I'd say the first one is more so just an earnest comic book adaptation than campy for camp's sake. That's what Adam West Batman was, and it was a conscious decision.
This is more of a Spielberg film. But the truth is, there has yet to be a perfect Superman adaptaiton.
Being honest here because some will have nostalgia tinted glasses or are shills for WB/DC. All 4 films are incredibly dated and campy. The first film holds up well enough but you need to keep in mind that it is a love story first and cape film second. Christopher Reeve is the best Superman out of everyone who was in the role before and after him. He has not been topped yet. Only Tom Welling comes close and even Reeve thought so as well at the time. You will only end up watching the sequels for him only. >Superman 2
Plagued heavily by producer meddling, much like the DCEU with Snyder. Richard Donner was practically kicked out and only returned in 2006 to complete his director's cut. Best version of this film is one that merges both versions and removes the time travel ending. >Superman 3
Best parts are the Smallville scenes and the junkyard fight. It's Richard Pryor's film. Villain was meant to be Brainiac. >Superman 4
Heavy budget cuts ruined the film. Best part is only Clark's own development as a character. We finally get to see his apartment in metropolis and he sells the Kent farm. >Superman Returns
WB just wanting to catch lightening in a bottle twice. Visually does not work with Reeve films and has become an alternate universe.
>dated and campy
people that unironically say shit like should not be listened to, their opinions discarded, and should stick to discussing toys and games like the children they are
I'm not. If you're a perfectionist then you'll see there's still more to be desire from a Superman movie than what we've gotten so far, regardless if it's Donner or Snyder we're talking about.
But for the time, Donner's film was acceptable.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>But for the time, Donner's film was acceptable >for the time
Superman 1 is better than every single Superman movie ever made.
5 months ago
Anonymous
This.
>bb-b--but it's cc-c-cc-cc-c-camp
it's Superman
5 months ago
Anonymous
It’s not even campy it was inspired by screwball comedies of 30s and 40s which 1970s directors were really into at the time and even then it was pretty mild.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Superman 1 is better than every single Superman movie ever made.
It's a good film. But saying it is the best is stretching it because there has not been many Superman films that concentrate on him as the main character. In most cases he becomes a supporting character.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Allow me to correct myself then.
Superman 1 is better than every single capeshit ever made.
5 months ago
Anonymous
You really haven't explained how that's stretching it.
>hurr durr anyone who disagrees with my shit opinion is wearing NOSTALGIA GOGGLES >it can't possibly be ME that's the biased moron who is judging a film for something as inconsequential as the year in which it came out! >Movies AGE and become DATED you see, modern movies are the best! Take off your NOSTALGIA GOGGLES grandpa!
>Movies AGE and become DATED you see, modern movies are the best!
But Superman 1 is great. It's easy to look past that it's from 1978. I think it gives the movie a certain charm to it. It's a positive. But the sequels ruin the immersion and the flaws become too visible to ignore.
This.
>bb-b--but it's cc-c-cc-cc-c-camp
it's Superman
>it's Superman
And? It's not a fairy tale.
?si=BALXCnflJgEmJzLM&t=57
5 months ago
Anonymous
>It's easy to look past that it's from 1978
The year it came out should not even be a factor.
5 months ago
Anonymous
You seem to have a problem with when it was released. Maybe enjoy the film first before jumping to conclusions with what you think I said.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>And? It's not a fairy tale.
It kind of is. I'll take camp over grimdark "superman" anyday
5 months ago
Anonymous
>It kind of is. I'll take camp over grimdark "superman" anyday
No. It's not. It's sci-fi. It would be nice to have a Superman movie or show be based in reality not turned into Adam West's Batman. I never said grimdark. Somewhere in between.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>sci-fi >here's a flying invincible demigod who has laser eyes and can freeze things with his breath and only has one weakness, a super rare mineral
Superman is not sci-fi. Making the demigod an alien doesn't make him sci-fi any more than the Martian Manhunter is
5 months ago
Anonymous
Capeshit does not count as sci-fi.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>sci-fi >here's a flying invincible demigod who has laser eyes and can freeze things with his breath and only has one weakness, a super rare mineral
Superman is not sci-fi. Making the demigod an alien doesn't make him sci-fi any more than the Martian Manhunter is
is not sci-fi. Making the demigod an alien doesn't make him sci-fi
No, no. Disagree. If you want fairly tales then watch Disney/Marvel. DC is meant to be a sci-fi fantasy/adventure.
5 months ago
Anonymous
It's a simple fantasy, no sci-fi involved.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>DC is meant to be a sci-fi fantasy/adventure.
The hell it is, they even had to invent kryptonite so he could have a weakness. There's nothing sci-fi about a demigod.
5 months ago
Fr
Lois & Clark had the balance of lighter tones with grimdark subjects.
Yeah I discard the opinion of anyone who uses "dated" as a criticism because they're saying that they think newer is inherently better.
Very few films from the 70s or 80s are "dated" because they were making movies that are higher quality than what Hollywood produces today.
Are you stupid? Camp is a performance style. Something being campy doesn't make it bad. But it is one of those things that is love it or hate it. If someone doesn't like the overt, earnest wholesomeness of camp they're not going to like Superman The Movie.
Agreed. Doing the re-tread of flying around the globe doesn't work if you've watching both films back to back. Just feels like "Oh, we're doing this again? Mmkay."
The 1978 film is not only the best superhero film ever made, but transcends the genre and is one of the greatest movies ever made, period. The second movie is very good, the Donner cut is better but both versions have their merits while falling short of the original. 3 is a Richard Pryor comedy with Superman as a supporting character, and 4 is straight up garbage
These are both about right. First movie is unironically kino. Make sure to watch the theatrical cut though as every other cut ruins the pacing and tone. It's the original "superhero" movie as we know it today but there's something about watching the formula get created that makes it feel fresh. It's kinda like how Black Christmas, Texas Chainsaw 1 and the original Halloween still feel fresh even though they essentially created slasher movies and got ripped off so many times. Also Chris Reeve is literally perfect casting, his Superman is perfect but more importantly his Clark Kent is just as incredible too.
Superman 2 has issues because they were filming both 1 and 2 simultaneously with director Richard Donner with the intention of it being a 2 part superhero epic. However when it started to go over budget they then decided to concentrate on finishing Superman 1 with about 70-80% of Superman 2 having already been filmed. However Donner then somehow pissed off the producers shortly after the premiere (it's worth noting the producers, the Salkinds, were almost the worst kind of sleazy stereotypes of producers) and was then replaced by Richard Lester, the director of the Beatles movies from the 60s. Problem is that legally for Lester to be "the director" at least 70% of the footage had to be his own, so they reshot a ton of stuff that Donner had already filmed (and done quite well) and in Lester's own style too - which made it more comedic and campy. Plus certain actors refused to come back without Donner so Brando's footage got very obviously cut while all of Hackman's footage is from the Donner shoot, augmented with a stand-in for any of the Lester reshoots.
