Why I Don't Like Superman: The Movie

[Guest]

Has anyone ever noticed that there's an episode of Knight Rider that uses the miniature footage shot for Superman, during the part "Super-Dam" scene?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yeah, The A- team once used footage from Airplane, from the scene were the plane crashed through the terminal wiondow.

Stefancos- who knows this has nothing to do wiith Super.

[mahler3 478]

I have always loved Superman The Movie, for many different reasons. Indeed, I too am probably biased, but it has such wonderful qualities. As pure entertainment it delivers very well, from a technical aspect it is practically flawless (albeit some of the effects are inevitably slightly dated now).

We have the gourgeous and elegiac Krypton scenes, introduced with perfection by Williams brass motif building to a classic conclusion! One cannot help but be moved by the starship launch from the crumbling planet as Brando comforts Christie. Much has been said of Geoffrey Unsworth's lighting and photography and rightly so, lovely touch.

The Smallville scenes beautifully capture the Americana ambience, with the crops and wide scope shots that are greatly aided by the then new Louma Crane seemingly gliding across the landscapes. My particular favourite being the burial of Jonathan Kent, when the crane slowly rises across the tiny graveyard, again a scene that would mean nothing without that fantastic Williams crescendo!

The Fortress Of Solitude has such a semi-religous atmosphere that is quite intoxicating, even the glimpse of the Polar Bear is so effective. We are also felt soothed and comforted (whoever said musical manipulation wasn't a good thing!!!???) by this 10 minute scene that as a kid I remember finding very boring.

By this stage the movie takes a dramatic turn and we are transported to New York's almost slap-stick ramblings. The characters are great, Mr White being a highlight ("Don't call me sugar!" is a corny but classic line).

Ned Beatty & Gene Hackman are a great team, the interplay is all excellent and thoroughly enjoyable.

The movie is a pure event movie (of which the '70's had so many), as Robert Townson stated; "The film wore it's cast and crew proudly like a medal" or something like that. Even Bob Peak's artwork was so clever, such a simple approach (the picture of Lois & Clark flying on the rear cover of Varese's re-recording is wonderful).

Hats off to Richard Donner and his infamous Salkind battles, the perseverance paid off IMO.

Ultimately, I see Superman on these two levels;

-A film that delivers good all round family entertainment.

-A classic film that has some of the greatest production merits in the history of cinema.

I will always love it, but as I stated before, I am probably biased being the typical twenty something that grew up with the movie!

-Tim (wanting to know what the content of Joe's deleted posts were?)

[A24 4,346]

Mahler3, every word you wrote is true and are exactly my thoughts too! Especially the crane shot which is one of my all time favorites.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Guest]

I agree with mahler, as well. But who's Christie?

[mahler3 478]

I agree with mahler, as well.  But who's Christie?

Yes oops! I actually meant Susannah York, not Julie Christie! D'oh!

[A24 4,346]

When are we going to see the first clone thread of "Why I don't like..."

Just thought I should warn you.

---------------

Alex Cremers

[Elmo Lewis 6]

I just thought I should warn you: this thread is already a clone... there was a similar thread before, called "Why I Don't Like Hook", started by Trumpeteer, I think.

[A24 4,346]

I should have known.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Superman the Movie is one of my 3 alltime favorite films. It is not perfection. It is perfect entertainment for me. I deleted my other posts in favor of one final post on the subject. I re-read Ross' original post again, and his others. He states its his opinion, while also giving us matters of fact, which are not just opinions. He has accused me of not reading his posts, which I have each time I posted.

First let me say, by posting his critisisms on Superman the Movie, he has laid down a gauntlet. It is foolish for him to believe that someone wouldn't have picked it up. He was offended by my intial responses, specifically when I point out the horror that filmmakers today are considering in making a new Superman for his generation. Ashton Kutcher as Superman, yikes. His need to vent stems from a sarcastic humorous post I made a while back about a Superman for the MTV generation, noscene lasting more than 3 seconds, following the 1-2-3-2-1 second Michael Bay method. There is no possibility to be bored using this method, by the same token, depth and character development can't take place, but who needs those when the pace is so fast. Anthony Burgess portrayal of the future comes to life.

Point of contention #1.

It’s set in the fifties

Seeing an escapist movie (and Superman is the ultimate escapism) set 50 years ago just makes it look like a documentary, like a retrospective piece.  

I pointed out the film is not set in the 50's. He replies.

Would it have made a difference?  

