Superman (1978)

abouttobebanned

Now, first and foremost, let me say that I'm a huge Superman fan...right now I'm drinking some lovely green tea out of one of many Superman mugs that I have. (Boxer shorts, t-shirts, an apron..etc etc...we all have our little childish endeavours...and if we don't, then we should)...but I still don't think a proper film has been made out him.

If you watch the special features to the first Superman, you hear Donner going on about Verisimilitude...basically keeping everything as truthful as possible...as in what could actually happen if there was a superman on the planet. Turning back time etc could not happen...and that's among a lot of things that are mentioned in this great review of the movie. There are some great pics in that review too, one of which is now my phone screen saver...I'll let you guess which.

Now, admittedly, a lot of this is in response to the exceptional Dark Knight, but surely Superman deserves to have one brilliant film made about him. We all had high hopes about Singer, but he took the wrong road entirely and a potentially great movie became a bit of a mess.

My favourite of them all is Superman 2...and not the Donner version...upon watching them both I'm actually happier with how they were originally released.

I know a lot of you will want the franchise to die but I believe that it deserves one more chance. A total reboot...darker yet more heroic for being so.

Thoughts?

iMax

They need to do one with (a) a darker suit & (b) a giant robot spider at the end

Actually, a darker suit would be most welcome, as wel as General Zod (or someone like him) as the bad guy or maybe the Fleishman robots. Lex Luthor while being an interesting character is a one trick pony. Land grabber with a lump of kryptonite in a lead lined box. It makes superman out to be an idiot.

Nicolas Cage was attached to o a Tim Burton directed film years ago. This is the prototype suit they had:



There is a reboot planned (warchowskis to write/produce) & James McTeague to direct (rumour even that Brandon Routh will resume the role). If not in cinemas by 2012, Warner lose rights to the character.

We don't need another genesis movie, we need something that's all action.

And for what it's worth, I much preferred the Donner version of Superman II. totally different movie.

Skerries

i think this is the only road to go down, something along the The Dark Knight graphic novel

iMax

It's a shame they didn't reference superman in the other batman movies because Batman 3 would be a great starting point for a superman franchise.

They can't just introduce him now though...

abouttobebanned

iMax wrote: »

They need to do one with (a) a darker suit & (b) a giant robot spider at the end

Actually, a darker suit would be most welcome, as wel as General Zod (or someone like him) as the bad guy or maybe the Fleishman robots. Lex Luthor while being an interesting character is a one trick pony. Land grabber with a lump of kryptonite in a lead lined box. It makes superman out to be an idiot.

Nicolas Cage was attached to o a Tim Burton directed film years ago. This is the prototype suit they had:



There is a reboot planned (warchowskis to write/produce) & James McTeague to direct (rumour even that Brandon Routh will resume the role). If not in cinemas by 2012, Warner lose rights to the character.

We don't need another genesis movie, we need something that's all action.

And for what it's worth, I much preferred the Donner version of Superman II. totally different movie.

That suit is horrendous!

humanji

iMax wrote: »

They need to do one with (a) a darker suit & (b) a giant robot spider at the end

Actually, a darker suit would be most welcome, as wel as General Zod (or someone like him) as the bad guy or maybe the Fleishman robots. Lex Luthor while being an interesting character is a one trick pony. Land grabber with a lump of kryptonite in a lead lined box. It makes superman out to be an idiot.

Nicolas Cage was attached to o a Tim Burton directed film years ago. This is the prototype suit they had:



There is a reboot planned (warchowskis to write/produce) & James McTeague to direct (rumour even that Brandon Routh will resume the role). If not in cinemas by 2012, Warner lose rights to the character.

We don't need another genesis movie, we need something that's all action.

And for what it's worth, I much preferred the Donner version of Superman II. totally different movie.

I don't know if I'm being gullible or it's too incredulous, but is that pic real?

I was reading about the film series the otehr day (slow day in work + Wikipedia = lots of info you never really need to know). It's funny hearing about the weird version that was planned with Nicholas Cage. I think Kevin Smith supposedly had a good script before he had to change it to fit in with the robot spiders and "not gay" suit demanded by the guy who was gonig to direct it.

