Superman: The Movie (1978) and the Comics

[Silver Nemesis]

I'm not sure if anyone's interested in this, but a while ago I had the idea of creating some comic-to-movie analysis threads for other comic book adaptations. We've already done these for every live-action Batman movie. But since the format was popular, I figured it might be fun to create similar threads for other non-Batman films. And since Superman: The Movie is my favourite comic book film, it seemed like a good place to start. If this thread proves popular enough then we could go ahead and do these for other movies. I actually wrote this analysis late last year but never got around to posting it until now. I've also got one other analysis for another movie which I might post soon. If anyone else feels like doing one of these for another comic book film then please do.

I've got to admit that while I've grown to like Superman more than Batman in recent years, I haven't read anywhere near as many Superman comics as I have Batman. So I'm hoping other people will pitch in, correct me where I go wrong, and add anything I've overlooked. With that said, here are the comic references I spotted.

Superman: The Movie (1978) and the Comics

The makers of this film were definitely familiar with the source material. Academy Award winning writer Mario Puzo was hired to write the script and producer Pierre Spengler recalls him researching the comics in You Will Believe: The Cinematic Saga of Superman (2006):

"[Puzo] spent a few days at DC comics with the editors there, and looked at their archives and immediately picked a few things that he felt would be very cinematic."

Comic book writer Elliot S. Maggin was amongst the people at DC who assisted Puzo, as he recounts in Look, Up in the Sky! The Amazing Story of Superman (2006):

"I come to the office one day and there's Mario Puzo in the library looking through old Superman stories. So they introduced me to him. And Cary Bates, another writer, and I spent two days sitting, smoking Havana cigars with Mario in the conference room and talking about who Superman was."

The film begins with a child reading an issue of Action Comics in June 1938. This was of course the date the very first issue of Action Comics was published, and within its pages appeared the very first Superman story.

We transition to a shot of the Daily Plant building with the familiar globe on its roof.

We then see the iconic 'S' logo, taken straight from the comics.

Superman's origins in this movie are largely based on the Bronze Age version depicted in 'The Origin of Superman!' (Amazing World of Superman, 1973), which was the most recent variation at the time of the film's production. As in the comic, the movie begins with the planet Krypton orbiting a red sun.

The scientist Jor-El is overseeing the trial of General Zod and his cohorts. I'll save an analysis of General Zod's comic book origins for a potential Superman II thread. Suffice it to say that his comic book counterpart tried to seize control of Krypton, was placed on trial and ultimately banished to the Phantom Zone for his crimes; as first depicted in 'The Phantom Superboy' (Adventure Comics #283, April 1961). A similar sequence of events is suggested in the film.

Following this scene, Jor-El tries to warn the ruling council of an impending calamity that threatens their planet. The following comparison is from the 1973 Amazing World of Superman comic.

The council are sceptical of Jor-El's theory and refuse to heed his warning.

But shortly thereafter, Jor-El's doom laden prophecy is validated. The ordered society of Krypton begins to crumble as the planet faces annihilation.

With no means of saving themselves, Jor-El and his wife Lara place their infant son Kal-El into a rocket ship and send him away from the doomed planet.

The spaceship leaves Krypton and travels to Earth.

Jonathan and Martha Kent are driving along in their truck when they see the rocket crash land in a field.

A child emerges from within and quickly displays his superhuman abilities by lifting a heavy object. This example is from 'The Origin of Superboy' (More Fun Comics #101, January 1945).

As he matures, Clark feels frustrated over his inability to participate in sporting events. He can't play for the local high school football team because his powers would give him an unfair advantage and put the other kids at risk of injury. Because of this, Clark has to sit on the sidelines and watch the other kids play. This panel is taken from 'The Story of Superman's Life!' (Superman #146, July 1961).

We also get a brief glimpse of Lana Lang during this scene. Lana first appeared in 'The Girl in Superboy's Life!' (Superboy #10, October 1950). As in the comics, the movie version is a redheaded teen who seems to be one of Clark's only friends back in Smallville.

