With all the talk about the new Superman movie, I thought I'd come in with a hot take.

It's a classic, but starting from 1978, the Christopher Reeve movies.. aren't that great.

Don't get me wrong, they have a lot of good stuff in it and I love what it started. But there's also a lot of bad shit in it too. Yes even the first movie.

My main criticism of Superman 1978 is the part where Superman flies out to space, goes around the world so it STOPS, and then starts spinning the opposite way, so he can go back in time to save Lois Lane.
There's a lot of issues with this. First of all that isn't how time travel works (I know time travel is fictional but still), if it was spinning in the other direction, by this logic wouldn't time continue to go backwards, and not just to that one point? And look I'm sorry, I know Lois means a lot to you.. but she ain't worth it lmao.

And the most obvious. Realistically, if you stopped the world, even for a second, and then spinning it in reverse. IT WOULD END CIVILIZATION, it would be disastrous, it would be apocalyptic.
Other than that the first one is mostly enjoyable.

Part II I'm a bit torn because I love how the stuff with Zod, but there's also a bunch of weird powers that don't really make sense. Like I think Superman throws his symbol at them at one point. Just a lot of silly shit. I'm not really gonna talk about the other sequels, everyone knows all those just get ridiculous, but yeah.

It's sad cause these are still classics and they really could have been great.

>My main criticism of Superman 1978 is the part where Superman flies out to space, goes around the world so it STOPS, and then starts spinning the opposite way, so he can go back in time to save Lois Lane.

The Earth doesn't literally spin backwards, it's just a visual representation to show time travel. With this I'm not saying I like that ending, it's pretty hokey. The original ending was intended to be Superman throwing the missiles to outer space, freeing the kryptonian criminals by accident. They didn't want to end the movie on a cliffhanger, so they repurposed what would've been the ending for Superman II. The time-travelling ending was seen as a copout even back in 1978.

gr8 b8 m8, I 8 1978

>>212762634
>it's pretty hokey

christopher reeves raging so hard he time travels is not "hokey."

>>212762019 (OP)
Yeah, the time travel part is notoriously ass. I don't know anyone who says it's good. But to be fair to them weren't they also doing a lot of weird shit in the comics at the time?

>>212762893
Yeah, the underlying emotions are the real "point" of the scene. It ties together all the themes of the movie. Luthor thought he bested Superman by using his own altruism against him, but in his grief and anger he became so powerful it glitched out space-time itself. I don't want to seem like the "just turn your brain off" or "shut up about plot holes" guy, because I do hate that normally, but this one just works.

>>212762019 (OP)
>>212762634
No, it's an actual representation of what is happening, why is this so hard for people (dumb fluoride guzzling yanks) to understand.
Superman is flying faster than the speed of light. Theoretically this causes time to reverse (according to relativity). NOW does Superman fly off into fuck knows where in space at this fantastic speed ending god knows where? No. Because he would then have to fly back/flying at this speed is incredibly taxing so flying back to Earth would be twice as hard (as shown by the grimace on superman's face when hitting this speed, i'd bet only the rage of losing Lois could get him to push himself this hard.
And also flying away from Earth he would have no idea where in time he is.
So he uses the Earth's gravity and flys around it, when he achieves faster than light speed we see the Earth change rotation, ie time is now moving backwards. Notice Superman slows, takes a look at what time it is on earth then starts again, this time flying the other direction, he picks his time to drop in on Earth and thus save Lois. Perfect scene.

>>212763064
It's by fat the most kino part of the movie. His father warning him 'IT IS FORBIDDEN TO INTERFERE IN HUMAN HISTORY.'
This is where Superman truly becomes human. He disobeys his own father.
If we could go back in time and save someone we love, we would, no matter the consequences. As for the mechanics of the scene, they work and I explained in them in the post above.
It's a perfect climax, emotionally and visually.

