LogFAQs > #910080193

Superman (1978)
Nominated by: hylian

Superman gets vastly more right than it gets wrong, and when you look at the reception of the film critically and commercially when it was released, you can see that in its time, it was exactly what it needed to be. I do have some constructive ways to improve the movie, but let's look at what it accomplished first and foremost. Much like Man of Steel attempted to do, Superman came to the character with a biographical lens. Characters, for example, set up in the opening sequences, are only there to build the world and mythos of Superman. Zod has no effect on the rest of the plot, but it reinforces the world of Krypton when Richard Donner chose to include him. As the story moves through time, we are introduced to many notable names from the comic history of the character, so you would be forgiven if this film felt like Forrest Gump, where these famous faces stop by to give audiences in the know a wink and a nod. Did we need Lana Lang? No, but it's nice to create that connection to the source material, something you can pay off later if need be.

I also can't express how much I love John Williams' score. It's still a phenomenal piece of writing. I recently went to a DSO concert where they played the Superman suite, and it is just a moving symphonic tune. Just thought I'd mention that. There's something you really can't improve upon in this movie.

Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder and Gene Hackman are easily three of the best cast characters in comic book movies. Superman plays less upon the superheroic actions of Clark Kent and more upon the attitudes of the main roles than most superhero movies, and I think that alone allows these three to have more room to play up the iconic personalities of these characters. Reeve especially has become an iconic representation of not only Superman but superheroes in general, an influence upon the genre for years to come. His casting was perfect for both Clark and Superman. Hackman is a little more Hackman than Lex, but he changed the entire character for both films and comics in how he delivered the delightful little quips. And Kidder just nails Lois.

Where I see the potential for improvement is in the telling of the climax of the film. Up until that point, the pacing was quick, presenting a jaunt through the life of Clark Kent as he became the Man of Steel. Lex Luthor's desire for prime real estate comes across a little hollow as motivation for the character's crowning machinations, and I think you could either develop better reasons for what is about to happen and/or offer up a slightly modified plan itself. The idea that nuclear missiles can be used to cause earthquakes on the east coast are fine, except for the fact that the movie itself doesn't demonstrate that Lex's plan worked the way he wanted it too. I think it actually undermines Lex's credibility as a villain here, especially when you consider that the nuclear fallout from the blast would also ruin the land he claims will become prime real estate thanks to the detonation.

To give Lex more motivation, I think we have to go the Smallville route a bit and show earlier on in the movie that Superman's very existence has been a bane to Lex from the beginning. Kryptonite is introduced very suddenly in the film; perhaps it is found by a young Lex at the site of Superman's crash. It causes illness in Lex that Lex begins to blame on Superman after investigation links kryptonite to the Man of Steel. Perhaps the idea of the nuclear weapons are meant to be a test for Superman. I would throw in Lex having a military project of some sort that allows him to create super-weapons, just so his knowledge of the nuclear missiles isn't completely surprising. If it feels like Lex is trying to get revenge for a lifetime of physical misfortune and become rich in the process, I think the final act would play out with more emotional impact, and real cap the film as a classic of its era.
---

"It is too easy being monsters. Let us try to be human." ~Victor Frankenstein, Penny Dreadful