Superman: The Movie | Dawn of the Comic Book Film and How Age Affects Classic Cinema

Preface

Hello world. I'm DarkLordRyan, and this was the original preface before I deleted it by accident. My plan was to do every pre-DCEU Superman movie along with an interesting thesis on the movie. Obviously that didn't exactly happen as I had hoped and I accidentally messed with this post. Still this was the plan:

1. "Superman: The Movie and How Age affects Classic Cinema" - An analysis of Superman: The Movie and how the intentions behind it, its initial reception, and its lasting legacy differ from each other in significant ways.
2. "Donner v Lester: Conflicting Visions of Superman II" - A review of both the theatrical cut and Donner Cut of Superman II, a comparison between them, and a dissection of how the conflicting visions affected the landscape of the franchise.
3. "Richard Pryor III and Franchise-Killing Camp" - Superman III, with a focus on how overabundance of Silver Age schlock and comedy killed the franchise.
4. "So Bad It's Super-Good, Supergirl's Entertaining Missteps" - 1984's Supergirl, with a focus on how the cheapness and ways in which the movie is campy make it more enjoyable than Superman III and other movie failures.
5. "Quest for Superman IV's Silver Age Heart" - An analysis of the hidden Silver Age value of Superman IV and how the movie avoids the supreme missteps of Superman III and Supergirl, and how the movie's reception represented the shift away from Silver Age camp.
6. "How Nostalgia Killed Superman Returns" - A review of Superman Returns, and how over-abundance of Donner nostalgia negated the new ideas and ruined the chances of making a fresh take on Superman.

So here we go (went) with part 1 of this crazy journey. This is Superman.

Introduction

There are few comic book movies (CBMs) as legendary and revered as Superman. To this day it inspires fans and filmmakers alike, and has an important legacy. But when you look at the expressions of that legacy, something peculiar becomes apparent. The movie constantly has a reputation of being "campy", "fun", "lighthearted", and other buzzwords that bring the mindset of cheesier CBMs to mind, and this is all said positively. To the point where since the movie is so influential, there are people who think that Superman needs to always be "campy fun", and attempts to make him more realistic or serious are actively against the heart of the character. Some of such people are even comic writers and filmmakers themselves. This is not only an ironic response to the movie because of the many comics that take Superman in a more realistic direction, but also because of a simple truth many people don't realize: Superman: The Movie was never meant to be "campy" or "fun" in the way people think.

Context and Intentions

To understand the many mindsets behind Superman 1, we first need to go back 40 years before the movie released. 1938, Action Comics #1, the first appearance of Superman. Obviously this must've been the classic, patriotic, optimistic, lighthearted hero who fought for "Truth, Justice, and the American Way", right? Wrong. In the late 30s and early 40s, Superman was a far cry from what people seem to think of him as. He was aggressive, fought for workers' rights, existed in a fairly grounded world, and was a "champion of the oppressed". The first villain Superman ever fought wasn't an alien monster or a mad genius, it was a corrupt politician. Siegel and Schuster created an allegory for the oppressed classes and immigrants within Superman, and for a time that's who he was. Things began to change in the 40s. For one thing, America entered into WW2 after Pearl Harbor, and the Propaganda Machine sprang to life. Comics began showing Superman standing with the Government and Police, sometimes against stereotypical "evil" depictions of Japanese people. The radio shows came up with the phrase "Truth, Justice, and the American Way". But it was still fairly grounded, still showing a more serious Superman.

Enter the 50s. Traditional Superheros were no longer very popular, as crime comics and sci-fi became more prominent. DC made an effort to focus many of their comics on the latter. For Superman, it was a natural fit thanks to his alien heritage. Since the scenarios became less realistic, Superman became less realistic. He became exceptionally calm, gained more powers, had a lighthearted sense of camp to him. And when the Comics Code Authority destroyed darker and more violent comics, Superman was left standing at the top. Where characters like Batman and Green Arrow suffered in the Silver Age, Superman thrived. The new optimistic boy scout Silver Age Superman became the marketable force that he is seen as now.

