Superman I vs. Superman II

[read]

I ask this question as I was pondering it myself. Since there's been a lot of hype around Superman recently with Dawn of Justice being released, I decided to download the old movies to see how they stand-up to the modern day movies. I always had fond memories of Superman when I was a child as I loved the comics & I remember loving the films, although I was too young to really remember the ins and outs of them all. Logic told me that the first two are probably going to be better as usually the more they milk it, the worse things get. I purposely didn't look at any reviews so I could go in with an open mind. I must say, I wasn't far wrong. Although there were some ok bits in the last two movies, they weren't a patch on the first two movies. It was from the first two movies that I recalled the most vivid memories. The villains in the second movie were awesome and I enjoyed the story of Superman renouncing his powers whilst they wreak havoc on mankind but then returning to sort them all out at the end. That's probably why the second one edges it for me but it was the first movie that got me so hooked in the first place. Christopher Reeve was perfect for this role, can remember the day he had his accident like it was yesterday and the day he died, such a shame. The new movies just haven't been hitting the same heights. I need to pick myself up a Superman comic now to see what memories that conjures up.

[Adekis]

I have a lot of problems with the first two movies. Christopher Reeve's performance is 100% perfect, but I actually think it gets better in Superman III, when he starts portraying Clark as a a fuller person instead of just a disguise. I don't think Superman's relationship with Lois Lane has a lot of depth or realism to it compared to his relationship with Lana in Superman III, and Lois herself measures up poorly to her predecessors: Kidder's Lane lacks both the no-nonsense badass attitude of Phyllis Coates and the charm of Noelle Neil. Superman III also has an action scene for a Jimmy Olsen who is otherwise fairly one-note gee-whiz in the first two films. Jackie Cooper is a very memorable Perry White, but his dialogue consists of so many cliches and one-liners and his screen time is so little that he never really gets to flesh out the role. Hackman's Luthor is a comical joke, to say nothing about how irritating Otis and Miss Tessmacher can be.

I do think that the time-travel climax of the first movie is a cop-out, not because Superman shouldn't be able to time travel but because he cannot change events from his own past! There were hard-and-fast rules for this at the time in the books, to prevent Superman from doing just the sort of deus ex machine he did in the film, and contrasted with the beautiful Krypton from the comics at the time, the one in the films was monotone and boring. Superman II gets even worse. Superman, Non, Ursa and Zod start pulling powers out of nowhere, powers with no basis in the comics at all, but what's worse is that his reasons for giving up his powers are inadequately explained ("Son, you must give up your powers to sleep with Lois." "Why?" "Reasons.") and the mind-wipe kiss at the end of the movie is a terrible breach of Lois's rights and privacy, and the second worst thing I've ever seen Superman do besides that episode of Adventures of Superman where he leaves crooks at the top of a mountain to die.

None of which is to say that Superman I and Superman II aren't enjoyable, they certainly can be. I just think that their reputation is more based on their undeniable charm than on actual, you know, good writing and acting. You should absolutely pick up Superman comics from both now and the 1970s when the movies came out- there's some phenomenal stuff to get your hands on, and for my money, a lot of it is better than those films.

But that's just my opinion though.

[manofsteel1979]

I have a lot of problems with the first two movies. Christopher Reeve's performance is 100% perfect, but I actually think it gets better in Superman III, when he starts portraying Clark as a a fuller person instead of just a disguise. I don't think Superman's relationship with Lois Lane has a lot of depth or realism to it compared to his relationship with Lana in Superman III, and Lois herself measures up poorly to her predecessors: Kidder's Lane lacks both the no-nonsense badass attitude of Phyllis Coates and the charm of Noelle Neil. Superman III also has an action scene for a Jimmy Olsen who is otherwise fairly one-note gee-whiz in the first two films. Jackie Cooper is a very memorable Perry White, but his dialogue consists of so many cliches and one-liners and his screen time is so little that he never really gets to flesh out the role. Hackman's Luthor is a comical joke, to say nothing about how irritating Otis and Miss Tessmacher can be.

