Talk:Superman (1978 film)/Archive 1

message: No mention of the movie winning the 1979 Hugo award at Seacon in Brighton, England? Odd. --JohnDBuell | Talk 00:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically it was the "Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation." --JohnDBuell | Talk 00:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hugo Award 

message: ... it just looks that way because he is going back in time.  Honestly, we have two possible interpretations, one of which makes sense and the other of which is completely ridiculous. Why would anyone favour the second one? Admittedly they did an extraordinarily poor job of explaining it (I think the audience was supposed to get it based on Jor-El's warning not to interfere with history, but that was much too subtle). But, that doesn't make the nonsense interpretation "obviously" right.
Therefore, I'm un-reverting this change. If someone disagrees, that's fine but I think this interpretation should at least be mentioned somewhere. (Also, the reversion also put back a grammatical error I fixed. Like the guidelines say, if you're going to revert, avoid collateral damage.)
:Refresh my memory - when he's done "spinning it backwards", does he not then appear to "spin it back forwards"? Also, do you have any evidence of this from the script, or is this a personal theory? --Golbez 22:03, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
::Well, unfortunately for both of us, the publically available shooting script doesn't have that scene at all. Superman rescues Lois on the first try. (Everything else from Tessmacher rescuing Superman onwards pretty much proceeds as per the finished movie.) I'd welcome a look at the final script, or a look at interviews with someone like Salkind. It just seems to me that there are two explanations on the table, and one is ridiculous, so the other should be preferred, even if it seems less obvious to most people.
::Having said that, I reiterate that if someone wants to re-edit the page so that part is worded less strongly, I don't really have a problem with that, but I do think the interpretation I brought up should at least be mentioned.
:::How is it any more ridiculous than a baby from another planet having super powers? ;) I'll try to slip it in. --Golbez 05:20, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
::::That's just a genre convention; a better point would be that it requires a selective reading of Einsteinean physics for the alternative to work. Let me stay instead that one explanation is, by a very large margin, more ridiculous than the other.
..........................
From the published story, Lex, Otis, and Eve, learn of Superman's weaknesses (he is unable to see through lead, and he is vulnerable to the substance Kryptonite), and Luthor finds out that a meteorite of the needed mineral is available at Addis Ababa. A
Did he really tell them that in the interview? A major lack of discretion!
In the interview with Lois, Superman said he was from Krypton and could not see through lead.  He did not say anything about vulnerability to kryptonite, Lex Luthor deduced that somehow.  Luthor's "explanation" to his moronic underlings about kryptonite being lethal only to Superman because of "the specific level of radiation" is scientific nonsense, but they had to come up with something.  As far as "turning back the world", Superman can fly faster than the speed of light when he puts his mind to it, as per the comics.  In fact there's something about flying "clockwise" vs. "counterclockwise" depending on which direction in time he's going, and that is visually alluded to on-screen, as he flies one direction around the globe to go backwards in time, and the other direction to go forwards (having apparently overshot his stopping point initially, or whatever).  The fact that he could fly faster than the speed of light at that point, but was only able to catch up with one of the two rockets a little while earlier, is another slight hole in the plotline.  Either that, or he can't exceed light speed unless he's really annoyed.  Wahkeenah 00:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The first thing you mentioned was a plot hole, and... not really related to the discussion. As fpr the second thing you mentioned, Salkind and Donner both state on the audio commentaries for the film that Superman is spinning back the world. (Donner actually says that he "stops" the world's rotation briefly before causing it to spin back again. Absurd as that concept seems, I wouldn't expect most filmmakers in 1978 to be particularly concerned or knowledgable about quantum physics. Moreover, I would have even less expectation that the average moviegoer in 1978 would care. Despite the absurdity of this idea, it is no doubt what the filmmakers intended. The anatomy of the dinosaurs in Wallace and Cooper's King Kong doesn't fit factual information, but very few people have seen fit to argue that this means they aren't supposed to be dinosaurs. Basically what I'm saying: It's a movie. Deal with it. 1:06, 27 December 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.209.131.242 (talk) 07:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Earth does NOT spin backwards.... 