Hopefully a reboot will have a kick ass bad guy and that they keep away from trying to make things realistic (works for Batman, not for aliens from Krypton).

Skerries

yeah it looks like someone took a picture of Cage and photoshopped it onto an action figure doll

krudler

Aside from the turning back time thing, which is a very stupid plot device, as far as I'm concerned Superman is the best comic book movie of them all, the first hour of it is absolutely flawless, the magnificent opening titles and Krypton sequence, the Kent farm and Clarks journey to the fortress of solutitude are by far the best origin scenes of any comic book hero. And the helicopter rescue is still one of those hairs on end moments, no matter how much the effects have aged, it doesnt matter.

As for a reboot, Singer pretty much did that with Returns anyway, it was a stupid idea to have a sequel to Superman 2, (Lois not knowing the kid is Supermans is ridiculous, going that Singer said they were following continuity from Superman 2 then Lois should have no memory of every being with Superman as he wiped it, isnt she a bit curious as to how she's given birth to his son being that in her eyes they've never been together?)

They do need to give him another villain though, Luthor and his quest for real estate is done and dusted, no need to ever visit that again, but the problem with Superman is that the villains are way out there, its odd that audiences will accept Superman himself, but if you were to introduce Brainiac or Doomsday then people would think they were silly, Superman IV had a decent idea for a villain, a clone of Superman made from his DNA, same powers except runs on solar energy (why Superman didnt just arrive at Luthors penthouse after sundown and kick the bejesus out of Nuclear Man i dont know though)

He really doesnt need another origin story though, even people who have no interest in comics or comic book movies know at least that Superman is from another planet and works as a reporter, same as everyone knows Batmans rich parents were killed and he became a vigilante, itd be nice to have a reboot that assumes we already know the origins and just go from there, or maybe explain it in the opening credits like Hellboy, then jump ahead to him being an established hero.

The main issue I had with Returns was that its dull, extremely dull in places, Routh was great but everyone else just looked bored to tears, Bosworth was terrible as Lois, and it was terrible how Superman was reduced to this creepy stalker, watching a family from outside their house and sneaking into a kids bedroom at night, not to mention Cyclops was more heroic than him for most of the movie

faceman

Superman bores me. As a superhero, he has almost infinite superpowers and his weakness is Lois Lane. Its pretty weak tbh.

Superman II was awesome tho.

Any suggestion of Batman vs. Superman should just stop now. Its like putting brown sauce in your tea

krudler

Also, Jude Law as Zod ftw

humanji

krudler wrote: »

Also, Jude Law as Zod ftw

That's just so you can see him get the sh*te beaten out of him

krudler

If anyone hasnt seen it, youtube Kevin Smiths anecdote about being hired to write the script for Superman Reborn and his subsequent meetings with producer Jon Peters, its hilarious:

abouttobebanned

Jude Law would be an awesome Zod alright.

If anyone hasn't read the article I linked in the OP, they should...it's a very good, and very funny read.

Duggy747

Superman............god, how I love that movie, I grew up watching all those films. Christopher Reeves is Superman. Period. Everything else afterwards are pale imitators as those films (even IV) had the charm of a time gone in cinema.

That Nic Cage pic is hilarious! It's a photoshop but the idea of him actually wearing that suit creeps me the fùck out. :pac:

As for Batman & Superman, bah, no thanks! Eventually that film will be made (Possibly this decade?) but I've never warmed to the idea. Just give me a worthy Aliens Vs. Predator Vs. Marines movie if you're crossing franchises.

krudler

humanji wrote: »

That's just so you can see him get the sh*te beaten out of him

Well theres that:D But I think he'd make a great Zod, and he can play a creepy villain effectively, see Road to Perdition for example

TonyD79

Singer wanted to cast Law as General Zod for his sequel film-Man of steel. I thought Brandon Routh was Superb but thye really need to go down the route of Lex Luthor as he was portrayed in Smallville- rich,powerful and into science & not real estate. The way Marvel are going with the Avengers would be good idea here- a Justice League film reintroducing Superman though Im fine with Routh as the actor.

irishh_bob

superman 2007 was one of the dullest movies ive ever seen , would rate spiderman 3 well above it and its crap

jaykhunter

faceman wrote: »

Its like putting brown sauce in your tea

Awesome intermission reference!

