Why didn't Superman (1978) spawn a plethora of superhero films?

[HaplessCrewman]

Okay, for my money, the best of the modern age superhero films are
X-Men 2: X-Men United, Batman Begins, and Spider-Man 2.

1978's Superman: The Movie is, of course, in its own class.

But, in light of the recent success of Iron Man (and Marvel Studios' ambitious plans for the next few years), it made me wonder why the studios weren't falling all over themselves in the late 1970s making superhero films.

Was it the limitations of the effects, the great cost involved, a perceived unaccepting public? What would a 1980's Iron Man look like?

After the Donner Superman, it took 27 years before we got a good Batman film.

 

[Hermiod]

Superman ran well over budget and schedule and had significant production problems, not least the fact that they promised that we would believe a man could fly before they had figured out how to do it convincingly on screen.

 

[Cain]

It took 27 years to get a great Batman film. We got a good (admittedly flawed) Batman film in 1989.

I think we didn't see a boom in superhero flicks because it was just too difficult and expensive to even come close to translating what was on the page of a comic book to the silver screen. It took the advent of CGI to give us believable superhero powers on the big screen.

 

[Kegek]

After the Donner Superman, it took 27 years before we got a good Batman film.

But that's a subjective statement. The success of the Superman films doubtless helped the production of Batman '89 eleven years later. What one considers of its quality is beside the point, as the question is why Superman did not spawn a plethora of superhero films... not why it didn't spawn a plethora of quality superhero films.


And, actually, Superman had more than its fair share of films 'inspired by'. Super Sonic Man, Pumaman... Damned if I could tell you why not a lot of films involving major properties were made; I'm sure others hold the answers to these and other pressing concerns.

 

[Captain Craig]

But, in light of the recent success of Iron Man (and Marvel Studios' ambitious plans for the next few years), it made me wonder why the studios weren't falling all over themselves in the late 1970s making superhero films.

Well we did get Swamp Thing and Howard the Duck!

 

[Colonel Green]

There WERE some superhero movies in the late 70's and 80's.

There were TWO Capt. America TV movies in '79. Howard the Duck was based on a comicbook, Punisher came out in '89, and we mustn't forget Swamp Thing, 1982.

That said, I really think that special effects were the major sticking point.

 

[Kirkunit]

I think Superman '78 was, in a way, Warner Brothers' response to Star Wars (much like Paramount's answer was Star Trek:TMP, Disney's was The Black Hole, MGM's was Moonraker, etc.). And the Star Wars experience was the thing everyone was trying to recapture. Even though Superman was a much better movie than most of the wannabes, all eyes were on Star Wars.

 

[ktanner3]

Okay, for my money, the best of the modern age superhero films are
X-Men 2: X-Men United, Batman Begins, and Spider-Man 2.

1978's Superman: The Movie is, of course, in its own class.

But, in light of the recent success of Iron Man (and Marvel Studios' ambitious plans for the next few years), it made me wonder why the studios weren't falling all over themselves in the late 1970s making superhero films.

Was it the limitations of the effects, the great cost involved, a perceived unaccepting public? What would a 1980's Iron Man look like?

After the Donner Superman, it took 27 years before we got a good Batman film.

The same reason that greenlights all projects in the first place: Money. It was WAY too expensive back then to make a movie of that magnitude. At one time, Star Trek: The motion picture and it's 45 million dollars was considered the most expensive movie of all time and it stayed that for a good while. I'm not sure how much superman cost, but I'm sure it was astronomical for it's time. In those days, movies that cost more than 5 million dollars were considered exessively high budgets.

 

[Christopher]

I think Superman '78 was, in a way, Warner Brothers' response to Star Wars (much like Paramount's answer was Star Trek:TMP, Disney's was The Black Hole, MGM's was Moonraker, etc.). And the Star Wars experience was the thing everyone was trying to recapture. Even though Superman was a much better movie than most of the wannabes, all eyes were on Star Wars.

That's the best hypothesis I've heard so far. I don't agree that technology was that huge a factor; people today tend to underestimate what pre-CGI effects technology was capable of, or how willing audiences then were to accept effects that would look hokey to today's eyes. I imagine Phil Tippett could've pulled off a stop-motion Spider-Man or Mr. Fantastic that would've satisfied early-'80s audiences.

I would add that we actually did get a plethora of superhero-comic adaptations in the wake of Superman: The Movie, except they were on television. The late '70s and early '80s saw live-action TV versions of The Incredible Hulk, Spider-Man, Wonder Woman, and Captain America (in two backdoor-pilot movies). I'd say the reason they were on TV instead of the big screen is because comic books weren't as respectable or mainstream at the time. Superman and Batman were kind of the exceptions to the rule in terms of public profile.