Ran out of space - continued:
The finished theatrical film is alright but a bit of a letdown compared to the first. They did a recut in the 2000s to try to restore the Donner cut but it's flawed too. The cut footage is in most cases WAY better than the stuff Lester reshot but it's still only about 70% of a movie that they had to work with and crucially when they decided to concentrate on finishing Superman 1 first they decided to use the planned ending for Superman 2 in Superman 1 (where he flies around the world to put it vaguely) and as a result the Donner cut just had to use that footage again resulting in both Superman 1 and 2 ending with the EXACT SAME SCENE now.
So basically watch both versions of Superman 2 and be warned that both have major issues due to behind the scenes bullshit. Theatrical Superman 2 is definitely a downgrade compared to 1 but it is a complete movie in and off itself. Donner Cut fixes SO MANY of the problems of theatrical S2 but it's also not quite a complete finished movie in-and-of-itself and unless you're familiar with the theatrical cut and the behind the scenes drama you might get really confused as to some of the creative choices because it's just not a complete movie.
Superman 3 was fully directed by Lester and is a campy comedy. It's... okay, I guess? It's skippable but not truly offensive. Superman 4's genuinely one of the worst movies ever made. However at times it is "so-bad-it's-good" bad, especially some of the no budget special effects scenes so if like bad movies ironically you might enjoy it
The worst part about 4 is that Margot Kidder returns and looks HORRIBLE, it's depressing how much she destroyed her looks over the course the 1980s
Apparently she was a total schizo and was even a homeless wino for a period of time
Agreed it's fricking shocking and I even noticed it as a kid. What's crazy is that some of that footage is from the Donner shoot and she looks the same as she did in the original but there's so much footage from the Lester shoot where she just looks shocking considering how soon after the first movie it was. I even noticed as a kid that something was wrong with her, I even thought she might've been recast for a bit.
>Apparently she was a total schizo and was even a homeless wino for a period of time
That is also true but that didn't happen until the early-mid 90s where she had a complete psychotic break for a week or two. But that was over a decade after Superman 1 and 2.
Lol I misread your post - I thought you said Margot Kidder returned in 2 and looked horrible rather than 4. I agree she looks even worse in 4 but she starts looking rough around the edges as early as 2 (at least in the Lester footage)
5 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah she looked noticeably worse in the Lester footage for 2, but in Quest for Peace... she looks like Pic Related
>every other cut ruins the pacing and tone
The one deleted scene I wish they'd kept is the one where Superman has to admit to Jor-El that he's a superhero now and they have that "I'm not angry son just disappointed" talk. It's a cute scene.
I prefer the more lighthearted theatrical cut, just feels comfier. And with that tome you can accept the more ludicrous aspects of the plot, like the plastic S.
but it doesn't mesh with the tone of the first movie, and there's too much slapstick comedy and not enough gravitas. Lester was the wrong choice to replace Donner, which was a mistake to begin with
The 1978 film is not only the best superhero film ever made, but transcends the genre and is one of the greatest movies ever made, period. The second movie is very good, the Donner cut is better but both versions have their merits while falling short of the original. 3 is a Richard Pryor comedy with Superman as a supporting character, and 4 is straight up garbage
Hey OP! It's been a few hours now, you still here? Have you watched it yet? What did you think? Also which version did you watch (I did recommend the theatrical cut a while back)
You really think the Superman movies are better than the Raimi Spider-Man movies?
Superman 1 is the best one, Spider-Man 1 is the same sort of origin story but the action is better and the romance is sexier (Kirsten Dunst in the rain, nippled protruding). Oh, and Spider-Man 1 actually has a good ending instead of Superman 1's fricking moronic "spin around the world to turn back time" bullshit.
Superman 2 and Spider-Man 2 both deal with the hero losing his powers and having to regain them to defeat the bad guys; in Spider-Man 2, Parker regaining his powers feels natural alongside him regaining confidence and purpose, in Superman 2 he takes some plastic "S" logo off of his cape and throws it like a magical trap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiN0Lwvi7CA&pp=ygUTc3VwZXJtYW4gMiB0aHJvd3Mgcw%3D%3D
Superman 3 and Spider-Man 3 are both considered bad by fans but I already proved the first two Spider-Man movies are basically the same but better, don't feel the need to prove the same for the third.
>You really think the Superman movies are better than the Raimi Spider-Man movies?
Not that anon, but i do. Not to take away from the Rami movies which are, to me, the 2nd best superhero movie(s) of all time. Superman just benefitted from happening at a magical juncture of the old and unashamedly genuine love of inspirational characters and the very beginning of the ability to make it happen from an effects standpoint. The original Spiderman 1 and 2 had 90% of that sincerity and better effects so I can see how it's a matter of preference. I only lean toward Superman because of the added mythological qualities of the first two parts of the movie. It was capeshit's Excalibur, especially the first act. For me that wins it by a small margin.
nta but... semi-yeah. I'd argue Superman 1 is better than Spider-Man 1. Yes, Kirsten Dunst is sexier but it's a better movie overall. Spider-Man 2 is better than Superman 2 (although there's a kind-of what-could-have-been with that movie if Donner had actually finished it. The Donner Cut is nice and all but it still isn't a complete movie) and, to be clear, Spider-Man 2 is fantastic and rivals Superman for the title of "greatest superhero movie ever." And both Superman 3 and Spider-Man 3 kinda blow despite having some good scenes scattered throughout however the good shit in Spider-Man 3 is still Raimi and done in that great Raimi style so, despite my dislike of it, I have to give the edge to Spider-Man 3
I agree with you, Raimi Spider-Man's fantastic but Superman 1's really fricking good and I do think it's better than SM1 overall. Plus I like Tobey but I do think he might be the weakest link out that entire cast. I think another actor could've played Spider-Man better. Don't recast ANYONE else, fricking the rest of the cast is perfect but Tobey seems like the weakest link to me. Meanwhile, Chris Reeve is fricking Superman. Full stop. He even saves Superman 3 and 4 from being completely unwatchable. That's how good he is
>The Superman movies are objectively really cheesy and badly written
What is the point of this pseudo-criticism? Of course it's cheesy, it's a man in spandex with a giant S on his chest. It might surprise you to hear this but "Truth, Justice and the American Way" was for a time compelling to children and a great deal of adults - it's pulpy and simplistic but it tugs on the right emotions. It's a genuinely uplifting film with good performances and a nice love story. Considering the time period, it's also a significant achievement in special effects.