Anyone tell me how the Richard Donner Cut of SuperMan 2 shapes up against the original?

Also, I'd watch another Superman film. I didn't think S'man Returns was bad, it just wasn't great. Kate Bosworth was miscast IMO; she had no spunk at all, unlike Teri Hatcher

sprinkles

I'd love to see a dark superman film made. All the others have seemed too camp even the latest one (if you managed to stay awake during it that is). Don't get me wrong, the originals have a place in cinema history - Superman/Kent was played perfectly for a light hearted super hero movie. Now lets see the dark side. Lets have the moral issues dealt with ala Batman Begins..

My main issue with Superman as a hero is that he only has 1 weakness. He needs a credible foe and not just some rich guy with a green rock!

Kess73

sprinkles wrote: »

I'd love to see a dark superman film made. All the others have seemed too camp even the latest one (if you managed to stay awake during it that is). Don't get me wrong, the originals have a place in cinema history - Superman/Kent was played perfectly for a light hearted super hero movie. Now lets see the dark side. Lets have the moral issues dealt with ala Batman Begins..

My main issue with Superman as a hero is that he only has 1 weakness. He needs a credible foe and not just some rich guy with a green rock!

That's just it, in the comic world he has enemies that can go toe to toe with him, and some that are stronger than him.Doomsday even killed him.


Bizarro, Darkseid, Doomsday, Gog, Imperiex, and Solomon Grundy could all stand and trade with Supes, with a couple on that list capable of outmatching Supes in terms of power.

Brainiac, Parasite, or Conduit could offer threats if done right.

irishh_bob

sprinkles wrote: »

I'd love to see a dark superman film made. All the others have seemed too camp even the latest one (if you managed to stay awake during it that is). Don't get me wrong, the originals have a place in cinema history - Superman/Kent was played perfectly for a light hearted super hero movie. Now lets see the dark side. Lets have the moral issues dealt with ala Batman Begins..

My main issue with Superman as a hero is that he only has 1 weakness. He needs a credible foe and not just some rich guy with a green rock!

you cant make a dark superman , the charechter of superman is whiter than white , bland and squeaky clean , hes a corn fed, mid west, church going boy who loves his mom and neither smokes nor drinks , he,s ned flanders or even daniel o donnell without the need for a ryanair ticket

Sleazus

jaykhunter wrote: »

Anyone tell me how the Richard Donner Cut of SuperMan 2 shapes up against the original?

I liked it. It was a bout as good as it could be, considering. The ending is a little crap (

they use the time travel thing... again

), but the rest of the film is much better. For some reason, the Lois and Clark dynamic works much better during their investigative journalism escapade. And there's no clingfilm S.

Oh, and they actually explain how

he gets his power back

.
And there's Marlon Brando.

I think it's the best Superman film ever made.

As for the future, you need a villain who isn't Luthor. I agree with those who said aliens like Darkseid are a bit of a stretch for an audience (though we'll see how they react to Thor and Green Lantern for weirdness), but I think Metallo is doable. Very doable. Particularly since he's basically The Terminator (down to the fake skin) who runs on kryptonite.

Luthor - particularly in the film series, though Spacey improved this a lot - is hard to take seriously. He's a huxter. It's like pitting Batman against a local circus clown and calling him The Joker. C'mon!

DC need to get the lead out of their pants. I'd rather see a Geoff Johns Flash movie, but Superman needs a good movie.

sprinkles

irishh_bob wrote: »

you cant make a dark superman , the charechter of superman is whiter than white , bland and squeaky clean , hes a corn fed, mid west, church going boy who loves his mom and neither smokes nor drinks , he,s ned flanders or even daniel o donnell without the need for a ryanair ticket

That's the problem with the original films, he's too good and too perfect. I don't know an awful lot about the comics but I have read a few that have had a much darker atmosphere to them. It isn't just the personality of the man himself, he's always been kind of emotionless imo but by placing him in a more bleak, foreboding position and maybe bring a sense of realism - Batman TDK does this brilliantly imo - the opening bank scene was very "real" as apposed to being from the pages of a comic - would bring the superman franchise in line with current expectations. Reality, even in the fantasy films, is what will appeal to the masses (Unfortunately Transformers defies that :rolleyes:)

iMax

jaykhunter wrote: »

Anyone tell me how the Richard Donner Cut of SuperMan 2 shapes up against the original?

