Were the Christopher Reeve SUPERMAN movies "light" by 1970s/1980s standards?

[Last Son]

I think it's a little silly to compare the Superman movies to gritty R rated crime dramas. No, the Reeve movies were not especially light compared to other films of the sci-fi/adventure genre. Take Indiana Jones for example. It's dark, but at the same time, every action sequence is comical in tone.

[Powerboy]

I think the Reeve movies came across as lighter by the standards of their time than MoS came across by the standards of now because MoS very intentionally went for a very bleak, dark feeling. This is not a criticism of either MoS or the Reeve movies.

For one thing, as Donner himself said, the first Superman movie is really three movies.

Part One is "The Ancient Myth". This is Krypton. By the standards of it's time, this seemed very "heavy" and I don't think you can do the story of a world dying and parents having to know they are saying goodbye to their child forever, a child who will never even know them, and have it be all bright and cheery. I think this part was "dark" but only as much as was natural for it to be, not intentionally going for dark for the sake of dark.

Part Two is "The American or Western Coming of Age Myth". This is Smallville. This too is dark. Again, not going out of it's way to be dark for the sake of dark. But the death of his adoptive father and knowing he has to leave his mother, not sure if or when he can ever return. Allowing himself to be victimized to hide his identity. There's definitely some bleakness there. But it's just making it as serious and dramatic as it should be. The concept of striving intentionally to be dark because that's the in way to do everything wasn't there yet.

Part Three: "The Super Hero Myth". Then Donner realizes that this can only go so far. This is a Superman movie and it needs a change of pace. We get to the debut of Superman and, ironically, the movie gets fairly lighthearted, especially the Lex Luthor stuff.

I know lots of people hate that part. In college, there was a Humanities professor who saw the movie and said something along the lines of, "What was with that first half hour? I felt like I was watching an enactment of the story of Genesis. It was trying to be soooo serious. For crying out loud, it's Superman. He's a comic book character, for heaven's sake. It's supposed to be fun. Thank goodness for Gene Hackman. He totally saved that movie."

Personally, I thought the Hackman Lex Luthor was way over the top. But I thought the movie generally was very "adult". There was the line where Superman says, "Peter Pan flew with children, Lois, in a fairy tale", implying that this was not a story just for children. This was a Superman for grownups.

The movies certainly had some humor in them and sometimes went for laughs where they should not have. Overall, no, the Reeve movies were not as dark by 1978-1980 standards as MoS was by 2013 standards.

This was pre-DKR, pre-Watchmen, etc. People didn't have the concept that a super hero story was supposed to be dark, dark, dark.

[Powerboy]

A few notes:

SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE

1. The death in the subway of the police detective who was tailing Otis to Luthor's subterranean lair. Nothing graphic was shown, but it was probably mildly disturbing for at least younger viewers.

2. The death of Lois in the earthquake. Obviously, this was immediately reversed through the notorious "reversal of the Earth/timeline" by Superman, but for a few minutes of film time, at least, Lois had died a horrible death, buried alive in the California desert.

SUPERMAN II

1. Ursa throwing that police car siren that clearly killed the boy (and presumably, the horse) who had gone for help on horseback.

2. Depending on which version you watch, you could believe that Superman and Lois killed Zod, Non, and Ursa in cold blood at the Fortress (some versions show the three Kryptonians being taken away alive by authorities, but this was not the most commonly seen version).

None of these considerations are enough to characterize the Christopher Reeve SUPERMAN movies as "dark," especially in comparison to current superhero films, but they were also perhaps not as absolutely light as their current reputation suggests.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

Just to note, I'm pretty sure the thing about the boy being killed was not in the original theatrical version. I remember being surprised by it when it showed up in the first television showing. It was filmed but they clearly chose to not show it in the theatrical release.

I think also in that time, there was the idea that a movie like "Superman" was clearly going to be a family movie and one that was made to be entertaining to both adults and children. I liken Reeve/ Cavill to the two versions of Battlestar Galactica in that the 1970's versions just took the family/ child aspect as a given while the more current versions are such that a a lot of people would never consider letting a child see them. There's just a different mentality now that some versions of a comic character are marketed to children but the live action big budget movies are not. Of course, there are also much looser ideas about what you'd let a child see.

[Jeremiah]

I think it's a little silly to compare the Superman movies to gritty R rated crime dramas. No, the Reeve movies were not especially light compared to other films of the sci-fi/adventure genre. Take Indiana Jones for example. It's dark, but at the same time, every action sequence is comical in tone.

The Indiana Jones movies came after the first few Superman movies. The 80's lightened up considerably, thanks in large part to Star Wars and Superman. Two of the most successful movies of the 70's. They both came out late in the decade and helped push the industry past the darker character studies that dominated the era.

[Powerboy]

The Indiana Jones movies came after the first few Superman movies. The 80's lightened up considerably, thanks in large part to Star Wars and Superman. Two of the most successful movies of the 70's. They both came out late in the decade and helped push the industry past the darker character studies that dominated the era.

I remember George Lucas saying in an interview in the late 1970's that most of the "heroes" kids had in those days were vigilantes, psycho cops and anti-heroes. He wanted to give them heroes again.

I would also point out that one thing that gives MoS a darker theme is that it's trying to be a super hero movie and a first contact with alien life movie. I think "Close Encounters" came out in 1974. The "First Contact" sub-genre of science fiction was in its infancy at the time in Hollywood. Just because Superman came from another planet, they didn't assume the story had to be a study in first contact with alien life. In terms of genre, it was a super hero movie. The First Contact aspect was a minimal part of it. MoS comes from the point of view that not only can you not avoid the first contact aspect (you can't) but that it needs to be the most important aspect of the movie.

There's no true or false. It's a point of view. But it gives the movie bleaker aspect.

Then there's the "grey lens" (no reference to the Lensmen) in MoS where everything is cast in a bleak, grey visual to eliminate vibrant colors and create a mood as opposed to the Reeve movies where he's in bright blue and red and generally the sky is blue. Again, there's no right or wrong way to do it here but it clearly indicates that the Reeve movies were going for a lighter feel and MoS for a darker one.