• Krishna Shenoi in Bangalore
Back then, I could watch Max Fleischer's Superman cartoons forever and never get bored. Today, the case is almost the same. Oh, those films have some of the finest animation I've ever seen--even by today's standards, the animation is phenomenal, right from the fluidity of the movements of the characters to the uncanny weight of the objects. The characters and objects had shadows too.
Of course, back then, I was too young too care about the quality of the animation. Back then, all I cared for was Superman's heroics. How astonished I'd get when mild-mannered reporter Clark Kent said, "This looks like a job for Superman." At that moment, I would smile widely and try to ignore my hair standing on end. Clark Kent gets into a telephone booth--and gee-whiz, Superman comes out!
The same thing would happen in every single episode, but somehow it never got old. It always had that ability to get me excited--every time felt just as exhilarating as the first, just like when Popeye would gulp down his can of Spinach. Superman never failed to dazzle me as he flew "faster than a speeding bullet" and displayed his amazing strength-- "more powerful than a locomotive!" Those cartoons were really something.
And that music, oh what music! That hair-raising theme music as Superman flies into the air to save Lois Lane from the Mechanical Monsters or the city from the Mad Scientist! The delight I felt! The delight I still feel.
Those animated films made my young childhood years. They were produced in the 1940's; I savored them in the 1990's. All day long, I used to watch these Superman cartoons, never tiring of them. One day, my mother asked me, "Do you want to see a real Superman movie?" She went on to explain that what she was about to introduce to me was a "real Superman," not an animated one.
She pushed the VHS into the player. I held my breath. A few hours later, I was awestruck. I was spellbound. I believed a man could fly.
"Superman: The Movie" was released in 1978. Made on a considerably high budget for its time, it was the first of its kind--no other superhero film had been created on such a large scale. While the traditional superhero TV show would have a few bank robbers and a car chase, "Superman: The Movie" went all the way; helicopter accidents, earthquakes, bridge collapses, dam explosions, nuclear bombs--and not in the noisy style we now acquaint action films with, but in a wonderful style aided by such brilliant skill, I'm not sure what words to use to describe it. Maybe the word I'm looking for is "charm." It's an old-fashioned film, sure, but that's what makes it so appealing. It's such a huge blockbuster, but it's somehow--innocent.
The origin story of Superman was told with such respect to the comics and the lore. Here was an opportunity for the film to become a victim of self-parody. Instead, it took itself seriously and yet not too much so. It managed to tell an epic story and add a great deal of wit to the proceedings.
Many people reading this might not realize the significance of "Superman: The Movie." It is to the superhero genre what "Snow White" is to animation. It is literally the film that started the superhero film genre. Without it, there would be no "The Dark Knight," no "Batman," no "X-Men," no "Iron Man."
The special effects were outstanding, no doubt about it. Some blue screen effects, wires, and optical printers all worked together almost seamlessly to make our hero fly. The theme music is, like most of John Williams' themes, extremely memorable. The dialogue and plot is the ideal example of the superhero origin story. The look and feel of the entire film is spot on. All these things were strung together like clockwork to bring out a great film.
But the key element, the one thing that made the film as terrific and outstanding as it was, was Christopher Reeve. Christopher Reeve is Superman. And he is Clark Kent. Just Christopher Reeve. Nobody else. Christopher Reeve is Superman.
He was charmingly funny as bumbling reporter Clark Kent and so very awesome as Superman. Here, the difference between Superman and Clark Kent wasn't just the glasses and the hairdo like in the previous incarnations; it was everything-- the whole body language, the talking style, the charisma! I dare you not to smile with intense delight when you see Reeve in the Superman films.
Seeing how much I absolutely loved the first film, my parents got me copies of Superman 2, 3 and 4. Those films tided me over, but not like the first film. Today, maturity has brought with it the realization that the sequels were nowhere near the original. Yes, "Superman II" was decent enough; it was wicked funny, but it lacked something. "Superman III" was absolute crap. "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace" is quite surely the worst superhero film I've ever seen.
So there I was, a little kid, gaping at the TV screen. Wow. I remember holding one of those old photo cameras and taking pictures of the TV with Superman in the frame--I loved Christopher Reeve's Superman that much. And a small part of me believed what I was seeing was true--a man could really fly, and he wore that costume while he was at it. My mother said it was a "real Superman." I took that as, "He really exists." Or at least I subconsciously wanted to.
But then there was my dad; he made sure he burst my bubble every time. "It's not real, okay? It's all a stunt." Those words hurt me back then. Even today, I wish it was all real. I'd like to think Christopher Reeve could fly around the world in seconds. Reality, of course, is different. He died an early death after being completely paralyzed from the neck down. I was just two when it happened. His horse refused to jump a fence in a horse race and he fell off and sustained a serious spinal injury that rendered him paralyzed.
In the initial days after the accident, Reeves considered suicide. The pain was too much; his head and his spine were not connected, fluid was entering his lungs.
"Maybe we should let me go," he said to his wife, Dana.
"I am only going to say this once: I will support whatever you want to do, because this is your life, and your decision. But I want you to know that I'll be with you for the long haul, no matter what. You're still you. And I love you," his wife said to him. It's no wonder Reeve never thought about committing suicide again.
In fact, he got more hopeful. He went deep into research about stem cells, he daily worked on improving his physical and mental condition; and he was showing great progress too: he was able to breath for short periods of time without his ventilator, he regained his sense of feeling in most of his body, though he still couldn't move below the neck. He traveled around the world and spoke about the possibilities of regenerating stem cells in the future. And he never stopped believing that someday, he would stand.
"When John Kennedy promised that by the end of the 1960s we would put a man on the moon," Reeve told Time magazine, "everybody, including the scientists, shook their heads in dismay. But we did it. We can cure spinal-cord injuries too, if there's the will. What was possible in outer space is possible in inner space."
I remember reading something about all that in the papers. I used to look at pictures of him sitting in his wheelchair and think, "Why's Superman in a wheelchair?"
On October 10th 2004, Reeve had a heart attack and descended into a coma. He never flew out of it. I distinctly remember holding a copy of Young Time magazine and seeing a two-page spread of Christopher Reeve Superman photos. On turning the page, I learned that my hero had died. I never felt that sense of loss and shock over a celebrity death till just last year with the fall of the King of Pop.
In 2006, almost four decades after "Superman: The Movie" was released and two years after Reeve's death, Bryan Singer's 'Superman Returns' was playing in theaters the world over. Though its look, music, costumes, special effects, plot, et all were great, the film was let down by soulless, hollow acting. No amount of special effects can make up for the fact that Brandon Routh is no Christopher Reeve. He is no Superman.
After "Superman Returns" didn't meet the expectations of the big heads at Warner Bros., there have been numerous rumors and stories being thrown around. Mark Millar wanted to do something with Superman. David S. Goyer was attached to a reboot of sorts. Christopher Nolan was deemed the Godfather of the new franchise.
The online world is now abuzz with reports and opinions on what Zack Synder (the confirmed director of the Superman reboot) and Christopher Nolan are doing/going to do about the next Superman film. I, for one, am more concerned about who is going to play Superman next. Roger Ebert put across what I want to say in his review of 2006's "The Pink Panther" perfectly. He says, of Steve Martin's turn as Inspector Closeau, "Inspector Clouseau has been played by other actors before Steve Martin (Alan Arkin and Roger Moore), but what's the point? The character isn't bigger than the actor, as Batman and maybe James Bond are. The character is the actor, and I had rather not see Steve Martin, who is himself inimitable, imitating Sellers."
The same for Superman. The actors playing James Bond can keep switching, and they can keep changing the Batman actor every two to three movies too, but I can't see anyone but Christopher Reeve playing Superman. Look at Reeve in the original film and then look at Brandon Routh in "Superman Returns" and see what I mean.
My friends aren't particularly big fans of the Superman character. They say he's "too powerful, too boring, too gay." They complain that "he's no Batman, he's no Iron Man." The thing is--he isn't. He's Superman, and that's all he needs to be. And he's my superhero, right down to the red underwear. And Christopher Reeve had a huge role in making Superman mean so much to me.
Twenty years from now, my friends and I might have outgrown "The Dark Knight" and "X-Men" and "Spider-Man" and what not. But, mark my words, I don't think it is possible for me to ever outgrow "Superman: The Movie." How can you outgrow the thing that made your childhood?
I think we can agree that Christopher Reeve was a Superman on-screen and off. I might have said this before, but it needs saying. Christopher Reeve is Superman. And maybe, if you admired him as much as I did, the vice versa holds true too.