But something else happened in the 50s. The first mainstream live action adaptation of Superman, The Adventures of Superman, starring George Reeves came into being. And over the course of six seasons it essentially reflected the changes comic Superman had gone through over the course of his life. The first season was dark, serious, violent, had an arrogant Clark Kent and aggressive Lois Lane, and fit the late 30s mold well. The second season was still serious, but less violent, and had a kindhearted Lois and a softer Clark Kent. Seasons 3-onwards, when the show introduced color, fell into Silver Age sci-fi, camp, and whimsy. At the time this was the more popular style, being marketable to kids. But then the show was basically murdered in quality, marketability, and impact by 60s Batman. For all the Reeves' show's successes and failures, it never became a cultural phenomenon. Comics were slowly dying, as parents saw them as bad influences. But Batman was something else. Not only did it master dual audiences (Adventure for kids, comedy for adults), but it caused parents to start buying comics for their kids again. Comics rebounded. At least, some did. Batman, The Flash, Green Lantern, even Green Arrow would thrive in the coming decade. But not Superman.

The Bronze Age Slump and Making of Superman: The Movie

By the late 60s, Superman comics had lost a lot of their luster. There were no mainstream adaptations being made at the time, no major marketing, barely any cartoon versions even. And in the early 70s, things got even worse. The CCA began to break down, and comics were allowed to be more serious again. O'Neil made Batman a grounded detective story once more, Green Lantern and Green Arrow teamed up to tackle real-world political issues with sincerity and taste, and Superman... well Superman just kind of moped around for a while. The writers really had no idea how to make Superman fit in this new darker, grittier age. So they basically just had Silver Age Superman become really depressing. He constantly moped about how Krypton was perfect and how Earth sucks for example. It wouldn't be until John Byrne's 1986 reboot that writers really figured out how to reinvent Superman in comics. But comics weren't all that mattered.

Alexander and Ilya Salkind (And Pierre Spengler), movie producers, got the rights to make a full theatrical Superman movie, in fact, two full movies. Mario Puzo of Godfather fame was hired to write the script, and Guy Hamilton was set to direct. But then the Puzo script was finished and the Salkind's were not impressed. The script was heavily inconsistent, containing both excessive comedic scenes and "Greek tragedy". It was also incredibly long, being 550 pages. Which for the record amounts to over 9 hours of film. Even for two movies it was way too much. So David Newman and Robert Benton (The latter of whom was replaced by Leslie Newman halfway through) were hired to rewrite and cut the script down. The more violent elements were removed, and the comedy and camp was what they focused on, including an infamous cameo from Kojak. It was still incredibly long, with Superman 1's portion at over 200 pages. Thankfully, Guy Hamilton had to abandon the production, and that's when a real Superman known as Richard Donner entered the picture.

Donner came on board, fresh off of the The Omen, took one look at the Newman/Benton script, and tossed them in the trash can. Donner didn't want to make a crowd-pleasing comedy, no he was ambitious. He saw the potential of the original Puzo story, and the character itself for a true adventure. That's the true irony of Superman 1's modern reputation of being "campy fun". That was the opposite of Donner's intention. He brought on Tom Mankiewicz, a legendary writer on the James Bond films and script doctor to many other movies. Together they completely revamped the tone and script of Superman. In the end, Superman 1 finally had a sincere and consistent script, at a good length of 136 pages of screenplay. For only having a "creative consultant" credit, Mankiewicz was more important to the final screenplay of the movie than even Puzo was. And that final script was made with the intention of presenting a sincere, emotional, and serious take on the character. Donner hated camp, and saw Superman as having a down-to-Earth vaudeville approach. He called this take verisimilitude, taking the source material seriously and using cinematic drama, realism, and only subtle humor to adapt him. Donner was the Nolan of his time in that regard.

Sadly the Salkinds didn't see it that way. They wanted a campier movie akin to the later episodes of the Reeves show. In addition, Donner was inflating the budget with groundbreaking special effects for atmosphere. So the Salkinds started to push back. Elements of the scripts had to be cut back (Like a long sequence wherein Superman stops Lex from releasing poison gas). Donner was kicked off the on-going production of Superman II, which was only about 75% complete. And as a result, the entire ending of the movie had to be altered. In the original ending of Superman 1, Superman saves Lois in time with no death scene, and the missile he threw to space exploded opening the Phantom Zone, leading directly to Superman II. Superman II would then end with Superman turning back time to undo the damage caused by General Zod. That sequence was already shot, and it was hugely expensive. Hence, the Salkinds forced Donner to shove that ending onto Superman 1, leading to the Lois dying plot. Last 10 minutes of the movie aside though, Donner created what at the time was his vision of a true cinematic Superman.