 

[Biggshow]

I think Superman '78 was, in a way, Warner Brothers' response to Star Wars (much like Paramount's answer was Star Trek:TMP, Disney's was The Black Hole, MGM's was Moonraker, etc.). And the Star Wars experience was the thing everyone was trying to recapture. Even though Superman was a much better movie than most of the wannabes, all eyes were on Star Wars.

Not really. Superman was announceed a year before Star Wars began production and Warners was merely the releasing agent not the producer (at least, not initially). It wasn't til the Salkinds began having money issues that Warners got more directly involved. This is also why the initial idea of filming both S1 and S2 simultaneously fell through. After all of Brando's and Hackman's scenes were filmed for both, there was a strong push by Warners to just finish the first movie and get it out there so it could start generating revenue. It was originally slated to open the summer of '78 to coincide with Supes' 40th anniversary, but had to be moved to Dec. due to post-production delays.

So, yes, money and creative issues are what mainly held up the superhero genre til the could be more economically produced and until both comics companies and studios could agree on a creative direction for the properties.

 

[Kirkunit]

Not really. Superman was announceed a year before Star Wars began production and Warners was merely the releasing agent not the producer (at least, not initially). It wasn't til the Salkinds began having money issues that Warners got more directly involved. This is also why the initial idea of filming both S1 and S2 simultaneously fell through. After all of Brando's and Hackman's scenes were filmed for both, there was a strong push by Warners to just finish the first movie and get it out there so it could start generating revenue. It was originally slated to open the summer of '78 to coincide with Supes' 40th anniversary, but had to be moved to Dec. due to post-production delays.

So, yes, money and creative issues are what mainly held up the superhero genre til the could be more economically produced and until both comics companies and studios could agree on a creative direction for the properties.

Respectfully disagree. I'm not sure when Superman was announced, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was in advance of Star Wars' release. For that matter Star Trek: Phase II was announced before Star Wars came out, but that's not the point. The point is Star Wars changed everything. You're kidding yourself if you don't think Warner Brothers knew that. As awesome as Superman was, it was irrelevant in this context. Studios weren't interested in making the next Superman; they wanted the next Star Wars.

And your history is only half right: Virtually all of Superman II was done and in the can -- not just Brando's & Hackman's scenes. SM I & II were literally filmed at the same time, meaning all of the Daily Planet scenes for both movies were shot at once. All of the Fortress of Solitude scenes for both were shot at once, etc. The Salkinds, the greedy bastards that they are, didn't want to pay Donner for the second movie, so they fired him & hired Lester, whom they owed money for the Musketeer movies he filmed, IIRC.

Lester had to re-film enough of SM II (and no more) to get director's billing on the movie. Brando called BS on this & refused to allow his scenes to be in the Lester cut. However, the original Donner cut became available for purchase on DVD last year. The only scene I recall that Donner hadn't filmed was the honeymoon suite at Niagra Falls. For this scene, they used an early screen test of (a pre-buff) Reeve & Kidder.

 

[A beaker full of death]

The success of the Superman films doubtless helped the production of Batman '89 eleven years later....

That Batman film was in the works for years. I remember debating the virtues of a Jack Nicholson Joker (I was against it) when his name was first mentioned in '84.

Besides, Hollywood was a little different back then. Copycat films were not as automatic as today, nor were sequels.

 

[Christopher]

^^That's the recency illusion. Sequels have always been common. There were countless sequels to The Thin Man, countless monster-movie sequels like Son of Kong, Bride of Frankenstein, and the like, long-running series of formulaic comedies such as Hope-Crosby Road to... films, Abbott and Costello films, Ma and Pa Kettle films, Blondie and Dagwood films, etc. More recently, in the '70s, there were multiple Pink Panther sequels, the ongoing James Bond series, plenty of Herbie the Love Bug sequels, plenty of Benji sequels, four Planet of the Apes sequels, Beyond Westworld, Return to Witch Mountain, you name it. There has never been a time when Hollywood didn't churn out sequels like clockwork.

And the same goes for "copycat" films. Hit films have always spawned countless imitators, and that was absolutely true in the '70s. It's just that, as said above, the big trend at the time was driven by Star Wars. Superman was just perceived as part of the parade of sci-fi/fantasy/special-effects spectacles, subsumed within that broader trend rather than being the archetype of a distinct superhero trend.