Christopher Reeve was born on September 25th 1952. He died on October 10th, 2004.
About Krishna Shenoi:
I was born in Bangalore, India, but am at present sadly stuck in the UAE. I have been obsessed with movies for as long as I can remember. I'm a lover of Steven Spielberg, Ray Harryhausen, Robert Zemeckis, Tom Hanks, Regina Spektor, The Eels, my mother's food and my imaginary girlfriend.
My YouTube channel can be found here. You can see my more recent amateur films here, although I rarely update that website now (due to laziness, a trait I'm known for). Oh, and I paint too. You can see some of my artwork here, on my blog. I'd like to think I can write as well.
I have learned most of what I know about movie making and criticism moseying around Wikipedia and watching the bonus features on those two-disc-special editions of films that are sold at 50% the price. I'm just seventeen, so be gentle with me.
The author at an early age
It was bluescreen and those aren't fleischer cartoons
Ebert: My fault, The second image has been corrected.
I've often thought about this, but ultimately, come out on the opposite side of Krishna: Superman is bigger than Christopher Reeve. Much like the Joker is bigger than both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger, despite iconic turns and praised performances. I think the discussion is really about emotional attachment to films, characters, etc.
Amazing article. I whole heartedly agree
with you. Without the late great Mr. Reeve Superman:The Movie might not have been as iconic a motion picture as it is. When I was introduced to the movie was a young 2 or 3 year old I simply went bonkers. Make no mistake I truly believed a man could fly (I still secretly hope I'll someday inherit such powers!). I really enjoyed your thoughts ans it has inspired me to write something about the movie and the character I love so much.
Not too long ago, Film Score Monthly put together an amazing box set of the music from the first four Superman films (the Chris Reeve films). http://amzn.to/bPr6TX It's an amazing and wonderful testament to the magic of the films and the genius of John WIlliams' theme.
I was older when "Superman" came out, but feel the same about Chris Reeve. He WAS/IS/ALWAYS WILL BE Superman.
hmmmm!!!! True!!! But i do disagree with one thing. Character isn't always bigger than the actor. For example, the older Batman films, like Roger Ebert said :p, the actors were probably cast based on how good their chin looked. Which is why no one ever took him seriously. And Bruce Wayne had less screen time than the batarang or the batmobile. We all know, Christian Bale is THE Bruce Wayne.
Reeve wasn't THE superman despite what you might say (let me finish). I think Brandon Routh is as much Superman as Christopher Reeve. I think anyone who is good looking, can maintain the same corny 'i'm here to help' smile throughout an entire movie can be Superman. What makes Reeve everything Routh can never be is Clark Kent. Routh is Superman but he is no Clark Kent. Like you said, Superman Returns lacked the Lois and Clark chemistry. Clark was just filling the screen so Supes won't feel missing. What Superman Returns failed at was giving us a Clark we can care about. I felt sad when Superman fell from the sky (perhaps it was just the music), but i didn't give a crap about Clark, or Lois who is now married and what Clark feels about this. OR the kid who i thin was unnecessary.
Now i think my comment doesn't make any sense. I hope yu see what i'm trying to say.
@ D:
I can't believe I made that factual error! Yes, I know it was blue screen, not green! I also know of how they used green suits and all. All on the amazing special effects documentary in the special features.
Nice post...
It was blue screen and a green suit was used for the flying shots as not to get cut off from the chroma key. On acting non flying takes the suit was regular blue. Pretty neat eh?
I think Superman 3 is probably worse than Superman 4 just because of the United Nations scene redeeming the last Reeve installment. And yes he was and still is the best Superman, same as Hackman being the best Luthor!
Great Caesar's Ghost! Everyone knows GEORGE Reeves was the true Superman.
October 31, 1979, five years old, I trudged through a foot of snow in the frigid Grand Forks winter, blue pajamas, red blanket around my neck... I was Superman.
The Salkinds and Donner created the template, and I can't add words to this article as it so perfectly expresses what I have to say about the film, as well as the characterization of Superman that Reeve made his own.
I personally think the character in film should be retired in honor of Reeve. There's an interesting connection, by the way, with another larger-than-life figure. While buffing up for Superman, Reeve trained with David Prowse, the body of Darth Vader.
I feel really fortunate to have been born right at that time when Star Wars and Superman changed cinema. I don't particularly like the end result 30 years later, of blockbuster films with action and no soul, but I am nonetheless grateful to Richard Donner, Ilya & Alex Salkind, Christopher Reeve, Gene Hackman and especially Margot Kidder.
I never realized just how much Kidder's performance as Lois Lane defined the plucky female type. Kate Bosworth? Get out of here. Who could play Lane today the way Kidder did? Routh tried too hard to imitate Reeve's mannerisms... Whenever actors attempt to channel other actors, it's like the uncanny valley in robotics... off just enough to be unnerving or unsettling.
Please let's just not have another Superman. How about simply re-releasing the 1978 original into theaters, maybe a cleaned up print but DEAR GOD no serious modifications to the story, to the effects, no dance numbers... Do it like Ridley Scott did Blade Runner: The Final Cut.
And directors of future comic book adaptations, please study this film backward and forward, and understand that it's not the effects or the action sequences (they're great but they didn't upstage Reeve and Kidder), but the human story and humanity, that makes Superman to this day the greatest super hero film.
Well that's the darnedest thing. Last night the wife and I were talking about various comic book heroes and wondering if there'd be any Superman remakes. We both thought that the part died with Christopher Reeve.
Maybe it didn't, but welcome, Krishna.
Marvel and DC comic characters are a whole different world. Much better than let's say, Fox characters.
Brandon Routh was a great Superman.
Your piece really touched my heart, Krishna. I loved your sharing about Superman, and honoring of Chris Reeve - who I agree really WAS a Superman - on the 6th anniversary of his passing. Chris continues to be a shining example of the highest truth that we are far more than just this ol' body... I also love so many things about this film -- including John Williams' beautiful (and perfect!) score!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6byQfCk1zlI
I can agree that Routh didn't have what it takes for that particular role and was completely overshadowed by Reeve, but as for who the next supes is? I've been watching Smallville for almost 200 episodes and while that show isn't always as good as it can be, Tom Welling delivers, in my opinion, one hell of a performance. He's strong yet vulnerable, he's not so much geeky but he does care a lot. It's an odd situation, he's almost Superman, but less than a mythical figure at this stage - he's become, and its a stupid thing to say, considering, Superman without the costume.
Absolutely loved the article. Great thing to read on a Sunday morning.
"The Superman" is something you can recall with smile and nostalgia. It's still a fun movie with lots of appeal and innocence. Reeve was more interesting as a human being than as an actor, but he was born to play the Superman - and he met the right movie.
The movie is a nice balance between seriousness and innocent(and campy sometimes) fun, and the problem began when the subsequent movies stated to lose in one way and another. For example, in case of "Superman Returns", it forgot being fun while trying to be serious too much. I hope they will not forget that while making new Superman movie.
By the way, I enjoyed your writing - especially your reminiscence
"...too gay"? I'm sure your friends actually say that, but is it necessary to repeat here without even a critical aside?
Great article. Quite insightful, and triggers me to want to go back and watch Superman: The Movie again. I haven't seen it in probably 25 years! Also, this article was so well-written and fascinating in and of itself. It having been written by a 17-year-old gives me hope that there are young people who care to be able to express themselves beyond text-messaging shorthand. Please keep up the great work, Krishna!
Great article! One thing. We had someone come to our school tomorrow who stated Superman had many connectionis to the story of Moses considering his creators were Jewish. It is a little disheartening in the films it became the 4444444444th film using a Christ allegory. It would be fantastic for someone to remember Superman's roots as the "immigrant."
Love this article!
I, too, think that Chris Reeves is the definitive Superman.
But, I also think that there was more to 2006's Superman Returns being awful than Brandon Routh (i.e. director Bryan Singer).
Very touching though about Reeves and the paragraph about his opt for life.
P.S. I love Superman 2! General Zod is incredible and Superman 3, although very different to 1 and 2, is highly underrated. 4 has one good scene of dialogue (Gene Hackman and Reeves as they meet Nuclear Man) but is otherwise boring and amateur.
Love this article!
I, too, think that Chris Reeves is the definitive Superman.
But, I also think that there was more to 2006's Superman Returns being awful than Brandon Routh (i.e. director Bryan Singer).