Review

Note: Scenes shown in all cuts including theatrical shown in normal font. Scenes shown in Donner's Special Edition Cut shown in Bold. Scenes shown only in the Extended TV Cut shown in underline.

Now on to the review part of this review. The movie begins with a cool but overlong opening credits sequence (Lasting over 5 minutes). After that we enter the cold, lifeless dystopia of Krypton. A bold move to begin a Superman movie with such a colorless view no doubt. We see how Kryptonian society works, as well as see setup for Part 2 with Kryptonian criminals led by General Zod being sent to the Phantom Zone. As the planet begins to erupt, Jor-El sets his son in a rocket shaped like a Christmas star (JESUS SYMBOLISM!), and sends him out to space to escape the destruction. This Krypton segment is excellent, having a regal Shakespearean feel to the dialogue and with Marlon Brando and Terrance Stamp playing incredibly well off of each other. The cinematography is also excellent. The segment also begins the almost episodic nature of the film. Every distinct act has a full Greek structure with a setup and call to action, event, and resolution. In this case the trial and call to evacuate Krypton, the explosion, and Kal-El being sent to Earth.

We then see Johnathan and Martha Kent driving along a road in Smallville. Kal-El's rocket crashes, and they investigate, finding the baby, who ends up lifting their car. They keep the boy and raise him as Clark Kent. Years pass and we see Clark interacting with other teens in high school, including Lana Lang. He tries to show off his powers with some pretty good effects, but his father sees and reminds him not to reveal himself. But shortly after, his father has a heart attack. We see teenage Clark learning that he can't save everyone, and when he investigates the rocket he came in, he finds a crystal he believes can give him answers. He takes it to the Arctic, and it creates the Fortress of Solitude, a small piece of Kryptonian architecture now made on Earth. Within the Fortress, he encounters the data remnant of Jor-El, who tells Clark about his people, and how he can inspire the human race. He spends 10 years in the Fortress, learning and training for the journey he will embark upon. At the end, he emerges dressed in the classic suit, ready to begin his life. This is without a doubt my favorite of the three segments of the movie. It showcases a sincere, rural tone with real drama to it, and sports some amazing acting by Glenn Ford, Marlon Brando, and Christopher Reeve dubbing lines over teen Clark actor Jeff East. Once again there is a full structure, a setup (Johnathan's death), a call to action (Crystal), and the journey to the Fortress and through training. Before we move on, let's just acknowledge the tone of the film up to this point. It's been very serious and sincere, not at all campy, and pretty grounded. Again, so far there's no evidence of the "campy fun" that people associate the movie with. And we're about an hour in.