Of course it would make a difference. Even I have wasn't around in the 50's. But I grew up watching the Superman of the 50's. Wonderful show by the way. Too dated for Ross I would assume. But in that show Clark would climb into a phone booth and exit as Superman. In Superman the Movie(1978) Clark, on the way to his first every adventure as Superman looks at a then modern phone booth that isn't enclosed. This scene produced an uproar with moviegoers, sadly its lost on this generation. The film purposely plays the 50's against the 70's, with great effect.

The film begins in the 1930's when the little boy reads the comix. Then Superman crashes to earth in the late 40's. He next appears as a teenager in the 60's, then passes the 12 years in exile at the Fortress of Solitude, only to reappear in the late 1970's as Superman, and Clark.

Point of contention #2

Chris Reeve

his Clark Kent was terrible.  

he was never physically belivable as the Man of Steel

lets see, he was tall, his shoulders broad, his belly flat. He's not pumped like Arnold. He looked great in the suit, and the S looked great on his chest.

In another post on this thread, Ross says

Citizen Kane is the best movie of all time

as a point of fact. Any of us could say another film, Casablanca, or Gone With the Wind, the Godfather, but we all understand that whether we like Citizen Kane, we understand its place among films, and film history. As it stands it has stood the test of time and is regarded as one of the great American Films of all time. It is reasonable to also assume that Chris Reeve, has been Superman and Clark for 25 years now and has stood the test of time. Ross doesn't have to like Chris' performance, but over the course of time and film history, his performance as Clark has been lauded by critics and filmgoers alike. His quirkyness, his subtle nuances between the two characters, are extraordinary. I once again mention the scene in Lois' apartment, when Clark takes of his glasses and realizes the differences between Clark and Superman, and how his stature changes. This is great acting on a level that few superhero characters/actors can achieve. Only in Batman do with see the duality of the roles, and in that franchise only Michael Keaton comes even close to giving as good a performance. Chris' performance as Clark and Superman have stood the test of time and will continue to do so.

Point of contention #3

Lois Lane: Personally, I never felt Margot Kidder was a good actress, or an attractive one to play Lois. Sure, he had some chemistry with Chris Reeve, but that’s about it. And why is Lois plain stupid? Isn’t she supposed to be the best reporter in Metropolis? She doesn’t even know how to spell!  

Was Lois supposed to be the most beautiful woman on the planet. Margot Kidder was a attractive girl, not the stunning beauty of a Jennifer Connely, or Kim Bassinger. The chemistry between her and Clark/Superman was terrific. How she played both characters in a completely different manner is wonderful. I never took Lois as stupid, she's ballsy, and spunky. She has guts. She may not be the smartest, but she knows how to throw herself outthere. So she can't spell. Albert Einstein flunked history, does that mean he wasn't smart.

Superman the Movie is filled from beginning to end with terrific performances. From Marlon Brando, to Gene Hackman, the film acting is a strenght.

The direction of the film is never in doubt. Donner's hold on the film is strong and sure. One only has to see Superman 2 to understand just how strong his direction is.

Superman the Movie, may be the most beautifully filmed movie in my lifetime. Geoffrey Unsworth's cinematography is some of the finest ever put to film, easily the most beautifully photographed John Williams film.

Speaking of John Williams. His score to Superman is one of the finest achievements in film scoring history. Its theme speaks the name Superman. Its pure Americana.

You cannot mention Superman the Movie without mentioning the opening and closing credits. In all of film history these are truely, untouchably, simply the greatest of all time.

Most other production values are top notch. Set decoration in this film is special.

I will gladly admit that not all the special effects are special. Some are not very good. But Superman the Movie makes up for these flaws by telling a great story, by great acting, great music, great direction. You'd be hard pressed to find many better action sequences than the helicoptor rescue. The film is an epic, the only epic among all the superhero films. Its set a high standard, and its still flys higher than all the rest. And damnit, I just love it when just before credits, when Superman flys off the screen, he looks at the audience and smiles. I smiled back, and so did that audience I first saw this film with nearly 25 years ago. Its just one of the many reasons I love this film. But wait...

Justin chimes in ...it's just a movie.

Wow, Justin, you think so.

So, Justin, does that mean there shouldn't be any passion about it, because as you so smartly point out, it's just a movie.

Justin, Let me let you in on a little secret, this is a message board about "JUST A MOVIE SCORE COMPOSER." John Williams is just a film composer. Spielberg is just a film director. Raiders of the Lost Ark is just a movie. Star Wars is just a movie. So I take your meaning that none of this is worth discussing. None of this is valuable. Its tripe, its trivial. Hell why bother to post about just a movie.

[UCFKevin 0]

Damn......Joe, you're my new favorite person here.

TOTALLY agree that STM is the most beautifully filmed flick ever. Every shot is like a painting.