Very touching though about Reeves and the paragraph about his opt for life.
P.S. I love Superman 2! General Zod is incredible and Superman 3, although very different to 1 and 2, is highly underrated. 4 has one good scene of dialogue (Gene Hackman and Reeves as they meet Nuclear Man) but is otherwise boring and amateur.
I agree with everything you said about Christopher Reeve. He still remains a perfect Superman and a perfect Clark Kent.
Just a note about the blue screen/green screen trivia. Although some bluescreen was used, a lot of the effects were actually acheived using a brand new technique based on the Front Projection method of superimposition, where the background image is projected from a projector very close to the lens of the camera, onto a highly reflective surface which reflectsalmost all light directly back in the direction it comes from. The camera sees the projected background, but the performer doesn't reflect the projection because it's fairly dim otherwise, so appears to be in front of the projected image. Plus, with front projection, the bright blue suit wasn't a problem, unlike for bluescreen, which required slightly green suits to work.
This technique had been used for years, but in Superman, Zoran Perisic devised a way to control the camera zoom and synchronise it with the background projector so that the background image stayed the same size, but the foreground performer grew or shrank. Then, Reeve would be harnessed into a custom-made body-fitting harness which was attached to the screen behind him, masked by his body so the camera couldn't see it.
Then, it was up to Christopher Reeve to perform. The producers expected to use stand-ins for many shots where his face was small in the frame, but in the end, Reeve's flying was so convincing and individual that I believe he was used for all the shots. His performance in the incredibly uncomfortable harness was the magic that was needed to really sell the illusion, and to totally make us believe a man could fly.
He was Superman.
I am as great a fan of DC and Marvel comics as a boy in the 80s middle class could be - fifty bucks for a glazed comic book was too much - but I know a lot about Superman and saw two of his movies, and then I saw Superman Returns.
I was aghast.
Superman Returns is by far the worst superhero ever to be made. Soulless, hollow, wanting to get the romance back to the superheroes so they can make a frigging pink franchise out of it - it was the pits, and Bryan Singer has been sounded off pretty well. I remember, back in those days when making a site was a big thing, I wrote a review on Mouthshut asking him for my money back.
Today, I have my own site and I look forward to this new kid on the block. :)
This is precisely why Superman: The Movie is my favorite movie of all time. There are many, many runners-up, but for some reason this one has always just been magic to me. Rest In Peace, Mr. Reeve.
I agree with the comments regarding Superman's movie career. Reeve Was Superman, just as Connery Is James Bond- all the others are movies based on the James Bond story. never for one minute would I ever read an Ian Fleming novel and visualize anyone other than Connery.
Emotionally speaking, "my Superman" was George Reeves. To this day, the show's theme music and intro literally give me chills. It can't date- it became grafted onto my soul. In play, I wore the cape, sometimes mask, belt, and imagined my own movie- me as George reeves as Superman. A very close second was Guy Willimas as Zorro.
I couldn't watch Lost in Space. Guy Williams was Zorro, had a mustache and a thin face.
I loved Star Trek NG, all the movie- but will never forgive Shatner for agreeing to appear as James T. Kirk dying on camera. He still has time to rectify this mistake before he dies- we need a new Star Trek movie just to right that wrong.
Last, and probably least- Tobey Maquire IS Spiderman!
The first Superman was such a wonderful movie. For those of us who grew watching George Reeves jump out of a window (over some hidden trampoline, of course) and fighting the "mole men" the film was a dream come true. Richard Donner hit every note just perfectly. I also enjoyed II a lot but the scenes directed by Richard Lester stick out like a sore thumb, his sense of humor was right for the Beatles movies but he had no business directing Superman. I will never understand how the producers could fire Donner after doing such a wonderful job in I and most of II.
I can't say I agree with Brandon Routh comparison, he simply had the bad luck of landing on a bad Superman film, one which made evey effort to copy the spirit of the first one but sadly failed. To this day I still can't grasp what went wrong with SUPERMAN RETURNS, perhaps too many CGI shots of crystal, the tired "kid in peril" routine, a lack of chemistry with Luisa Lane, who knows but I had no probelm with Routh whatsoever.
Nice Superman suit, actually I received one of those for my first communion quiet a few years ago, only problem is that they never come with the red boots and no other shoes made by man look right with it.
I really enjoyed this honest piece of writing, Krishna.
And truth be told, if we recall the image of the clumsy, bumbling Clark Kent at all, it's because Christopher Reeve made it iconic. In fact, his Clark Kent moments are among my favourites.
Very good article.
I wholeheartedly agree with you on Christopher Reeve. He was perfect for the role, especially because he could make us care about Clark Kent and make us think it's possible that nobody notices that Superman looks like Clark Kent in underpants without glasses. Brandon Routh failed on both accounts, even though he was decent as Supes himself, if a bit young.
That said, I'm not a big fan of "Superman: The Movie". I think it fails in two major ways:
1. the villain. Every hero is only as interesting as the villain he must overcome. And that's where they messed up: Hackman's lame and not the least bit threatening. As every Superman reader can tell you, Lex Luthor is one of the most fascinating villains the DC universe has to offer. The problem in the movie is that neither the script nor the actor who portrays him take the character seriously. Too corny, too eccentric, too Jack-Nicholson-as-Joker (in Hackman's case, even before Nicholson did the Joker). And no, Kevin Spacey didn't do much better.
2. the ending. Come on: he spins the earth backwards to turn back time. What the hell? The whole movie takes its source material so seriously, and then they drop this ludicrous nonsense on us? Epic. Fail.
The movie has some other flaws, but they are in the end not that important.
The plot becomes paper-thin once Luthor gets involved - doesn't matter, up to that it gave us a great origin story for Superman which would become the blueprint for almost every superhero movie that followed. The special effects are dated - so what, a true cinephile can overlook that easily as long as the movie is compelling.
On a side note: Margot Kidder IS Lois Lane.
I also agree on your evaluations of the sequels.
That said, I completely understand why you feel this way about the movie, your excellent writing makes that clear.
I myself am equally devoted to "Batman Returns", even though as a huge fan of the comics I can see that Burton got about everything wrong that one could get wrong in a Batman movie. It's the pure sense of wonder that makes ths movie work so well - for me, anyway.
All the best to you from Germany, Marcus
I partially disagree with one detail: when I was younger, I prefered "Superman II" since I think the plot is much more exciting than that of the first of the series. However, I recently saw Reeve's debut again with an older eye and was much more impressed now that I have more perspective. The movie hits exactly the right note in presenting a Superman who completely believes in the virtue of doing what's right and wins over the more cynical Lois, corny enough to be funny and endearing but not corny enough to be lame or dull. In fact, Superman escapes death at the villain's hands not as most superheroes do, through muscle or by outsmarting the enemy, but precisely because he has earned a reputation for trustworthiness. It was so satisfying for a hero's morality to be a great help for him in a conflict, not a handicap.
One quibble: "Superman Returns" came out nearly _three_ decades after the Christopher Reeve film, not four.
I just want to say that I feel you are a fantastic writer, Krishna. I may not agree with some of your observations, but you make a great case for retiring Superman from the big screen!
I remember reading when the original Superman movie was being made (I was 18 then!) that the wire stunts were done with very basic equipment. Remember, this was the first film to use them. The stunt men on the film spoke about what a scary experience it was to 'fly' around on them. But apparently Christopher Reeve did it without turning a hair. 'He really has nerves of steel!' is a comment from a stunt supervisor on the film I remember from that article. Now, it could have been a PR person's subtle touch, but I tend to believe it was true. The way he held on after being paralysed proves it, I feel.
Krishna, way to go! As you may have guessed, you have a soul mate in me!
I was young enough to enjoy and love Superman in Comic form, but too old by the time he graduated to the screen. Comic strip generation, you might say. Wonderfully refreshing and nostalgic article.
This is a timely article for me. Superman: The Movie has long been one of my favorite films. I saw it in the theater when it came out (I was 7) and, like Raiders of the Lost Ark a couple of years later, I never get bored rewatching it.
The other day, Superman II was on television and I was explaining to my girlfriend just how great Reeve was in that role. It was the scene in the hotel, where he "stumbles" and thrusts his hand into the fire. I asked my girlfriend to watch closely, because this scene epitomized the genius of Christopher Reeve as Superman.
He's walking away from the camera. His shoulders are slumped. His feet fall heavy with every step. His body seems awkward. He IS Clark Kent. Then he stops. In one move, his shoulders straighten and he turns and you can even see his expression change from fearful to fearless. Reeve suddenly IS Superman. No costume change. No change in lighting, camera angles, or anything. Reeve just transforms right before our eyes -- and convincingly so.
