Superman: The Movie 4K UHD (1978)

[TheSweetieMan]

Watched this disc last night.

Never seen the movie before, on any format.

So, I actually really enjoyed what I experienced. Sometimes ignorance is bliss. In the grand scheme of things, I feel this is another very solid catalog outing from Warner. IMO, they're second to only Sony when it comes to the quality of their catalog output. I can't really think of an outright 'underwhelming' disc Warner has put out, in terms of films that I would consider 'true' catalog releases.

I do agree with Geoff, that the skin tones sometimes do have this almost 'murky/gray' look to them. It's not often--and it seems to be more prevalent in the opening sequence on Krypton more than anywhere else--but it's still there. However, I belief he also pointed out that the DOP would attach nylon material to the lenses, or something to that extent? I wonder if that can manipulate the way certain objects or textures interact with lighting or color.

The HDR on the disc, IMO, is absolutely incredible, though. Some really nice bright highlights in this disc. The microwave costumes at the beginning of the film were scorchingly bright in appearance on my LG OLED panel. I also felt that lightbulbs, particularly when they're contrasted with darker surroundings, be it at night, or darker interior locations, provided a nice sense of contrast between the bright light output and blackness throughout the other portions of the image.

I think with stuff like opticals, especially when it comes to stuff shot in the 70s, is a bit out of my reach in terms of understanding what exactly people like Geoff are referencing to; so, again, in this instance, I'm happy to be blissfully ignorant.

Never noticed issues with banding, macroblocking, or compression errors, that can otherwise take you out of the experience. So, overall, I'm happy with this release, especially for being a blind buy for me.

Loved the film, by the way. Love how colorful it is. Feels like a true Superman movie.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

Watched this disc last night.

Never seen the movie before, on any format.

So, I actually really enjoyed what I experienced. Sometimes ignorance is bliss. In the grand scheme of things, I feel this is another very solid catalog outing from Warner. IMO, they're second to only Sony when it comes to the quality of their catalog output. I can't really think of an outright 'underwhelming' disc Warner has put out, in terms of films that I would consider 'true' catalog releases.

I do agree with Geoff, that the skin tones sometimes do have this almost 'murky/gray' look to them. It's not often--and it seems to be more prevalent in the opening sequence on Krypton more than anywhere else--but it's still there. However, I belief he also pointed out that the DOP would attach nylon material to the lenses, or something to that extent? I wonder if that can manipulate the way certain objects or textures interact with lighting or color.

The HDR on the disc, IMO, is absolutely incredible, though. Some really nice bright highlights in this disc. The microwave costumes at the beginning of the film were scorchingly bright in appearance on my LG OLED panel. I also felt that lightbulbs, particularly when they're contrasted with darker surroundings, be it at night, or darker interior locations, provided a nice sense of contrast between the bright light output and blackness throughout the other portions of the image.

I think with stuff like opticals, especially when it comes to stuff shot in the 70s, is a bit out of my reach in terms of understanding what exactly people like Geoff are referencing to; so, again, in this instance, I'm happy to be blissfully ignorant.

Never noticed issues with banding, macroblocking, or compression errors, that can otherwise take you out of the experience. So, overall, I'm happy with this release, especially for being a blind buy for me.

Loved the film, by the way. Love how colorful it is. Feels like a true Superman movie.

Glad you enjoyed this classic, epic film. It's the granddaddy of all modern superhero flicks and one of the best at exploring a comic-book character as originally envisioned by its creators.



Williams' score is one for the gods! You will never forget the Superman theme, I guarantee it.


Chris Reeve IS Superman. An actor born for the role.

[slappy9001]

I watched this over the weekend. While grainy at times, overall it was by far the best I have ever seen the film look. A HUGE upgrade over the Blu-Ray and very enjoyable.

[fighthefutureofhd]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yeah you're not really doing yourself any favours bruv by hammering home exactly how daft your post was

However daft his post was, He does make a solid point. I just don't think it was well said to get that point across accurately. But the point still stands. Don't get me wrong. I don't have hate for Superman the Movie or Superman IV: The Quest For Peace. I adore both films, but it took my older self a while to appreciate the movies. It's not so much because of the times or that point in time when I was an adult. Though that may help. It's more to do with the fact that the source material and the Superman comic of that day just weren't really all that good in terms of character. However, Superman the Movie manages to overcome all that to become a splendid comic book movie.