We then arrive in the main segment of the movie, Metropolis. Taking a vaudeville approach and showing a pretty realistic New York style environment for Clark Kent to interact with. We see the Silver Age convention of Clark Kent being a nerdy disguise with higher-pitched voice, hunched posture, and humble manner. This was the standard of most Superman stories before Byrne reinvented Clark Kent, and so despite me definitely preferring the Byrne take, I can't really criticize this. He comes to the Daily Planet and meets awkward Jimmy Olsen, hard-hitting reporter Lois Lane, and snarky Newspaper Chief Perry White. The latter two of which are basically played to perfection at the time. Margot Kidder's Lois Lane, while lacking some of the badassery of Byrne-onwards portrayals of Lois Lane, is one of the parts of this movie that calls more back to pre-CCA characterizations, being a direct contrast to Noel Neill's Silver Age kinder portrayal. As she and Clark leave the Daily Planet building with, once more, fairly sincere dialogue between them, they get interrupted by the very first thing in this movie that could fall into a campy category, a very stereotypical robber with a gun. Now in the script this scenario was a bit more serious and intense. It was at night for one thing, and they didn't describe the robber as being very stereotypical. But in the movie it's a bit goofier, most likely due to the Salkinds' insisted. It's still not all that silly though, again not really seeing why people think this movie is all that campy. At least not until, ugh, Otis shows up. Full disclosure, I despise Ned Beatty's Otis. In fact, I despise all the villains in this movie. They're the one part of this movie that, even in the script, were campy Batman 66 style characters. So Otis is being followed by cops to a railroad. The train hides a secret doorway that Otis enters, but when a cop follows he is pushed into an oncoming train and killed. We are then introduced to Gene Hackman's Le-... I can't call him Lex Luthor. I can't. What are the three consistent traits of Lex Luthor? Confidence (Whether as a Mad Scientist in the Silver Age or the post-Byrne calm businessman), delusions (He always thought he was some sort of hero saving the world from Superman), and genius inventions. All three are gone. He's cowardly and whiny, embraces his role as a criminal and wants notoriety, and his entire plan is downright idiotic as I'll get to later. There's also Eve Tessmacher who's just there as the generic bimbo villain. They're the first part of this movie that truly fits into that description of "campy fun" that gets applied to this movie, and get endless praise from the movie's modern fanboys. Hackman's goofy portrayal even gets a pass when the same people spend hours ripping apart Eisenberg's quirky portrayal. The irony of this is that the villains were actually criticized when the movie came out. Dave Kehr remarked that the film was "worst when it takes the easy way out in giggly camp. When Lex Luthor enters the action, Hackman plays the arch-villain like a hairdresser left over from a TV skit". And it makes sense, compared to the mostly sincere and serious film around it, the villains stick out as the only piece that was supposed to be intentional campy. I'll get to why the villains get such a pass these days later on.

The next night, Lois is meant to fly up in a Helicopter that is positioned on the roof of the Daily Planet. The Helicopter malfunctions however, leaving Lois hanging from the building. Clark leaps into action, using a revolving door to don his Superman suit, and he flies up to catch her and the helicopter as they fall. Reeve embodies Silver Age Superman here, exuding confidence and a calm demeanor. This is a great reveal, and for the most part still holds up as legitimately inspiring. With the exception of two out-of-place moments. One is a Pimp who remarks on Superman's "bad outfit", and the other is Lois fainting. The former is something that was probably legitimately badass in 1978 but is goofy now, but Lois fainting seems played intentionally for a cheap laugh. It also comes across demeaning if you ask me, given how the film sets up Lois as so independent and strong. But Superman is now in the world, and goes to do more good. He comes across another stereotypical criminal scaling a building, though Superman's lines actually do come across as pretty badass and not that campy all things considered. He then chases criminals firing at the police who are trying to escape. Like the very first robber scene, the final execution is toned down from the script rendition, with less gunfire, no foul language, and with a more humorous bent to it. "Bad vibrations?" is once of the campiest lines in the movie, but once again I'd argue that's mostly due to age. And then we come to one of my least favorite scenes in the movie. Superman saving the cat from the tree. It feels forced and unnecessary honestly, like the Salkinds said it had to be there. And to top it off, you hear the mother slap the little girl offscreen! I'm not talking a light one, it sounds like it friggin hurt. Superman should've stuck around and helped against child abuse there. Luckily such a meh scene is followed by without a doubt my favorite scene in the entire movie. Superman saving Air Force One. Not only is it spectacularly shot and scored, not only is the dialogue done during it inspiring, it feels sincere. It's not campy at all, and it exemplifies the strengths of this movie. I consider it one of the grandest and most inspiring scenes in any Superman film, perhaps only bested by the World Engine scene in Man of Steel.

The news and Luthor both react to the revelation. The news questions if he is real or if it is some sort of elaborate hoax. Lex determines that he must be real and that it's his destiny to face the greatest challenge of the century as he commits the ultimate crime. There's also another weird comedy scene with Otis. We then cut directly to the Daily Planet with Perry White asking for them to get the exclusive on Superman. Aside from some innuendo dialogue from the script, most of this scene is intact. Afterwards Superman arrives for his interview with Lois. Again most of the dialogue is intact and it's fine though somewhat awkward. And then the flying scene begins. In the script, it's a short montage. In the movie it starts with that, but then has this really weird poem sequence. I never really got why it was there, I guess the Salkinds wanted a musical number or something. It's dumb and goes on too long. Once the interview is published Luthor and his goons read it. Lex gives the only good Lex quote in the entire movie ("War and Peace"), but the rest of the scene is tarnished by goofy comedy and some really weird leaps to conclusions from Lex about how Krypton meteor fragments would be lethal to Superman. Once more there's a scene that got cut that was supposed to be here, an Oil Rig action sequence that really could've been used, especially considering that what happens after are my two least favorite scenes in this movie, probably my least favorite scenes in any Superman movie honestly.