That was the key. He didn't need the costume to make it work. And that's why, as ridiculous as the Superman costume is, it never looked ridiculous on Reeve.
Can any other actor ever embody this character so thoroughly? I don't know. However, I will say that it's unfair to dismiss Brandon Routh for his effort. In his defense, he wasn't really given the chance to try to make it his own. He was directed to not to be Clark Kent/Superman, but instead to try to be Christopher Reeve playing Clark Kent/Superman. Also, it didn't help that many of flying scenes were stripped of personality due to the use of a digital version of Routh.
Now the Zach Snyder has gone on record to say that the new film will be a true "reboot" and not beholden to the earlier films, I hope that he and the rest of those involved in the production remember the lesson Reeve taught about the character: Find an actor who doesn't need the costume to make it work. If you have to rely on the actor ripping open his shirt to reveal the red and yellow shield in order to tell us it's Superman time, then you've already failed.
While I think that Christopher Reeve was the best live-action Superman we have had, and probably will ever have, the thing to remember about Superman is that his most iconic scenes were drawn, not filmed, and his words were most often spoken aloud by the person reading the comic, not some actor. And there have been numerous artists and writers who have lent their tremendous talents to telling the stories of the Last Son of Krypton, just on the printed page. Animation has, in my opinion, done a far better job of translating this comic-book hero into a world of motion and sound. Some efforts have been less successful than others, with the best results coming from Warner Bros. Animation in "Superman: The Animated Series". Then again, I've seen Superman done in so many different ways, by so many different people, I don't think that any one way is the only way it can be done well. My favorite Superman is the one drawn in the Bruce Timm style and voiced by Tim Daly, just as my favorite Lex Luthor is voiced by Clancy Brown, my favorite Batman is voiced by Kevin Conroy, and my favorite Joker is voiced by Mark Hamill (although Heath Ledger is a photo-finish second).
Helen Slater deserves a mention. She is Supergirl after all, and she's a babe!
Meaning you no disrespect Mr. Shenoi, but people like you and Bryan Singer are the reason why we got such an unsatisfactory film like Superman Returns; because you can't let go of the past. I agree with the first poster, Joey, characters like Superman and the Joker are pop culture icons and they are bigger than any one actor.
As a matter of fact, I feel sorry for the next actor chosen to play the Joker, because I feel he will be unfairly judged against Heath Ledger. Please do not get me wrong; I love Superman The Movie and Christopher Reeve's performance as much as you or anyone else who is an admirer of Richard Donner's classic. I own the movie on laserdisc and DVD. And yes I too also believe that Superman I is far superior to Superman II a film which has too many inconsistencies.
But as much as I admire Superman The Movie, I'm not too attached to the film that I can't stand back and look at it objectively, and the fact is, the film is dated. The dialogue is very 70's and the Gene Hackman Luthor is nothing like the Lex Luthor portrayed in the DC comics today. Furthermore, the film has a Lois Lane who smokes, come on man there is nothing sexy or cool about that.
One of the problems with Superman Returns among its many is that when I look at Brandon Routh, I don't see the character of Superman; I see a Christopher Reeve wannbe (or clone). Although Bryan Singer felt he was doing the right thing by honoring the Donner film thus making Superman Returns a vague sequel (or direct sequel) to Superman I and II, he has in my humble opinion done the character of Superman a disservice by trying to re-connect to (at the time of Superman Returns release) an almost 30 year old movie.
Although I'm not a fan of Smallville, I give the show much credit for being able to redefine Superman for a whole new generation. If a new Superman movie is to succeed at the box office, then the character is going to have to be redefined for today's audience. He doesn't have to be dark and brooding like Wolverine, Spawn, or his homie in Gotham City, and I'm not saying the essence of the character should be changed, but in order for a new Superman film to be a hit, the 70's gee whiz persona that Reeve brought to the character has to be done away with and that's going to take a director and actor willing to put their own spin on the character.
After all, for the people who love Christopher Reeve, I'm sure there is a considerable amount of people who still feel that George Reeves is the definitive Superman. Personally, as much I admire Chris Reeve's performance, I feel that the 1990's Superman Animated Series and the Justice League currently present the best interpretation of the character outside of the DC comics.
I've always been a Bat-fan but Christopher Reeve and Superman: The Movie has always been a touchstone in my life since the first time I saw it in theaters at the age of seven the year it came out. Seeing Donner's version of Krypton and a young Clark Kent racing alongside a locomotive was cool but seeing Kal-El come fully into his inheritance after his years being schooled by Jor-El in his Fortress of Solitude with Superman flying into the camera was iconic.
That movie started my love of the super-hero movie genre and while there are some crap movies in that category just knowing that the next time I see a film about a comic book character can possibly transport me back to that sense of wonder and enchantment I felt when I saw a man fly back in '77 makes it worth plunking down the twelve dollars and hoping once again for those feelings. The good thing is that if I don't though I can always come home and pop in my DVD and let Donner, the Salkinds, Williams, Kidder, and especially Mr. Reeve give me those feelings once again just like they did over thirty years ago.
This is a fantastic article! I too am a fan of Christopher Reeve - especially as Superman/Clark Kent. I think people need to realize that he wasn't just someone that looked the part (like Brandon Routh and even that is debatable) but he was a highly skilled and talented actor. Superman is essentially a saint, the "boy scout" but in today's skeptical society it's hard to believe someone like that exists but it was equally alien in the 70's. In Superman Returns, Routh showed wasn't so saintly after all - showing jealousy towards Lois' boyfriend, and then there was this scene where he had this rather sinister smirk on his face after the gunman ran out of bullets. Not what one would expect from the upbringing of Ma and Pa Kent! The magic of Reeve wasnt about how he could portray that a man could fly but that he made me believe as a kid (and as I do today) that a true hero with high moral values could exist. You don't need expensive special effects for that. No 3D please.
From a reboot perspective, Bruce Timm's animated Superman put some really interesting dilemmas in front of superman, like "why doesnt he just kill Luthor?" Wouldn't the world be a better place?
I watched many many times Christopher Reeve's Superman as a kid and most recently watched the Donner Cut of Superman 2 which is quite amazing. I hope they capture that magic in the reboot.
Marcus Heine states "the ending. Come on: he spins the earth backwards to turn back time. What the hell? The whole movie takes its source material so seriously, and then they drop this ludicrous nonsense on us? Epic. Fail".
Marcus, you bring up an interesting point. Over the years, I've noticed that anytime a critique or general discussion of Superman The Movie comes up, the whole spinning the earth backwards scene always seems to be a point of contention for many people.
Personally, although I think the scene does take Superman's abilities in a somewhat ridiculous direction, I cut the scene a lot of slack because it was done with such dramatic weight and power from Reeve. After all, here was a man-god who for all his power and wisdom could not accept the death of the woman he loved. A very powerful scene that showed an all too human Superman.
It amazes me how fans of Superman have more of a problem with earth spinning scene than the magical kiss scene at the end of Superman II. I mean come on, he kisses Lois Lane and all of a sudden she forgets all the events of Superman II. I find that scene a gazillion times more ludicrous than the earth spinning scene in Superman I. Richard Lester and company take the concept of taking creative liberties to a whole new level.
As a matter of fact, I find the scene with Nuclear Man taking Mariel Hemingway into outer space with no oxygen (Supes IV) more plausible than the magic kiss scene of Superman II.
Oh by the way Mr. Shenoi, Superman IV: The Quest for Peace is not the worst superhero film, Joel Schumacher and Pitof can attest to that.
I was eight when Superman was released, and already a devoted fan of the Fleischer cartoons and the comics. I remember at the time I was very critical of the film, because I thought Reeve was too skinny and Margot Kidder wasn't pretty enough! The unique representation of Krypton and the Phantom Zone also didn't sit with me, as they were very different from the comics. In time I came to appreciate the film and especially the casting of Reeve; I understand now that the movie was a great artistic achievement. (The music by John Williams still fills me with wonderful emotion.) I have since accepted the film as part of the Superman "canon". (I will never accept Superman's Death, his mullet or the reduction of his powers in the 90's as canonical!)Reeve was tremendous and he added so much to a wonderful hero. His Clark Kent will never be equaled. Routh was good in that he reminded us of Reeve, and I thought that Kevin Spacey did a fine job of following Hacman. I don't feel that Reeve is bigger than Superman, however. I think that if the creators of the films return to the source material, namely Siegal and Shuster, they might be able to pull it off. If they set the film in the forties it would be awesome. I always picture Superman in a very Art Deco setting because of Shuster's artwork. The makers of the next film need to remember that Superman is more than a superhero - he's an ideal of humanity who we were gifted with at the very start of one of our finest periods in the nation's history. God Bless America!