[mahler3 478]

Beautifully realised post Joe. Thank you!

-Tim.

[Romão 2,274]

How would Superman be like if he lived in Europe?

Romão, that has some trouble connecting with Superman, the character, because he is too related to Americana.

I have a great time reading The Dark Knight Returns and seeing Batman hit the crap out of Superman. Brilliant story. As far superheroes goe, it is as good as it gets.

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

But in that show Clark would climb into a phone booth and exit as Superman. In Superman the Movie(1978) Clark, on the way to his first every adventure as Superman looks at a then modern phone booth that isn't enclosed. This scene produced an uproar with moviegoers, sadly its lost on this generation.

No it wasn't, not completely anyways. I thought it was great, one of the funniest moments of the film. Also funny were "How big are you?" and "Do you . . . eat?" And although I probably lean slightly more towards Ross' views on the film, your post was very well done, Joe.

Ray Barnsbury

[Elmo Lewis 6]

I'm glad you had the time to sit and expose your views, Joe.

Now just a few superficial remarks to your points of contention:

#1: I obiously can't talk about what I don't know, but I tend to think that because it was set in 70's, you liked the movie more. No no, I'm not saying you wouldn't have liked it set in 50's, just that the fact that it was set in your time, the 70's, may have helped to your subjective enjoyment of the movie.

#2: I still don't believe Reeve as Superman. His body is built approximately like my father's, and I know for sure he's no son of Krypton. Oh, and where you see "subtle nuances", I see a poorly-held approach. The performance, the execution of the approach was flawless. But the approach, the turning Clark into a greek, was in my opinion a flaw.

One last thing, I don't know how well Chris Reeve has stood the test of time. Sure, he will always be known as Superman. But whenever I turn "Ripley's Believe it or Not" on TV, there's always somebody that says of Dean Cain: "hey, there's Superman". And now, whenever I mention Clark Kent or Superman people think of Tom Wellington. So that he is known as Superman doesn't mean he's stood the test of time, just that the movie was popular. The comparison to Citizen Kane might be a little far-fetched. It is objective that that movie was an innovation and one of the most revolutionary films in History (if not the most) in terms of Image. While Chris Reeve adition to the world of thesps is something too subjective to measure.

#3: Maybe I was expecting a wrong Lois Lane. But being used to the beautiful Teri Hatcher and the pretty and smart Lois from the Max Fleicher cartoons, I see Margot Kidder as the weakest one. If she is not attractive, nor is she intelligent, how are you suppose to understand and sympathise to Superman loving her?

Everything else is true: the direction is good, the music is great... But I still insist that movie has troubles winning the hearts of the boys who didn't live in the seventies. As I said, Superman can't be stuck in a certain age, he needs to live through ages. There are still plenty of kids, teens, and adults whose dreams he needs to fill.

[charlesk 0]

After watching The Hulk and reading last Joe post, as well as Ross', I have something in favor of the Superman The Movie advocates, that I would like Ross to comment.

We criticized Clark Kent being played as a geek, as opposed as the Clark Kent of Lois and Clark, which is a normal person. But isn't Superman about social adaptacion, about self-confidence, about overcoming our shyness and being bold? The Clark of Lois and Clark is quite adapted socially, successful, attractive, no problem with women and self-confident...then, what is the purpose of the Superman alter ego?

I think that much of what Superman represents is hope, the hope of being able of unleash our hidden powers when we need them, and in this case, making Clark a shy geek as in the movie supports this message.

So, Ross, what really changes in the Clark Kent of Lois & Clark when he transforms into Superman, that the didn't already had as the bold, attractive, adapted and successful person he already is? It seems to me that the only thing is that he gets the love of Lois. In Superman The movie, he gets this plus self-confidence, success, attractiveness and social approval. So, isn't in this way of thinking Lois & Clark's approach more superficial than Superman The Movie?

[Lurker 5]

Brilliant Joe!

Neil - Superman Fan

[JoeinAR 1,949]

How would Superman be like if he lived in Europe?  

Romão, that has some trouble connecting with Superman, the character, because he is too related to Americana.  

to quote Superman

Yes, I'm here to fight for truth, justice and the American way.

Now Saturday Night Live did a take as Superman lands in Germany and becomes Uberman, forcing the Americans to develop the Kryptonite bomb.

[A24 4,346]

So, how about that Superman, huh.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[A24 4,346]

So, how about that Superman, huh.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yeah, he's a pretty cool guy, the way he's always saving the world and such.

They should do a movie about him.

Stefancos-

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

I hope people don't judge all those of certain beliefs based on the actions of one or a few.