The movie and the comics were rather cheesy and too comic booky. DC at the time was not very good comic book wise. While they had some comics that balance a fine tone between serious and comic, a lot of their comics were more in line with Harvey or Archie at that time. To me anyway. I think the best way to describe them is hokey. And that hokeyness is evident throughout a lot of the first Superman movie and gradually gets worse with every subsequent film. But Superman the Movie and Superman IV: The Quest For Peace are both hokey. Just one is more so than the other. Is Superman the movie a fantastic achievement in comic book filmmaking? Yes. Is Superman the movie in the top 20 comic book movies of all time? Yes. It's just not, to me anyway, near as good as some others more recent and not so recent. I would place Batman higher than Superman the Movie. Despite my loving Superman way more than Batman.

[Geoff D]

But it's hardly rocket science though is it? Make a 70's film shot for shot and it'd be laughed out of the theatre today because of how tastes, styles, techniques and attitudes have changed in the last 40 years, but blithely comparing Quest for Peace to STM under that pretext is disingenuous at best because it completely ignores the vast gulf between the two films in terms of scope, scale and sheer storytelling nous.

Just saying "70s movie is cheesy, DCEU sucks anyway, hur-de-hur-hur" is shitposting of the highest order. If people can't get over how they react to different styles and tones then that's fine (some folks don't watch, say, black and white movies for the same reason), but filmed entertainments are a product of their time and so they're cutting off an awful lot of film history in their Quest for Edgelordiness.

Personally speaking, I still think STM is the best comic book movie ever made and I'm not saying that just to get a rise out of anyone, I've got prior posts to prove it.

[fighthefutureofhd]

I don't doubt that. I can see your love for this movie here in this thread. And I agree with what you are saying. Everything said is very valid and excellent points to be made. I still think the original post stands to a certain degree. I certainly didn't see the original post as some sort of "70's movies is cheesy, DCEU sucks anyway, hur-de-hur-hur" context or meaning. I think they were simply saying that both Superman the Movie and Superman IV: The Quest For Peace are not truly stunning movies and are in fact pretty cheesy and at points bad. Maybe not bad, but certainly not that great. In other words, both movies have their faults and to say that one is truly terrible while the other is some sort of cinematic masterpiece is disingenuous at best.

Sure, Superman IV: The Quest For Peace is not great filmmaking and is much, much worse than Superman the Movie. But Superman the Movie has just as many flaws in a lot of the same areas and what not. It's just not a really bad movie like Superman IV is. There are a lot of things in Superman the movie in terms of structure, storytelling, filmmaking, effects, character, and whatnot that you either have to turn a blind eye to and just enjoy the movie or you don't watch the movie.

What it boils down to is this: don't sit there and think that Superman the Movie is doesn't have its fair share of s*** that stinks and is so superiorly better than Superman IV because the latter movie is absolute pure rubbish. I do think the original post didn't do any kind of a good job getting that point across. But I do think the point is valid. Flawed and not set up well, but still valid. Doesn't change my mind about the movie. I still hold Superman the Movie in the highest of regard, but I certainly see where the poster was coming from.

[Geoff D]

Every film has flaws, I don't recall anyone stating that STM was perfect in every conceivable way? I got reamed out by one of our resident trolls for daring to point out that you can see Brando for reading his lines off of cue cards. And yet I can't help but adore it for its can-do spirit, its majestic music, the spot-on performances and its home-spun American charm (despite having been made thousands of miles away in the UK) so now we're getting into issues of personal taste that no amount of arguing can correct. But there are ways of imparting one's opinions on a film without acting like a complete arse, your posts being a case in point (and I'd love to hear what it is that troubles you so about the film).