I'd like to thank everyone for their comments and thoughts :)
And though I've said I disliked 'Superman Returns', I must add I think it is very lovingly made with a lot of respect for Donner's original film and I applaud Bryan Singer, his special effects team, John Ottman and the art directors for their great work.
And yes, I too found the 'spinning of the world' scene a bit of a shock, but... Corey above put it better than I ever could: "I cut the scene a lot of slack because it was done with such dramatic weight and power from Reeve. After all, here was a man-god who for all his power and wisdom could not accept the death of the woman he loved. A very powerful scene that showed an all too human Superman."
But I've always wondered: if you spin the earth back and undo things from happening, won't they happen the same way again?
From my review of the DVD of "Superman Returns"
In 1978, "Superman" became the first comic book movie with a big budget and big-name stars. The film and its first sequel "Superman II" were light-hearted romps that still took their source material seriously, with a tagline that proclaimed, "You'll believe a man can fly."
Twenty-eight years later, the Man of Steel finally reappears in the darker, moodier "Superman Returns." If anything, what this reincarnation of Superman suffers from is the darker, more intense plots established by the Marvel Comics films. By today's standards, "Returns" is competent and respectful of its origins, but it's much darker than its predecessors.
That dark mode is expected for "Batman," who is, after all, a street vigilante. But Superman is an optimistic, larger-than-life superhero. It was great to see him finally return to the big screen. I was just hoping for a more optimistic message.
The three hours of DVD documentary footage is over-long and overkill. A great deal of fluff should have been left on the cutting-room floor: the dressing-room sequence, the failed joke on the propmaster, Spacey's birthday cakes. They just waste time. Unnecessary use of original music cues from the original "Superman" also distract from the information on screen.
A lot of it focuses on newcomer Routh, chosen for his resemblance to the late Christopher Reeve, who originated the role and played him in three sequels. After you've seen him fly in the harness rig and the blue tights for about what seems like half of the show, you start to to think that Routh was chosen because he would make a good action figure. Routh never makes the role his own like Reeve did. Plus, he's too young-looking.
By the same token, I also found it difficult to accept the 23-year-old Bosworth as Lois Lane. By my reckoning, she should have been played by someone that was in her mid- to late-thirties, at least. Especially for someone with a 6-year-old son and a long-established career at the Daily Planet.
And while I'm ranting, why has the Daily Planet been turned into the modern corporate newsroom? In the comic-book world, the only newspaper editor more entertaining than Superman's Perry White was Spider-Man's J. Jonah Jameson. I've always liked Frank Langella, but there is little or no fire in this performance.
What's missing is a discussion on why the third and fourth sequels were ignored. It's good that they were, as both films were less than stellar (to put it mildly), but it would have been interesting to find out director Bryan Singer's reasoning. Also, why was his script chosen over all others? And what was the history of this long-delayed project? This was a missed chance to set the record straight.
When the original "Superman" and its sequel appeared in 1978 and 1979, respectively, they were good-natured, light-hearted romps. The material was treated seriously, but it was never really malevolent. This one almost is, and suffers as a result. It's worth watching, and worthy of the name and a sequel, but it has earned the PG-13 rating.
Agree with Fran.
When it comes to dramatic, awe-inspiring, goofy smile on your face, turn you back into a kid again moments - the DC animated universe of recent years comes closest to the well written comics about Superman. And that's due mainly to the voice acting, and the music.
Maybe it's because I watched it too late, but I'm really not a fan of any of the Superman movies or Chris Reeves in particular.
The thing that I regret most when it come to Superman's representation on screen is that the show (Smallville) where I feel he has been best portrayed isn't really a show you can tell others to watch unless they are die-hard Superman fans, or avid DC Comics readers.
In the shows much later seasons Tom Welling and team have done the most brilliant job a Superman fan could hope for - they have shown us the real Clark Kent.
Just because Superman doesn't wear a mask and was born with his powers, most people have the idea that the bumbling Clark Kent's the act and Superman's the real person. In actuality they are both acts.
The real character is the simple Kansas farm boy or the globe trotting journalist(as in Superman:Birthright-my favorite Superman) depending on your tastes.
As for the next film - I sincerely hope they use the "Birthright" theme, and portray Superman as more of a citizen of the Earth instead of America. Also that they don't succumb to the anti-hero protagonist trend of the last two decades, and present something that is not exactly an antidote but a compliment.
I don't think the "Spinning the world" idea could ever work for any other hero or franchise but it was absolutely perfect for SUPERMAN, after all, if you believe a man can fly you'll believe anything, never mind the fact that whichever direction the world spins has nothing to do whatsoever with the on-goings in the planet, in other words, if the world were to spin backwards the sun would rise in the West and set on the East, and that's that.
Why people hater Superman 3 I DUNNO.....THE MOVIE WAS FUN. a different approach true..Richard Pryor was awesome Chris Reeve did his thing too.
Great blog. Although I do agree that the character of Superman is bigger than any actor, I have to admit that no one has come close to what Reeve did. The man had presence. I think it also helped that Superman: The Movie was the first major comic book film and not a formula imitation of a million others. They didn't seem to look at it like they were making a comic book movie. Donner, Reeve, Mankeiwicz, etc. all just seemed to be trying to make a damn good movie. Reeve was a Juliard trained actor who was serious about the role, not just another A lister looking for a fat check and a franchise. I look forward to more Superman movies, but they have a tough act to follow. Reeve was so perfect for the role, it's like they said, "Who are we going to get to play Superman? I don't know....how about Superman?" It's that rare combination of being a natural fit for the role and having acting talent to burn.
I fully agree -- Christopher Reeve is Superman, and America will never get tired of the first Superman film. I would like to point out, though, that Tom Welling is Clark Kent.
As for the next film, it's too bad Brandon Routh won't be chosen again, because Superman Returns' performance wasn't his fault.
You say it's all about the actor and degrade other franchises like Bond and Batman saying that the character and the actor don't matter and they are interchangeable. But you also say that Superman II is passable and III and IV are horrid. Same actor in the suit in all those movies - different writers and directors.
Watch the Richard Donner cut of Superman II and I think you'll see it's more than passable. It's important to have good actors but Reeve was not that. He was good enough. You also need good writing and directing behind the acting to make a good movie.
I don't know how old you are but you said you were two when Reeve died (don't remember when that was and don't want to google) so obviously you're pretty young. You make some good points but your undoing comes when you say that Brian Singer's version of Superman came out almost 40 years after the original. 1978 - 2006 is 28 years (nearly 30), not 40 - go back to school.
Great article. I was eight years old when "Superman: The Movie" came out, and that film along with a few others (notably, "Star Wars") established my great love of films. I always tell modern day fans of comic books and comic book films that without S:TM, there would never have been the serious treatment of the genre on screen.
If you've not seen the Donner Cut of "Superman II", I strongly recommend viewing it. Although it is limited by the fact that editing together the original intended story required using test footage and incomplete scenes at times, it is an almost entirely different film from the theatrical release, is far closer in style and tone and character and storytelling to "Superman: The Movie" (since Donner's version was filmed simultaneously with the first film, as a two-part story), and is far, far superior to the theatrical release version.
I am among those who really liked "Superman Returns", although I do understand some of the criticisms of the film and why it ultimately had trouble finding an audience. I can't help wondering if perhaps Singer should've simply dived in head-first and just done a modern remake of "Superman: The Movie" instead of attempting a pseudo-sequel to the first two films. Might Routh, who is honestly a very talented actor, have been better received if he'd been given a bit more leeway to do a modern take on the same characterization? I suspect it could be the case. I don't personally think that a literal remake WOULD have been the best option, but in light of how "Superman Returns" was received and how much Singer was obviously like a lot of us in loving the original film and feeling that it was so perfect an adaptation that maybe it's best to retain it.
Since we're all fans here and having fun discussing our love of the character etc, I'll mention that I actually wrote a sequel screenplay to follow up "Superman Returns", as a way to try and correct the major complaints about that film, to try and modernize the characterizations and their relationships, to move the series in a new direction, and to retain only the very best elements of the "Donnerverse" while creating a new continuity on screen for younger fans who wanted something different. It was a great deal of fun to write, and got a pretty good reaction from folks who read it.
