Superman I & II: not all that

[Duncan Haldane]

"those are just my testes" isn't quite the same thing

Interesting typo there

 

[jester47]

My problem with the Superman Movies (I and II) is that they put him in New York. Not Gotham or Metropolis but in Spiderman's city. Lex Luthor is not bald and seems to be more of a criminal mastermind in hiding than a criminal mastermind that owns corporations and hides behind the guise of a legitimate business man. I thought Kidder was annoying. As a kid I thought it was cool, but then when I understood who the characters were supposed to be and that Metropolis was supposed to be Chicago it lost somthing.

Aaron.

 

[Particle_Man]

Lex Luthor is not bald and seems to be more of a criminal mastermind in hiding than a criminal mastermind that owns corporations and hides behind the guise of a legitimate business man.
Aaron.

1) Lex Luthor was not always bald. But for most of his career, he was, so fair enough.

2) Lex Luther was not an evil businessman until the post-crisis reboot. Before that, he was the classic evil scientist/super-criminal. Which shows an interesting change in the public consciousness from "science is evil" to "business is evil" to (for a short time) "government is evil", all personified by Lex Luthor at one time or another.

Of course, Joker is a mass-murdering lunatic. That's ALWAYS evil.

 

[Vigilance]

I happen to think Superman II is one of the best supers movies ever made.

Sure its cheesy, but it has Terrence Stamp shouting KNEEL BEFORE ZOD.

If a movie needs anything besides that to be great, I have no idea what it would be

Chuck

 

[Silver Moon]

....and that Metropolis was supposed to be Chicago it lost somthing.

Actually, D.C. Comics has stated more than once that Metropolis is a coastal city in Delaware that has no corresponding city on our earth. The same with Gotham, which they place in New Jersey. D.C.'s Central City was the one associated with Chicago.

 

[Fast Learner]

Interesting typo there

Oh geez, what makes that worse it that I made that SAME typo on a different topic the same day, but caught it just after posting.

Apparently I'm secretly gay, so secret that not even I know it. Or very proud of my testes.

Too weird.

 

[Klaus]

My problem with the Superman Movies (I and II) is that they put him in New York. Not Gotham or Metropolis but in Spiderman's city. Lex Luthor is not bald and seems to be more of a criminal mastermind in hiding than a criminal mastermind that owns corporations and hides behind the guise of a legitimate business man. I thought Kidder was annoying. As a kid I thought it was cool, but then when I understood who the characters were supposed to be and that Metropolis was supposed to be Chicago it lost somthing.

Aaron.

The movie does take place in Metropolis. It just looks a lot like NYC .

Luthor *is* bald. He's wearing a wig, which Superman promptly pulls out at the end, when delivering him and Otis to the penitentiary.

And Luthor was a mad scientist/criminal genius when the movie was made. John Byrne rebooted Luthor as a ruthless businessman in 1986.

But, like I said, Margot Kidder is indeed the weakest element.

 

[Flyspeck23]

The movie does take place in Metropolis. It just looks a lot like NYC .

Luthor *is* bald. He's wearing a wig, which Superman promptly pulls out at the end, when delivering him and Otis to the penitentiary.

And Luthor was a mad scientist/criminal genius when the movie was made. John Byrne rebooted Luthor as a ruthless businessman in 1986.

Can't believe it took 5 replies before someone mentioned these facts. Now the deed is done, and by the same person no less - good job, Klaus!

The scene with the wig was hilarious. Before I watched the movie for the first time I thought if the movie featured a scene with Luthor getting bald. Imagine my surprise when I found out that Luthor was bald all along

 

[WizarDru]

Actually, D.C. Comics has stated more than once that Metropolis is a coastal city in Delaware that has no corresponding city on our earth. The same with Gotham, which they place in New Jersey. D.C.'s Central City was the one associated with Chicago.

True, but those are all late 80s/early 90s revisions. Prior to that, Metropolis and Gotham's exact location was as unspecificied as Star City, Coast City, Key City and all the rest. A generic US city located somewhere unspecified, to make it easier to play out the stories as they wanted. In fact, the writers were awfully inconsistent about the city's internal geography, let alone it's location. Wikipedia has a pretty good article on the topic of Metropolis, pointing out that it originally had a skyline modeled after that of Ontario and Cleveland, but was typically an analogue for New York City, just like Gotham was (although they emphasized different aspects of it). Heck, Batman's adventures originally took place in NYC or a nameless city for his first two years...Gotham City wasn't named as such until 1941 (and remember, Gotham is a nickname for NYC).

Lex was still his super-gadget making self up until 1986, long after these films. His finest appearance, IMHO, was in Alan Moore's Swamp Thing run, where the government paid him $1 million in consulting fees for 5 minutes of his time to find a way to stop the Swamp Thing (who had crippled Gotham). He quickly drew up a schematic and announced, "Stopping this monster is easy. He's not Invulnerable. I KNOW Invulnerable."

Post-1986, Lex became his new version, a rich, corrupt businessman who was untouchable by the law. He became the perfect foil for the new Superman. Superman is immensely powerful, but chooses to play by the rules of mankind, preferring their company and adopting their lifestyles and beliefs. He chooses to help people, when he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. Lex is his exact counterpart...someone who will break every rule to do whatever he wants and whose contempt for others is evident in everything he does. Their interaction is one of the most compelling things about that early run and about one reason why the animated series (and by extension, the JL animated series) works so well.

 

[Filby]

What disappointed me most about Luthor's representation in the film was that he was played for laughs, with his screwball henchpeople and bad quips. The "criminal mastermind" thing got across just fine, and Gene Hackman gave a fine performance, but I took exception at Lex being portrayed in such a manner.

Though he did give one of my favorite quotes from the movie... "We all have our little faults, Superman. Mine just happens to be in California!"

Post-1986, Lex became his new version, a rich, corrupt businessman who was untouchable by the law. He became the perfect foil for the new Superman. Superman is immensely powerful, but chooses to play by the rules of mankind, preferring their company and adopting their lifestyles and beliefs. He chooses to help people, when he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. Lex is his exact counterpart...someone who will break every rule to do whatever he wants and whose contempt for others is evident in everything he does. Their interaction is one of the most compelling things about that early run and about one reason why the animated series (and by extension, the JL animated series) works so well.

I loved Byrne's Luthor. I don't know if he was ever so well written before or after.

The greatest aspect of the character, IMO, is his reason for hating Superman. Luthor is a completely self-made man -- he clawed his way up from poverty (sure he had to off his parents in the process, but eh, eggs and omelets), built his financial empire with his own two hands, and single-handedly made himself the most powerful and beloved person in Metropolis. And then this alien shows up with vast powers that were just given to him by a fluke of birth and the public flocks to his side. To Luthor, Superman is living, breathing, flying proof that all men are not created equal -- Superman represents the death of human potential. And if Lex can finally succeed in killing Superman, that's proof that humankind is capable of anything.