[fighthefutureofhd]

Thank you. Your posts are a joy to read as well. And no one, I MEAN no one, has any right to give you the third degree in any sort of degrading way about your love of the movie. Sure, they can have differing opinions. But they cannot cross a line. Or rather should not cross a line. We all do it though to some extent. Not always intentionally though. I know I don't try to, but sometimes it can't be helped. That is always the duality of forums such as this. The nature of what one expresses and says can be hard to read with so much "reading between the lines" needing to be done. It's one reason I don't like "texting". Anyway, back on point. You asked about my views on the movie's issues. I mentioned some but will go further in detail since you asked so nicely. Forgive me if some are repeated. Here's nothing:


The movie on a whole is a bit too cheesy and hokey for my liking which comes down to the character and the way DC was handling them. I was never a big Superman fan until '87 with John Byrne's run. I think DC went too silly with the characters of Superman. I get a comic book is supposed to be comic, but I felt and still feel embarrassed when reading the old Superman comics back in the early days and '70s when the movie came out. It's not the movie's fault and I think they did a really great with what they had, but I felt they took the cheese and silliness a bit too far. I don't like Otis at all and felt like he was the type of character you would see in the comics at that time.

He was way too goofy, silly, and stupid. The embodiment of hokey. I get that he is the comic relief in the movie, but I felt the movie didn't need it at all. I don't understand why someone as gifted and genius as Lex Luther would have someone so stupid on their payroll. It's out of character for Lex. As for Lex, I thought Gene Hackmen did a tremendous job in the role. However, the character falls flat for me. Lex, at the time, wasn't to me one of the greatest supervillains of all time. I think he grew into that later on, as DC finally got their act together. But here in this time, he was not. He was merely serviceable. Though I still think that Gene played him wonderfully. I just wish the writers/directors decided to do more with the character than what was given to them via comics.

That's another thing. I'm glad the movie was faithful to the comics (as they should strive to be as much as possible), but I also think they could've taken some liberties and made the characters more than what they were in the comics. Like Lois. Lois is supposed to be a tough as nails reporter that will do anything for a scoop, but I don't see a whole lot of that in the movie. I think Margot Kidder was great and I think she may be the one character that was nailed and fleshed further out. Yet, I still think more could've been done. At the end of the day, she is played as some sort of damsel in distress type always needing Superman. Lois is tough on her own. I love what they did. I just wish they did a bit more.

Then there are other characters who are nothing but side notes it seems. Jimmy Olsen, Clark's parents, Tessmocker, and Perry White to name a few. I wish they had spent more time with Clark's parents and Jimmy Olsen. It's like they're drawn in, but not painted with any real detail. It's a shame because Clark's parents are very, very important. That's one aspect I really dug about Man of Steel. And Jimmy seems like he doesn't know one end of the camera from a hole in his butt. pardon my french. I think if they had gone a bit grittier with The Daily Planet material it would've really sold the movie more. It feels like The Daily Planet is nothing more than The National Enquirer with more reader base. I also thought the whole Lex story/scheme was too thin and too easily figured out.

Aside from the story, the character, and the writing I felt the technical aspects of the movie were done very well for their time. And I think there is a masterstroke of work being done by the entire crew. Especially, the director. That said, I think they could've worked on some of the effects a little better and the costumes could use more work. I never quite cared for Superman's costume. It looked too cheap for a major movie production. I think shooting both one and two back to back may have hurt the production a little. It's not as though the movie outright sucks verbatim (). It's just the little tiny things add to make this movie more cornball and hokey than it needs to be.

Again, I get it is a comic book movie, but it doesn't need to be quite so much a comic book movie. There's a fine line to tread when doing these kinds of movies. And I get that a lot of them are corny and all. That is the nature of this type of genre, but I feel most of them tread that line very carefully. Batman (1989) does this wonderfully and so does Batman Begins. However, I think The Dark Knight goes in the opposite direction and makes about the most non-comic book movie you can make. And while I do like that I find it hard to watch The Dark Knight because it is simply too much piled up on top. Anyway, my overall nitpicky feelings don't deter me from enjoying Superman the Movie at all. As the years have passed I have grown to accept and love it's wacky cornballness to where I would feel confident placing it in my top twenty.

[DarkSide2473]

I gave this a spin over the weekend. The amount of grain in the Krypton scenes was a little jarring, but other than that, the movie looked better than ever.