message: I'm pretty sure that Otis is not a comic-inspired character but why does he work for Lex Luthor? I mean, I can't see any way that he does.
(65.4.232.187 20:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Otis 

message: :The movie led to three theatrical sequels, Superman II (1980), Superman III (1983) and the non-related Superman IV: The Quest For Peace (1987); and inspired the Salkind-backed 1984 follow-up, Supergirl.
This has got to be a mistake (or the work of a vandal). Supergirl is the unrelated one, Superman IV is no more "unrelated" than III was to II. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 11:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unrelated" Sequel? 

message: Can we have a section on material from the movie that was original, and not part of the original comic book's canon?  For example, Lex deducing kryptonite, Superman being able to time travel, etc.  Also, I remember in the movie that he was unable to lie, is that right?  It seems that that would be at odds with maintaining a secret identity.  Also, I've heard that several conventions from the movie were later carried over into the comic book titles (Jor-El wearing the superman symbol on Krypton, Clark and Superman parting their hair on opposite sides).  --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canon/adoption? 

message: I'm reverting numerous plot sections of Superman articles due to copyright violations by 64.123.114.194, and while I've found the sources for Superman 2 and 3 (supermanhomepage.com), there was a recent (Dec 9) substantial plot update here that I haven't found the source of, in case this one is a copyright violation as well. Googling just left me with several Wikipedia mirrors for it. So just a heads-up in case someone wish to check this further. -- Jugalator 23:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspected copyright violations 

message: I have added a Cleanup message template starting at the Synopsis section heading because the synopsis itself is way, way overlong.  Is the purpose of this article the actual retelling of the movie, or the encyclopedic analysis of the movie?  Darcyj 04:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have started to copy-edit what there is, but I agree this is not a synopsis, more a screenplay treatment! Are you asking for a one- or two-paragraph summary of the film? It can be easily condensed, if need be. Chris 42 21:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: ...And I've done it! Slightly more than two paragraphs, but I hope it reads okay and covers all the major plot points. I also did a few minor edits. I removed the 'screen shot' photo, as it didn't state to what it was being compared, along one of the 'teaser trailer' shots, as it was unclear and Christopher Reeve's name was illegible. Chris 42 19:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synopsis Overlong 

message: Would it not be significant to mention that the DVD's soundtrack was NOT a simple remaster, but an entirely new soundtrack build including some re-created sound elements?  Violet Grey  09:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing DVD Technical Referance 

message: Suggestion: Rename the article to "Superman: The Movie".
I've been doing a lot of work on other Superman articles, and I'm pretty sick of writing "Superman: The Movie." If the film was just called "Superman", then I'd be happy to disambiguate it so, but it's clearly semi-formally known as "Superman: The Movie". The opening sentence of the article states that it was only called "The Movie" in "pre-release advertising". But I have here in my hands a 2001 DVD titled "(Superman) The Movie Special Edition" - so yes, it is still often officially called "Superman: The Movie" even today.
I prefer to use the "long version" of something's name as the article title over a disambiguation - especially a disambig-by-year. But I won't rename it without some sort of approval since it's a heavily-linked page. —EatMyShortz 12:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with the Wahkeenah. As on the IMDb's pages, a film may be known under a number of titles, but the one that appears on the screen at its first public showing is the only one that counts — and is therefore the official title. (Hence why, for example, X2 is not called X-Men 2, even though it was heavily used during the film's promotion.) The DVD may be called Superman: The Movie but it contains a film entitled Superman. This page has already been moved from its incorrect title at least once before. Chris 42 15:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Firstly, I could reduce my keystrokes by writing "" except that I find myself always having to write "Superman: The Movie" (as I said) - and this is partly just to keep up with everywhere else on Wikipedia where the link is called that as well. Maybe we have it wrong across the board, but it's not just me. At any rate, if you insist it must be called just "Superman", then I insist that the article title be simplified to "Superman (film)" - removing the date. After all, there is only one film called "Superman", and the page Superman (film) already redirects to Superman (1978 film). Is this proposal acceptable? —EatMyShortz 14:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as the article reflects the film's correct title, then I have no problem with that. However, having just checked the IMDb, there are a number of films called Superman. Of course, the 1978 one is the most well known, but perhaps there is still an argument for keeping the date? Personally, I would prefer it if any references to Superman: The Movie throughout Wikipedia were changed to Superman, which would ensure both uniformity and accuracy. Chris 42 15:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye. Are Chris and I the only ones who realize the importance of disambiguation? Especially when the opposing push is for a suffix as silly as simply "(film)" or "The movie". I mean...really. Look at "Punisher (film)"—the article, not the actual movie in its entirity. I've heard bad things.—or cinema marquees. Returns is the new "Superman". WW, FF, Batman and Shazam! have all been made before, but more modern movies are still being made. Bottomline, america: Disambiguating with the date is more respectful to the past and helpful to modern movie-researchers. Sorry if I got ranty, but I just had to add my ten—noticibly more than two—cents. ACS (Wikipedian) 19:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *I perfectly understand the purpose of disambiguation - it isn't supposed to completely remove all possible conflicts, but just disambiguate enough so that it is unique on Wikipedia. If you want more information, such as the date, you go and read the first sentence of the article. Disambiguation is just there to make sure you get to the article in question, and therefore, it should be the shortest and most obvious title which is still unique. Since "Superman" is taken (by the character, far more important than the film), the next shortest and most obvious disambiguation is "Superman (film)". If someone goes looking for this article, do you think they're going to type in "Superman (1978 film)"? The other way to look at it is, either way we go, the other one will redirect to the article anyway, so it's not about people finding it, it's just a question of "which out of all the different redirects to this article is the shortest and most obvious disambiguation?", and it clearly is "Superman (film)" (Or "Superman: The Movie" if that is it's actual title, but you tell me it isn't). —EatMyShortz 09:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: I don't know why say that. I do that's a question searching for an answer.
user:I'm Madonna 8:58 p.m.
PD: Don't Know what Day is it Today
::It's a sequel to the 2nd film. Bryan Singer has stated (tho I don't have the time to look up a reference) that it picks up the storyline 5 yrs after II. You know, Lois has had a kid, the kid is obviously Superman's son, they slept together in the 2nd film... Tommyt 20:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This of course begs the question of whether or not all the Christopher Reeve films as well as Superman Returns fit into the same continuity... But I would agree that Returns is a sequel to I and II. 1:18, 27 December 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.209.131.242 (talk) 07:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why say Superman Returns is a sequel?

