Super racist, but I liked it anyway.White people
DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond
- Thread starter dahj
- Start date
SR was a beautiful movie, and a touching homage to the Donner movie. It's just not the movie people wanted at this time. Also super-stalker was a bad creative decision. The movie deserved more than it got.
He was imitating Gene Hackman. Even when I was less than 10 years old, and I didn't know who Hackman was I still knew that he was NOT Lex Luthor. I love the Superman movie but even as a kid I recognized its flaws. I love Spacey's acting, but if anything from the original Donner trilogy should have been ignored it was Lex Luthor.
And who is Lex Luthor?
Let's not ignore the fact that when Hackman played the character, the version of Luthor most people think of did not even exist yet.
Not a trilogy. Donner finished one film. Two if you count a patchwork product released decades later.
It’s actually impossible to be racist against white people
Last edited:
Louis Lane... now there's an idea... but I don't know if the general public is ready for that
Exactly. Some seem to skip over the fact that by 1978, the comic Luthor had changed a bit from the overweight man in the grey work clothes, but the ultra-calculating businessman who comes to mind now was years in the then-future of comics and other media. Hackman should be judged on what did not exist at that time, unless someone can find letters to various DC comics of the era pointedly stating how the 1978 film had it wrong, and how Luthor should be what we would come to know him--particularly in the 1990s-forward.
Not a trilogy. Donner finished one film. Two if you count a patchwork product released decades later.
Yes, that "Donner trilogy" is the most incorrect label of any film series. He is removed from the released Superman II, and obviously III as James Whale was from every Universal Frankenstein movie after his last, The Bride of Frankenstein.
I had been reading comics for a decade before Superman the Movie came out, so my take on Luthor was based on that. By the 70's he had turned in his prison grays for a skintight costume and had been drawn as slimmer for a while before that. Heavy set Luthor was more common in the Early 60s and prior
That's where Luthor was in the years before Superman the Movie. The movie Luthor also lacked comic Luthor's scientific genius. He comes across as greedy, borderline incompetent thug rather than a evil Einstein. "Greatest Criminal Mind of Our Time"? Maybe in his own mind
That's where Luthor was in the years before Superman the Movie. The movie Luthor also lacked comic Luthor's scientific genius. He comes across as greedy, borderline incompetent thug rather than a evil Einstein. "Greatest Criminal Mind of Our Time"? Maybe in his own mind
This is how I remember it ...
The Lex Luthor versions I knew as a kid were the purple shirt super-villain costume version, and the mad scientist who lost his hair as a teenager--neither of those interested in real estate.
Point noted about the original movies. I think I was just referring to the original set of movies--but in reference to Luthor, it wouldn't even be a trilogy.
Last edited:
And that's what you wanted in the '78 film?
Better than what we got.
A classic?
Half a classic. The film falls apart when we met Otis and Luthor.
No.
There hasn't been a DCEU movie that I haven't enjoyed 100%, which is rare (the only other franchises I can say this about are Indiana Jones and The Matrix).
Note: Star Wars would be on that list if it weren't for the fact that my initial assessment of The Force Awakens was basically "eh" and there are still issues that I have with that film that drag it down for me.
You seemed to be implying that I thought Hackman should have been more like the Luthor of the 80s, I was just giving you my reference point for Luthor of the 70s.
I just don't agree that Hackman was right for the part, that's all.
No, I'm trying to understand what the criticism was of Hackman's Luthor at the time you watched it. You said that you knew instinctively that he was NOT Lex Luthor, and I'm trying to grasp what young-you was after. "Not interested in real estate" doesn't really describe a character, and I'm curious. You don't have to tell me, but I can still ask.
No, I'm trying to understand what the criticism was of Hackman's Luthor at the time you watched it. You said that you knew instinctively that he was NOT Lex Luthor, and I'm trying to grasp what young-you was after. "Not interested in real estate" doesn't really describe a character, and I'm curious. You don't have to tell me, but I can still ask.
Hackman hammed up the role. He played it for laughs (perhaps by direction but Hackman's own admission was that he improvised scenes). Luthor was a much more serious villain --even in the Silver Age-- Hackman would have made a fine Toyman, for example.
As I grew older, I came to understand the possibility of different interpretations--but Superman the Movie was trying to be serious (You'll believe a man can fly) by the standards of the time. And arch villain as comic relief just doesn't fit for me.
EDIT: I should add that the Christopher Reeve movies are some of my favorite movies of all time and this is a pretty minor point for me. I have grown to enjoy Hackman's portrayal.
Last edited:
I liked it as a light and fluffy blockbuster. I liked their version of The Flash a lot (and hope Flashpoint gets made) but I hate that they rewrote it to hastily conclude the epic multipart story, I hate the abrupt change in tone from Man of Steel and BvS (which I loved, "Marthaaaa!" aside) and I hate that they swapped out their Man of Steeel with the dated, 2 dimensional personality of Christopher Reeve's version.
I've never gotten what people liked about Kevin Spacey, although I can't say that now without it sounding like revisionist history, like "Well, I knew all along that there was something wrong with him." (Fortunately, one can search my past postings on this board to find proof that I never much liked him, but who cares?)
Where was I? Oh, yeah. The point is, I loved Hackman's performance as Luthor, although in retrospect I realize that the movie's version of Luthor is, writing-wise, one of the worst ever. (Robert Vaughan's Ross Webster in Superman III is a much better Luthor, even foreshadowing the post-Crisis business magnate version.) But Spacey never did anything for me in the role. He was trying to imitate Hackman and also to be more serious at the same time, and it just didn't work. But then, none of the performances in Superman Returns really worked for me, since they were all so damn underplayed.
What does the version people think of now have to do with the reaction to him then? In December 1978, people would've judged the movie's Luthor based on the Luthor that was established before December 1978, which would include the comics, the 1950 serial Atom Man vs. Superman (frequently rerun in TV syndication), ten appearances in the 1966 Filmation Superman cartoon (ditto), and the Sept-Dec 1978 Challenge of the Super Friends season in which Luthor led the Legion of Doom. Luthor was the first comic book supervillain ever to get a screen adaptation, and even by 1978 he was the only Superman foe to have gotten a live-action screen adaptation. (Indeed, the only other comics supervillains to have been adapted to live action at that point were nine Batman villains in the '66 show -- about a third of its overall villain roster -- and two 1940s Wonder Woman villains in the first couple of episodes of her TV series.)
That's presumably why the movie chose Luthor as the featured villain, and why it presented him as, supposedly, already established as a feared and powerful master criminal. But then it undermined its own definition of the character by portraying him as a campy goofball whose entire criminal organization consisted of two dimwits. Even the lamest Batman '66 villain could wrangle a bigger gang than that, and give them personalized team uniforms to boot.