One thing that caught my attention was how FANTASTIC Christopher Reeve is in his opening scenes as Clark Kent. He's bumbling, but charming...with this mischievousness of knowing something that nobody else does. Superman is by far my favorite superhero, and while I do enjoy Cavill's Superman for what it is, Reeve IS Superman.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

Thank you. Your posts are a joy to read as well. And no one, I MEAN no one, has any right to give you the third degree in any sort of degrading way about your love of the movie. Sure, they can have differing opinions. But they cannot cross a line. Or rather should not cross a line. We all do it though to some extent. Not always intentionally though. I know I don't try to, but sometimes it can't be helped. That is always the duality of forums such as this. The nature of what one expresses and says can be hard to read with so much "reading between the lines" needing to be done. It's one reason I don't like "texting". Anyway, back on point. You asked about my views on the movie's issues. I mentioned some but will go further in detail since you asked so nicely. Forgive me if some are repeated. Here's nothing:


The movie on a whole is a bit too cheesy and hokey for my liking which comes down to the character and the way DC was handling them. I was never a big Superman fan until '87 with John Byrne's run. I think DC went too silly with the characters of Superman. I get a comic book is supposed to be comic, but I felt and still feel embarrassed when reading the old Superman comics back in the early days and '70s when the movie came out. It's not the movie's fault and I think they did a really great with what they had, but I felt they took the cheese and silliness a bit too far. I don't like Otis at all and felt like he was the type of character you would see in the comics at that time.

He was way too goofy, silly, and stupid. The embodiment of hokey. I get that he is the comic relief in the movie, but I felt the movie didn't need it at all. I don't understand why someone as gifted and genius as Lex Luther would have someone so stupid on their payroll. It's out of character for Lex. As for Lex, I thought Gene Hackmen did a tremendous job in the role. However, the character falls flat for me. Lex, at the time, wasn't to me one of the greatest supervillains of all time. I think he grew into that later on, as DC finally got their act together. But here in this time, he was not. He was merely serviceable. Though I still think that Gene played him wonderfully. I just wish the writers/directors decided to do more with the character than what was given to them via comics.

That's another thing. I'm glad the movie was faithful to the comics (as they should strive to be as much as possible), but I also think they could've taken some liberties and made the characters more than what they were in the comics. Like Lois. Lois is supposed to be a tough as nails reporter that will do anything for a scoop, but I don't see a whole lot of that in the movie. I think Margot Kidder was great and I think she may be the one character that was nailed and fleshed further out. Yet, I still think more could've been done. At the end of the day, she is played as some sort of damsel in distress type always needing Superman. Lois is tough on her own. I love what they did. I just wish they did a bit more.

Then there are other characters who are nothing but side notes it seems. Jimmy Olsen, Clark's parents, Tessmocker, and Perry White to name a few. I wish they had spent more time with Clark's parents and Jimmy Olsen. It's like they're drawn in, but not painted with any real detail. It's a shame because Clark's parents are very, very important. That's one aspect I really dug about Man of Steel. And Jimmy seems like he doesn't know one end of the camera from a hole in his butt. pardon my french. I think if they had gone a bit grittier with The Daily Planet material it would've really sold the movie more. It feels like The Daily Planet is nothing more than The National Enquirer with more reader base. I also thought the whole Lex story/scheme was too thin and too easily figured out.

Aside from the story, the character, and the writing I felt the technical aspects of the movie were done very well for their time. And I think there is a masterstroke of work being done by the entire crew. Especially, the director. That said, I think they could've worked on some of the effects a little better and the costumes could use more work. I never quite cared for Superman's costume. It looked too cheap for a major movie production. I think shooting both one and two back to back may have hurt the production a little. It's not as though the movie outright sucks verbatim (). It's just the little tiny things add to make this movie more cornball and hokey than it needs to be.

Again, I get it is a comic book movie, but it doesn't need to be quite so much a comic book movie. There's a fine line to tread when doing these kinds of movies. And I get that a lot of them are corny and all. That is the nature of this type of genre, but I feel most of them tread that line very carefully. Batman (1989) does this wonderfully and so does Batman Begins. However, I think The Dark Knight goes in the opposite direction and makes about the most non-comic book movie you can make. And while I do like that I find it hard to watch The Dark Knight because it is simply too much piled up on top. Anyway, my overall nitpicky feelings don't deter me from enjoying Superman the Movie at all. As the years have passed I have grown to accept and love it's wacky cornballness to where I would feel confident placing it in my top twenty.