message: Why is 'General Zod' mentioned in this film when he does not actually appear in the franchise til the 2nd movie? leopheard 02:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Zod character 

message: The article now describes the film's plot in three acts, which are:
# Krypton + Smallville
# Metropolis: Superman's deeds and Luthor's plan
# Climax
It seems to me that the divide between these "acts" 2 and 3 is fairly arbitrary. (ie. Wikipedia made it up, it wasn't actually a real "third act"). Furthermore, I think there are three clearly-defined acts (and Donner and Mankiewicz back this up on the DVD commentary) - which are 1. Krypton, 2. Smallville, 3. Metropolis. Although with this redivision, Act III would be far longer than the first two acts, I think it much better represents the three distinct parts of the film. —EatMyShortz 14:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three acts? 

message: Where is proof of this? I've got the Ultimate Superman Collection (The 14 disc set) and I've watched nearly every special feature about this movie and I've heard absolutely no mention of a 4th villian. If this can't be proven then it should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scmods (talk • contribs) 04:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  4th Super Villian 

message: One line in the trivia section says: At no point in the movie does Superman use his heat vision, one of his most famous powers. Is this the only one Superman film where he doesn't use his heat vision? David Pro 19:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heat vision 

message: Apeantly there is a version of the 2006 dvd on amazon.com that is in high definition.They cant really have that 1970s film in high definition can they,or is it just the extras or something?192.30.202.19
*Presumably one could make a high-def scan of a normal print. Kind of like making a CD from vinyl record. Wahkeenah 02:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HD DVD 

message: I am moving the trivia section onto the talk page so that anything useful can be worked into the rest of the article. As it stands, it has very little value in the article as it is difficult to read, too long and contains a lot of pointless things. Take a look at WP:TRIVIA and WP:AVTRIV for information on how to use trivia more effectively. David Pro 22:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia section 