I doubt even Raimi would put his own Spider-Man films above the original Superman, the first two in particular are indebted to Donner in terms of tone and direction. And don't even try to claim X-Men is even near this category of discussion.
>you couldn't possibly have a justifiable opinion, you must be X or Y or have [bad reason I made up] otherwise you would agree with me because my awful taste is objective fact!
Why are zoomers such narcissistic homosexuals?
Reeve had a pretty decent build, he was just on the lankier side and likely natural, so nothing compared to the post-Dorian Yates steroid monsters of today.
Everyone in comics is either a mr olympia or a swim suit model so it's kind of unrealistic to begin with.
Even if he did take something, it was very miniscule compared to what some actors take today. He busted his ass to get to where he did. The movies may not be perfect but he's still the best portrayal in a lot of ways.
The first one is actually very good. 2 is the kind of film you think is great when you were younger but you rewatch as an adult and it had a ton of issues, I still like it though. 3 is shit but still has some kino moments . 4 is so bad I don't remember any of it.
>I thought hackman got away with not shaving his head?
Famously he was cast before Richard Donner came on board. Initially Hackman refused to even shave his mustache for the part. Donner then said (over the phone I might add) that he would shave off his own mustache if Hackman shaved his. Hackman agreed, shaved it off and when he came on set day 1 he saw Donner still had a mustache. He confronted him about it at which point Donner peeled it off revealing it to be a fake mustache and he'd never had a mustache to begin with. Considering that it's pretty understandable why he didn't shave his head. >only part I've seen is the time travel scene
??? wat
Oh you mean the spinning the world around scene? Yeah, it's a great movie but famously the ending never made any goddamn sense, even when I was a kid I was like, "Wait, a minute?"
You should watch the full movie of 1 at least. It's genuinely pretty good.
I forgive the illogic of the ending for at least having personal stakes for Superman and tying together the arc he had going from the beginning about non-interference and overexerting his abilities. It's not perfect but it's still somehow more thoughtful and effective than any "epic battle" ending Marvel has ever come up with.
That ending was tacked on.
It was supposed to end with one of the missiles going into space and freeing Zod and the others.
The sequel was in doubt so they came up with ending we got, and Superman 2 got the Eiffel Tower terrorist bomb opener.
Agreed, it makes sense from a character standpoint and at least gives Superman some kind of arc (and Chris Reeve's performance during the ending is fantastic.) Essentially it comes down to him choosing between his Krypton dad and his Kansas dad and in the end he sides with the latter, choosing his human side over his alien god side. I just wish the actual mechanics of flying around the world really fast made any sense whatsoever because even as a kid I thought it was nonsensical
What's funny is that Hackman ended up being so loyal to Donner that he refused to come back for the reshoots of Superman II. All the footage of him that's in the theatrical cut is from the Donner shoot and the rest was filled in with a body double and ADR.
>Hackman agreed, shaved it off and when he came on set day 1 he saw Donner still had a mustache.
Kek >He confronted him about it at which point Donner peeled it off revealing it to be a fake mustache and he'd never had a mustache to begin with
Double kek
The behind the scenes stories of making the Superman movies are fricking hilarious. Another one: they'd also hired Marlon Brando to play Jor-El before Donner signed on. When Donner talked to Brando's people he got word that Brando wanted to play the role as a green suitcase. Confused, but aware of Brando's difficult reputation, Donner called up Francis Ford Coppola and asked what the deal was. Coppola then told him that Brando was one of the most brilliant and intelligent men he'd ever meet but he was also incredibly lazy and a giant troll and that Brando was going to try to convince Donner to film a green suitcase while Brando stayed at home and did voice acting after the fact.
So armed with that knowledge Donner went up to Brando's mansion to meet him and Brando proceeded to give a long elaborate speech about his life, the plight of the native American people and so on which lasted several hours. Finally the topic shifted to Superman at which point Brando said something like, "Yeah, I was thinking I should play the role... like a bagel." Donner was slightly stunned as he was expecting him to say green suitcase, then Brando went on to say, "Yes, I mean we don't know what these Kryptonians look like so I believe they'd probably be sentient bagel creatures. Not only that but they probably wouldn't communicate in any form of English, they would instead communicate using some kind of electronic bleeps-and-bloops." In other words Brando was trying to convince the filmmakers to film footage of a bagel instead of him and that he wouldn't even provide voice work, instead they'd dub him in using synthesizers while still paying Brando for doing nothing.
I forget how Donner managed to convince him but apparently he took a shine to Donner and was surprisingly well behaved for the rest of the shoot.
1's great
2's great, possibly even better
3 is dumb '80s fun redeemed by it's sheer '80s-ness, Richard Pryor, and Robert Vaughn having a blast
4 is garbage, and not just any garbage, but cheap, clumsy, unnecessary garbage Bonus round Supergirl is famously lame but I'm very fond of it and Jerry Goldsmith's score is underrated
First is good up until the "Otis Theme", then veers dangerously close to 66 Batman territory
At the time Telly Savalas Yul Bryner were the most famous bald men on Earth, and who do they hire? Gene Hackman, who not only refused to play the role bald, he initially didn't want to shave his mustache.
Third act has some bad model work, and rushed, nonsensical ending because the state of the sequel was in flux.
>First is good up until the "Otis Theme",
I always feel let down when it reaches that point. It's like the magic just abruptly ends. Honestly, Superman I is three distinct short movies. The first one is the origin all the way through when he first flies away from the fortrase. The second is him getting the job, establishing himself as Superman, and his relationship with Lois. Rhe third starts with that "Otis theme."
The first of these is a masterful, almost dreamlike mythological film sharing some qualities with the likes of Excalibur.
The second is a really cool inspirational story about Superman capturing the world's imagination and how he balances being Clark and Superman. Reeve's acting going between the two is well agreed-upon as brilliant.
The final one, unfortunately, just saps the magic right out of it and it essentially a slightly better done Superman 4. It's only saved by Reeve's presence and Hackman's brief moments of furious Luthor.
I wish it was just the first tow parts. I know that wouldn't satisfy the need for a conventional film structure and plot climax. I wish they'd used Hackman and Reeves (and Beaty) better for a more seriously played 3rd act. The idea of the missles is fine, the real-estate motive is terrible though, as is the campy acting.
>the real-estate motive is terrible though
It's perfect for what kind of character and story it is. Movie Luthor isn't a mad scientist or eccentric billionaire who wants to conquer the whole world, he's just an airheaded career criminal who wants a lot of money and influence, but not too much that it's unmanageable. It's a relatively practical goal with a well defined strategy and endgame and it's at least unique in capeshit. Idk maybe I'm being too lenient but I'll happily take it over a generic world domination plot or macguffin shit any day.