Superman: The Movie is a family film and not supposed to be super gritty and closer to the original intent of Supe's two creators. Though, if you watch carefully, they slip some adult stuff within the various moments of comedic banter.

And for the record I thought The Man of Steel was a horrible attempt at tackling the Superman character. So, to each his own.

There was a lot of young Clark Smallville footage cut from the 1978 film due to the movie running over on length. At early test screenings it was a loooooong time before the audience got its Superman reveal. Donner felt the moments you did finally receive showed the kind of man his parents wanted him to be and set the stage for his Boy Scout approach to life.

[fighthefutureofhd]

I don't think Man of Steel is perfect by any means and is not my favorite Superman movie by a long shot. But I still think it got some things right. I wasn't looking for a gritty take on Superman. We got that and I don't think it worked well. At least not that well. I was simply saying they should've taken a more balanced approach to the character. Adding in touches of Grit (lightly, mind you) in with the touches of comedy and family appeal. While toning down some of the cornball hokeyness. I realize that Superman the Movie is a family-friendly film. So was Batman (1989) to a certain extent and still managed some grit/groundedness.

The Sam Rami Spider-Man films are family Friendly and yet they still manage to balance that fine line of comic book and realism a comic book movie should toe in order to be successful in my opinion. Yes, there are some that stray one way or the other and end up fine. More than fine in fact. But I feel some of those are not ones I want to watch all the time because they have strayed too far and it makes hard for me to engage and watch. The Dark Knight is a perfect example. It's my third favorite movie of '08 (behind The X-Files: I Want to Believe and Iron Man) and it's a great movie. I currently do not own it though and when I did I didn't go for it much due to the fact that the movie was way too gritty/grounded and far from what a comic book movie should be to an extent.

I actually like that The Dark Knight pushed the envelope for comic book movies, but it piles on so much and really doubles down on it so much that it can be a bit exhausting to watch mentally. I find myself losing interest at times because it's so much. Much like Lord of the Rings. I love those movies, but I do not watch them often. I don't even have them in my collection right now. This is because those movies are so darn long that I have to block a huge chunk of time and mentally prepare myself to devote the time and energy to watch it.

At the end of the day, it wound up being too much. And that's just the theatrical versions. I love those movies, but you really got to prepare for movies like that. You can't just sit down, plop them in, turn everything off, tune everything out, and just watch a movie. I watch movies to escape the h*** on earth that I call my life so that I can forget about my fracking problems, stop being so depressed, and let go for a while. Sometimes, I can't even decide on a movie to watch. It makes it harder when the movie is one that is as draining as those I mentioned. But I digress. Sorry for the long and rambliness of my post. I guess I needed to spew.

[Geoff D]

It sounds like you're betwixt and between. You don't want something so dark and 'real' that it crushes your spirit, but nor do you want something that has such a dreamy, goofy, fantastical take on it.

Me, I'm not a massive comics fan in the widely accepted sense of comics fandom, I mean I read plenty as a kid but they were local Marvel UK ones for Ghostbusters and Transformers (which in turn exposed me to the 'lesser' Marvel characters that they'd run as secondary strips, I've always loved Iron Man for that reason, big up to Combat Colin) and maybe the odd Batman. But I can count on one hand the amount of Superman comics that I've read in my four decades on this planet and so I don't have this overriding sense of expectation and ownership when it comes to Kal and friends and how they're portrayed, in any medium.

As a comic book adaptation I can understand why people would feel that way about STM, but as a comic book film I think it's aces (heck, I think Unbreakable is one of the great comic book films and it's not even based on a comic book). STM is far less cynical and dark than modern-day comic book movies, not that that doesn't have its place because I love MoS, but now more than ever I see STM as an antidote not only to the way that the genre has panned out but also to the unrelenting grind that is life itself. When I watched the UHD I cried when Supes and Lois took flight for the "can you read my mind?" scene, it's the cheesiest scene in a veritable smorgasbord of lactose-laden goodness but it's such a tender scene and so beautifully played that it whisked me away with them, up into the clouds above Metropolis. Magnificent film.

[StingingVelvet]

I'm glad I enjoy multiple different takes on comic book style material, from ultra-cheese 60's Batman series to "dark and gritty" Snyder Superman. My main annoyance is with people who enjoy one particular style and get mad that other styles exist.