 

[Biggshow]

Respectfully disagree. I'm not sure when Superman was announced, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was in advance of Star Wars' release. For that matter Star Trek: Phase II was announced before Star Wars came out, but that's not the point. The point is Star Wars changed everything. You're kidding yourself if you don't think Warner Brothers knew that. As awesome as Superman was, it was irrelevant in this context. Studios weren't interested in making the next Superman; they wanted the next Star Wars.

Respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreement.

I was in high school when the Superman movie was announced at about the same time Lucas was releasing American Graffitti. The Salkinds, not Warner Bros. were the producers and were in the process of raising foreign money. After the horror of hearing the likes of Robert Redford, Paul Newman, Burt Reynolds and Bruce Jenner being bounced around as likely candidates for the Man of Steel, it was announced that relative unknown Christopher Reeve would be playing the part. This happened in my senior year, 1976. Shooting began in late '76 early '77 in the 007 soundstage recently vacated by The Spy Who Loved Me. Warner Bros. was only the distributor, not the producing studio, much like the arrangement Lucas had with Fox. Star Wars had no bearing on the decision to make Superman since they were both shooting at approximately the same time. However, I'm sure its success was making both Warners and the Salkinds itchy to get their big sci-fi adventure into the theatres.

 

[Smiley]

Since we've addressed Superman: The Movie, let's look at Batman for a minute. This was a cultural phenomenon. Why did it not lead to more comic heroes hitting the big screen?

 

[Garth Rockett]

Since we've addressed Superman: The Movie, let's look at Batman for a minute. This was a cultural phenomenon. Why did it not lead to more comic heroes hitting the big screen?

It did. There was The Rocketeer, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Dick Tracy, etc. Marvel's rights were generally tied up with different producers, so they only managed some low-budget fare like Captain America (1990) and the aborted Fantastic Four movie that was completed but not released.

Superman was still resting after Superman IV, but DC and Warners did put The Flash and Human Target on TV in the wake of Batman.

 

[Hermiod]

^It's relatively inexpensive to do a guy with no powers. Special effects technology hadn't improved to the point where a 80's/early 90's version of Spider-Man would have been any more convincing than the Nicholas Hammond TV version, for instance.

 

[Garth Rockett]

^It's relatively inexpensive to do a guy with no powers. Special effects technology hadn't improved to the point where a 80's/early 90's version of Spider-Man would have been any more convincing than the Nicholas Hammond TV version, for instance.

And yet, there was a Spider-Man film by James Cameron in development circa 1990-1992 at Carolco. The project was abandoned because the studio was going under; they were willing to make a go of it at the time.

 

[Hermiod]

^It's relatively inexpensive to do a guy with no powers. Special effects technology hadn't improved to the point where a 80's/early 90's version of Spider-Man would have been any more convincing than the Nicholas Hammond TV version, for instance.

And yet, there was a Spider-Man film by James Cameron in development circa 1990-1992 at Carolco. The project was abandoned because the studio was going under; they were willing to make a go of it at the time.

Well of course, the history of the various attempts to make a Spider-Man movie are long and varied. Almost as long and varied as the attempts to resurrect the Batman and Superman franchises after the fourth movie in both killed them stone dead.

I suspect part of the problem with a 90's Spider-Man movie would have been the cost of finding a way to convincingly show the main character web-slinging.

 

[Kirkunit]

Respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreement.

I was in high school when the Superman movie was announced at about the same time Lucas was releasing American Graffitti. The Salkinds, not Warner Bros. were the producers and were in the process of raising foreign money. After the horror of hearing the likes of Robert Redford, Paul Newman, Burt Reynolds and Bruce Jenner being bounced around as likely candidates for the Man of Steel, it was announced that relative unknown Christopher Reeve would be playing the part. This happened in my senior year, 1976. Shooting began in late '76 early '77 in the 007 soundstage recently vacated by The Spy Who Loved Me. Warner Bros. was only the distributor, not the producing studio, much like the arrangement Lucas had with Fox. Star Wars had no bearing on the decision to make Superman since they were both shooting at approximately the same time. However, I'm sure its success was making both Warners and the Salkinds itchy to get their big sci-fi adventure into the theatres.

I'm not really sure what you're disagreeing with. The point I made is that the studios were trying to copy Star Wars, not Superman & that's why there wasn't a deluge of superhero movies after Superman was released.

Are you disagreeing with a production detail from Superman? I admit I'm not an expert on the subject, but I am reasonably familiar. According to Wikipedia, filming began on March 24, 1977, just two months before Star Wars was released. Warner Brothers also "stepped in" to help finance the film.

You can choose to believe that Warner Brothers had blinders on and ignored the impact Star Wars had on the movie going public. Or you can can believe that once Star Wars was released, they saw that the game had changed & Superman had to be the best it could possibly be. I'm OK either way.