I get what you're saying but it just comes across too petty and mundane to fit with the gravitas of the rest of the film. The first two thirds of the movie are just in a different place in terms of themes. I wouldn't want mindless world domination or macguffins either. What would have worked better to me would have been a Luthor trying to crack into some power or knowledge that he genuinely believed to be for the greater good, but his hubris unlocks something terrible and Superman steps in. Not just a big giant monster, but something more existential. Superman Returns botched both Luthor and nearly everything else, but the runaway Kryptonian tech nearly overtaking the world is more along the lines of what I mean. They just made it too campy so it feels disconnected with the first two parts of the film.
>it just comes across too petty and mundane to fit with the gravitas of the rest of the film
I don't think the course of events is too mundane - in fact, Luthor being a petty career criminal whose ambitions lead to him launching two nuclear weapons at his own country is a perfect contrast to Superman by demonstrating the consequences of power used *without* responsibility and respect - but it's the depiction. Luthor, Otis and Miss Teschmacher are all written in the modern generic mode of characters from a bawdy ensemble crime comedy (i.e. Cannonball Run), which is completely at odds with the tone established earlier in the film.
>which is completely at odds with the tone established earlier in the film.
That's really the issue I have with the whole 3rd act. It just completely contradicts the feeling from the first two acts. It's a complete tonal mismatch, like having the three stooges show up in the last act of The Godfather.
4 has nothing going for it, nothing. 3 has insane '80s computer illiteracy, Superman getting drunk, Evil Superman vs Clark in the scrapyard, Robert Vaughn eating the sets and Annette O'toole being god tier hot
Everyone loved Donner. He was a joy to work with from everything I've heard. He also did all the Lethal Weapon movies which are great too.
Donner is one of the greats for sure and probably one of the most underrated. Still to this day people think that Spielberg directed the Goonies instead of Donner
Telly Savalas's version of Blofeld - suave on the surface, calculating, brilliant yet deranged through ruthless pursuit of ambition crime boss with the hint of a working class background - is the best live-action version of Luthor put to film and I wish that character was the one facing Reeves.
Was Smallville the last time they tried to sincerely give audiences the adaptations they wanted? Sometime after this it seems they all turned overtly hostile toward their audiences.
I don't know when the transition happened. I'm guessing the slow boiling frog was the plan all along. I'm still amused that the token black guy on the show ended up being convicted for drug dealing, though.
Frick I completely forgot he did Goonies as well. Yeah, Donner was awesome and was really the heart and soul of the first movie (and most of the good bits of 2 if we're being honest)
>Christoper Reeve looks like an Alex Ross painting come to life
During the arrowverse crisis crossover they brought back Brandon Routh to play Reeve's version of Superman, not the one from SR. The Donnerverse over time became very much like "Kingdom Come". He even referenced the junkyard fight from Superman 3 which never happened in the SR universe.
the 90's Superman the Animated Series was genuine kino. It's also connected and ran parallel to story-wise the the 90's Batman, then Justice League the animated series was the sequel
There was a time when DC made things better than Marvel can even dream of competing with, and frankly they still haven't quality-wise
The other great one is the Max Fleischer Superman cartoons from the 40s. They're genuinely some of the greatest cartoons ever made, are responsible for many of the original iconic Superman moments and were the original inspiration for Batman the Animated Series (which then spun off to Superman animated and Justice League and so on.) Give them a watch if you haven't already:
How could you have reached adulthood without having seen this movie? Don't you have a father? Didn't he watch movies with you while you were growing up? I just don't get it. As others have already said: Superman the movie is the greatest capeshit of all time, and definitely watch the theatrical cut of the second before watching the Donner Cut.
The og: nice movie 7/10
Ii: nice movie 7/10
IiI: fricking sucks. But Clark vs Superman is peak comic kino 4/10 (2 for clark vs superman and other 2 for pamela's body)
IV: TQfP: fricking sucks but i like the messege 2/10
Pd: awful cameo on the flash
Theatrical. Special Edition has some nice stuff but it fricks up the pacing. The Extended cut is a long-ass tv cut from the 70s/80s and most of the new stuff was cut for a reason in the first place
Telly Savalas's version of Blofeld - suave on the surface, calculating, brilliant yet deranged through ruthless pursuit of ambition crime boss with the hint of a working class background - is the best live-action version of Luthor put to film and I wish that character was the one facing Reeves.
>Telly Savalas's version of Blofeld
This. I never saw Blofeld in his performance. It was Luthor all the way. It would have been great to see him with Reeve.
Gene Hackman is one of the greatest actors in all of cinema, but he was miscast for Luthor. He MIGHT have nailed it if they'd let him be the terrifying Hackman we saw in Unforgiven then maybe. Otherwise, they should have gone with Savalas.
>Gene Hackman is one of the greatest actors in all of cinema
He's like Nick Cage. He just plays himself. I'm not saying it doesn't work, but it's nothing spectacular.
Superman = one of the most overrated movies of all time. there are great moments but also tons of shit.
Superman II = okay (both versions)
Superman III = shit
Superman IV = super shit, but with glimpses at what could have been kino
I haven't seen them either, but I've been told they all hold up pretty well.
They're incredibly campy, boring, and shit overall. Does not hold up.
I'd say the first one is more so just an earnest comic book adaptation than campy for camp's sake. That's what Adam West Batman was, and it was a conscious decision.
This is more of a Spielberg film. But the truth is, there has yet to be a perfect Superman adaptaiton.
Being honest here because some will have nostalgia tinted glasses or are shills for WB/DC. All 4 films are incredibly dated and campy. The first film holds up well enough but you need to keep in mind that it is a love story first and cape film second. Christopher Reeve is the best Superman out of everyone who was in the role before and after him. He has not been topped yet. Only Tom Welling comes close and even Reeve thought so as well at the time. You will only end up watching the sequels for him only.
>Superman 2
Plagued heavily by producer meddling, much like the DCEU with Snyder. Richard Donner was practically kicked out and only returned in 2006 to complete his director's cut. Best version of this film is one that merges both versions and removes the time travel ending.
>Superman 3
Best parts are the Smallville scenes and the junkyard fight. It's Richard Pryor's film. Villain was meant to be Brainiac.
>Superman 4
Heavy budget cuts ruined the film. Best part is only Clark's own development as a character. We finally get to see his apartment in metropolis and he sells the Kent farm.
>Superman Returns
WB just wanting to catch lightening in a bottle twice. Visually does not work with Reeve films and has become an alternate universe.
>All 4 films are incredibly dated and campy
And yet they mog every single capeshit movie since.
>dated and campy
people that unironically say shit like should not be listened to, their opinions discarded, and should stick to discussing toys and games like the children they are
Nah, he's right. Superman 1 is still groundbreaking in a lot of ways though and holds up.