It's a far superior film. Although Donner had shot 65-70% of the footage in the Richard Lester version, Lester had to remove most of it in order to get Donner's name off the credits & his on.

The originally theatrically released version had to be re-written because of a dispute with Marlon Brando over payments (he was owed $12m if they used his footage), so they reshot his (modified) dialogue using the actress who played his mother.

Gene Hackman also refused to return to reshoot old scenes & new scenes in support of his friend Donner. They used a combination of off screen dialogue & stand ins to complete his role, but he never supported it.

The ending (turning back time, again) was used as there was no other logical ending they could use. Donner acknowledges this in the commentary, he thinks it's awkward & unnecessary repetition but there was no other way to end the film.

It's darker, more adult themed, has a different tangent of the way things evolve in the film. It was originally supposed to be released one after another, in a continious story ark but the removal of donner resulted in a two year delay.

Personally I prefer it, it makes the original film more serious & makes them into a credible series (I'd even go so far as to suggest it supports Superman Returns as a valid sequel If you were to ignore 3 & 4 & just watch these ones back to back, it would work).

I watched it once on it's own & then almost immediately again with the commentary track.

Wiki

faceman

krudler wrote: »

If anyone hasnt seen it, youtube Kevin Smiths anecdote about being hired to write the script for Superman Reborn and his subsequent meetings with producer Jon Peters, its hilarious:

Ive been following Smith on Twitter for some time and Ive lost a great deal of respect for guy as a result. I tend to take what he says with a pinch of salt nowadays.

iMax

I would have liked to see a smith script. He's a genuine fan & would have turned in a great story. He's connected with The Green Hornet now I think

abouttobebanned

faceman wrote: »

Ive been following Smith on Twitter for some time and Ive lost a great deal of respect for guy as a result. I tend to take what he says with a pinch of salt nowadays.

They say never meet your heroes cause you'll be disappointed. Similarly, don't follow them on Twitter...all of them are boring as shi t

bonerm

Never thought I'd be quoting these two back to back

Angus (1995) wrote:

Grandpa: Superman isn't brave.
Angus: Did you take your pills this morning?
Grandpa: HeHe. You don't understand. He's smart, handsome, even decent. But he's not brave. No, listen to me. Superman is indestructible, and you can't be brave if you're indestructible. It's people like you and your mother. People who are different, and can be crushed and know it. Yet they keep on going out there every time.

Kill Bill Vol 2 (2004) wrote:

Bill: As you know, l'm quite keen on comic books. Especially the ones about superheroes. I find the whole mythology surrounding superheroes fascinating. Take my favorite superhero, Superman. Not a great comic book. Not particularly well-drawn. But the mythology... The mythology is not only great, it's unique. Now, a staple of the superhero mythology is, there's the superhero and there's the alter ego. Batman is actually Bruce Wayne, Spider-Man is actually Peter Parker. When that character wakes up in the morning, he's Peter Parker. He has to put on a costume to become Spider-Man. And it is in that characteristic Superman stands alone. Superman didn't become Superman. Superman was born Superman. When Superman wakes up in the morning, he's Superman. His alter ego is Clark Kent. His outfit with the big red "S", that's the blanket he was wrapped in as a baby when the Kents found him. Those are his clothes. What Kent wears - the glasses, the business suit - that's the costume. That's the costume Superman wears to blend in with us. Clark Kent is how Superman views us. And what are the characteristics of Clark Kent. He's weak... he's unsure of himself... he's a coward. Clark Kent is Superman's critique on the whole human race.

