My controversial thoughts on SUPERMAN:The Movie: It's time to let it go.

[manofsteel1979]

So, earlier I made a slightly off topic posting in this thread. As it is almost a separate topic on it's own, I'd like to repost it here and perhaps have an in depth discussion about SMTM and it's both positive and negative effect on Superman across media.

so...here it is for your reading pleasure:

I love the first Reeve/Donner film and hold it dear to my heart. When I think of Superman, the first thought that flashes in my mind is that John Williams theme and Chris Reeve soaring in the sky.

That being said, when I can separate my nostalgic feelings towards the movie and what it represented to me when I was a kid, I think that in some profound ways, that film is responsible more than anything for Superman's image problems and why the character continues to struggle in comics and other media, mainly BECAUSE it was so successful.

In fact, looking at my first sentence there, that illustrates the problem. We hold an adaptation up as the be all end all.

Ever since 1978, Superman the comic book character, to one degree or another, has lived in the shadow of the Richard Donner/Ilya Salkind/Chris Reeve version of the character. When the movie came out, the Superman on the big screen was a far cry from the Superman DC Comics published. Yes, Reeve looked and in many ways acted like his comics counterpart,but everything else was completely different. Movie Superman had a very simple backstory that could be summed up in a paragraph. By contrast, in the comics he had 4 decades of continuity and a fairly complicated back story that would have needed a two hour movie just to detail all the parts of his then existing origin that the film omitted, not to mention a vastly different interpretation of Krypton, his boyhood in SMALLVILLE and a nearly completely unrecognizable version of Lex Luthor.

It was largely because of SMTM's success that the idea to simplify and "fix" Superman and the DC Comics universe in general took root in the minds of Warner Bros executives and thus, DC Comics within 8 years of the film's release had done comic's first ever true "reboot" or house cleaning of its fictional universe, the centerpiece being a retooled Superman that bore a much stronger similarity to his movie counterpart than his prior incarnation.

Eventually that version around 2006 full on morphed into a carbon copy of the movie version from 1978, complete with Superman drawn like Chris Reeve.

Ever since to one degree or another, we have seen an adaptation of the source material guide the development and evolution of said material. The tail wagging the dog as it were. I think that subtle change in the equation is a big reason why Superman has struggled over the last 30 years or so. The Reeve film became the base source material in the minds of the pop culture zetigiest that anything that deviates from it is seen by a very vocal contingent as "not Superman" and that contingent seek to keep Superman sealed in amber to forever keep him "pure" and the memory of that incarnation alive (which I think the tragic turn Reeve's life took in the 90's even further strengthened this)....while the rest see the character through the dated lens of the 1978 film and classify him as forever irrelevant. The comics version thus was (is?)left twisting in the wind because it really became irrelevant in the big picture. It was no longer driving the evolution of the character. The comics themselves became an adaptation of an adaptation.

I think that's part of the reasons why MAN OF STEEL was so controversial, even beyond the ending and the destruction stuff. It was the first adaptation of the character in 30+ years to challenge the notion that the Donner way was the only way to interpret Superman...and it was such a shock to the system. A NEEDED shock to the system IMO. (and even then it could be argued that MOS took some nods from the Donner film, like the A.I. Jor-El, Lois naming him Superman. The widowed Martha Kent. Smallville in Kansas. Zod as the main adversary...etc)

The last few years with the New 52 relaunch and MOS have helped turn the tide a bit in a proper direction toward allowing the source material (i.e. The comics) to once again drive the evolution of the character,but until the pop culture as a whole is forced to "let go" of the Donner film and put it back in it's proper place as the mere adaptation it was meant to be in the first place, and not some sacred text or bible, I think Superman will continue to struggle, in comics and in other media.

So...thoughts? Do you agree? Disagree? If so, why? Let's discuss.

[Agent Z]

I liked the Reeve movie for what it was, but yeah it's not the be all/end all for Superman.

[William300]

I haven't watched the original films more than once. I've never had any nostalgia for it. That said, I didn't care for MoS. I honestly don't think MoS received mixed reviews because of nostalgia or because it was too different from other versions of Superman. It got mixed reviews because many people thought it was lacking in many important things.

[Myskin]

Ever since to one degree or another, we have seen an adaptation of the source material guide the development and evolution of said material. The tail wagging the dog as it were. I think that subtle change in the equation is a big reason why Superman has struggled over the last 30 years or so. The Reeve film became the base source material in the minds of the pop culture zetigiest that anything that deviates from it is seen by a very vocal contingent as "not Superman" and that contingent seek to keep Superman sealed in amber to forever keep him "pure" and the memory of that incarnation alive (which I think the tragic turn Reeve's life took in the 90's even further strengthened this)....while the rest see the character through the dated lens of the 1978 film and classify him as forever irrelevant. The comics version thus was (is?)left twisting in the wind because it really became irrelevant in the big picture. It was no longer driving the evolution of the character. The comics themselves became an adaptation of an adaptation.