Don't pretend you aren't him.
I'm not. If you're a perfectionist then you'll see there's still more to be desire from a Superman movie than what we've gotten so far, regardless if it's Donner or Snyder we're talking about.
But for the time, Donner's film was acceptable.
>But for the time, Donner's film was acceptable
>for the time
Superman 1 is better than every single Superman movie ever made.
This.
>bb-b--but it's cc-c-cc-cc-c-camp
it's Superman
It’s not even campy it was inspired by screwball comedies of 30s and 40s which 1970s directors were really into at the time and even then it was pretty mild.
>Superman 1 is better than every single Superman movie ever made.
It's a good film. But saying it is the best is stretching it because there has not been many Superman films that concentrate on him as the main character. In most cases he becomes a supporting character.
Allow me to correct myself then.
Superman 1 is better than every single capeshit ever made.
You really haven't explained how that's stretching it.
>people that unironically say shit like should not be listened to, their opinions discarded
See. Didn't take long.
>hurr durr anyone who disagrees with my shit opinion is wearing NOSTALGIA GOGGLES
>it can't possibly be ME that's the biased moron who is judging a film for something as inconsequential as the year in which it came out!
>Movies AGE and become DATED you see, modern movies are the best! Take off your NOSTALGIA GOGGLES grandpa!
>Movies AGE and become DATED you see, modern movies are the best!
But Superman 1 is great. It's easy to look past that it's from 1978. I think it gives the movie a certain charm to it. It's a positive. But the sequels ruin the immersion and the flaws become too visible to ignore.
>it's Superman
And? It's not a fairy tale.
?si=BALXCnflJgEmJzLM&t=57
>It's easy to look past that it's from 1978
The year it came out should not even be a factor.
You seem to have a problem with when it was released. Maybe enjoy the film first before jumping to conclusions with what you think I said.
>And? It's not a fairy tale.
It kind of is. I'll take camp over grimdark "superman" anyday
>It kind of is. I'll take camp over grimdark "superman" anyday
No. It's not. It's sci-fi. It would be nice to have a Superman movie or show be based in reality not turned into Adam West's Batman. I never said grimdark. Somewhere in between.
>sci-fi
>here's a flying invincible demigod who has laser eyes and can freeze things with his breath and only has one weakness, a super rare mineral
Superman is not sci-fi. Making the demigod an alien doesn't make him sci-fi any more than the Martian Manhunter is
Capeshit does not count as sci-fi.
is not sci-fi. Making the demigod an alien doesn't make him sci-fi
No, no. Disagree. If you want fairly tales then watch Disney/Marvel. DC is meant to be a sci-fi fantasy/adventure.
It's a simple fantasy, no sci-fi involved.
>DC is meant to be a sci-fi fantasy/adventure.
The hell it is, they even had to invent kryptonite so he could have a weakness. There's nothing sci-fi about a demigod.
Lois & Clark had the balance of lighter tones with grimdark subjects.
>It's not a fairy tale.
Worse, it's capeshit
Yeah I discard the opinion of anyone who uses "dated" as a criticism because they're saying that they think newer is inherently better.
Very few films from the 70s or 80s are "dated" because they were making movies that are higher quality than what Hollywood produces today.
Are you stupid? Camp is a performance style. Something being campy doesn't make it bad. But it is one of those things that is love it or hate it. If someone doesn't like the overt, earnest wholesomeness of camp they're not going to like Superman The Movie.
NTA but I don't really see how Donner's Superman is any "campier" than modern superhero shit like the MCU. If anything it seems more grounded.
Superb breakdown, Anon. I'll add on that Smallville with Tom Welling is the only series worth watching.
Lana was an eye candy to see
The first movie and the Donner cut of II are both solid. Haven't watched the others.
The Donner cut ending sucks, I'll stick to the theatrical.
Agreed. Doing the re-tread of flying around the globe doesn't work if you've watching both films back to back. Just feels like "Oh, we're doing this again? Mmkay."
These are both about right. First movie is unironically kino. Make sure to watch the theatrical cut though as every other cut ruins the pacing and tone. It's the original "superhero" movie as we know it today but there's something about watching the formula get created that makes it feel fresh. It's kinda like how Black Christmas, Texas Chainsaw 1 and the original Halloween still feel fresh even though they essentially created slasher movies and got ripped off so many times. Also Chris Reeve is literally perfect casting, his Superman is perfect but more importantly his Clark Kent is just as incredible too.
Superman 2 has issues because they were filming both 1 and 2 simultaneously with director Richard Donner with the intention of it being a 2 part superhero epic. However when it started to go over budget they then decided to concentrate on finishing Superman 1 with about 70-80% of Superman 2 having already been filmed. However Donner then somehow pissed off the producers shortly after the premiere (it's worth noting the producers, the Salkinds, were almost the worst kind of sleazy stereotypes of producers) and was then replaced by Richard Lester, the director of the Beatles movies from the 60s. Problem is that legally for Lester to be "the director" at least 70% of the footage had to be his own, so they reshot a ton of stuff that Donner had already filmed (and done quite well) and in Lester's own style too - which made it more comedic and campy. Plus certain actors refused to come back without Donner so Brando's footage got very obviously cut while all of Hackman's footage is from the Donner shoot, augmented with a stand-in for any of the Lester reshoots.
Ran out of space - continued:
The finished theatrical film is alright but a bit of a letdown compared to the first. They did a recut in the 2000s to try to restore the Donner cut but it's flawed too. The cut footage is in most cases WAY better than the stuff Lester reshot but it's still only about 70% of a movie that they had to work with and crucially when they decided to concentrate on finishing Superman 1 first they decided to use the planned ending for Superman 2 in Superman 1 (where he flies around the world to put it vaguely) and as a result the Donner cut just had to use that footage again resulting in both Superman 1 and 2 ending with the EXACT SAME SCENE now.
So basically watch both versions of Superman 2 and be warned that both have major issues due to behind the scenes bullshit. Theatrical Superman 2 is definitely a downgrade compared to 1 but it is a complete movie in and off itself. Donner Cut fixes SO MANY of the problems of theatrical S2 but it's also not quite a complete finished movie in-and-of-itself and unless you're familiar with the theatrical cut and the behind the scenes drama you might get really confused as to some of the creative choices because it's just not a complete movie.
