The decline of the Chris Reeve series.

[Vader's Fist]

In this thread I'd like to discuss what went wrong with the original 1978-87 Superman franchise. The most obvious one, as we all know, is the firing of Donner. As soon as he was gone, the series went straight into the realm of farce. Hiring Richard Lester was a mistake, no question. However, I feel there were other problems as well such as Superman's character development. After II, he wound up becoming static, ending III and IV almost exactly as he began them. From that, it's obvious that the writers ran out of ideas about what to do with him and the rest of the supporting cast.

But that's only my take on the situation. What do you think?


Edit: I don't think 'failure' was the correct word to use. If anyone knows how to edit titles, maybe change it to 'decline' instead?

 

[Rorschach2012]

I wish Donner would've stayed on.

And just imagine if Superman III was actually good. It could've had Brainiac instead of the evil computer, and it could've had Bizarro instead of the evil Superman.

Would've been cool to see Brainiac, Bizarro, Metallo and Mxyzptlk in that universe's style.

 

[Dark Raven]

Superman II was still good even in the Lester version. There are parts of that I prefer to the Donner version.

Superman III has some good parts and some bad parts. That's really where it started going wrong though. Too much emphasis on Richard Pryor.

Then by Superman IV it had really gone downhill to the point that it was an embarrassment.

They could've found an actual comic villain instead of Nuclear Man.

 

[Patchwork Man]

Superman IV is the only outright "bad" film of the series.

I actually prefer Superman III to II nowadays. The Clark vs. Superman sequence makes the movie.

II is great fun, but after three decades, I need to give that sucker a long break.

 

[metaphysician]

I don't think the character stasis was really a problem. A Superman who is fully formed can still be part of interesting stories, involving his interaction with the supporting cast. The writing and acting just wasn't as good as the first two movies.

 

[Jochimus]

I would agree that the franchise's failure to explore the larger Superman mythos was a factor. Even as a kid in 1987 I couldn't understand why they were going back to Luthor and another evil duplicate (of sorts) of Superman again.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Supes 1 and 2 are incredibly iconic even the dated aspects add to the charm.

Supes 3 is flawed af. It's a guilty pleasure but the Clark vs Superman junkyard battle is still one of the best DC film moments in history.

Regarding Superman 4, not even nostalgia can save this one. It's just bad, lol.

 

[Skrilla31]

We laugh about it now but the Superman/Nuclear Man fight actually blew my mind as a kid.

 

[Deck Rickard]

I still like Superman II... and honestly, some of the scenes in the Lester version are better than some in the Donner cut. Though I suppose it's not really fair to compare the two; I'm sure Donner's version would have turned out better had he actually been allowed to finish it.

Superman III though... its like watching two movies at once. One is a pretty decent Clark/Superman story where he gets to connect with the girl he liked back in high school and then later turns evil, and the other is a stupid slapstick comedy. Reeve and Annette O'Toole make the movie worth watching, but Richard Pryor and the rest of the "villains" ruin the movie. Ah, the beginning of the superhero threequel curse.

The less said about Superman IV the better. Nothing about that movie is good. Even Reeve isn't good in it, and it pains me to say that. He looks like a scared kitten when he's fighting the Nuclear Man. And let us never forget Rebuilding Great Wall Vision.

 

[Herofan]

I think it was a change for the worse was in SII having him take away Lois's memory of his identity, that was a big way of making the character and relations too static (even though the other romance in III was OK and there was again fine chemistry between Lois and Clark in IV). The further sequels were harmed by decreasing budget, excessive focus on comic relief (from people less talented than Hackman) and the stories feeling less personal, less about Superman (IV tried but it felt a little too much more about Reeve's activism rather than the character).

 

[Vader's Fist]

One thing that's always bugged me about III, is Clark's romance with Lana. In itself, it's fun to watch and O'Toole and Reeve have great chemistry. However, wasn't his entire arc in the previous movie, about realising he could never have a relationship?

 

[Greens]

Unpopular opinion: I don't think any of the Reeve films hold up. They're dated, and the movies don't overcome that. A nice time capsule, but not something I care to watch ever again.