I largely agree with the point above. I'd add:

1-Personally speaking, I wasn't a fan of STM when I was a kid, either. But in recent years I simply began to hate it, because of the dogmatic assumption on fans' part that it should be considered THE definitive version of Superman mythos. Do you rememebr all the endless discussions about how John Williams' soundtack SHOULD be incorporated within MOS (which IMHO is a forgettable movie, by the way)? I'd put them in the same league with the discussions about Supes' trunks. That is, largely pointless discussions which don't face the real problems.
2- I think that STM has become a burden, plain and simple. If STM is not the one reason for the missed evolution of Superman in the latest 30+ years, it is surely among the main ones.
3- The fact that I don't like it doesn't mean that I don't recognize its objective importance within the evolution of pop culture in the latest decades (while, on the contrary, I think that Smalville is simply downright terrible). But I'd put it in the same league with Tron, rather than Blade Runner, Alien and the Terminator (and, IMHO, Mad Max, especially the last movie). That is, it is a movie with a large following which made it popular and important, but I can't find within STM the attention, the sophisticated and artistic quality which really qualifies a real innovation within popular culture.

[Francisco]

I haven't watched the original films more than once. I've never had any nostalgia for it. That said, I didn't care for MoS. I honestly don't think MoS received mixed reviews because of nostalgia or because it was too different from other versions of Superman. It got mixed reviews because many people thought it was lacking in many important things.

I remember the movie having positive word of mouth feedback until the nostalgia critics kicked in. Rotten tomatoes is full of disparaging reviews in which MOS is destroyed for not been like STM and Cavill criticized for not aping Reeve. Nostalgia might haven't been the only reason it go mixed reviews but was undoubtedly the main reason.

[dumbduck]

Agreed. Superman 1 and 2 had the same kind of magic as Star Wars. They didn't age as well, Star Wars is just as 'clunky' but since it's a sci-fi universe it doesn't show as much. At any rate, I remember watching re-runs of SMT 1 and 2 and SW in the movies, and the audience whooped and cheered with the same intensity as SW. The phone booth/Helicopter/Lois rescue scene. It was really magic.

However, I think that the movie started the whole 'farmboy' thing with Superman. It worked really well in the big screen, and gave rise to the 'cornbred good values' that still to this day many comic book writers can't seem to let go. It was only worsened by Smallville. Sincerely I wonder if real rural people get offended by the depiction of the naive aw-chucks farmboy. In this day and age with quick transport, internet, etc, the 'aw-chucks' farmboy is really anacronic, especially in a developed country like the USA. It's just as problematic as the Daily Planet became.

And just like they never use Clark's investigative/analitical skills even when he is Superman, the farm should have been better used. Superman lost a lot of leadership skills and gravitas, they should have made him at least the heart of the team. Take them to the farm a few times for rest/recovery/connection. Yes, I say this after having watched Avengers, but the writers are paid to think about these things.

It collored a lot of the public counciousness and creators:

“You can tell even in the Christopher Reeve movies, they kind of struggled with the same thing. Sometimes they would get it right, sometimes they wouldn’t. They kind of got him right, but they lost it with the villains—they were still lost in that old-school, Adam West Batman, hokey camp. But they pretty much got Superman right, and they were able to play him as, ‘Truth, Justice, and the American Way,’ with a straight face. You kind of giggled but, at the same time, you thought, ‘Wow, this guy really believes it.’ It’s somehow strangely not corny. We had to find our own way of doing that. In retrospect, I think we did a really good job on the Superman show. It was a little bit more of a struggle than the Batman show but, ultimately, I think it was a pretty darn good show (courtesy of Modern Masters: Bruce Timm).”

Granted, it's only part of B.T.'s contradictory thoughts about the character, but there you go.

It's time to let it go.

[Auguste Dupin]

Heh. Truth be told, I didn't see the Donner movie until I was in high school, so I have no idea how I'd have felt about that movie as a kid.
Looking at it from an older perspective, what always strikes me about it is that it's actually two movies in one.
There's the movie until he becomes Superman, which is pretty much an epic with obvious use of religious subtext. The movie is pretty serious, and takes its time to tell you the story of that saviour from space here to redeem the human race. I like that movie very much and I have no complain. It's classic Campbelian stuff, but it's well done and you can't wait to see how he's going to be the "light that shows the way".
Then there's the movie after he becomes Superman, where it becomes this weird half taken seriously, half Adam West Batman hybrid which doesn't work nearly as well. For one funny Superman/Clark Kent dynamic, you have Luthor and his moronic henchmen. I dunno, the movie feels a bit underwhelming at that point. You were promised a saviour, you get a guy who catches cat buglars. I mean, it's nice and all, but it doesn't really sells you that you need that guy around (not until the very end, anyway).
It also has hilarious plot holes, from Lois' interview having details Superman didn't gave her (despite the scene not leaving any moment where he could have told her off screen), to Luthor somehow figuring out that the green meteor is actually a fragment of Krypton that will hurt Superman despite having no fact whatsoever to back his theory up. And of course, the ending is a big no no. First because it kills off any dramatic impact any movie might have from now on and second, well.....because it makes no sense. I mean, let's just go along and accept that he can go back in time. How does that work? Are there two Superman now? If so, what happened to the other one, the one who didn't go back in time? Did he somehow replace the original Superman? If so, did he stop the first nuke, the one reason he didn't manage to save Lois? Did the nuke striked the place where Luthor's henchwoman lives? Did he somehow managed to stop both nukes? If so, how?
I don't ask for grim and gritty, but I kinda like when movies make some level of sense.
As far as characters go, it's a mixed bag. Christopher Reeve clearly carries the second part of the movie on his shoulders. Luthor might (emphasis on "might") have worked if not for the stupid henchmen, but as it stands, someone who can't have better goons isn't credible as the most dangerous man in the world. I kinda don't like Lois here. She's a hairhead who never shows any admirable trait (or does anything, really), and I really don't see what Superman sees in her and I feel like they fall in love just because. Jimmy is non existent, and Perry is pretty one dimensional.
Jor El and Pa Kent are good, but that's the first part of the movie.
I dunno, I think even my kid self would have found Star Wars, or Back to the Future to be much better movies than this. On the other hand, it invented the basic superhero movie structure and has a lot of cool moments, so it's not all bad. Just a movie that didn't age all that well.