Superman 3 was fully directed by Lester and is a campy comedy. It's... okay, I guess? It's skippable but not truly offensive. Superman 4's genuinely one of the worst movies ever made. However at times it is "so-bad-it's-good" bad, especially some of the no budget special effects scenes so if like bad movies ironically you might enjoy it
The worst part about 4 is that Margot Kidder returns and looks HORRIBLE, it's depressing how much she destroyed her looks over the course the 1980s
Apparently she was a total schizo and was even a homeless wino for a period of time
Agreed it's fricking shocking and I even noticed it as a kid. What's crazy is that some of that footage is from the Donner shoot and she looks the same as she did in the original but there's so much footage from the Lester shoot where she just looks shocking considering how soon after the first movie it was. I even noticed as a kid that something was wrong with her, I even thought she might've been recast for a bit.
>Apparently she was a total schizo and was even a homeless wino for a period of time
That is also true but that didn't happen until the early-mid 90s where she had a complete psychotic break for a week or two. But that was over a decade after Superman 1 and 2.
Lol I misread your post - I thought you said Margot Kidder returned in 2 and looked horrible rather than 4. I agree she looks even worse in 4 but she starts looking rough around the edges as early as 2 (at least in the Lester footage)
Yeah she looked noticeably worse in the Lester footage for 2, but in Quest for Peace... she looks like Pic Related
I liked 4 more than 3. It's not a good movie but Nuclear Man was kino.
>every other cut ruins the pacing and tone
The one deleted scene I wish they'd kept is the one where Superman has to admit to Jor-El that he's a superhero now and they have that "I'm not angry son just disappointed" talk. It's a cute scene.
I prefer the more lighthearted theatrical cut, just feels comfier. And with that tome you can accept the more ludicrous aspects of the plot, like the plastic S.
but it doesn't mesh with the tone of the first movie, and there's too much slapstick comedy and not enough gravitas. Lester was the wrong choice to replace Donner, which was a mistake to begin with
The 1978 film is not only the best superhero film ever made, but transcends the genre and is one of the greatest movies ever made, period. The second movie is very good, the Donner cut is better but both versions have their merits while falling short of the original. 3 is a Richard Pryor comedy with Superman as a supporting character, and 4 is straight up garbage
>The 1978 film is not only the best superhero film ever made, but transcends the genre and is one of the greatest movies ever made, period
that's quite an endorsement - I'm gonna watch it tonight! thanks anon!
Hey OP! It's been a few hours now, you still here? Have you watched it yet? What did you think? Also which version did you watch (I did recommend the theatrical cut a while back)
>3 is a Richard Pryor comedy with Superman as a supporting character
Don't forget a scene that gave many kids nightmares.
which one?
You know. THAT scene.
i don't.
Yes you do.
Aaaaaah, make it go away!
You’re all such little Reddit tier homosexuals its incredible
You're either a boomer or brainless parroting the opinion of boomers.
The Superman movies are objectively really cheesy and badly written compared to some of the capeshit we got in the '00s before the MCU.
Trying to hard
You really think the Superman movies are better than the Raimi Spider-Man movies?
Superman 1 is the best one, Spider-Man 1 is the same sort of origin story but the action is better and the romance is sexier (Kirsten Dunst in the rain, nippled protruding). Oh, and Spider-Man 1 actually has a good ending instead of Superman 1's fricking moronic "spin around the world to turn back time" bullshit.
Superman 2 and Spider-Man 2 both deal with the hero losing his powers and having to regain them to defeat the bad guys; in Spider-Man 2, Parker regaining his powers feels natural alongside him regaining confidence and purpose, in Superman 2 he takes some plastic "S" logo off of his cape and throws it like a magical trap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiN0Lwvi7CA&pp=ygUTc3VwZXJtYW4gMiB0aHJvd3Mgcw%3D%3D
Superman 3 and Spider-Man 3 are both considered bad by fans but I already proved the first two Spider-Man movies are basically the same but better, don't feel the need to prove the same for the third.
>You really think the Superman movies are better than the Raimi Spider-Man movies?
Not that anon, but i do. Not to take away from the Rami movies which are, to me, the 2nd best superhero movie(s) of all time. Superman just benefitted from happening at a magical juncture of the old and unashamedly genuine love of inspirational characters and the very beginning of the ability to make it happen from an effects standpoint. The original Spiderman 1 and 2 had 90% of that sincerity and better effects so I can see how it's a matter of preference. I only lean toward Superman because of the added mythological qualities of the first two parts of the movie. It was capeshit's Excalibur, especially the first act. For me that wins it by a small margin.
nta but... semi-yeah. I'd argue Superman 1 is better than Spider-Man 1. Yes, Kirsten Dunst is sexier but it's a better movie overall. Spider-Man 2 is better than Superman 2 (although there's a kind-of what-could-have-been with that movie if Donner had actually finished it. The Donner Cut is nice and all but it still isn't a complete movie) and, to be clear, Spider-Man 2 is fantastic and rivals Superman for the title of "greatest superhero movie ever." And both Superman 3 and Spider-Man 3 kinda blow despite having some good scenes scattered throughout however the good shit in Spider-Man 3 is still Raimi and done in that great Raimi style so, despite my dislike of it, I have to give the edge to Spider-Man 3
I agree with you, Raimi Spider-Man's fantastic but Superman 1's really fricking good and I do think it's better than SM1 overall. Plus I like Tobey but I do think he might be the weakest link out that entire cast. I think another actor could've played Spider-Man better. Don't recast ANYONE else, fricking the rest of the cast is perfect but Tobey seems like the weakest link to me. Meanwhile, Chris Reeve is fricking Superman. Full stop. He even saves Superman 3 and 4 from being completely unwatchable. That's how good he is
Spider-Man films are good for comic book movies
Superman 78 is a good movie
>The Superman movies are objectively really cheesy and badly written
What is the point of this pseudo-criticism? Of course it's cheesy, it's a man in spandex with a giant S on his chest. It might surprise you to hear this but "Truth, Justice and the American Way" was for a time compelling to children and a great deal of adults - it's pulpy and simplistic but it tugs on the right emotions. It's a genuinely uplifting film with good performances and a nice love story. Considering the time period, it's also a significant achievement in special effects.
I doubt even Raimi would put his own Spider-Man films above the original Superman, the first two in particular are indebted to Donner in terms of tone and direction. And don't even try to claim X-Men is even near this category of discussion.
>you couldn't possibly have a justifiable opinion, you must be X or Y or have [bad reason I made up] otherwise you would agree with me because my awful taste is objective fact!
Why are zoomers such narcissistic homosexuals?
overrated and outdated
but worth watching if you really want to see a Superman movie with outdated special effects
t. Nolangays
>t. Nolangays
Nolan is a huge fan of Superman 1
Isn't he more muscular in the comics? Is it possible for a live-action person to be that muscular?
Reeve had a pretty decent build, he was just on the lankier side and likely natural, so nothing compared to the post-Dorian Yates steroid monsters of today.
Everyone in comics is either a mr olympia or a swim suit model so it's kind of unrealistic to begin with.
