Yes, as you can imagine, I am referring to the 1978 superhero classic, Superman: The Movie (that’s the official title okay?). A lot has changed since then. Outside of the obvious, I’m referring to cinema and, more importantly, superheroes in the modern era.
I remember the child narrating the beginning of the 1978 movie and the red theater curtains opening upon the image of a comic book and the beginning of Superman’s origin story. Not only is Kal-El’s (Supe’s Kryptonian name) origin large in scope but it is also miraculous and humble. Being the last known survivor of an entire planet and being raised by kind, decent parents is a story we are all accustomed to by now. However, we also forget that it is in Superman’s origin story (even though it’s been beaten to death in TV shows and other movies) that we identify ‘why’ Superman is Superman. Not only that, we may even begin to ask ourselves:
What if I was the last known living being from a long extinct planet?
What would I do with my superpowers?
Does the human race need saving?
Can I be that beacon of hope?
What is my place in the world?
It is in the origin of Superman that makes us identify with him. His ideals passed on from holographic messages from his real parents to real life lessons from his adoptive ones that are crucial to understanding the over 75 year old character. He has the purest intentions to do anything he can to help those in need. That brings us to why this movie wouldn’t work today.
As time went on, different perspectives began to emerge. If you just look at the majority of the themes and graphic nature of 1980s movies and comic books, you’d be able to discern a sharp shift. The public started to gravitate to complex characters as they could identify more with confliction than pure idealism. This list may appear to be a shotgun of movies, but, in my opinion, have altered public perception:
First Blood – conflicted Vietnam veteran starts a one man war against a sheriff of a small town.
Amadeus – a story about a composer who admires, yet resents the super genius of Mozart.
Blade Runner – a thought provoking film that begged audiences to ask bigger questions. An investigator is tasked with hunting down replicants (humanoid robots) but becomes challenged by the idea of humanity and the concept of love.
Die Hard – a seemingly reluctant hero takes on a large group of villains in a high tower.
Superman may seem one-dimensional by comparison to a lot of the protagonists in these films. So, calling the superhero a ‘Boy Scout’ isn’t that far of a stretch. Anyways, by having a morally troubled character to follow, we want to know if there ends up being a sort of self-realization or redemption for them. Not only do we have the obstacle of the story but also the personal journey the character takes along the way.
Outside of character ethics, we also must consider the tone and nature of these films as they were pivotal in changing the cinema landscape later on. As special effects and filmmaking grew leaps and bounds, so too was the amount of violence in films. Instead of cut away, implied shots, we are shown people being blown up, stabbed, etc. Of course, there is a difference between films and their intended audience, but I refer to the pivotal films of the 1980s (and not necessarily the film’s MPAA rating). With Superman being the good mannered hero with unwavering ideals, it’s no wonder that people began to turn off; especially in the face of a pop cultural tide changing era that is the 1980s. Even in the comics this is the case. Two pivotal immediate comics come to mind:
The Dark Knight Returns – an older Batman returns to rescue Gotham and eventually battles the government puppet version of Superman.
Watchmen – This features Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman type characters that are, in this case, anti-heroes in a crucial time in US History – The Cold War.
With these, a sense of realism was injected into comic books that were pretty unprecedented, especially at the time (thanks Frank Miller and Alan Moore). Again, violence and deeper themes were explored instead of your run of the mill superhero squaring off against his monthly villain.
Superman, in the comics, began to falter in the 1990s with lower sales so the editors at DC decided to ‘spice things up’ with the oldest comic book character and kill him off. Of course, the idea of Superman being killed made news and many speculated that 1992 was the last year Superman would be appearing in comics. When the sales of Superman started to hit a record level, the creators decided to bring him back because they love money and it’s not like the public still didn’t want him around. He was always there doing his thing, even if it’s the same thing.
It wouldn’t be until 2006 that Superman would once again have his own movie. The movie, Superman Returns, was trying to capture the essence of Superman: The Movie and mostly succeeded. I say succeeded because the director, Bryan Singer, accomplished his goal — to make a sequel to the Richard Donner films that is also in the same vein. Now, I could rip on ‘Returns’ all day but my intent is to show that the film is very much like the 1978 original. Here are a few takeaways:
- We are given almost the same amount of action scenes as the 1978 film.
- There is the same amount of lightness in the film which is set out to showcase that Superman is accessible to everyone. Same as original.
- They even casted someone that looks extremely similar to Christopher Reeve.
- Superman saves a plane from falling from the sky. He does this in the original.
- Supes foils a bank robbery. He does this in the original.
- Superman’s main enemy is Lex Luthor, who is still trying to obtain more real estate for himself. This is the exact same goal as the original.
- Superman must deal with the radioactivity of the rarest element on Earth, kryptonite. This happens in the original.
Superman Returns only looked to separate itself from the original film by throwing in a couple mini-plot twists and call it a day. It was the understanding of the filmmakers/studio executives that audiences would enjoy it since they revered the 1978 film so much. What happened was box office mediocrity. The film had a giant budget and barely made its money back. It was, however, praised by most all critics. I’m not kidding. Check out Rotten Tomatoes — 76%.
The reason why ‘Returns’ is mostly forgotten is because it is a movie paying homage to an older movie that worked in the era in which it was released. There was NOTHING new about the movie. Everyone was just going through the motions amidst a giant production. More than anything, Supes is not relatable. He is not modernized in the movie but rather stuck in a era that no one thinks is realistic enough to re-visit.
Warner Bros., after learning how successful the Dark Knight Trilogy was (both critically and commercially), decided to give Superman another go and in 2013, Man of Steel was released. The film, directed by Zack Snyder and produced by Christopher Nolan, went on to become a huge commercial success while dividing many critics — Rotten Tomatoes — 56%. This is a very different Superman. The character is now grounded in the real world. This is a superhero that isn’t afraid to punch an enemy and do what’s needed to be done. He’s also a very conflicted individual that doesn’t really know his place in the world initially. This is Clark Kent before he is Superman. This is why I was ‘ok’ with him killing Zod towards the film’s climax (Spoiler Alert!). Yes, the film had problems but audiences still accepted the movie as a solid foundation to build future films — like Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Justice League, Wonder Woman, The Flash, Green Lantern Corps, etc.
I should also note that Superman has recently been changed in DC Comics. In Action Comics and Superman, we are introduced to the core of the character and not necessarily his powers. For more on that, check out my recent review.
The mere existence of Superman Returns should be more than enough to prove my point. You can tell that audiences are past the light heartedness of a god-like character without many dimensions and would rather see a conflicted, grounded Superman so that they can at least identify with him on some sort of level — no matter how bad or good the movie actually is.
Even if you look at all of the successful superhero movies that have come since 2008 or so, everyone of them deals with a personal conflict that challenges the protagonist to reevaluate their stance on an idea or themselves altogether. To keep up with the times, Superman needs to have inner conflict!
You need to face it. Superman: The Movie is an excellent film that works today because we are reminded of the time in which it came out. If the film were released today, it would likely have the same fate as Superman Returns. To counter myself, you can also say that no other superhero movie would exist without the 1978 film, but that would be ridiculous.
Pop Culture Crunch 