Lex getting the missiles. Where do I begin? Firstly, depicting the military as horny idiots. They don't think to check if she's breathing or if she's really unconscious (Considering she doesn't have a scratch on her that'd be my first course of action). And on top of that, the general sexually assaults her with "vigorous chest compressions" forcing the other soldiers to turn away. It was even worse in the script wherein Eve ended the scene saying her life was "all I got left to lose, believe me", implying the general straight up raped her in the original version. Even in 1978, that's not in any way okay. Secondly, that disturbing scene is capped off by more goofy comedy, Lex pummels Otis after he finds out he set the coordinates wrong, leaving their "ambulance" out of control. Thirdly, it doesn't even end there. They stop the military again with an even flimsier excuse, the ENTIRE convoy leaves the truck to question him, they don't recognize that Luthor is the same guy as the ambulance driver, and Eve fixes Otis' mistake. These are dumb, out-of-place, and just poorly written scenes.

Afterwards we see Clark at the Daily Planet with Perry White, where he is interrupted by Lex contacting him through a high pitched frequency. He informs him of a propane lithium compound that will be released (Which was actually an part of the script that got mostly cut out and moved around). Clark transforms into Superman and heads to Lex's lair. Lex informs him of the trick and his real plan as the missiles fire. That plan being that Lex bought up worthless piece of desert land to the East of the San Andreas Fault line, and using nuclear missiles he'll blow up everything to the West of that line causing his property to become valuable beachfront real estate. This is stupid. Firstly, it would need more force than the missiles they describe to blow up the fault line. Secondly, the radiation would expand beyond the West side of the impact, it would affect his property too. Thirdly, why explain the plan to Superman at all? Just use the Kryptonite on him and be done with it. Oh, but it gets better. Lex reveals there's another rocket that Superman can't stop, and tricks him into opening the Kryptonite box. He dumps him in the water (Instead of just stabbing him with it?) and reveals that the other rocket is heading to Hackensack, New Jersey. This adds two more reasons of dumb. Firstly, it causes Lex's defeat and he should've known not to say anything. Secondly, Metropolis is canonically in Delaware right across from New Jersey. So Metropolis (Where Lex is) would also be affected, and Lex can't be rich if he's dead. Crime of the century my ass.

Because Eve's mother is in Hackensack she lets Superman go (After a really out-of-nowhere kiss), and he hurls that missile into space. The California missile meanwhile hits directly. Superman leaps into action to blow the pollution out into space and fix the damage. A great set of scenes ensues wherein Superman moves rocks underground, saves a train, saves children on the Golden Gate Bridge, and saves a town from a flood caused by a destroyed dam. But then there's the ending. So in the original script, Superman fixes the fault line, saves the train, then saves the Golden Gate Bridge, and then he saves Lois from falling into the fissure. Then the last thing he does is save the town from the flood, the biggest and most climactic setpiece of the movie. But to go back into the production for a moment, Superman I and II were filmed simultaneously. Superman II was meant to end with an epic time travel sequence to repair the damage caused by the Kryptonian criminals. That VFX sequence was the most expensive of both movies. So when the Salkinds kicked Donner off of II's production, they didn't want that money to be wasted and forced Donner to add it as the ending of the first movie. So in the final movie, the Flood comes before saving Lois. And Lois ends up dead in the fissure. Superman, enraged, speeds off into the sky and turns the world backwards to turn back time to save her. Which is dumb considering one more backwards turn could've saved everyone else. Plus it kind of ruins the next movie. Either way everyone is saved, Lex and Otis are sent to prison, and Superman flies off into space smiling for the camera. In the original script we would then see the first rocket hit the Phantom Zone projector from earlier, freeing the criminals and leading directly to Superman II.