[Memon]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

I was simply saying they should've taken a more balanced approach to the character. Adding in touches of Grit (lightly, mind you) in with the touches of comedy and family appeal. While toning down some of the cornball hokeyness. I realize that Superman the Movie is a family-friendly film. So was Batman (1989) to a certain extent and still managed some grit/groundedness.

I don't agree with all your points, but I appreciate a LOT the even-minded and respectful way you state them in your posts, and I encourage you to keep on writing. And, I can empathize with your feelings about how tough life can be ("unrelenting grind" Geoff said too), so escapist movies are certainly my favorite kind too (although I watch some other things too). I love living in kinder worlds for a while.

The one point you make that I just have to chime in about, because it's the one that surprises me the most, is how you complain about the hokey-ness of STM, and then you use Batman'89 as an example of doing that right. So, I'm sorry to disagree, but I just have to say, "grounded" is the last word I would use to describe Batman'89. If you think Lex hiring Otis is unbelievable, and his scheme is too thin and easily guessed, and that kind of stuff bothers you (I can understand that), I don't know how any of the Joker stuff in Batman'89 can pass muster with you. In my humble opinion, it's so OUT THERE, so "unrealistic", the way his organization works, the several "evil" things he does while in charge of it, that he would be able to keep the business side of it working, that he can suddenly show up in the middle of a city with his final climatic parade, etc. not to mention his goons are as dumb as Otis.

I'm not saying all of that cannot be enjoyable, I'm just saying I don't see it as much different from the STM stuff regarding the aspects you were criticizing it for specifically.

Having said that, we all have our peeves, tastes, our own sensibility. And, humor, in particular, is the most subjective thing of all. I just wanted to express my opinion.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It sounds like you're betwixt and between. You don't want something so dark and 'real' that it crushes your spirit, but nor do you want something that has such a dreamy, goofy, fantastical take on it.

I think that's a fine place to be, but it's a delicate balance, and it's highly subjective too.

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I'm glad I enjoy multiple different takes on comic book style material, from ultra-cheese 60's Batman series to "dark and gritty" Snyder Superman. My main annoyance is with people who enjoy one particular style and get mad that other styles exist.

Intolerance and fanaticism of any kind is definitely annoying!

[Dragon Ranger]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I'm glad I enjoy multiple different takes on comic book style material, from ultra-cheese 60's Batman series to "dark and gritty" Snyder Superman. My main annoyance is with people who enjoy one particular style and get mad that other styles exist.

Couldn't have said it better myself; from a personal point of view I love Superman The Movie and Man of Steel equally.

[fighthefutureofhd]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It sounds like you're betwixt and between. You don't want something so dark and 'real' that it crushes your spirit, but nor do you want something that has such a dreamy, goofy, fantastical take on it.

Kind of. Though I can watch and appreciate all forms of comic book movies just about, I tend to favor ones that toe that fine line between dark/real and hokey/cornball. Just because comic books are very hard to translate into the real world, so to speak, for cinema. The aesthetic that anything goes in comic books doesn't work in film. There are limitations and only so much that moviegoers can willingly accept.

I think Steel is a prime example of this. Don't get me wrong, Steel s*c*s on so many levels. But a fundamental one is that they went off from the comics and got too cornball/hokey. Another good example is the two Joel Schumacher Batman movies. Batman Forever is a fairly decent flick. I like it. It's not the greatest comic book movie, but it does a fair amount of justice to the source material and toes that fine rather well at times. It is a little over the top in parts and can certainly be just as hokey/cornball, but it knows its limits and stays within the lines for the most part.

