Superman: The Movie (1978) and the Comics

[thecolorsblend]

You may misunderstand me. In the Bronze Age, Superman is the character. No question. My only caveat is that if you want to look at in terms of proportion, Superman is 70% of the guy while Clark informs a very crucial 30%. He was nowhere near as passive and goofy as Reeve (and Johns) portrayed.

As far as Byrne goes, I would argue the character is 100% Clark. He's either Clark in glasses or else Clark in a cape. But he is always Clark. On that basis, Lois & Clark is one of the most faithful adaptations the character has ever had.

As far as Sucky Origin goes, I see your point. I can't comment much about the Penguin thing because I never read it but Sucky Origin was supposed to be Superman's new launch pad. As a "reboot" (although I would classify it as a retcon), it's supposed to lay out the new order of things. And it does that. My beef is that there's way too much synthesis going on and a dearth of originality. John Byrne brought a lot of stuff to the table- Lex as business man, Lois as a military brat, Smallville is located in Kansas (Donner invented it but Byrne brought it to the comics) and a lot of other things that were absolute canon for years. Mark Waid gave his all in putting his mark on the character too with Birthright. But Johns didn't bring anything like that to the table.

But as much as anything, compare the final page of Man of Steel #1 to the final page of Sucky Origin #1. One of those looks like a badass Superman introduction while the other... ugh...

And just between you, me and my keyboard, Gary Frankenstein's boner for drawing Superman to resemble Chris Reeve is just freakin creepy.

[Silver Nemesis]

As a "reboot" (although I would classify it as a retcon), it's supposed to lay out the new order of things. And it does that. My beef is that there's way too much synthesis going on and a dearth of originality.

As I understand it, a reboot is where you take the basic concept of something, disregard all previous interpretations of that concept, and start completely from scratch. DC has a tendency to use the word "reboot" when what they actually mean is "revision". A good example of this would be the whole New 52 thing, which was most definitely not a reboot in the truest sense of the term. There was far too much baggage carried over from pre-Flashpoint for it be a reboot.

If Secret Origin was marketed as a reboot, then I can see why it would have been disappointing. But I guess I knew what to expect when I read it, so I didn't feel let down.

And just between you, me and my keyboard, Gary Frankenstein's boner for drawing Superman to resemble Chris Reeve is just freakin creepy.

Fair enough. The Reeve likeness is actually one of the things I like most about Frank's artwork. But to each his own.

[Azrael]

I think fandom lost all objectivity about that movie years ago. My view though is that exactly two people save it from being an absolute turkey- Christopher Reeve and John Williams. They really pushed the thing over the top. Without them, you're left with a film with conflicting tones, a kind of weak script in several areas, Otis acting like a douche and a dull Margot Kidder voiceover in the love theme. But Reeve and Williams take it to the next level. I don't think it's any coincidence that when people talk about STM, usually the first two items of business are Reeve and Williams.

Agreed, Reeve and Williams's score (in those years he was putting out one classic after another) are really the definitive elements, it's exactly these two conjured up in my mind when someone mentions this film. Gene Hackman too is always a joy to watch, but maybe this version of Luthor doesn't hold up very well, at least to some more casual viewers.

[thecolorsblend]

As I understand it, a reboot is where you take the basic concept of something, disregard all previous interpretations of that concept, and start completely from scratch. DC has a tendency to use the word "reboot" when what they actually mean is "revision".

No kidding.

A good example of this would be the whole New 52 thing, which was most definitely not a reboot in the truest sense of the term. There was far too much baggage carried over from pre-Flashpoint for it be a reboot.

Agreed. I think it's a promotional thing these days. DC has repeatedly demonstrated they don't have the balls to do a reboot. On one level, I can understand. Pre-Flashpoint, the only things you could call bona fide hits were Batman and Green Lantern. So I kind of understand that they don't want to throw away what's working for them. But at the same time, partial reboots, retcons and all the rest have a demonstrable history of failure. They inevitably lead to more continuity problems than what you're trying to solve. Scrape everything away or keep all of it. But this selective retconning only complicates matters... arguably for Batman most of all, judging by what little New 52 I read before I dropped out. What, all that history and continuity inside five years?

Now, there's a conspiracy theory regarding The New 52. Not sure if you've heard about it but it basically goes that the relaunch was primarily designed to make the various characters who are normally closely interrelated to each other (Superman and Supergirl, Batman and Tim, etc) severable. So if someone ever wants to develop, say, a standalone Red Robin or Supergirl movie, theoretically they can use whatever The New 52 has done at least as a blueprint and work from there as these are all now mostly distinct legal properties rather than being necessarily tied back to "the Batman universe" or "the Superman universe" or what have you. You could develop a Superboy/Kon-El (God I hate that name!) film and never even say Superman's name, mention Krypton, etc. I've wondered if that wasn't the dominant philosophy behind the New 52. If so, you gotta figure there's a team of lawyers on the other end of that decision.

Not sure if I believe all of that but damned if a lot of those characters aren't fairly independent now...

If Secret Origin was marketed as a reboot, then I can see why it would have been disappointing. But I guess I knew what to expect when I read it, so I didn't feel let down.

The lateness of that book didn't help much. If memory serves, it took a year'ish for all six "monthly" issues to be released.

Fair enough. The Reeve likeness is actually one of the things I like most about Frank's artwork. But to each his own.

Well, how far is that supposed to go? His Supergirl looks nothing like Helen Slater, Lex like Hackman, Perry like Cooper, etc.

[thecolorsblend]

-- Superman #262 p3 (03.1973)

[Silver Nemesis]

Great find, colors! If that isn't a deliberate reference then it's one hell of a coincidence.

[thecolorsblend]

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/richard-donner-dies-superman-lethal-193107966.html

Not sure if this is the best place for this. But RIP Richard Donner. Honestly, I've been expecting this for about a year. Still sad tho. Some minor inaccuracies in the above link regarding the drama with STM, S2, the Salkinds and so forth.

Donner directed some great films. The Omen, obv Superman: The Movie, The Goonies, the Lethal Weapon series, Scrooged, Radio Flyer, Maverick has been a favorite of mine for a long time now, Assassins is aight, etc.

His run of films is just about as strong as anybody's. And stronger than most, might I say. He's already missed.

[The Laughing Fish]

Superman 78 and Lethal Weapon were some of my faves growing up, and I thought Assassins was an underrated action thriller.

RIP Richard Donner. A true pioneer in blockbuster filmmaking.

[BatmanFurst]

RIP indeed. Truly one of the great genre directors of his time.

[The Dark Knight]

RIP indeed. Truly one of the great genre directors of his time.

Donner was the best and worst thing to happen with Superman. He made such a classic first film that many in the world still can't accept Superman being done differently. The thing I take from his style is the importance of heart and soul. The Raimi Spider-Man films heavily embraced that and for the better. No matter what type of movie you're making, Donner understood you need relatable and endearing characters. We should, too.