After leaving the football field, Clark works out some of his frustrations by racing a train. Clark has outrun trains in far too many stories to list. The following examples are from Action Comics #1 and Amazing World of Superman (1973).

As in the comics, we see that Clark has been raised on the Kent farm by Jonathan and Martha.

Clark loses both his parents in the comic. In the movie only Jonathan dies. But in both stories he swears to remember the values his parents taught him.

Clark's line in the movie about not being able to save his father is taken almost verbatim from the comic.

Clark journeys north and constructs the Fortress of Solitude. Superman has had a number of similar hideouts in the comics dating back to the Golden Age. The traditional Arctic 'Fortress of Solitude' first appeared in 'The Super-Key to Fort Superman' (Action Comics #241, June 1958). It is situated near the North Pole in both the comics and the film.

The adult Superman is of course portrayed by Christopher Reeve. According to DC, the Superman in the comics is meant to be 6'3, 230lbs, with black hair and blue eyes. Reeve was 6'4 and trained extensively with British bodybuilder Dave Prowse to build his muscles up for the role. He went from 170lbs to 212lbs at the time filming commenced. He continued to bulk up throughout the shoot and his muscles were bigger still in the two subsequent films (he was probably closer to 220-225lbs when he made Superman III (1983)). His eyes were blue, and although he had brown hair, he dyed it black for the role. In short, Reeve was practically a perfect match for the comic book character. His chiselled features evoked the illustrations of artists like Curt Swan. And his costume was faithfully recreated from the comics.

After spending twelve years training in the Fortress, Clark heads to Metropolis where he lands a job as an investigative reporter at the Daily Planet. Here he adopts his bumbling persona and meets Lois Lane for the first time. Lois debuted in the comics in the very first Superman story ever published, 'Superman, Champion of the Oppressed' (Action Comics #1, June 1938).

Clark also meets Perry White and Jimmy Olson. The running gag where Perry reprimands Jimmy for calling him "Chief" is lifted from the comics.

Clark's mild manners are soon put to the test when he and Lois run afoul of a mugger. The character dynamics in this scene are very similar to those in a scene from Action Comics #1. In the comic, Lois is approached by an uncouth thug who demands she dance with him. Rather than leaping to her defence, Clark fearfully instructs Lois to comply with the man's wishes. It then falls on Lois to physically defend her honour, endangering both herself and Clark in the process.

It is shortly after this that we are introduced to the film's main villain, Lex Luthor. In contrast to the modern Luthor, the Golden Age version sported a full head of hair during his earliest appearances. The Hackman Luthor wears wigs throughout most of the film, but is ultimately revealed to be bald like his comic book counterpart.

At the time the movie was made, the Luthor in the comics was not as well developed a character as he is today. He was given an interesting back-story in 'How Luthor Met Superboy!' (Adventure Comics #271, April 1960) where it was revealed that he'd once been a benevolent scientist who'd developed a personal grudge against Superboy following an early encounter in Smallville. But most of the time, the Luthor in the comics had simply been depicted as a mad scientist out to prove his superior intellect through world domination. The Hackman Luthor in the film may appear silly to modern viewers, but he's actually a pretty accurate – albeit tongue-in-cheek – representation of what the character was like at the time.

Luthor's diabolical master plan in the movie involves destroying the west coast of the USA by triggering a massive earthquake along the San Andreas Fault. Luthor's first published story (though technically not his first chronological appearance) was 'Superman versus Luthor' (Superman #4, Spring 1940), in which his master plan also involved inducing earthquakes, this time with the aid of a stolen earthquake machine.

The first time Clark transforms into his Superman costume we see him perform the classic shirt rip seen many times in the comics. This example is from Superman #11 (July 1941).

This comparison shows Superman catching Lois back in 'Superman's Phony Manager' (Action Comics #6, November 1938); just one example of the countless times he has saved her life.

Here's a familiar scene from Action Comics #8 (January 1939).

Luthor draws Superman out in the movie by speaking to him on a frequency only he can hear. The first time Luthor used a similar auditory method to contact the Man of Steel was in 'The Invisible Luthor' (Superman #10, May 1941), which was also the first story in which Luthor appeared bald.