I do think a really good sequel could've been made, anyway, and I do think that after having already brought Superman back to the screen with a new cast and so on, it might've made more sense to go ahead and invest in a sequel to "Superman Returns" now that audiences were at least familiar with these actors and characters, and were used to Superman on film again. The delay and the need for yet another re-re-introduction could be counterproductive in the long run, and suspect that the $400 million box office of "Superman Returns" plus its $81 million DVD/Blu-ray sales is not entirely a "flop" and signals enough of a foundation on which to make at least one sequel.
From a purely business perspective, I think if I were WB I'd have gambled on giving Singer at least one more film. I'd bet the film would've at least topped $500 million box office this time, added another $80 million in DVD/Blu-ray, and helped surpass the overall "lost" WB investment in the series over the last decade. They could've gotten this film made and released in time for summer 2008 or 2009, and would now be in a position to do their reboot or (if a sequel was successful in establishing a viable franchise) simply continue with more sequels.
But hey, they wanna do a reboot, and I understand why. And I personally think it can be done and done successfully. Imagine Sean Connery as Jor-El. Imagine Robert Redford and Jane Fonda as the Kents parents. Imagine Martin Sheen as Perry White. Imagine Michael Cera as Jimmy Olsen. Imagine Sean Penn as corporate CEO Lex Luthor. That'd be a heckuva supporting cast, yes? And for the leads, imagine Sean Faris as Clark Kent, and Emma Stone as Lois Lane.
Yes, I'd go with a young cast for Superman and Lois. And I think Sean Faris is an actor who is just waiting to become a strong male lead but simply hasn't gotten the right film yet. If you've seen him in "Never Back Down" (an underrated film, and at the very least one that demonstrates Faris' range and charisma), you will hopefully see that he can play a young Clark, a more mature Clark, and a great Superman for a modern take on the character. And Stone is one of the most charming, strong young female stars around. She's been cast in the Spider-Man reboot, so she's not a likely option for Lois now, though. My back-up suggestion? Evan Rachel Wood, another of the most talented, edgy, intense and likable stars of her generation.
I've been trumpeting this reboot cast list for a couple of years now, haha! I know it's not gonna happen at this point, but I think it'd make for a terrific new start for Superman on film.
Again, great article, I always love seeing that someone else has such strong feelings for the original Superman film, especially younger fans.
Krishna, you are a poet. Your article reminded me of why I love Superman. And you are an excellent filmmaker: your short "Down Memory Lane was nostalgic and moving, universal in its themes. Keep at it and don't quit, ever. All the best, bro.
Why no movie studio hasn't yet optioned the rights of the "Superman vs. Doomsday" saga is beyond my comprehension. If Superman is to retain his relevancy in the new millennium, this conflict must be filmed as soon as possible. It will be the ultimate vehicle for "re-booting" the Man of Steel.
Your article too easily dismisses Brandon Routh and his performance as Clark Kent with respect to the Superman lore.
If we use the phrase, “mild-mannered reporter Clark Kent” as the guide, Routh actually came closer to hitting the mark with Kent than did Reeve. Routh played it straight: mild mannered, blend in so much so he can get lost among the people in a crowded elevator, listen intently. Reeve’s Kent bumbled. Reeve's Kent went for the laugh. Reeve’s Kent was a schmuck. Within Superman lore I would argue Routh better accomplished Kent than Reeve. Upon this point I lay no blame on Reeve.
“Superman: The Movie” is astounding in its Krypton and Smallville sequences; they care for the Origin Story well and provide memorable shots, scenes, lines, ideas, etc. Those sequences are incredible both in being Superman sequences and film sequences. Then “Superman: The Movie” runs off the rails when it hits Metropolis because the care used with it during the first 45 minutes of the film gets partially lost from that point through to the end nearly toeing the line of camp. Reeve’s Kent betrays the seriousness afforded Superman in the opening just as Otis has no place stumbling about in a Superman movie that opened like it did. No fault to the actors; that’s the script and that was the direction.
That’s not to say I dislike the Reeve performance. In fact, to qualify how highly I regard the film and the performance, I long felt the same way about it and questioned whether anyone could take that role. It was the first movie I saw in the theater, in 1978, at age three, and it served as the foundation upon which I built my early understanding of movies. It was easy to become a Star Wars and Indiana Jones nut because “Superman: The Movie” came first. A lot of it had to do with Reeve.
The recommendation I have to those who question Routh is to separate “Superman Returns” from “Superman: The Movie” in the same way I recommend a movie and its source material should be evaluated according to standards of its medium regardless of whether it’s a novel, TV show or comic book. A novel and a movie are two entirely different things, and what works with one might not work with the other. My criteria for a “good” adaptation are only two: does it remain faithful to the idea behind the source and is it a good movie. (A “good movie” tells a story through the language of cinema with structure, pacing, character development, etc.) Evaluate Routh against the Superman lore, not Reeve, and see whether the performance deserves more consideration than afforded in this article. If it doesn’t then it doesn’t and we’ll disagree, but measured against my understanding of Superman, Routh is there every bit as Reeve and slightly more so in the Kent part of the role.
I love, love, love Reeve as Superman, but I’m certain fans of George Reeves exist who might argue Reeves was a better Superman than Reeve. This is a case where rather than say, “that’s the definitive Superman” one should give thought to saying, “that’s my favorite Superman.” Measure Routh not against Reeve but against Superman, and maybe you’ll see he’s no Christopher Reeve but it doesn’t follow he’s no Superman.
Superman is not locked for all time based on a performance in 1978 even though that performance is incredible. This is a character born before WWII, performed by many actors through the years, one who has seen his fame ebb and flow and one who, with care, can be relevant to audiences regardless of era. Thought should be given to amending the phrase to “as American as baseball, apple pie and Superman.” Saying one performance of THIS particular character for all time ends discussion as to whether anyone else can do it is as short sighted as saying one definitive performance of Hamlet exists. You bet I just mentioned Superman and Shakespeare in the same thought as I fully believe Superman will stand the test of time.
We've got some early reports on "Superman: The Man of Steel".
Starts with Clark Kent as a journalist in West Africa, where he is trying to decide whether he wants to reveal his powers by becoming Superman.
I thought Bryan Singer did a terrible job.
My own Superman movie... would involve Brainiac and the city of Kandor.
It would start in the 1940s. Kal-El would age slower then humans. He would have seen John and Martha Kent die of old age, while he still appears to be in pre-school. Really stretch out the timeline.
He has a fight with Brainiac and tricks him into placing the city of Kandor on Earth. Superman then spends fifty years in Kandor, falling in love with a beautiful kryptonian girl who is his same age. she gradually acquires superpowers as she spends time under our yellow sun.
In the comics, Superman moved Kandor to Mars, or built a New Krypton at the opposite point of Earth's orbit. neither sounds plausible to me. But I could see Chris Nolan producing a movie about a Kryptonian city on Mars.
Krishna Shenoi:
@ Carlos Spiceywiener:
My age, seventeen, is in the bio under the article. And yes, I meant three decades, but it was a little error. Thanks for pointing it out so kindly.
@ Mark Hughes:
I really like your comment :)
But I don't think I agree that the Donner Cut of Superman II is far superior to the theatrical cut. I have problems with both of them.
I think the Donner cut was ruined by (a) Thau's pretty bad editing, (b) unnecessary and way too obvious digital effects, (c) The spinning of the world at the end. That was totally unneeded.
That being said, there were some thing I loved about Donner's cut. I like all of Brando's footage (specifically the part he speaks to Kal-El before he loses his powers for Lois), the wonderful little part after the (unnecessary) destruction of the Fortress of Solitude in which Lois and Superman talk about breaking up, only to end up kissing...
But I thought Lois jumping into the rapids below the Niagara falls was hilarious and Lois jumping off the Daily Planet building as in Donner's cut ridiculous.
I can't chose which is better. I wish I could have a mix of the better parts of both.
And you say that you 'actually wrote a sequel screenplay to follow up "Superman Returns"...'
I'd really like to read it! Can you e-mail it to shenoipictures@hotmail.com if you don't mind? Rest assured, I'll keep it to myself :)
@Alex Vilarreal:
Wow, you saw my short 'Down Memory Lane'? Thanks mate, really appreciate it! In retrospect, there's so much I wish I could change though. But I think for a week's job, its quality is pretty justified.