I watched 1 and 2 for the first time couple months ago and they didnt blow me away but they were good. Hackman was great. I probably shouldve watched the donner cut for 2 from what ive read too

>>212764533
Also, if he hadn't lost his father early in the movie 'all those things i can do, all those powers, and i couldn't even save him', Superman would not have went back in time. It's emotionally perfect. It will never be beaten.

>>212764454
It was recut and not as per the original plan as mentioned earlier, but this is the generally accepted explanation.

It's a relatively well-known fact that at the speed of light you could orbit the Earth about seven times per second, so it seems perfectly plausible that's what this scene is kinda based on and may be trying to get across. Anybody who is unaware of this is probably the same kind of person who wouldn't blink at the idea that turning the Earth backwards would actually reverse time.

Either way it looks, (and sounds), cool as shit. The emotional climax, resolution, and magnitude of what happens definitely makes it work, and it's not especially out of place in this film even if it were some kind of comic book logic. I never personally had a problem with it, and I'm a huge nitpicking 'muh science' nerd.

>>212762019 (OP)
That's a lot of words to say you have bad taste.

I miss Margot so fucking much. God that crazy bitch was the perfect Lois Lane:
https://youtu.be/LoCaeI5RffI?t=105

>>212764881
>Anybody who is unaware of this is probably the same kind of person who wouldn't blink at the idea that turning the Earth backwards would actually reverse time.
This is what OP and some others in the thread actually believed the movie was showing. Just dumb. For me it's not trying to get it across, it does. We even have a shot of Superman looking down at the earth as he is flying at this speed, to get an idea where in time he is. It works. For me its easily the best superhero movie ever made. Pretty much every actor is amazing too.

>>212765027
Just look how much work the script does in one fucking scene, show-don't-tell introducing you to the characters, the Planet, while moving the story along. They don't make them like this anymore:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJvvCSUsZIw

Scatterbrain Lois is fucking adorable and actually unique enough to catch the attention of the Man of Steel, (who could literally land any bitch on the planet), so she HAS to be obviously 'special' in some way. Not the Zoomer 'stronk whammen' basic bitches we've gotten lately. Also she's obviously married to her work so not some whore fucking a different dude every night. No mortal man could handle her crazy bullshit. Which makes it all the better when she melts like butter in front of Superman. He's the only man who can get through to her.

Yet you see her little reaction to earnest boy scout Clark too.

What do you see in the new Superman movie at the planet? Nothing. Just a bunch of noise and overtalking, with Tits McGee in the background for no reason. Pathetic.

1978 is boring, sterile and dumb. It's remembered because Reeve IS perfect casting, and for Brando setting the record for a payday with little amount of screentime. It also gave us the crystal Fortress of Solitude, and the S as a family crest. However-
>Kidder is miscast
>the usually amazing Hackman is wasted as Lex
>bullshit time travel ending
It isn't as bad as some 80s nerd properties that have been grandfathered in (ie Ghostbusters), but its reputation is carried by gen-X nerds who grew up with it.

>>212765413
>1978 is boring, sterile and dumb
Imagine being a zoomer puke thinking this. Imagine staring at your phone and watching Final Destination 35 or Marvelslop #13343 and thinking they're above Superman (1978).
lol
LMAO even


>>the usually amazing Hackman is wasted as Lex

He is the definitive Lex Luthor, you feeble-minded dolt. Why can't zoomers appreciate kino? I'm not even 50 and I can recognize the genius of Casablanca, but you can't watch Superman without getting....bored? BORED?
The entire move is cake!

>>212764982
You think Russell Crowe is THAT guy, but then you compare him to Brando as the same character. Holy fuck, the gravitas, dignity, embodiment Brando brings shows Crowe is decent (better than decent) but not a great.
Same with Hackman, compare Kevin Spacey's lex to him. No contest. Then you have Reeves who is pitch perfect, born to play the part. I like Cavill but let's be honest he is a charisma vacuum. Could anyone but Margot have played Lois so deftly. The final scene in which she is angry at Superman after he's reversed time to save her, just amazing- and you're not getting cinema like this now. No chance. The discipline to not have some overly emotional/romantic high point, but instead she's pissed off and a little petulant before Superman breaks her attitude by smiling and apologizing.
The levels in story, acting, film-making compared to nowadays is stark.
We have seriously all collectively got dumber and less talented. Look at Dune and its sequel - unimaginative and boring.