message: *The designation of the stylized 'S' as Jor-El's family crest on the planet Krypton solved an apparent logical dilemma for the creators of the Superman films. The 'S' is indestructible, as is the rest of Superman's uniform, but Kal-El was not called "Superman" on Krypton. The creators decided to adorn every Kryptonian leader's robes with a family crest (as noted in publicity magazines at the time) and the one for Jor-El's family happened to look like a stylized 'S'.
*Some reports say it was Marlon Brando's own idea for Jor-El to wear the recognizable 'S' symbol in the scenes on Krypton. The establishment of the 'S' emblem as the El family crest was a departure from the first three eras (Golden, Silver, Modern) of official DC Comics continuity, in which the 'S' emblem and costume were both created by Martha Kent (Mary Kent in the Golden Age) after Clark chose his heroic name. However, in the 2003 series Superman: Birthright, the 'S' symbol has been changed to represent a universal symbol of the planet Krypton, adorning their flags and military uniforms in holographic projections Clark finds contained in a device that came with him from Krypton. He chooses to wear the symbol to honor his Kryptonian heritage, and the name "Superman" is given to him by the newspapers.
*Christopher Reeve reported the following anecdote in his autobiography. The idealistic young actor Reeve asked the seasoned veteran Hackman what his 'motivation' was in playing the role of Luthor. Hackman responded, "You mean, besides the million dollars?"
*As had become his habit, Brando did not memorize his lines; he read them from cue cards spread around the set.
*Gene Hackman would not wear a bald cap for the part of Lex Luthor (with the exception of one scene at the end of this film, and a few scenes for the production of the second film), so Mankiewicz devised the notion of Luthor wearing several different wigs throughout the film.
*During the Smallville segment, the original recording of "Rock Around the Clock" by Bill Haley & His Comets is heard on a car radio. This is significant as this is played at the beginning of Glenn Ford's final scene in the movie; Ford had starred in Blackboard Jungle, the film that introduced "Rock Around the Clock" (and helped launch the rock and roll era). The expanded ABC edit of the film, however, replaces the song with another piece of music.
*Superman was the first film to feature a split-channel surround soundtrack — originally a 6-channel presentation. Dolby Digital sound made its debut in Batman Returns. Both were produced by Warner Bros. and feature characters appearing in titles from DC Comics.
*DC Comics held The Great Superman Movie Contest, where two people won bit parts in the movie. Two teenage boys, Edward Finneran from Massachusetts and Tim Hussey from California, won the contest by cutting special letters out of comics and mailing them in.  They appear in the movie as 'special football players' in the scene where Clark is the equipment manager for the high school football team. As the team runs into the school (actually a local football team from rural Canada where the scene was shot), the two winners are identifiable as they go by together, wearing gray uniforms without numbers; Ed says "See you later, Clark!".
*Shortly thereafter, Kirk Alyn and Noel Neill, who played the original Superman and Lois Lane in the movie serials, also have cameos. They appear as the parents of Lois Lane as a child on a train, while a young Clark Kent speeds by. Noel Neill would also have a cameo as the elderly Gertrude in Superman Returns, directed by Bryan Singer and intended as a sequel that ignores the continuity of Superman III and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace.
*As Richard Donner confirmed in the DVD audio commentary, he has a bit cameo in the shots of Clark getting caught in the Daily Planet doors: he is reflected in the glass.
*At no point in the movie does Superman use his heat vision, one of his most famous powers.
*Originally, there was a fourth Kryptonian villain imprisoned in the Phantom Zone with General Zod, an "evil prankster" named "Jak-El" (apparently a pun on the word jackal). Lex Luthor also had a second henchman in addition to Otis in this incarnation of the story, a German man named "Albert." Both of these characters appeared in the July, 1976 draft of the script by Mario Puzo (which can be found here: http://www.scifiscripts.com/scripts/superman_original.txt), but were dropped in subsequent drafts.
*Young Clark Kent (Jeff East) was dubbed with Christopher Reeve's voice. The only time East's real voice is actually heard in the movie is when he yells as he jumps across the train tracks.
*Superman was originally going to end with a cliff hanger where Superman throws the missile into the Phantom Zone, releasing the villains.  The "turning the world back" ending was intended for Superman II; one of the edits to 2006's Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut replaced the theatrical cut's ending with the "turning back" version. David Pro 22:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: I am appalled by what was here. Incredibly, blatantly POV and filled with uncited claims, WP:NOR "analysis" that amounted to hype, and such inexcusably hyperbolic, non-encyclopedic phrases and sentences as 'John Williams' score is known as one of the greatest soundtracks ever for a superhero film" and  "monstrously beating out it's [sic] $55 million budget".
WikiProject Film states how the Reception section should be written: Box-office results first, followed by a report of a critics-aggregate site (typically Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic), followed by a sampling of quotes by authoritative critics. What was here was a travesty. --Tenebrae 06:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reception section