This is essentially why Superman sucks and why there will never be a truly great Superman movie. When you see Batman in The Dark Knight (after he's captured the Joker at the half-built skyscraper) despite his heroices he appears totally out of breath and on his last legs you then finally realise fully that this is just a man. A living breathing man who has put everything on the line and can be hurt and can be beaten. The only time this notion was ever explored in the Superman movies was when Clark Kent abandons his powers at the fortress of solitude and by then you don't really care anyway. Sure I have a soft-spot for Donners 1.5 movies but that's only cos I saw them as a kid. I don't think I'd be nearly as forgiving had I seen them as an adult, as was proven in Singers version which deliberately tried to ape the original 2 movies and therefore imho is a fair basis for comparison.

krudler

If you watch the special features to the first Superman, you hear Donner going on about Verisimilitude...basically keeping everything as truthful as possible...as in what could actually happen if there was a superman on the planet. Turning back time etc could not happen...and that's among a lot of things that are mentioned in this great review of the movie

That review is just fanboy ranting tbh, and I pretty much lost interest when he gives out that Marlon Brando wears a big "S" symbol on his tunic, its the family crest for the house of El, hence the whole reason its on Supermans cape and chest, fanboy fail

abouttobebanned

krudler wrote: »

That review is just fanboy ranting tbh, and I pretty much lost interest when he gives out that Marlon Brando wears a big "S" symbol on his tunic, its the family crest for the house of El, hence the whole reason its on Supermans cape and chest, fanboy fail

But his point was, they don't mention that in the movie. Let's be honest here...S always stood for Superman...they just made up that family crest ****e for the movie

krudler

abouttobebanned wrote: »

But his point was, they don't mention that in the movie. Let's be honest here...S always stood for Superman...they just made up that family crest ****e for the movie

but now its been adopted into the canon of the character, changed a bit over the years but what part of any comic book hasnt. I much prefer the idea of the S being his family symbol as opposed to just standing for Superman, they use it in Smallville as well

Anakin.S

krudler wrote: »

but now its been adopted into the canon of the character, changed a bit over the years but what part of any comic book hasnt. I much prefer the idea of the S being his family symbol as opposed to just standing for Superman, they use it in Smallville as well

I like that they tried to change it. It takes away from the arrogance of Clark Kent naming himself ’Superman’

iMax

And co-incidentally... Chris Nolan is to act as overseer on the new superman...

Exclusive: Warner Bros is trying to ready its DC Comics stalwart Superman to soar again on the Big Screen, and the studio has turned to Chris Nolan to mentor development of the movie.

Sleazus

iMax wrote: »

And co-incidentally... Chris Nolan is to act as overseer on the new superman...

And now I'm interested in a reboot...

Mizu_Ger

'Superman,' The Inside Story

Came across this recent Richard Donner interview on the Hollywood Reporter. He explains his involvement in Superman from beginning to end. It's short, but a good read. The Kojak bit is ridiculous.

If Donner's version of events is accurate this film would have been a complete mess.

techdiver

Mizu_Ger wrote: »

'Superman,' The Inside Story

Came across this recent Richard Donner interview on the Hollywood Reporter. He explains his involvement in Superman from beginning to end. It's short, but a good read. The Kojak bit is ridiculous.

If Donner's version of events is accurate this film would have been a complete mess.

Just makes you wonder how anything good gets made in Hollywood. The cowboys like the Salkinds still exist today (Jon Peters anyone?).

BrookieD

@abouttobebanned way to dig up a thread!

Duggy747

Yeah, Donner managed to put up enough resistance to save what could've been a cheesy and forgettable comic book movie.

MfMan

Duggy747 wrote: »

Yeah, Donner managed to put up enough resistance to save what could've been a cheesy and forgettable comic book movie.

The original 1978 movie was cheesy, a pure expensive mess. Not even Gene Hackman could snarl convincingly.

Harry Palmr

The 1978 film now looks like a flipping masterpiece of romantic adventure - superior to the moody bollocks nonsense that passes as cinema now.

Goodshape

I still hold that this is the best, or at the very least listed highly among the best, superhero film we've had so far.

It might be cheesy in places but manages to take itself just seriously enough to be relatable, and to feel like the real world. Reeve as Superman is just perfect, as is Marlon Brando as Jor El and (briefly but memorably) Terrance Stamp as Zod.

The origin story feels suitably epic. They avoided the silliness of later instalments. Superman is a 6'4" boy-scout in a red cape, just as he should be, and they managed to make it work.

And the John William's score! Unbeatable.


Great film. I must watch it again soon.

techdiver

Goodshape wrote: »

I still hold that this is the best, or at the very least listed highly among the best, superhero film we've had so far.