>>212765404
Bro we are on exactly the same page. Love from Ireland

>>212765585
>Imagine staring at your phone and watching Final Destination 35 or Marvelslop #13343 and thinking they're above Superman (1978).
You'd have to imagine it, because at no point did I say that.

>>212765743
You said it in so many words.

>>212762019 (OP)
Are you sure you're not judging it against literally 50 years of film innovation?

>>212765791
lol that's not what's happening as Superman 78 is supremely superior than all Marvel or DC shit put out in modern times. Some people are just kinda dumb and like trash. It will always be this way. I'd love someone to judge it against 50 years, judge away. It is flawless and will come out on top

>>212765764
No, you resorted to strawmanning out of blind rage. Go take a walk.

Also when a movie is so good, directing/acting/story that the all time great film score isn't even mentioned - just throw John Williams at his best into that mix. How many legit film geniuses where working on this movie?
Now u get Synder (emotionally and story retarded) or Gunn- B movie's for kids

For me it's the way it all looks very operatic.

The intro on Krypton is amazing. Pure distilled style.
Same thing with Clark finding the green crystal and creating the fortress of solitude. Everything about it is pure Wagner.

The stupid part is Lex being some hustling conman that just feels like a stock character from the New Hollywood era. He never really flexes fully and is saddled with Otis for more bumbling typical of the movies of the era. It dates the movie horribly the way they just bumble around and have lowbrow gags.

Reminds of that fat cop that got injected into multiple Roger Moore Bond movies for cheap laughs.

It's a 70's period piece, very charming for having one of the most virtuous lead characters in any movie, the ending sucks and the antagonist seems bizarrely dated (though it must've seem radically current at the time). Hackman was arguably miscast, it's like having disco Seth Rogan as Lex Luthor, the humour with him and Otis is not so much villainous but vaudevillian.

>>212765791
>>212765871
>innovation
Older films required more innovation because most of it had to be done physically. This requires time and effort, which typically results in a better product. For example, why did people go nuts for Top Gun Maverick? Not because it was some masterpiece of cinema, but becuase they did a lot of it for real and kept the cgi to a minimum. That made the movie look like a real movie instead of CGI slop. People really responded to that since most movies dont look like that anymore.

>>212764533
>If we could go back in time and save someone we love, we would, no matter the consequences.
Bro just destroy the whole universe to save a single person bro

>>212762019 (OP)
Fleischer shorts were better, followed by the animated series.

>>212766000
And yet Avatar 2 was more successful than Maverick

>>212762019 (OP)
Time travel ain’t Christian

>>212766032
never an option or even a choice in the movie. >>212765999
Hackman was exemplary, PERFECTION. Movie knows when to have fun and some laughs (which actually works in disguising how fucked up what Hackman is gonna do is). But also knows when to kick it up a gear and be serious, like when Hackman plays the high-pitched only Superman can hear (all the dogs barking). What a way to get Superman's attention.

>>212766173

Nah, everything with Lex felt like it was out of some completely different movie directed by Robert Altman that was a parody of Superman.
I understand why it was done (such was the style of the time) but the rest of the movie is head and shoulders about that kind of silly nonsense.

>>212765921
You bashed a classic and gave lame reasoning. You're a faggot.

>>212766268
I didn't get that at all and I love Altman. The most blatant outright plagiarism i've ever seen happened to his California Split '74. I get homage and respect it, but Mississippi Grind - 2015 is an outright shot for shot remake, the two jews that made that didn't say word, but it launched their career

>>212766271
Maybe one day you'll learn to articulate your feelings beyond seething.