 

[The Batman]

Honestly, things were kinda wrong from the start. The Salkinds deserve credit for working to bring Supes to life in the first place, but they never really took the character as seriously as Donner did. The Reeve series was always doomed as a result of that.

Honestly, that's the problem with the entire Superman film series, from the 70's to now: Donner was the only authority figure who actually respected Superman and embraced what the character was.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Why was Donner fired anyway?

Looking back that's like firing Christopher Nolan or the Russo's.

 

[C. Lee]

Why was Donner fired anyway?

He constantly fought against the Salkind's bad ideas. He had filmed all of the first one and two thirds of the second when he had to take a break from filming to work on the editing of the first one. Once it was released, and a hit, they decided to replace Donner with their yes man. They had him finish the second movie with slapstick camp comedy and reshoot many scenes already shot by Donner so that Lester could get directing credit. The decline of the movies can be blamed on the Salkind's mishandling of them. Donner put up the good fight to get the first one made into a classic.

 

[Herofan]

I actually disagree. It started to fail in the second film when they fired Richard Donner. The film was far enough along that it still happens to be good in spite of the backstage problems, but the signs definitely started popping up once Donner was gone. Cutting out Marlon Brando was a major red flag

I don't see how filming the dialogue with Superman's mother instead was damaging.

 

[Spider-Fan]

The Salkinds ruined it. It started with firing Donner, and replacing him with Lester. Superman II may have ended up being good, but they had the basis for a BETTER film. Reshoots and awkward comedy actually made it miss reaching its potential. Then, Superman III happened and was a giant dumpster fire of silliness (the problem with Lester's additions to Superman II), and then once the Salkinds saw the ship was sinking, they handed it off to the notoriously cheap and fast Canon, who made an unprofessional mess that could not be salvaged.

 

[Vader's Fist]

Honestly, things were kinda wrong from the start. The Salkinds deserve credit for working to bring Supes to life in the first place, but they never really took the character as seriously as Donner did. The Reeve series was always doomed as a result of that.

Honestly, that's the problem with the entire Superman film series, from the 70's to now: Donner was the only authority figure who actually respected Superman and embraced what the character was.

I think it's bad form that Donner wasn't included in the 1985 list of people who made DC great, yet the Salkinds, who were responsible for destroying the franchise, were cited.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_Who_Made_DC_Great

 

[LaughterLives]

Unpopular opinion: I don't think any of the Reeve films hold up. They're dated, and the movies don't overcome that. A nice time capsule, but not something I care to watch ever again.

I agree.
I never really cared for them aside from a few things.
I think the first movie has one of the worst endings in cinematic history.

 

[Lantern Venom]

Unpopular opinion: I don't think any of the Reeve films hold up. They're dated, and the movies don't overcome that. A nice time capsule, but not something I care to watch ever again.

I agree with you on this. Whatever minimal entertainment value they had when I was a kid is gone now that I can see the terrible effects, non-canonical writing, and some of the underwhelming supporting cast performances. Outside of Reeve, who was clearly giving it his all, there isn't much to enjoy.

 

[Lencho01]

I always liked Reeve's brief thoughts on the films and character here...

[YT]EkcLRL9cBtk[/YT]

 

[LaughterLives]

Ya, Cavill sold that idea of a Superman who felt misplaced a hell of alot better.

 

[STARMAN]

The first half of the first film holds up the best.

 

[Lantern Venom]

The Salkinds ruined it. It started with firing Donner, and replacing him with Lester. Superman II may have ended up being good, but they had the basis for a BETTER film. Reshoots and awkward comedy actually made it miss reaching its potential.

I still think Superman 2 was the best of the bunch. Superman proving his tactical prowess by outsmarting Zod and punctuating it with the awesome hand-crushing moment *almost* makes up for the horizontal mambo timeout from heroism, the cellophane S, and the amnesia kiss.

 

[Mandon Knight]

A very sad deterioration of the series from a superb start to a incredibly messy end with QFP.

Combination of producers seeing the $$$$ rise, a growing belief in their own reputation, believing they were bigger than the studio and the studio not standing up to them combined with THE biggest error in firing Donner for daring to have an opinion and foresight, having delivered them a stone-cold classic first film that to this day stands as the tent-pole to which all CBM origin films are measured.