[William300]

I remember the movie having positive word of mouth feedback until the nostalgia critics kicked in. Rotten tomatoes is full of disparaging reviews in which MOS is destroyed for not been like STM and Cavill criticized for not aping Reeve. Nostalgia might haven't been the only reason it go mixed reviews but was undoubtedly the main reason.

for some. but not for me. I can't even remember half of the original film. I don't even own it.

[Blacksun]

So, earlier I made a slightly off topic posting in this thread. As it is almost a separate topic on it's own, I'd like to repost it here and perhaps have an in depth discussion about SMTM and it's both positive and negative effect on Superman across media.

so...here it is for your reading pleasure:



So...thoughts? Do you agree? Disagree? If so, why? Let's discuss.

agree some parts, but not everything. What made MOS bad was when they try to buty Reeves superman completely.

reeves is a big weight on superman creators but it doesn't mean threw it on garbage, MOS ending up making people nostalgic for Reeves

[Flash Gordon]

I've often wondered how fantastic it COULD have been, if Gene Hackman was allowed to play it straight.

Or, how great Kevin Spacey could have been if he could have had something to do other than build a big ice island for some reason.

Even as a kid I could never take Lex seriously with Otis around. SMALLVILLE had the best Lex Luthor of all, and the shabby Season 11 comics brought Otis in and I stopped buying them.

[Auguste Dupin]

I've often wondered how fantastic it COULD have been, if Gene Hackman was allowed to play it straight.

Or, how great Kevin Spacey could have been if he could have had something to do other than build a big ice island for some reason.

Even as a kid I could never take Lex seriously with Otis around. SMALLVILLE had the best Lex Luthor of all, and the shabby Season 11 comics brought Otis in and I stopped buying them.

Worst.Plan. Ever.
Seriously, what's with Luthor and his stupid plans in movies? The guy's supposed to be a genius.

[Francisco]

Worst.Plan. Ever.
Seriously, what's with Luthor and his stupid plans in movies? The guy's supposed to be a genius.

The worst part is Lex was already rich beyond his wildest imagination. He could have used the Kryptonian technology to do whatever he wanted yet he chose to create an island and kill hundreds of millions of people. Genius

[Auguste Dupin]

The worst part is Lex was already rich beyond his wildest imagination. He could have used the Kryptonian technology to do whatever he wanted yet he chose to create an island and kill hundreds of millions of people. Genius

Yeah, let's sink the Eastern Coast of the US to create a bunch of dull rocks, that you plan to use as real estate despite the fact it looks completely unhabitable, and with no visible weapon to defend yourself and your 5 goons from the obviously incomming military attack. How could it possibly backfire?
I said it before, I say it again: this is the worst plan in the history of vilainous plot ever. Even Dr Evil's plans in the Austin Powers movies make more sense than this. I just don't get how no one at any point during the production, just looked at the script and said "wait, this is f.cking ridiculous".

[daBronzeBomma]

No one and nothing stays on top forever.

If the Superverse franchise is going to remain relevant, it can't keep worshipping at the altars of Donner and Reeve. The Batverse long since moved away from Burton and Keaton as the center of that franchise, and it has grown stronger for that independence. Heck, it's already moved past Nolan and Bale.

Which is not to say that SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE isn't good, it is. But it also no longer can be the primary influence of the entire Superverse franchise.

The Superverse needs to move forward. SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE (and its sequel SUPERMAN II) had its time as the apex of all things Superman. Nostalgia grows toxic after enough time passes. And nostalgia for S:TM & SII is hurting the Superverse now.

[Johnny Thunders!]

I am not letting go, but I can appreciate something new. I still like Sean Connery Bond movies and the Daniel Craig movies. Man of Steel has problems as a movie and a story that have nothing to do with nostalgia. The Chris Reeve movie tells the Superman story closer to Siegel and Shuster than Man of Steel which reminded me of an X Men movie, starring a Mutant version of Superman. I enjoyed it, but Zack Snyder has made better movies.