message: After a slightly contentious disagreement with User:Xnacional over the infobox on another article, I find myself agreeing with him on the categorization of this film. The official WP description of the Category :Category:Films set in the 1970s very overtly states "This category is for films with a significant portion set in the 1970s, but which were produced at a later date" (emphasis added). Thus by that definition, Superman doesn't really belong here, only in the 1950s category.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the which were produced at a later date comment from the category page - there are films listed there (such as Time After Time) which don't meet that criteria. I'll be re-adding the category. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough--WickerGuy (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  That makes no sense. In that case, every movie made in the 1970s would be eligible for that category. Xnacional (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I now (atypically) agree with Xnacional. All of the WP categories "Films set in the...." have as the caveat "not filmed in the 19..s" (on the category page) until TheRealFennShysa edited it out of the 1970s category.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it shouldn't say "set in the 1950s" either, because that's probably the shortest of the three segments, and certainly much shorter than the main portion, which was contemporary to the late 1970s (aside from the anachronous part of Superman II which shows men on the moon, of which there were none after ca. 1972). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I would add that although this film may appear to be set in the 1970s, events in subsequent Superman films (retroactively) cast that in doubt. In Superman II, humans appear to have begun to colonize the moon, and in Superman III Superman is pitted against an evil super-computer that is beyond the capacity of early 1980s technology. Finally, in Superman IV more nations have nuclear weapons than was the case in the 1980s. Thus the events of the three subsequent films suggest that this is all set in the near future (say what folks in the 70s might have imagined the early 2000s or 2010s to be like.) If this is true, it would also set the early third of the film not in the 50s, but in the late '80s/early 90s. --WickerGuy (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In Superman 3 isn't there a "Class of '66" banner at the school reunion?  That would seem to imply that the films are set close to the times they came out, apart from Superman Returns which would be set in the early 80's. Betty Logan (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Good point. Perhaps it's just a parallel universe. :) --WickerGuy (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

text: '65 not '66, but this doesn't affect your point (just checked the DVD).--WickerGuy (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I recall an interview with Donner where he said he tried to impose a 1930s styling on the original film (so it is a film that doesn't easily settle into its own timeframe), so in a way the first film might have been conceived as a 1930s depiction of the 1970s.  As with all films set in the future the technological advances are often mis-timed and they nearly always bear the fashions of the time the films are made in - Clark's trench-coat and hat are particularly old fashioned in view of the times. Betty Logan (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

text: It has been argued that with both films set in the future and the past, there is always somthing that gives away when it was made. Doctor Zhivago is easily placed in the 60s due to the hair-styles and the time-place anachronism of middle-class Russians playing balalaika as a hobby (a projection of the Western revival of folk guitar in the 60s)--WickerGuy (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film Setting Categories 

message: I have not made any of the changes either way or the other, but I have now seen what seems like seven million changes (this weekend I'll actually count them) in the past two months back and forth and back and forth and back and forth over the nationality of the film Superman. Some anonymous editor keeps changing it to US, Canada, England, and others keep changing it back to the USA. Maybe it's time to take it to the talk page. Incidentally, IMDB does in fact list the nationality of the film as all three. I understand the case for US alone is the location of the studio who financed the film. Perhaps it would be an idea to take this issue to the talk page, develop consensus point to WP policy, and in future changes say "refer to talk page".
--WickerGuy (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Editors > IP addresses. Wildroot (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The "country" field is for identifying the nationality of the film, as in the main studio's home country.  IMDb is not a reliable source to cite, being user-submitted.  The film was produced by Warner Bros. Pictures, which is very much an American studio.  To explain this example further, Valkyrie is a film with German subject matter, but it is inherently an American film because it was produced by the American studio United Artists.  There are other films in which this is not clear-cut, like Blindness having multiple minor studio involvements, but here with Superman, it's an American film.  Filming in locations around the world and enlisting the help of companies in these locations doesn't give it a multi-national level.  "American" is the overarching nationality of this particular film. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Warner Bros. was not actually involved in the producion of the film.  Warner only distributed the film. The film was produced by "Dovemead" (British) and "International Film productions" (Panama) as can be verified at http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/66900/Superman/credits.  It was copyrighted at the time by the Swiss company "Film Export A.G." ().  Principle photography took place at Pinewood, UK.  According to Wikipedia rules, the nationality field in the infobox is based on the nationalities of the production companies, which in this case clearly are Panama and UK.  Since the film was copyrighted by Film Export A.G. you can make the case that Switzerland is also a production country too.  Betty Logan (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Imdb info on nationality is NOT user-submitted(!!), only the Imdb sections on Trivia, goofs, and the wiki-sections like plot synopsis are user-submitted. Also that would be "principAL photography" not "principLE photography" and certainly not "princICI(?)ple phT(?)otography"--WickerGuy (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe we need a section on film nationality 