Bill Hays: But I could see Chris Nolan producing a movie about a Kryptonian city on Mars.
Really? I always thought Nolan was more of a realist. Isn't that why he refuses to tackle a comic-book-ish villain like the Penguin?
I agree. reeve was superman. I grew up with the comics from dc,watched the old tv series(as a kid I thought it was really good)wore a towell to play superman anything to be superman SURE SURE THERE IS NOW THE DARK KNIGHT AND IRON MAN BUT NONE COMPARE TO THE MAN OF STEEL.And im 62 years old. also loved the fleischer animations the best superman viewing untill reeves portrayal. Enjoyed your article very much keep up the good work. thank you.
Yeah, it's definitely true that the Donner cut has problems with edits and effects, but I give him some slack on that since it's an attempted reconstruction of the original version of the film Donner was making. Remember, Donner was fired midway through the film, so the Donner cut had to rely on unfinished scenes and some incomplete effects -- and even used some test footage. Reassembling Donner's original vision was apparently a pain in the butt.
It's the film's structure and story that I think make it far superior, and the fact that it was originally meant to be one half of a two-part film, basically. Most folks don't realize that Donner was making the first two films simultaneously because they were meant to be taken as a whole story in two chapters. The end of the first film was supposed to be Superman throwing the nuclear missile into space, where it explodes near the Phantom Zone and releases Zod and his compatriots. The final shot of the first film was going to be Zod shouting "Free!" as he and the other villains fly toward Earth.
The time-reversal at the end of the first film was added at the last moment. That was supposed to be the end of the SECOND film, not the first one. But the producers demanded that Donner stop work on the second film and create a finished, stand-alone first film. So the first film had to be rewritten and the ending simply stole the ending (time-reversal) from the second film.
It's an interesting problem, because on the one hand I think that the story and characterizations and tone of Donner's "Superman II" is better than the theatrical one, but it would have meant the ending of the first film was totally different. But the ending of the first film was actually perfect, even though it wasn't the intended ending. The quiet moment of Superman holding Lois' dead body, whispering "no, no" to himself, and the slight hint of thunder in the background amid the silent desert, then the sudden eruption of his scream "NO!" as he hurtles into the sky -- wow, what a scene. Then comes the conflicting lessons from his two fathers, and he must choose whether he will be true to his Kryptonian father or his Earth father. It's just a great ending.
However, consider how Donner's version of the second film in fact speaks to this same issue, when we learn Superman's rejection of his powers was all a test, and that Jor-El knew it would happen some day. Jor-El knows this is the final test his son will face, and that the son must embrace his role as champion and Kryptonian if he is to fulfill his destiny. Superman does this, after experimenting with his desire to be a mere mortal human, and learns the importance of his role on Earth -- the merger, then, of his Kryptonian father's message and his Earth father's message ("You are here for a reason").
Honestly, it's the original version of "Spider-Man 2" if you think about it -- the rejection of his responsibility and sacrifices as a hero, the loss of his powers so that he can try and live a normal life and have the woman he loves, only to be forced to revisit that important lesson his father-figure taught him in the first film -- "with great power comes great responsibility". Maybe part of the reason I love "Spider-Man 2" so much is that it reminds me so much of the Donner Superman films! If you're gonna borrow, borrow from the best, right? :)
Oh, and this is a good place to maybe clear up confusion and misunderstanding that has lasted for many decades now regarding Superman flying around the Earth and turning back time. He is simply flying faster and faster until he exceeds the speed of light (I know, an impossibility as far as physics tells us, but anyway...), at which point he theoretically begins to travel backward in time (or maybe it's more accurate to say that time around him starts slowing as he approaches the speed of light, and then begins to flow backward around him).
The point is, he isn't just flying around the Earth to make it turn backward and thus reverse time in some absurd film notion of time-travel ("make Earth spin backward, and you go back in time!"). He flew around Earth for a practical reason -- if he flew out into space in a straight line that fast until time went backward around him, he'd then need to hurry and fly all the way back to Earth again super-fast and then the time frame would get even more screwy. He is trying to go back in time to the moment he wants to change, no farther. So in order to simply remain closer to Earth when he slows back down to normal speed, he is just flying in a circle basically in one spot until he goes fast enough to go back in time. He passes it a bit (as you'll actually see in the shots of things going in reverse) and so he then flies forward really fast again to get exactly to the moment he wants with Lois.
Most viewers and fans today still seem to think Superman was just flying so fast around Earth that he somehow presumably created a "wind" or something that makes the planet start turning backward, and that this for some bizarre reason would reverse time as well. But it's just the whole "fly faster than light, break the time barrier, and do it in a way that keeps him right here by Earth where he wants to be."
Lastly, regarding my Superman script, I'd be happy to send it to you. Hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it!
Best,
Mark
Krishna Shenoi: I always thought Nolan was more of a realist. Isn't that why he refuses to tackle a comic-book-ish villain like the Penguin?
Are you familiar with "Smallville"? Ten seasons of Clark Kent gradually growing into the "Earth's savior" mythology.
Snyder says he wants to go back to "Clark Kent BEFORE Superman." Well, that's "Smallville." And why would anyone make a movie that duplicates a TV series alreadly available on DVD?
NASA's next Mars rover, going by the name Curiosity, is nuclear powered and the size of a small car. James Cameron is building a 3D camera for it. Can't get much more "realist" than that. Real 3D footage from Mars.
You could push the timeline back farther, and have Kal-El and his new love interest return from Mars in the 1940s, in time to stop Hitler. And, in my own twisted version, she takes the name "Wonder Woman" to disguise her origins, so she doesn't have to admit there's a city with millions of Kryptonians on Mars.
I think "The Man of Steel" has to do something spectacular with the planet Krypton. In "Superman: The Movie" they used a crystal that came to Earth in Kal-El's rocket to create the Fortress of Solitude. But that was a relatively crude and non-CG version of Krypton. Something you could build full-scale without breaking the bank. The two pivotal concepts are (1) a scientist was able to send his baby son to another galaxy, and (2) no one else left Krypton before it exploded. Very difficult to reconcile those two.
I would start five thousand years earlier, on Krypton, where the planet's greatest AI (sentient computer) predicts the planet is about to explode. For thirty years, they build an enormous space ship with a city inside, to preserve Kryptonian civilization. After it leaves, the planet doesn't blow up, and they learn that Brainiac faked the data so they would build him a space ship to travel the galaxy. Then, when Jor-El gives the same warning five thousand years later, no one takes it seriously. And that would explain why there's an entire city in a space ship. I would forget the shrinking ray.
A complaint about "Inception" was that the city that took 50 years to build in a dream world was dull and pedantic. Maybe Nolan would think, "This is my change to create the city of Kandor as fantastic as the floating mountains of Pandora."
But Goyer wrote the script, so it will probably be closer to "Batman Begins," with Clark fighting an international crime syndicate. Ho-hum.
Pushing Kal-El's arrival on earth back to the 1800's gives it an epic scope. He's torn between the city of Kandor on Mars, with his true love, and fighting Hitler. If the space ship was invisible, there could be a great scene where Hitler thinks he has conquered Superman, and they turn off the cloaking device, to show Hitler that "resistance is futile."
I neglected to mention, in my explanation of the time-travel scene at the end of the first Superman film, that since Superman is flying at super-speed until he starts traveling back in time, that's why we see Earth spinning in reverse and those scenes of things moving backward etc. Since Superman is moving backward through time right there by Earth, we're seeing time moving backward around him. It's like once he goes fast enough to exceed the speed of light, instead of events around him continuing on "play", he has hit the "rewind" button, basically.
The time-travel concept is pretty weak and inherently flawed since it relies on one basic idea of physics (that maybe if you reach the speed of light, time would seem to freeze around you, and then if you exceed the speed of light you might actually be moving backward through time) while ignoring a major element of speed-of-light travel (that as you approach the speed of light, your mass increases, requiring more energy to keep you moving, causing mass to increase, requiring even more energy, etc until basically right before you can ever attain the speed of light your mass becomes infinite). So of course the film's ending plays loose with the rules, but that was obvious from the first scene, or for that matter from the basic concept of an alien who flies around in his underwear, right?
For some reason, it feels less absurd that the alien in red underwear flying around Earth was using faster-than-light time travel, rather than just making Earth spin the wrong way and thus causing time to reverse. The latter is just silly, while the former is... um...