It might be cheesy in places but manages to take itself just seriously enough to be relatable, and to feel like the real world. Reeve as Superman is just perfect, as is Marlon Brando as Jor El and (briefly but memorably) Terrance Stamp as Zod.

The origin story feels suitably epic. They avoided the silliness of later instalments. Superman is a 6'4" boy-scout in a red cape, just as he should be, and they managed to make it work.

And the John William's score! Unbeatable.


Great film. I must watch it again soon.

Completely agree. One of the best, if not the best superhero movies ever made. Whilst they got Lex wrong, everything else was perfect for the time.

The fact that it still stands up today so many years later is a testament to it! One of my all time favorite movies!

cowboyBuilder

Regarding Superman II, what do you guys think is better ?

The donner or theatrical cut ?

Havent seen either in a long time and wondering what I should watch ..

techdiver

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Regarding Superman II, what do you guys think is better ?

The donner or theatrical cut ?

Havent seen either in a long time and wondering what I should watch ..

Donner. There are clearly some intended scenes missing, but it's a better movie IMHO.

Goodshape

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

The donner or theatrical cut ?

The Donner cut is a lot better.

Nervous Wreck

techdiver wrote: »

Completely agree. One of the best, if not the best superhero movies ever made. Whilst they got Lex wrong, everything else was perfect for the time.

The fact that it still stands up today so many years later is a testament to it! One of my all time favorite movies!

in a film that gets so much right, it's extremely easy to let this slide, which is a great compliment to the movie.

techdiver

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

in a film that gets so much right, it's extremely easy to let this slide, which is a great compliment to the movie.

Yeah, Lex seems to be a character they have yet to get right in a live action movie!

Whilst I was against the grain and quite enjoyed BvS, the portrayal of Lex annoys me, especially since Snyder admitted considering Bryan Cranston and then went with Eisenberg ffs!

Chain Smoker

I couldn't possibly judge those 70s Superman films objectively. I must've seen them two or three times a year from the age of four up to about sixteen. Superman II gets a bit of a hard time imo, the film has just enough of a different vibe to it that it stands on its own as a enjoyable romp and arguably more appealing to kids at least.
From what I gather, the Donner Cut was going to very much be more of the same (including a near identical ending?) as the first one.

They're just really fun films and Reeve was perfectly cast for the Superman that they wanted. I was about to say that it's stunning he wound up doing f*ck all afterwards with his considerable star appeal, but a quick google reveals he turned down lead roles in American Gigolo, The World According to Garp, Splash, Fatal Attraction, Pretty Woman, Romancing the Stone, Lethal Weapon, the Bounty and Body Heat.

Wedwood

The only screen superhero fare in the late 70's were campy tv shows like Wonder Woman, Spider-man and re-runs of the 60's Batman show.

So when Donner's big budget Superman movie version played it straight, it was a revelation. The cast is perfect, the special effects were stunning for the time (and still hold up in the digital age) and John Williams' score is still the benchmark for superhero movie music.

Every version of Superman (or any other superhero movie) made since has disappointed because they can't get near what Donner achieved. Superman the Movie is not just a superhero movie, it's an epic story about loss, loneliness, discovery and coming of age.

It's one of those movies that sits alongside the best epics like Lawrence of Arabia, Star Wars and Ben-Hur, that's how good it is.

Any of us who were kids in the late 70's early 80's were probably one of the luckiest generations going to the cinema starting with the likes of Jaws, then Star Wars, Superman, Close Encounters, Alien, Empire Strikes Back, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Superman 2, Star Trek 2 The Wrath of Khan, ET, Return of the Jedi, Temple of Doom.

Mickeroo

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

in a film that gets so much right, it's extremely easy to let this slide, which is a great compliment to the movie.

Was the modern comic book/animated series version of Lex even a thing back then?

Nervous Wreck

Mickeroo wrote: »

Was the modern comic book/animated series version of Lex even a thing back then?

Lex was always an evil genius but comics were obv much more campy in general back then. I think they overdid the campiness a smidge but that was more a case of Luthor's supporting characters imo than Luthor's himself.

Now that you mention it though, the Animated Series is my fav non-comic version of Lex, closely followed by the Lois&Clark series version (which I still hold in high regard!).