A Super Week

I've made comment over the years that "Superman: The Movie" was my Star Wars.  What I mean is, for most of my generation, "Star Wars" was the defining movie.  I saw "Star Wars" and enjoyed it, but it didn't have the cultural impact on me as it did other kids my age (commence stoning now). I only saw the movie once.  I didn't collect the toys. I didn't collect the cards. I didn't have the record album.  I was a comic book geek. 

I was mainly a fan of Marvel Comics.  For those of you unfamiliar, Marvel is Spider-man, The Avengers, Fantastic Four, Iron Man, X-Men, The Hulk, Captain America, etc.  All of the heroes that are popular movies now. No, not Aquaman. That's DC which along with our underwater friend had Superman, Wonder Woman, Batman and Robin, the Flash, etc. In the 70's, the only place you could find your heroes off the page was on TV.  And when it came to TV, DC seemed to win hands down.  

There was "The Superfriends" on Saturday mornings.   

There was Wonder Woman on prime time live action TV.

There was the George Reeves' "The Adventures of Superman" as well as Adam West and Burt Ward as Batman and Robin in syndication.

Maybe because I had no investment in the DC mythos, I found these shows entertaining and plausible adaptions of their comic book counterparts.

Then there was Marvel.  Their contributions to television was the Grantray-Lawrence animated cartoon ("Spider-man, Spider-man, does whatever a spider can"). While I thoroughly enjoyed that, the absence of webs on his costume along with the 6-legged spider emblem always bugged me (yes, that pun was intended).

Then came Spider-man on the Electric Company (ironically, probably the best live-action costume adaption for the following 30 years).

Then Marvel's 1978 TV show.

There was the Saturday morning Fantastic Four cartoon inexplicably missing my favorite character of the group, the Human Torch and plus a robot(!) named H.E.R.B.I.E.

The even more inexplicable "Fred and Barney Meet The Thing" (yes, THAT Fred and Barney) in which rocks would rise up and cover his body (not even close to the way it happened in the comics, for those of you less informed).

More live-action shows followed Spider-man including Captain America, 

Dr. Strange,

and of course, The Incredible Hulk.

None of these came close to the comics characters I loved. Granted, "The Incredible Hulk" TV show was well written and given the character and the budget, there understandably were limitations. But I hated the hair and the huge brow and the fact that this Hulk couldn't speak (probably for the best looking back on it).

Then in December of 1978, "Superman: The Movie" debuted.

From the opening notes of the score with the "S" symbol blasting onto the screen to the ending credits, I was hooked.  The story line took Superman as a character seriously; there was humor, but no camp. The effects, while primitive in hindsight, blew me away.  The costume and Christopher Reeve looked spot-on as Superman and as Clark Kent.  I'll reiterate, I had no investment in the character, so maybe Superman comic book fans did take exception. But to me, it was a hugely successful big screen interpretation of a comic book.  I collected Superman: The Movie souvenir books, special edition magazines, oversized Superman comic book reprints, the novelization, bubblegum cards, and if I'd had the money, I'd have even bought the record album.  I saw the movie twice, which may not seem like much given the number of times some people saw "Star Wars", but in my family, seeing a movie in the theaters even once was a feat.  Twice was unheard of.  This January 1979 issue of Newsweek magazine brought back those memories and reminded me of the wonder I experienced when I was 12.

A DeLorean would play a pivotal role in another iconic movie, but that was 6 years away.

Another popular movie that week.

And now the main article.  The writer, Jack Kroll, seems to take the movie less serious than the movie itself did.  While he gives high praise for the writing, effects and particularly Christopher Reeve, he nonetheless drops comments to let you know he doesn't take the movie entirely serious. He also apparently has never heard of announcing spoiler alerts. So if you do read the article: ***SPOILER ALERT***

Sadly, like many sequels, the Superman movies that followed failed to live up to their predecessor. Director Richard Donner was replaced on "Superman II" after filming a significant portion of the movie. These portions were re-shot under director Richard Lester and feature some more outlandish and comedic themes, although ultimately the movie was still entertaining.  "Superman III" featured Richard Pryor in a bigger role than Christopher Reeve, so you can guess how that came out.  I won't even discuss "Superman IV", a Christopher Reeve vehicle for nuclear disarmament that featured "Nuclear Man", a living nuclear reaction.  Sorry, I started to discuss it. It warrants comment that an attempt was made to recover the Superman legacy nearly 30 years later with "Superman Returns".  "Superman Returns" rejects III and IV as canon and picks up 5 years after Superman II.  While it was panned by both critics and fans, I thought it was an admirable attempt albeit with questionable casting. However, I felt Brandon Routh, while a little young for the part, did an excellent job as both Clark Kent and Superman.  And when I went to see "Superman Returns" in the theater, for a few moments when that familiar music and "S" burst onto the screen, I was 12 years old again.

For my 50th birthday, my wife rented a local theater and showed "Superman: The Movie" for family and friends.  Despite all the ups and downs for superhero TV shows and movies over the years,  I'd say I'm still a Superfan.