Ray Barnsbury

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

I am too, and I wasn't offended so much as wondering what his implications were, but like you said, this has nothing to do with JW or Superman, TLIJ got what he was asking for, and this should end now.

Ray Barnsbury

[Justin 2]

Justin chimes in ...it's just a movie.  

Wow, Justin, you think so.  

So, Justin, does that mean there shouldn't be any passion about it, because as you so smartly point out, it's just a movie.  

Justin, Let me let you in on a little secret, this is a message board about "JUST A MOVIE SCORE COMPOSER."  John Williams is just a film composer.  Spielberg is just a film director.  Raiders of the Lost Ark is just a movie.  Star Wars is just a movie.  So I take your meaning that none of this is worth discussing.  None of this is valuable.  Its tripe, its trivial.  Hell why bother to post about just a movie.

I read this and sat in front of my computer for a long time trying to think of an answer. In the end I couldn't find one. They ARE just movies. However that doesn't stop me from taking interest in them and talking about them. Joe, you took what I said and blew it completly out of context I said they were just movies because I thought you were getting angry at Ross for expressing his opinion. Perhaps a better thing to have said would have been "It's just an opinion."

Justin

[JoeinAR 1,949]

But you did say

They ARE just movies

. So I stand by what I said, and I might add if they are nothing more than just movies, then why do any of us bother to come to this community to discuss them and the music surrounding them. Does discussion always have to be evenly toned, and no real passion or disagreement?

Joe, who thinks Justin knows what he said but doesn't understand what he said.

[Rogue_Leader 2]

I myself personally never liked this movie either.

The ending especially kills it for me.

The whole sequence where Superman turns back time by spinning the Moon around the Earth is retarded to the millionth power.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

YEAH, but you think the Matrix is great stuff.

[Lurker 5]

The whole sequence where Superman turns back time by spinning the Moon around the Earth is retarded to the millionth power.

Then be thankful that's not what he does.

Neil

[Justin 2]

Joe, who thinks Justin knows what he said but doesn't understand what he said.

Perhaps not.

Justin -Who still really likes movies.

[Uni 306]

All right, all right...before we get carried away -- yes, that was sarcasm intended to make a point (my first post in this topic was also sarcastic, but it was more a silly jest than anything else).  It was indeed a point Neil had made, although it was somewhat blunted by his earlier ridiculing of Ender's original post.  That we should respect, both inwardly and outwardly, each person's opinion -- and the opinions he uses to back up his opinion -- is both common sense and an explicit stricture drawn up by Ricard in an attempt to impart some civility upon this forum.

As much as I love all the veterans here, I think some of them here have been frustratingly dismissive of Ender's opinion.  I'm just appealing to them to be less close-minded and more receptive.  Sure, much of Ender's post may provoke debate -- and, for the livelihood of this board, let's hope the debate is as spirited as it can be -- but may it truly be a debate, or discussion, and not thinly veiled insults.  Obviously, this goes for both sides.

I desperately wanted to jump in with my own responses and opinions to the points Ross made initially, but I don't have time right now. (I probably won't be able to rest until I get in on it, though.... ) However, there are a couple of cents jangling in my pocket I just couldn't help throwing in real quick, and Alan summed it up the best.

We've ground away endlessly about how everyone's opinion is valid, we all have a right to speak our mind, yada, yada (although it still seems to be a select group who will never come around to believing that....tsk, tsk). I'll steer away from that tack this time, and try another--to wit:

How many times have I heard people on this board, after someone has made a generalized, sweeping criticism of a popular film, respond vehemently that, "It isn't enough to just say you don't like it; if you knew what you were talking about, you'd back it up with intelligent argument!" (Often followed--implicity, if not verbally--by a resounding, "SO THERE!!!") So here comes Ross with a bone to pick about one of our favorite films, and what does he do but present his viewpoint in a lucid, precise manner, just like we always wanted....and what does he get for it?

"SHUT UP! I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU SAY, YOU'RE STILL WRONG!!!"

I'm sorry--am I the only one who doesn't get this...?

For myself, I don't agree with Ross's personal take on the movie (although he made a couple of points that were admirably hard to contravene outright). But I have a total appreciation for his feelings, and an even greater appreciation for how he presented them. This is the sort of thing we used to demand on this board--reasonable, sound logic to support peoples' theses. And regardless of how anyone feels about the movie....how can we crucify him for wanting to "vent" a little? (Interestingly enough, most of the people protesting the loudest have done plenty of venting themselves over films they didn't like....and why not? I've done it too. It's fun...! )

Now....that having been said, Ross, I still mean to take you to task over your observations, however competently you reported them....your day is coming.

- Uni