To access Luthor's hidden lair, Superman first has to drill through the street by spinning around at super speed. The first time he did this in the comics was back in Superman #11.

The extended special edition of the movie that was released in 2000 includes a sequence where Superman has to endure a series of traps set by Luthor. The first of these traps is sprung when sliding panels move aside to reveal machine gun nests. Some gangsters attempted a similar trap against the Man of Steel in Action Comics #2, (July 1938). Of course the bullets bounced harmlessly off his chest in both stories.

The Superman in the comics isn't above using intimidation to get important information out of a criminal.

Ultimately Luthor uses Kryptonite to sap the Man of the Steel's powers. Kryptonite first appeared in The Adventures of Superman radio series. It made its debut in the comics in 'Superman Returns to Krypton!' (Superman #61, November 1949).

The first time Superman and Luthor came face-to-face in the comics, the latter chained the Man of Steel to a wall and tortured him using a green laser that sapped his energy (this was before Kryptonite had been introduced). In the movie he chains a piece of Kryptonite around Superman's neck. In both cases, Luthor brags about mind over muscle while he gloats over his weakened adversary. 

The climactic sequence of events in the movie seems to have been inspired by one of the earliest Superman stories ever printed: 'Superman and the Dam' (Action Comics #5, October 1938). In both the comic and the movie, a large dam ruptures and Superman races to minimise the ensuing damage.

At one point a train is about to crash on account of the damaged railway lines. Superman races ahead and uses his super strength to hold up the track long enough for the train to pass safely overhead.

Superman hurries to the top of a cliff and pushes some boulders down into the valley, thereby blocking it and preventing the coursing waters from destroying a small town close to the dam.

While everyone else flees the danger zone, Lois Lane drives solo through the desert in search of a story. Before long she finds herself in the direct path of the chaos.

In the movie her car is dragged down into a fissure in the ground. In the comic it is immersed in water from the dam. In both stories, Lois is in dire danger.

Superman arrives on the scene and spots her car.

In the comic Superman saves Lois in time. In the movie he is not quick enough.

What then follows is the controversial scene where Superman turns back time to save Lois. The closest thing from the comics I can equate this with is the Pre-Crisis Superman's ability to fly faster than light in order to travel backwards in time. The following example is from 'The Super-Revenge of the Phantom Zone Prisoner!' (Superman #157, November 1962).

So perhaps Superman didn't literally turn the Earth back in time, but rather flew backwards in time himself to intercept the second missile before it reached its target. Regardless, all is now well in the world: Lois is saved, the disaster is averted, and Lex Luthor is safely behind bars. And the groundwork of the "will they, won't they" Lois/Clark/Superman love triangle is neatly established.

So ends one of the greatest comic book/superhero movies ever made.

[gordonblu]

Awesome article! It's especially interesting to note how much Gene Hackman looks like that early drawing of Luthor. The time travel speed flight does put a new spin (hee hee) on the ending!

[thecolorsblend]

Is there room for what Donner changed from the comics?

-- Deletions/Modifications
Superboy and the Legion of Superheroes are not even hinted at.
Smallville became a small town in Kansas rather than a suburb of Metropolis.
Donner's Krypton is more remote and alien than the Flash Gordony Krypton of the period.
The AI Jor-El arguably is more directly responsible for Clark becoming Superman than the Kents.

-- Tributes/Similarities to Other Media
In the Adventures of Superman series starring George Reeves, Superman's first public rescue involves someone dangling/falling from a plane.
AOS likewise never features anything related to Superboy.
AOS was distinct at the time for showing only Pa Kent dying while Ma appeared to survive the pilot episode.

[Paul (ral)]

Probably my all time favourite movie. Thank you SN!

[Azrael]

Great stuff, as always. I don't say this to start an argument, but my only "gripe" with this film has always been that it is held in a pedestal as the "flawless, definitive" Superman film by some Batman fans (yes, Batman fans) that consider B'89 (my all time fav film) as a "heavily flawed, far from definitive" Batman film. This always held me back from singing its praise, but I like it a lot. After all I first watched it on TV before seeing Batman '89.