Batman and Robin, on the other hand, is one of the worst offenders for hokey, cheeseball corn. It goes so far over the top and doesn't stop. The movie should be nicknamed the kitchen sink since it throws everything it can in there. And that's one of the reasons it's a godawful Razzie deserving movie. I guess this comes from reading comics most of my life. It's like Geoffy Vision. I see more of the inherent issues that others would probably not notice or would call "nitpicking", but they tend to bother me more coming from that comic book background. If that makes any sense.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

As a comic book adaptation I can understand why people would feel that way about STM, but as a comic book film I think it's aces (heck, I think Unbreakable is one of the great comic book films and it's not even based on a comic book). STM is far less cynical and dark than modern-day comic book movies, not that that doesn't have its place because I love MoS, but now more than ever I see STM as an antidote not only to the way that the genre has panned out but also to the unrelenting grind that is life itself. When I watched the UHD I cried when Supes and Lois took flight for the "can you read my mind?" scene, it's the cheesiest scene in a veritable smorgasbord of lactose-laden goodness but it's such a tender scene and so beautifully played that it whisked me away with them, up into the clouds above Metropolis. Magnificent film.

I think everything you said is really spot on and on point in regards to this movie. I don't disagree. The more time I spend with this movie the more I love it. For a lot of the same reasons you brought up. When discussing my points on what "nitpicky" issues I had with the movie it made me fall in love a bit more with the movie and made me want to watch it last night (I ended up not watching it or the other movie I planned to watch).

And talking about it now has the same effect. I really do enjoy this movie for a lot of the very reasons you brought up. I think it's something we desperately need now in movies. And in life. As you said though, my comic book side of me tends to get in the way a bit. Funnily enough, I was never a big fan of the Superman comics growing up because they were so stupid and over the top. Truly for kids. But I will say the movie has grown for me growing up and I want to truly thank you for these discussions. It has given an even deeper appreciation for this movie. Don't ever doubt the Geoff. He da' man!!!

Originally Posted by Memon

I don't agree with all your points, but I appreciate a LOT the even-minded and respectful way you state them in your posts, and I encourage you to keep on writing. And, I can empathize with your feelings about how tough life can be ("unrelenting grind" Geoff said too), so escapist movies are certainly my favorite kind too (although I watch some other things too). I love living in kinder worlds for a while.

The one point you make that I just have to chime in about, because it's the one that surprises me the most, is how you complain about the hokey-ness of STM, and then you use Batman'89 as an example of doing that right. So, I'm sorry to disagree, but I just have to say, "grounded" is the last word I would use to describe Batman'89. If you think Lex hiring Otis is unbelievable, and his scheme is too thin and easily guessed, and that kind of stuff bothers you (I can understand that), I don't know how any of the Joker stuff in Batman'89 can pass muster with you. In my humble opinion, it's so OUT THERE, so "unrealistic", the way his organization works, the several "evil" things he does while in charge of it, that he would be able to keep the business side of it working, that he can suddenly show up in the middle of a city with his final climatic parade, etc. not to mention his goons are as dumb as Otis.

I'm not saying all of that cannot be enjoyable, I'm just saying I don't see it as much different from the STM stuff regarding the aspects you were criticizing it for specifically.

Having said that, we all have our peeves, tastes, our own sensibility. And, humor, in particular, is the most subjective thing of all. I just wanted to express my opinion.

Thank you for that. I appreciate your opinions as well and they are valid, worthwhile points to be made. Regarding Batman, I think the difference is the Joker is a more maniacal, crazy, and off the wall villain to the point that I don't think he has any real game point/goal in mind. Just random anarchy and chaos. Of course, it's unrealistic, but that's because he is unreal and unhinged. People with serve mental disorders such as the Joker don't deal in reality. And I think that serves his characterization and motivation beautifully.

All of the things you mention about him and his associates are certainly true. But it is because he is so unpredictable and off the cuff that it happens. The very same things about the Joker in Batman can also be said about the Joker in The Dark Knight. Remember, he has a taste for the theatrical. Lex, on the other hand, runs a tight ship and is very methodical and well thought out. Everything he does has a purpose and is planned to the last detail. That's why I don't truly buy the whole Otis thing. With Joker, it's different. He's so off the cuff that I expect what happens in Batman to take place. You know what I mean?

[ROSS.T.G.]

I love the original but like Man of Steel more.

[fighthefutureofhd]

Aw, shucks. That's nothing. I love Superman Returns more than Superman the Movie. Waits for impending meltdown. "Five four three two one blast off..."

[ROSS.T.G.]

Never saw it

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

Aw, shucks. That's nothing. I love Superman Returns more than Superman the Movie. Waits for impending meltdown. "Five four three two one blast off..."

Oh dear lord I'd love to get that on UHD.