>>212766268
Hackman's performance was so definitive that I can't even imagine it played different. But that's opinions I guess..

>>212766440
I almost feel sorry for you.

Are 3 and 4 worth watching?

>>212766500

3 is very good still but 4 is pure shlock

>>212766500
if you like bad movies maybe

>>212766500
Yes, but they are mere shadows of the sublime I and II.

>>212762019 (OP)
It is by nature a hokey stupid character, yes.

>>212762019 (OP)
Superman 2025 is the best superman film with the second best Superman.

and even that shit is like a 6 at the highest

>>212762019 (OP)
You see Earth going backward because he's rewinding time like a vhs, retard. I'ts not that difficult

>>212767116
>implying zoomers understand or can even operate a VCR

I'll grant that Lex's lair is a little stark even for the 70's, especially in retrospect for the Zoomies and get why it would rub them the wrong way. Hackman still brought the gravitas though.

And to be fair him building a secret underground lair in the city was kinda cool especially with the defences and shit. Otis guy is great actor and I'd rather have Lex meaningfully character interacting with only two people than the Gunn shit where you have a bunch of diverse randos whose only real function is to cheerlead.

Something I fucking hated in the Spiderman 3 that future tard writers seemed to picked up on that I wish to God would just fucking die is seeing the media reacting to shit, instead of the audience just seeing the action like how ... you know ... a fucking movie works?:
https://youtu.be/HTZsyW9um8c?t=106
>"Teh broo-tal-it-tay ov it."

Fuck off. Why am I listening to this annoying cunt's vapid secondhand opinion on what's happening instead of watching what's happening again? 9/11 really had a negative effect on those films.

>"You mess wid wun of us, you mess wid all of us."
Get fucked. Can we just watch Spiderman fight the monster ourselves and not be told how to feel or react please? Would that be okay with you?

I don't even know how is the in-movie media manages to be even more annoying than the real thing. Just way too much of that shit now, along with all the internet social media shit being shoehorned in instead of just being coincidental.

>>212767240
you can still play a video backward

>>212767636
I doubt more than 40% of the world's population understands how to use their remotes at that level.

>>212767671
That's fine and all, but I still fail to see what's the cryptic part of "playing it backward"
Sounds like a severe case of "can't see the apple at all"

>>212766786
Like saying Hercules or Jesus are 'hokey' characters.

The idea of having great physical strength and power and judiciously using it is nothing new. Men do it every single day - infinitely more than She-Hulk - by not beating the living crap out of women for their stupid annoying shit.

Every boy at some point gets told by his father not to abuse their physical advantage over girls and to treat them with kid gloves. Superman has to do that for the whole human race, and it's not as easy as he makes it look either.

If you regurgitate that shit about Superman being inherently 'boring' because he's 'perfect' then your retarded or lack any imagination. If you had that level of power it's highly likely in actual fact you'd be more like fucking Homelander than Superman, and that's what makes him interesting and so noble. Recent versions of Superman miss the point and that's why they suck and are boring.

There's a reason Christopher Reeve will let a guy break his fist trying to punch him in the stomach and then push him into a pinball machine, but would never impale his truck on a telephone pole. That scene in Man of Steel wasn't even that offensive, and even a little satisfying, but its an example of the rot setting in that only got worse. Routh super-stalking Lois, etc. All that dumb shit.

If he's not teetering on the edge of perfection, he's not Superman. He's just a corrupt arsehole. Him only breaking all the rules to save Lois in the 1978 movie is dramatic for exactly that reason, (and women like bad boys not so much because they break rules, but because they want men who will break/bend the rules for THEM). 'Grey Hat' men have a selection advantage, so
Grey Hat > Black Hat > White Hat

Unless the White Hat is strong enough to terraform everything and everyone around him to Law and Order - like the White-hatted Sheriff in a Western does. That's literally the archetype of Superman.

So it's actually
Strong White Hat > Grey Hat > Black Hat > Weak White Hat