[Silver Nemesis]

Those are all valid contributions, colors. You know more about Superman than I do, so I was hoping you'd help out with this thread and any future threads concerning the sequels.

To be honest I wasn't aware the movie had lifted so much from the George Reeves series. But it sounds like there's a definite correlation there, especially regarding the status of Clark's parents. I really must pick up the DVDs of that show.

I considered adding ways in which the later comics reflected the Donner films (I got Geoff Johns' Superman: Secret Origin for Christmas, and I was amazed to see how many references it makes to this film), but I figured that would be such a vast subject that it might be better served as the basis for a separate thread. We've already got quite a large thread like that for how Burton's Batman films influenced the comics, but I suspect an equivalent thread for Superman would be even bigger.

[thecolorsblend]

Great stuff, as always. I don't say this to start an argument, but my only "gripe" with this film has always been that it is held in a pedestal as the "flawless, definitive" Superman film by some Batman fans (yes, Batman fans) that consider B'89 (my all time fav film) as a "heavily flawed, far from definitive" Batman film. This always held me back from singing its praise, but I like it a lot. After all I first watched it on TV before seeing Batman '89.

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.

Those are all valid contributions, colors. You know more about Superman than I do, so I was hoping you'd help out with this thread and any future threads concerning the sequels.

Absotively posolutely.

To be honest I wasn't aware the movie had lifted so much from the George Reeves series. But it sounds like there's a definite correlation there, especially regarding the status of Clark's parents. I really must pick up the DVDs of that show.

Yep. It's probably more of a serial thing but Noel Neill obviously has a cameo in STM too. Kirk Alyn does too. I'm sure you already knew that but whatever. Anyway. I suspect they would've used George Reeves instead if mortality were no object. But we'll never know, I guess.

I considered adding ways in which the later comics reflected the Donner films (I got Geoff Johns' Superman: Secret Origin for Christmas, and I was amazed to see how many references it makes to this film), but I figured that would be such a vast subject that it might be better served as the basis for a separate thread. We've already got quite a large thread like that for how Burton's Batman films influenced the comics, but I suspect an equivalent thread for Superman would be even bigger.

Probably not a bad idea. Inevitably I'd derail and probably kill the thread ranting over the influence that movie continues to have over the comics. Nothing good will come from it, I promise you. Some wounds just go too deep.

Speaking of, I got irritated by how Johns contributed almost nothing new to the story. Instead, he basically threw STM, Smallville and a dash of STAS into a blender, hit High and poured it into six issues of Sucky Origin.

-- More Deletions/Modifications
Reeve pioneered the Inspector Clouseau version of Clark Kent. Up to that point, Clark was played more like a mild-mannered nice guy rather than a complete buffoon. He generally kept a low profile and, among a lot of his co-workers, probably would've been a little forgettable. "The uber-dork Clark is a little bit of an innovation," said colors diplomatically. I like that it showed Reeve's range but it's really not reflective of what the comics were up to.

Love triangle. All I ask is that you guys hear me out before you go off the deep end. There was no Superman/Clark/Lois love triangle in most comics. Yes, you can find instances of it but in general that wasn't something the comics tackled very much prior to STM. Lois carried a torch for Superman, Superman (whatever his feelings were for her) had a higher mission and Clark generally didn't pay a whole lot of attention to Lois. This was true for a good bit of the Silver Age but it also carried over a fair amount into the Bronze Age as well.

Characterization. STM portrays Superman as pretty much the real character and Clark was a facade Superman used to interact with humanity, have a job at the Planet to hear about disasters, etc. I think that's fairly representative of the Silver Age but the Bronze Age had a more nuanced outlook. Sure, Superman was the lead character and his stuff usually took priority but the Bronze Age Clark was a lot more than just a front end for Superman. By the Bronze Age, Clark had a thriving career in journalism (in both print and broadcast) and a fair amount of attention from women. Push comes to shove, Superman was top dog but Clark served as an outlet for a lot of things for Superman. All of this is to say that the presentation of the Superman/Clark dichotomy in STM isn't representative of what the Bronze Age (and, God knows, the Byrne Age) were all about.