message: I don't think it's mentioned in the article that "El" is one of many Hebrew words meaning God or god or a god or something similar. Names such as Michael, Daniel, Israel, Rachel, etc. derive from this and translate as something-of-God or -from-God or the like. Also synagogue names like Beth El (House of God). I don't know if "Jor-El" and "Kal-El" are from the original DC comics, but I do recall that one or both of Superman's creators were Jewish, and might have been quite familiar with "El" names that referred to God or to godly people. PurpleChez (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This would belong in a general article on the character, not in an article about this movie, methinks.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That theory might be undermined by the fact that it was originally "Jor-L". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the theory has some weight, given that the two guys who created Superman were Jewish. Wildroot (talk) 03:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Christ theme

message: 25 edits in less than 12 hours. Is that a WP record?--WickerGuy (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edits 

message: "Nearly all of John Williams' score is restored (some of which was dialed out of the theatrical cut)" - I’m not sure what “dialed out” means. It suggests that the “volume” was turned down, but it can’t be that, as it would be there, albeit not that audible, but that wouldn’t count as a restoration if made more prominent, surely, but a re-mix?
This is followed by:
"However, at least one noticeable removal occurred: the recording of "Rock Around the Clock" by Bill Haley & His Comets, heard in the original film in the minutes before the death of Glenn Ford's character, is replaced with a generic piece of instrumental music in the ABC cut." I’ve not seen this version, but isn’t the “generic piece” the John William’s composed cue written for this scene, as can be found on sound-track albums? If so, it doesn’t warrant a “however”, and should be included in the comment about music being restored. Jock123 (talk) 08:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the Score 

message: It’s kinda ridiculous to list Brando as the film’s star all these years later. The only reason he got top billing was because nobody at the time knew who Christopher Reeve was, and because Brando had a huge ego. Look at the page for Apocalypse Now. Brando also got top billing for that film, yet it sanely lists Martin Sheen at the top. Reeve played the title character, he’s clearly the main character of the film, therefore, he’s the star! 67.239.63.243 (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I would say there is a better case for elevating MB on Apocalypse Now. His role is small, but dramatically pivotal. Brando was also originally going to have a large part in Superman II (instead of Kal-el's mother). At any rate, for a very long time it has been WP:CONSENSUS to follow the movie credits in this article.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I am in favor of a bit more discretion in these cases and the IP has a strong point, but on the odd occasion this debate turns up at the Film project the consensus has always been to follow the film credits. I would actually support a motion to list eponymous characters ahead of the billing order (I think the reason for listing Reeve first is more compelling than listing Sheen first on AN, since Superman is an iconic character so there is a larger degree of interest in who actually plays him), but it's not good practice for this article to simply break ranks, it should be proposed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film if anyone wants to go down that route. Betty Logan (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a short-lived controversy over this at the film article on the 1962 Lolita (1962 film). What's interesting there is that Peter Sellers has higher billing over Sue Lyon on both the film poster and film preview, but NOT the actual film opening credits!! Someone trying to enforce credit order over dozens of film articles insisted on pushing him up, and I kept him demoted on the grounds that we could choose and the film credits was more sensible.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credits 

message: The last showing of Superman was on CBS on Saturday April 26, 1986 not in 1985. From Brian  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.34.211 (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: According to what source? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Last Showing on Network Television 

message: Is mentioning that reviewers noted similarity between Superman and Jesus necessary in the opening section of the page? When you read it is rather confusing and in my opinion irrelevant.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderMelton (talk • contribs) 02:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus Note