Even if he did take something, it was very miniscule compared to what some actors take today. He busted his ass to get to where he did. The movies may not be perfect but he's still the best portrayal in a lot of ways.
Do attractive women really go for tall, handsome men with healthy lifestyles?
doubt it
The first one is actually very good. 2 is the kind of film you think is great when you were younger but you rewatch as an adult and it had a ton of issues, I still like it though. 3 is shit but still has some kino moments . 4 is so bad I don't remember any of it.
I saw this when I was 13 and what weirded me out the most was Lex not being a bald black dude.
He's not exactly black in TAS either. He's pretty much Billy Zane.
I don't like this version of Clark Kent. They took the dork thing too far.
This is how Clark was throughout the silver/bronze age though. Clark didn't become "cool" until the John Byrne post-crisis reboot.
Lex is the only weak part.
I thought hackman got away with not shaving his head? only part I've seen is the time travel scene
>I thought hackman got away with not shaving his head?
Famously he was cast before Richard Donner came on board. Initially Hackman refused to even shave his mustache for the part. Donner then said (over the phone I might add) that he would shave off his own mustache if Hackman shaved his. Hackman agreed, shaved it off and when he came on set day 1 he saw Donner still had a mustache. He confronted him about it at which point Donner peeled it off revealing it to be a fake mustache and he'd never had a mustache to begin with. Considering that it's pretty understandable why he didn't shave his head.
>only part I've seen is the time travel scene
??? wat
>Considering that it's pretty understandable why he didn't shave his head.
But he did
Nah, it's a bald cap all the way through Superman 1 and 2
I had no idea
the only part of the reeve films I've seen is where he goes back in time
Oh you mean the spinning the world around scene? Yeah, it's a great movie but famously the ending never made any goddamn sense, even when I was a kid I was like, "Wait, a minute?"
You should watch the full movie of 1 at least. It's genuinely pretty good.
I forgive the illogic of the ending for at least having personal stakes for Superman and tying together the arc he had going from the beginning about non-interference and overexerting his abilities. It's not perfect but it's still somehow more thoughtful and effective than any "epic battle" ending Marvel has ever come up with.
That ending was tacked on.
It was supposed to end with one of the missiles going into space and freeing Zod and the others.
The sequel was in doubt so they came up with ending we got, and Superman 2 got the Eiffel Tower terrorist bomb opener.
Agreed, it makes sense from a character standpoint and at least gives Superman some kind of arc (and Chris Reeve's performance during the ending is fantastic.) Essentially it comes down to him choosing between his Krypton dad and his Kansas dad and in the end he sides with the latter, choosing his human side over his alien god side. I just wish the actual mechanics of flying around the world really fast made any sense whatsoever because even as a kid I thought it was nonsensical
What's funny is that Hackman ended up being so loyal to Donner that he refused to come back for the reshoots of Superman II. All the footage of him that's in the theatrical cut is from the Donner shoot and the rest was filled in with a body double and ADR.
Everyone loved Donner. He was a joy to work with from everything I've heard. He also did all the Lethal Weapon movies which are great too.
>Hackman agreed, shaved it off and when he came on set day 1 he saw Donner still had a mustache.
Kek
>He confronted him about it at which point Donner peeled it off revealing it to be a fake mustache and he'd never had a mustache to begin with
Double kek
The behind the scenes stories of making the Superman movies are fricking hilarious. Another one: they'd also hired Marlon Brando to play Jor-El before Donner signed on. When Donner talked to Brando's people he got word that Brando wanted to play the role as a green suitcase. Confused, but aware of Brando's difficult reputation, Donner called up Francis Ford Coppola and asked what the deal was. Coppola then told him that Brando was one of the most brilliant and intelligent men he'd ever meet but he was also incredibly lazy and a giant troll and that Brando was going to try to convince Donner to film a green suitcase while Brando stayed at home and did voice acting after the fact.
So armed with that knowledge Donner went up to Brando's mansion to meet him and Brando proceeded to give a long elaborate speech about his life, the plight of the native American people and so on which lasted several hours. Finally the topic shifted to Superman at which point Brando said something like, "Yeah, I was thinking I should play the role... like a bagel." Donner was slightly stunned as he was expecting him to say green suitcase, then Brando went on to say, "Yes, I mean we don't know what these Kryptonians look like so I believe they'd probably be sentient bagel creatures. Not only that but they probably wouldn't communicate in any form of English, they would instead communicate using some kind of electronic bleeps-and-bloops." In other words Brando was trying to convince the filmmakers to film footage of a bagel instead of him and that he wouldn't even provide voice work, instead they'd dub him in using synthesizers while still paying Brando for doing nothing.
I forget how Donner managed to convince him but apparently he took a shine to Donner and was surprisingly well behaved for the rest of the shoot.
1's great
2's great, possibly even better
3 is dumb '80s fun redeemed by it's sheer '80s-ness, Richard Pryor, and Robert Vaughn having a blast
4 is garbage, and not just any garbage, but cheap, clumsy, unnecessary garbage
Bonus round Supergirl is famously lame but I'm very fond of it and Jerry Goldsmith's score is underrated
First is good up until the "Otis Theme", then veers dangerously close to 66 Batman territory
At the time Telly Savalas Yul Bryner were the most famous bald men on Earth, and who do they hire? Gene Hackman, who not only refused to play the role bald, he initially didn't want to shave his mustache.
Third act has some bad model work, and rushed, nonsensical ending because the state of the sequel was in flux.
>First is good up until the "Otis Theme",
I always feel let down when it reaches that point. It's like the magic just abruptly ends. Honestly, Superman I is three distinct short movies. The first one is the origin all the way through when he first flies away from the fortrase. The second is him getting the job, establishing himself as Superman, and his relationship with Lois. Rhe third starts with that "Otis theme."
The first of these is a masterful, almost dreamlike mythological film sharing some qualities with the likes of Excalibur.
The second is a really cool inspirational story about Superman capturing the world's imagination and how he balances being Clark and Superman. Reeve's acting going between the two is well agreed-upon as brilliant.
The final one, unfortunately, just saps the magic right out of it and it essentially a slightly better done Superman 4. It's only saved by Reeve's presence and Hackman's brief moments of furious Luthor.
I wish it was just the first tow parts. I know that wouldn't satisfy the need for a conventional film structure and plot climax. I wish they'd used Hackman and Reeves (and Beaty) better for a more seriously played 3rd act. The idea of the missles is fine, the real-estate motive is terrible though, as is the campy acting.
>the real-estate motive is terrible though
It's perfect for what kind of character and story it is. Movie Luthor isn't a mad scientist or eccentric billionaire who wants to conquer the whole world, he's just an airheaded career criminal who wants a lot of money and influence, but not too much that it's unmanageable. It's a relatively practical goal with a well defined strategy and endgame and it's at least unique in capeshit. Idk maybe I'm being too lenient but I'll happily take it over a generic world domination plot or macguffin shit any day.