I do think that the time-travel climax of the first movie is a cop-out, not because Superman shouldn't be able to time travel but because he cannot change events from his own past! There were hard-and-fast rules for this at the time in the books, to prevent Superman from doing just the sort of deus ex machine he did in the film, and contrasted with the beautiful Krypton from the comics at the time, the one in the films was monotone and boring. Superman II gets even worse. Superman, Non, Ursa and Zod start pulling powers out of nowhere, powers with no basis in the comics at all, but what's worse is that his reasons for giving up his powers are inadequately explained ("Son, you must give up your powers to sleep with Lois." "Why?" "Reasons.") and the mind-wipe kiss at the end of the movie is a terrible breach of Lois's rights and privacy, and the second worst thing I've ever seen Superman do besides that episode of Adventures of Superman where he leaves crooks at the top of a mountain to die.

None of which is to say that Superman I and Superman II aren't enjoyable, they certainly can be. I just think that their reputation is more based on their undeniable charm than on actual, you know, good writing and acting. You should absolutely pick up Superman comics from both now and the 1970s when the movies came out- there's some phenomenal stuff to get your hands on, and for my money, a lot of it is better than those films.

But that's just my opinion though.

My opinion matches yours.

Chris Reeve's performance is the best thing about those movies.

[Kuwagaton]

Welcome, read! Thanks for stopping by to chat.

People who remember the two films from their proper era have an unshakable nostalgia. That is not to put any sort of negative implication to the opinion, but to say that as one outsider, I can't begin to muster up the reverence and appreciation older people have for those films.

The first movie had wonky pacing, a general dullness polished with sap (John Williams is a master, but that stuff was pretty blatant), and a weak over arching plot. But this is nit picking, because the casting was pretty excellent and the key moments were all there. Some pretty good dialogue, too, aside from that brief but cringeworthy scene with the pimp. I'm okay with it being essentially the only superhero movie of its time, it's a very noble effort. I tend to forgive and even defend the last part, because I think that's a once ever movie sort of thing that you can't pull off otherwise.

II was clearly worse to me.The cast was still good, but they had even less to work with... aside from Stamp making Disco Zod into an icon. Way better known than the comic version(s) to this day. I also liked that cellophane shield, that was hilarious. Reeve couldn't make the bar stuff, the power loss, the final battle, or the super kiss work. Hackman Luthor was Hackman Luthor. I'm not sure why people didn't like him in these movies, I mean Kevin Spacey could act circles around this main cast and yet he couldn't make this work either. Not that it was really much of a failure, as the "Polyesteryear" Luthor provided a nice bridge for Byrne some years later.

[Thor2014]

Superman II, great villains and the battle through the city is one of the best fight scenes ever imo. Superman The Movie has its moments, but is mostly setup and world establishing.

Time traveling was a cop-out but I fell for the emotion Reeve displayed over (temporarily) dead Lois. I was more ticked off by the memory erasing kiss cop-out at the end of SupesII, although that was fully expected. There was no way in a Pre-Crisis wprld that Lois would be allowed to keep her knowledge of Superman's identity.

Also, was Donner really going to have Superman turn back time at the end of both II and I? That seemed a bit redundant.

Its also interesting to note that the original screenplay for Superman III (and to be continued in IV) involved time travel, as well as Braniac, Mxy and a version of Supergirl.

[Tuck]

Also, was Donner really going to have Superman turn back time at the end of both II and I? That seemed a bit redundant..

It was supposed to be the end of the second movie only. I don't recall how it ended up the end of the first one, but Donner was planning to come up with something else when he finished II . . . he just never got the chance. Being still stuck with the problem of Lois's knowledge of Superman's dual identity, and not having the original ending available to fix that, I guess Lester did what he could. Most anything would have been nonsensical.

He used that ending again in the Donner Cut because it was what he had available. The Donner Cut is worth watching for fans, but it works mostly as a rough idea of what he might have done if had gotten the chance to finish the second movie. It's disjointed and jarring on its own.

[phantom1592]

I have a lot of problems with the first two movies. Christopher Reeve's performance is 100% perfect, but I actually think it gets better in Superman III, when he starts portraying Clark as a a fuller person instead of just a disguise. I don't think Superman's relationship with Lois Lane has a lot of depth or realism to it compared to his relationship with Lana in Superman III, and Lois herself measures up poorly to her predecessors: Kidder's Lane lacks both the no-nonsense badass attitude of Phyllis Coates and the charm of Noelle Neil. Superman III also has an action scene for a Jimmy Olsen who is otherwise fairly one-note gee-whiz in the first two films. Jackie Cooper is a very memorable Perry White, but his dialogue consists of so many cliches and one-liners and his screen time is so little that he never really gets to flesh out the role. Hackman's Luthor is a comical joke, to say nothing about how irritating Otis and Miss Tessmacher can be.