To cap off reviewing the Metropolis segment of the movie, it's good for the most part. It once again has a Greek structure (Setup of Daily Planet and Clark turning into Superman, The Romance Between Clark and Lois and Lex obtaining the missile, Clark against Lex and saving California). Most of it is good, but there is definitely a decent 15-20 minutes that can be cut out that would not only tighten the pace of the movie, but also excise some camp. The poem in the montage, the cat scene, the missiles being obtained, and the Lex scenes on the whole could've been trimmed down to be more serious. The third act of the segment in particular spirals out of control with the dumb plan, Eve being Eve, and the time travel. This is something CBMs still tend to screw up even today. I know I've ragged on it a lot in this review, but those 15-20 minutes really don't ruin the Metropolis segment, and the whole movie as a combination of all three segments is still great. Superman I gets an 9/10 in my book.

Legacy

It's ironic. Even respected people like Geoff Johns always have this idea that a perfect Superman movie needs to be lighthearted, humorous, and campy. Because to them that's what the original movie represents. But that's never what it was meant to be. Superman: The Movie was intended to be a serious, dramatic, and realistic approach to the character. In many ways Donner really did do for Superman what Nolan would go on to do for Batman. But of course 1978 standards aren't the same as 2000s standards. The movie has aged, and in a different way than a lot of other films from that time. Star Wars is still mostly seen as a sincere sci-fi drama. And I think that's because that movie was trying to create a timeless other world. Superman: The Movie wanted to imitate real life in many ways, with the unfortunate effect being it sometimes imitated 1978 too much. Lines like "Bad Vibrations" once considered cool in an era of disco and post-Vietnam catharsis are now seen as extremely goofy from a modern standpoint. The other reason the campy reputation seems to have become ingrained so much is most people saw the movie as a kid, and so they view the movie through the childhood lens of pure campy fun, the same way people who may have seen Man of Steel as a kid will have seen it as pure action spectacle fun. Both lose out on the real intentions behind the movies. And sure there are other contributing factors. Lester would go on to make the franchise actually campy, and so the entire Reeve era would obtain that reputation.

In some ways though, the aging has done some favors for the movie. To bring up Star Wars again, it's story and world have remained timeless while the effects and movement now seem extremely dated and clunky at times. The result is a bit of disconnect between both. Had Superman aged better in its world and dialogue, the effects would seem more dated in comparison, but since the entire atmosphere and world has now aged the effects seem to fit right in. As well, Hackman's Lex once considered an unfitting villain for the movie by critics due to his campy nature has now become a fan favorite, as age has made the movie around him change to fit his style. Let me put it this way, in the 70s Donner's ultimate wish was to make Superman a completely different style and beast from the 60s Batman show. Nobody would ever have mentioned them as being even remotely similar, except when complaining about Hackman and Beatty. Now though people like to consider them in the same universe. And as much as I feel that's a disservice to Donner and Mankiewicz's world, it is the truth.

The worst effect of the aging though isn't how it affected the movie itself. It's how it affected the character. Bryan Singer and his writing team as well as Nolan and Snyder all tried to make their movies serious, moody, atmospheric, and realistic in ways. The same intention as Donner in the 70s. But since by 2001 Superman had become seen as campy and lighthearted, both were criticized for being departures. They were "too dark", "humorless", and according to some people "didn't understand Superman". I think I've already made it clear how wrong that is throughout this review, but nonetheless it stuck around and led to both Supermen being rejected by a lot of people, including supposed comic writers and experts. I love Superman: The Movie, it means so much to me as a relic of my childhood. But unfortunately these days I've come to associate it with horribly misguided nostalgia blindness and gatekeeping for reasons that Richard Donner would never have agreed with.

So in conclusion, no. Superman was never meant to be lighthearted icon of campy fun it is now. When you really look at it, there's less humor and lightheartedness than your average MCU flick. It's almost refreshingly serious when compared to modern CBMs like Shazam! or Spider-Man: Far From Home. Yet it's also not necessarily a dark movie, there's dark undertones and subtle themes, but it's ultimately a depiction of how there is hope in the real world. It's one of the few CBMs in existence that is simultaneously very optimistic and upbeat, but also realistic in sincere. The only other CBMs that really come to mind that really remind me of it are the Donner Cut of II and Raimi's Spider-Man 2. These days most CBMs are insincere and filled with jokes, and the sincere ones are very dark and gritty. Which both have their place, but it's made the genre feel lacking in variety. And that gives Superman a new value. To look back at a lost art tainted by time.