I get what you're saying but it just comes across too petty and mundane to fit with the gravitas of the rest of the film. The first two thirds of the movie are just in a different place in terms of themes. I wouldn't want mindless world domination or macguffins either. What would have worked better to me would have been a Luthor trying to crack into some power or knowledge that he genuinely believed to be for the greater good, but his hubris unlocks something terrible and Superman steps in. Not just a big giant monster, but something more existential. Superman Returns botched both Luthor and nearly everything else, but the runaway Kryptonian tech nearly overtaking the world is more along the lines of what I mean. They just made it too campy so it feels disconnected with the first two parts of the film.
>it just comes across too petty and mundane to fit with the gravitas of the rest of the film
I don't think the course of events is too mundane - in fact, Luthor being a petty career criminal whose ambitions lead to him launching two nuclear weapons at his own country is a perfect contrast to Superman by demonstrating the consequences of power used *without* responsibility and respect - but it's the depiction. Luthor, Otis and Miss Teschmacher are all written in the modern generic mode of characters from a bawdy ensemble crime comedy (i.e. Cannonball Run), which is completely at odds with the tone established earlier in the film.
>which is completely at odds with the tone established earlier in the film.
That's really the issue I have with the whole 3rd act. It just completely contradicts the feeling from the first two acts. It's a complete tonal mismatch, like having the three stooges show up in the last act of The Godfather.
Gene Hackman brought 1000% more charisma to Luthor than either of those baldies would've
1 = Best superhero movie ever and arguably the only truly great movie in the genre.
2 = OK. People will tell you to watch the Donner Cut, but it's neither any better or worse than the Theatrical Cut. Either version is worth watching.
3 = Contender for the worst movie of all time. People will tell you that 4 is worse, but it's not.
4 = Shit. Only a notch above 3.
4 has nothing going for it, nothing. 3 has insane '80s computer illiteracy, Superman getting drunk, Evil Superman vs Clark in the scrapyard, Robert Vaughn eating the sets and Annette O'toole being god tier hot
Donner is one of the greats for sure and probably one of the most underrated. Still to this day people think that Spielberg directed the Goonies instead of Donner
Hackman is a far superior actor to Savalas though
I liked that Smallville brought people from the movies into the series.
Was Smallville the last time they tried to sincerely give audiences the adaptations they wanted? Sometime after this it seems they all turned overtly hostile toward their audiences.
I don't know when the transition happened. I'm guessing the slow boiling frog was the plan all along. I'm still amused that the token black guy on the show ended up being convicted for drug dealing, though.
Frick I completely forgot he did Goonies as well. Yeah, Donner was awesome and was really the heart and soul of the first movie (and most of the good bits of 2 if we're being honest)
Superman the Movie has one of the best photos of Superman
During the cat burglar scene, Christoper Reeve looks like an Alex Ross painting come to life
>Christoper Reeve looks like an Alex Ross painting come to life
During the arrowverse crisis crossover they brought back Brandon Routh to play Reeve's version of Superman, not the one from SR. The Donnerverse over time became very much like "Kingdom Come". He even referenced the junkyard fight from Superman 3 which never happened in the SR universe.
the 90's Superman the Animated Series was genuine kino. It's also connected and ran parallel to story-wise the the 90's Batman, then Justice League the animated series was the sequel
There was a time when DC made things better than Marvel can even dream of competing with, and frankly they still haven't quality-wise
The other great one is the Max Fleischer Superman cartoons from the 40s. They're genuinely some of the greatest cartoons ever made, are responsible for many of the original iconic Superman moments and were the original inspiration for Batman the Animated Series (which then spun off to Superman animated and Justice League and so on.) Give them a watch if you haven't already:
Original is kino but I haven't seen the sequels.
SUCK MY DICK
>I haven't seen the sequels.
Don't bother.
How could you have reached adulthood without having seen this movie? Don't you have a father? Didn't he watch movies with you while you were growing up? I just don't get it. As others have already said: Superman the movie is the greatest capeshit of all time, and definitely watch the theatrical cut of the second before watching the Donner Cut.
they are worth checking out
The og: nice movie 7/10
Ii: nice movie 7/10
IiI: fricking sucks. But Clark vs Superman is peak comic kino 4/10 (2 for clark vs superman and other 2 for pamela's body)
IV: TQfP: fricking sucks but i like the messege 2/10
Pd: awful cameo on the flash
Honestly the first one is the only one worth a shit. The sequels are fricking awful.
How was Chris Reeve so perfect bros?
Should I watch the extended cut or the special edition?
Why didn't just combine the two?
Theatrical. Special Edition has some nice stuff but it fricks up the pacing. The Extended cut is a long-ass tv cut from the 70s/80s and most of the new stuff was cut for a reason in the first place
1 is fantastic
2 is good but a step down and neither cut is perfect
3 is a goofy, campy comedy
4 is one of the worst things ever
Telly Savalas's version of Blofeld - suave on the surface, calculating, brilliant yet deranged through ruthless pursuit of ambition crime boss with the hint of a working class background - is the best live-action version of Luthor put to film and I wish that character was the one facing Reeves.
>Telly Savalas's version of Blofeld
This. I never saw Blofeld in his performance. It was Luthor all the way. It would have been great to see him with Reeve.
Gene Hackman is one of the greatest actors in all of cinema, but he was miscast for Luthor. He MIGHT have nailed it if they'd let him be the terrifying Hackman we saw in Unforgiven then maybe. Otherwise, they should have gone with Savalas.
>Gene Hackman is one of the greatest actors in all of cinema
He's like Nick Cage. He just plays himself. I'm not saying it doesn't work, but it's nothing spectacular.
I meant in terms of presence and, when properly cast, a kino machine
I remenber this plastic "trading cards" inside the caps of coca-cola bottles.
The first two are charming and comfy.
The 1978 film is still easily the best movie featuring Superman, and a top 10 capeshit in general.
Superman = one of the most overrated movies of all time. there are great moments but also tons of shit.
Superman II = okay (both versions)
Superman III = shit
Superman IV = super shit, but with glimpses at what could have been kino
1+2 are bestest capemovies. 3+4 are typical sequel garbage.
look at all that soul
1. gud
2. ok
3. shit
4 abysmal
1. good
2. okay
3. shit
4. fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck
The first two are among the best movies ever made, period.
Your mind is your mind. Nobody will be able to tell what you'll feel by watching those KINOS.
If you had or have a bully, or bullies in your life, it is kino.
https://youtube.com/shorts/thQDPxobH0s