[gordonblu]

The DTV Superman: Brainiac Attacks (which is a horrible video) also borrows quite a lot from the Donner (and Lester) films, the fortress of Solitude is very similar in design, Luthor really comes across like Hackman even down to how Powers Boothe reads some of the lines, and the more flirty dynamic between Clark and Lois smacked of Kidder and Reeve. Too bad the end result wasn't better.

I basically like the first Superman, but I enjoyed Superman II more. It moved along at a quicker pace, there was more action, and Superman had some real threats to fight. Sure Lester screwed up in some areas, but at the same time he did things that I found to be better than the alternates from Donner's cut (Somewhere between the two is IMO the perfect version of the film).

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

Ilya Salkind mentions in the commentary that they were looking at Peter Boyle for the Otis role at one point. Personally I think he would have been a much better choice as he could play the buffoon well, but with the added dimension of being someone physically imposing and might have also brought a slightly more vicious edge to the role. If Otis was Lex's muscle, it would explain why Luthor put up with him in the first place.

[Paul (ral)]

Peter Doyle must have been signed up cause his name and photo appeared in the early Variety magazine adverts for the movie.

[Silver Nemesis]

Speaking of, I got irritated by how Johns contributed almost nothing new to the story. Instead, he basically threw STM, Smallville and a dash of STAS into a blender, hit High and poured it into six issues of Sucky Origin.

I take your point about Johns not adding much new, but I still liked it. I enjoy stories that acknowledge previous interpretations, especially if there's a diverse range of them, and then synergise the disparate elements into a single cohesive text/movie.

A recent equivalent from the Batman comics would be something like Gregg Hurwitz's Penguin: Pain and Prejudice, which was very enjoyable even though it didn't really add much new to the mythology that we haven't already seen before. The plot and characterisation were all basically assembled from elements of 'The Origin of the Penguin' (Best of DC #10, 1981), 'The Killing Peck' (Secret Origins Special, 1989), Batman Returns (1992) and Joker's Asylum: Penguin (2008). Those recycled components may be unremarkable individually, but the overall composition was interesting and felt both fresh and familiar at the same time. I got the same feeling from Superman: Secret Origin. But I understand that it's not for everyone and I get why a lot of people want to see something completely new that isn't tethered to past interpretations.

Characterization. STM portrays Superman as pretty much the real character and Clark was a facade Superman used to interact with humanity, have a job at the Planet to hear about disasters, etc. I think that's fairly representative of the Silver Age but the Bronze Age had a more nuanced outlook. Sure, Superman was the lead character and his stuff usually took priority but the Bronze Age Clark was a lot more than just a front end for Superman. By the Bronze Age, Clark had a thriving career in journalism (in both print and broadcast) and a fair amount of attention from women. Push comes to shove, Superman was top dog but Clark served as an outlet for a lot of things for Superman. All of this is to say that the presentation of the Superman/Clark dichotomy in STM isn't representative of what the Bronze Age (and, God knows, the Byrne Age) were all about.

That's very interesting. The Bronze Age is probably the era of Superman comics I'm least familiar with. Which is odd, considering that's my favourite era of the Batman comics. So I always assumed the thing about Clark being the real guy and Superman the affectation came from John Byrne. But would it be more accurate to say that Byrne was reflecting an approach to the character that other writers had been using for some time? If so, it sounds a bit like Frank Miller getting credit for making Batman dark and serious again, even though other creators had been doing that over a decade earlier.

The way you describe the Bronze Age Clark Kent actually sounds very similar to the Dean Cain version from Lois and Clark.

Ilya Salkind mentions in the commentary that they were looking at Peter Boyle for the Otis role at one point. Personally I think he would have been a much better choice as he could play the buffoon well, but with the added dimension of being someone physically imposing and might have also brought a slightly more vicious edge to the role. If Otis was Lex's muscle, it would explain why Luthor put up with him in the first place.

I've never heard that before. Peter Boyle was a marvellous actor. It would've been great to have had him as a villain in a Superman film, even if it was only a goofy comedic henchman.