Aw, I'm seeing this well after it was posted, but would like to comment anyway. The author's fond account was very touching. And it reminds me that I have not seen the film again since seeing it in the theater in its original run, and so I feel it is a testament to it being a great film that I can clearly remember so much of it even today.
With the author's appreciation of the character and analyzing various incarnations, I wonder if he was ever able to see the vintage Superman TV series with George Reeves, or the "Lois & Clark" series with Dean Cain, and so wonder what his feelings would have been about those versions. I appreciated both for what they were, and actually the Cain series also seemed to adequately carry forward the same balance that the film did; a bit campy but respectful; light-hearted but meaty enough.
The discussions of the time travel scene and the "forgetful kiss" are fun topics. Surely open for ridicule, and questionable as proper story devices, but doggone it, they stood out as imaginative and poetic regardless. I've always figured that Superman's powers must be to some degree mentally evoked (he has no obvious propulsion to help him fly, after all), so the kiss seems reasonable within the story's reality setup. There is a YouTube video by "How It Should Have Ended" lampooning this film which is quite funny -- when Luthor tells Superman he couldn't possibly catch two different missiles in time, he disappears momentarily and reappears holding both of them in Luthor's presence, "You mean THESE two missiles?" -- as of course, if he can travel fast enough to make time go backward, then... why not?
For the next film, why couldn't they simply take the "Smallville" cast and make it the big screen debut of that version of Superman once he decides to BE Superman? I haven't really watched that series, but I like that idea. Would save a lot of the usual "origin retelling" necessity and would allow it to get right into its own swing of things.
Also wonder if the author got to spend much time with the comics themselves. The '78 film seemed to hold up with the way those stories were told at the time, too -- often with an outlandish situation, but also always with a good storytelling "heft." The stories drawn by Curt Swan are the ones I'll remember the most fondly.
Many thanks to Mr. Shenoi for this.
Reeve was, indeed, great, in or out of the Superman get-up. Routh was very good in a not-great film. But for the new one...Michael Ealy for Superman!
Very nice article! I saw superman the movie almost 80 times at Manns Chinese theater in Hollywood when it came out. (this was in the days when movies had much longer runs). I know it so well the DVD is unwatchable for me because they updated the soundtrack and in doing so changed a lot of the sound cues that are integral to the feel of the original! I miss that original soundtrack so much!
I do think you are a little harsh on Routh, I just think he needed a little more time to grow in the role and think he would have been fine.
Lots of could have beens when it comes to superman and the film world.
Superman will always be the greatest & most awesome in Superhero genre all of this era superhero film borrow it all from Superman.
Superman would always remain the most loved Superhero no matter what & irrespective of how film makers portray it.
The character of Superman has its own way to even make it through bad film making/casting.
You said: The origin story of Superman was told with such respect to the comics and the lore.
Actually, it wasn't. Most of it was made up specifically for the film. While I enjoyed the movie, this revisionist portrayal of Superman's origins wasn't faithful to the decades of stories already depicted in comics.
I'm a bit older than you, and I've been reading Superman comics for over 40 years. I distinctly recall the discontent at the local comic shops when the film was released.
I was just discussing this topic with some friends, due to the new Superman project.
It's not that I think Brandon Routh is a bad actor, or that Superman Returns was a bad movie. I just didn't feel anything for him. Some of the other guys were marginally better. Dean Cain was actually pretty ok, and Tom Welling, god bless him he's not the best actor in the world, but he has some of the right qualities.
But Christopher Reeve really had something special. You just loved him. I find that the Superman character does nothing for me on his own - basically all-powerful characters aren't interesting, and I naturally root against the physically strong characters in favor of the smarter ones. Which is why I prefer Batman as a character to Superman. But I digress. I loved Christopher Reeve's Superman. I was trying to explain why last night and falling short. Something about how he would smile, not exactly winking at the camera but definitely smiling at it. How endearing his bumbling Clark Kent was, and watching him embarass himself knowing that all of that clumsiness and fumbling was a put-on, something he puts himself through to remember how to be human. But that's not quite it either.
I think I have it now. He radiated goodness. It's not the super-strength or eye-beams or even the flying. When he looked at the camera and smiled you believed with all your heart that he was Good. That he was kind and brave and that he loved humanity even while not quite one of them.
(This is actually making me tear up to think about.)
I think being able to convey something like that on screen is a rare thing. I don't know that they could replicate that and they probably shouldn't even try. (I don't think Brandon Routh did, but the film didn't have a good alternate approach to the character for him either.) Maybe Christopher Nolan can pull off a Superman movie and maybe he can't, but it won't be the Superman I loved as a kid.
A little late coming to this, but there a a few points to be made, and I think I'm one of the few who's old enough to make them.
-- Krishna says that his first exposure to Superman was the Max Fleischer cartoons. This means that his first Superman was Bud Collyer, who carried over into the part from the long-running radio version.Quite a few episodes of the radio serial are available on tape and CD, using the same voices as the cartoons did. Worth checking out, especially considering that the radio show was the source for much of the Superman mythos.
And I guess it's just as well that Khrishna never saw Bud Collyer as most Americans remember him - the middle-aged, ever-smiling, bow-tied MC of Beat The Clock and To Tell The Truth.
-- I'm a '50s kid, so my first Superman was George Reeves on television.
George Reeves was already in his late thirties when he played the part, so he played a more mature, level-headed Superman than most others who preceded and followed him. His Clark Kent was not a bumbler but a wise-cracker (the common template for reporters at that time).
As a kid, I watched for the adventure; it never bothered me that Reeves didn't look anything like Superman did in the comic books.
As an adult, years later, I could see how inexpensive (OK, cheap) the production was, but I was able to appreciate the ingenuity that went into making the show look as good as it could (on a small screen, anyway). The writing was a cut or so above average for filmed TV (at least it was in the early going, before it became a kiddy show), and the actors never gave less than their best.
(And you'd be surprised to see who turns up in some of the shows; my favorite is Elisha Cook Jr. as a tough private eye.)
-- As to the movies:
There's no doubt that Christopher Reeve carried the films with his skills as an actor - skills that no one knew he had when he won the part.Up to that point, his widest exposure came from the soap Love Of Life, where he played a really despicable ladykiller.
When Reeve got the Superman part, nothing much was really expected of him; that's why he was surrounded by stars in the supporting roles. Consequently, when he turned out to be perfect, that was a bonus.
Even in the two later films, which are pretty dire, Reeve never gave less than his best; he never phoned it in.
Of course the question remains: could he - would he - have kept it up had they gone to a fifth or sixth movie? Reeve was still fairly young at that point; he might have sought to bring back Richard Donner, or at least the Newmans or Tom Mankiewicz to create a better script for the character. But the fact was Reeve had tired of the whole business and bowed out on his own. So there you are.
Had he not been injured, Christopher Reeve would be 58 years old today. If he had been present, would he have made some contribution to a new Superman movie - as he did to the Smallville TV series? We can only guess.
-- The people who run DC Comics are always changing the mythologies and backstories of their characters; every few years all of them get rebooted one way or another. This past year, the Superman story was completely rewritten - again - in a 6-issue miniseries that anyone brought up with the characters in the 50s or 60s would be hard put to recognize.
Well, it's their privilege - DC owns the characters and storylines and can reconstitute them any way they wish. And since they produce the movies, the same rule applies.
All of us, all over the world, who grew up with these characters in all their different forms - each one of us has ideas of what we would do if we were creating the comic books or producing the movies and TV. That's our privilege - the privilege of the audience. And it's the source of our fun.
-- Personal to Krishna:
As I mentioned above, Superman started for me in the 50s, when I was a kid, watching on TV.
The movie serials, the cartoons, the radio show, the original comics - these all came before me.
The big-budget movie spectculars, the more sophisticated TV shows, the lavish and slick comic magazines of today - these all evolved in front of me over many years.
As to the future - well, that's why they call it the future, isn't it?
The thing is, though - in order to have a future, you need the past.
Christopher Reeve knew that.
That's why, even after he no longer played Superman - even after he could no longer play Superman - he maintained an interest in how Superman was portrayed (that's why he willingly played those guest shots on Smallville from his wheelchair; he knew that it was bigger than he was).
Have fun checking out the past of Superman.
You might be surprised at how much you'll enjoy it.
Even when I was young I found the original Superman films to be laughable. The only true bright spot was Christopher Reeve, who truly seemed to understand the character better than any actor since. In this case I fear the author may be correct about Reeve being the embodiment Superman. It will take an actor willing to bring something different to the table to make the character soar again.
Excellent Post, but this has nothing to do with SEO.