.

[manwhohaseverything]

This was one of the coolest things of the movie for me.As for nostaligia generation,it precisely that and that's why it can't work like that anymore.

[Jim Kelly]

This was one of the coolest things of the movie for me.As for nostaligia generation,it precisely that and that's why it can't work like that anymore.

Yeah. Actually the coolest thing for me is, in the theatre, the curtains closed (I remember those curtains being gold) and then a red S was projected on those curtains. That's what got me hyped with anticipation. Then the theatre curtains opened and on the screen were the black and white curtains, which then also opened.