The first two? I love Reeve's Superman. I like it better than anything before or since. Live action, comic, cartoon... whatever. He IS superman. Nobody else has come close. As such I forgive a lot of sins in the movies.

Personally, I prefer the 2nd one... though even as a kid, I noticed some serious flaws. The teleporting... the celephane S trap... Just the idea that when writing a story about someone with ALL the powers of SUPERMAN... they needed to create MORE??? That always took me out of the story. Donner cut was better, but it had it's own things...

I love Superman III.

All the talk about Richard Pryor bashing and what not... people forget that Richard Pryor was INSANELY popular at the time. Him being there was a SELLING point.

Superman 3 was probably my favorite. I'll admit I never liked Kidder's Lois. She was MEAN. She wasn't attractive. As a kid I could never understand why Superman fawned over her so much. She was just... a bad person.

Lana on the other hand? She was nice. She was kind. She liked Clark for who HE was. Just a better girl all around, and Reeves played an amazing Clark. Lot of people complain about Superman vs. Pryor... or Superman vs. a Computer... but there was SOOOO much more that I loved about that show then 'just the villain'

EVERYTHING in Smallville was awesome. Again, Clark and Lana. Superman going 'bad' and that junkyard fight to regain his soul... MAN I loved that sequence..


And yeah.... Superman 4 was pretty terrible. Even watching through nostalgia and keeping an open mind (I'm VERY good at finding the best parts of bad movies) I still dislike it.

I think there was issues with branding for starters... I think if the computer was named Brainiac, and Nuclear Man was called Bizarro... they could have been great shows. Just a couple steps shy though.

[Jon-El]

Here's how different an era that was. I was watching the 50's ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN decked out in my homemade costume. Suddenly, the TV spot for the movie comes on. I stood with my mouth open. I'm not sure I understood it was an ad for a movie. What's crazy is, I never saw that spot again & heard nothing about the movie until it had been out awhile. Now we can pick trailers apart & have access to so much info.

That there were no other super heroe movies made the film so special. It's amazing to think that today, there are usually 3 comic book movies released every year!!

[DieHard200904]

I loved Superman 3. To me it is underrated. Richard Pryor was hillarious. I felt 1 was okay, same with 2. They cheaply used the whole time travel deal in Superman 1, when they should have saved such a big gun for later, such as 2. I also liked the fact that Superman had to fight his evil self in 3, and also had a pretty straightforward powerset, and he defeated the villain with his wits.

[DCStu]

Wow! Great thread! Although I don't get why anyone would have anything to complain about in these movies. To me they are near perfect - and no criticism I read can change that!
The first movie to me is the greatest superhero movie ever made. Bar none. None of the tales of behind the scenes shenanigans change that. Same with the second one.
To be honest though - maybe I'm biased. These movies were my first exposure to the character. This is where I met him so to speak. Not comics, not anything else. THESE MOVIES.
I'd only just been born when the first one came out (I think) and was literally only a baby when the second one did. So I didn't see these at the cinema. It must have been on the TV or Betamax (yes really!) video. I've literally grown up with these films - and my Dad took me to see the third and fourth movies when I was a small boy. I can remember vividly seeing the third one at the cinema and being absolutely terrified at the bit where that woman got turned into that horrible robot. Still freaks me out thinking about it, and I'm 38!

I guess the first movie to me is the best out of these. Although I do love the second one. Many criticise the scene where Clark erases Lois' memory with a kiss. Whilst I can understand these concerns - I actually think that's a beautiful note to end the film on and it's a very touching scene.

I actually have a personal connection to these films aswell. You see, I'm from a town called Iver Heath and that is where Pinewood Studios is located. It was literally a ten minute walk from my old house. Behind Pinewood Studios is Black Park which is often used for outdoor filming. When it's not being used for that purpose it's open to the public. When I was a kid my Mum used to take me there from time to time. Usually on a Sunday afternoon when the roast was in the oven. We used to walk around the exact same lake that General Zod walked on (and scared the hell out of that innocent fisherman). I feel an attachment to the James Bond films (of which I'm also a huge fan) for the same reasons.

That association actually makes me feel pretty proud to be from that town.