message: I've noticed some of the information has been transferred to another section. The reason certain info was placed in the Development section had due to do with the chronological accuracy, meaning which specific actors were being considered at a certain time. It was more historically accurate. Now it gives the impression that one Richard Donner was hired that all that casting fell under him. Wildroot (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casting of Superman 

message: There has been some recent edits which I consider detrimental to the article.
*The first one involves alterations to the cast order for the film. The cast order should either follow the credits as presented in the film, or if unconventional (such as order of appearance, alphabetical) follow the order as presented in authoritative secondary sources as per WP:FILMCAST: It is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources. They should not be re-ordered according to an editor's own sense of importance. The fact remains that Christopher Reeve is only third-billed in the film and Margot Kidder comes much later in the credit list. This has already been discussed above at Talk:Superman (film)#Credits.
*The second issue, is the bloating of Margot Kidder's character summary. I have major problems with the following statements that have been added:
#"the beautiful, sexy, and feisty reporter at the Daily Planet who becomes a romantic interest for Clark Kent." (character appraisal and an incorrect statement; at no point is she a "romantic interest").
#"She is a careerist with a one track mind, who lets nothing stand in the way of breaking the next big story and scooping rival reporters while ignoring the potential consequences that sometimes put her in peril." (this is reading things into the film; I do not recall her scooping anyone. Also, taking risks is not the same as "ignoring all consequences", so it is subjective)
#" her stories tend to be sensationalist (such as the title of her interview with Superman: "I Spent the Night with Superman")" (the title alone does not indicate the nature of her story)
#"Despite this, she is very arrogant ...  believing that her stories are worthy of awards such as the Pulitzer and Nobel Prizes" (the first part is subjective, the second is not supported by the plot)
#"Her intelligence is questionable due to her being unable to recognize Clark and Superman as the same person, despite having the closest contact with both of them." (drawing conclusions; after all nobody else figures it out)
#"She has almost nothing but contempt and disrespect for Clark." (completely subjective)
#" However, she is madly in love with Superman." (this is highly debatable in the first film; at no point does she declare her love for him)
#"Although she tries appearing tough, this exterior melts when she is around or is thinking about Superman, and she becomes soft and vulnerable and loses all her sexual inhibitions" (she clearly doesn't lose all "sexual inhibitions")
#"Ultimately, Lois Lane conforms to traditional female stereotypes, as she is inferior to her man in every way. " (Lois is at the forefront of a male dominated profession in the 1970s, so I would say she clearly breaches female stereotypes)
:Most of the content that has been added is unencylopedic WP:INUNIVERSE detail, and much of it is unsupported by the plot of the film itself. All analysis and interpretive claims of plot and character summaries need to be referenced per WP:FILMPLOT. Betty Logan (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lois Lane original research 

message: The opening claims the movie has an alternate title, Superman: The Movie. This doesn't appear onscreen, and aside from colloquial references, where is it called that? In any Warner Bros. source? On redone titles onscreen in home media? This seems a case of people repeating secondhand information that, once you trace it back, may not even be true. Could we get some reference on this, please?--Tenebrae (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The NY Times has it listed as an alternate title, but whether it was ever used in any formal context (i.e. an English-language release) I couldn't really say. Betty Logan (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Betty. Yeah, I see it has "Superman: The Movie, Superman the Movie", so this purported alternate title doesn't appear to be precise. Also, that's syndicated content from All Media Guide and not done by New York Times editorial staff. I'll keep looking to see if this was a release title somewhere — or even a marketing title that Warner Bros. used. Otherwise, I get the feeling Wikipedia has been perpetrating an urban (well, cinematic) myth. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A simple Google Image Search offers plenty of proof that the film was (and still is) formally marketed as "Superman: The Movie". That form of the title – as spelled out in the trademarked logo for the film – can be found on contemporary ads, VHS boxes, modern DVD/Blu-Ray covers, original soundtrack albums, book and DC comics tie-ins, and even a 1979 calendar if you need something with an obvious contemporary date on it. Skepticism is nice, but excluding something that is common knowledge just because it isn't part of your own knowledge is unconstructive.  -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: I have belatedly reverted a three-month old edit to a sentence that has been stable since December 2015. Superman is informally known as Superman: The Movie but it was not marketed that way, certainly not on its 1978 release. Warner Bros. markets the DVD release as that — though the onscreen title hasn't changed — and movies sometimes are marketed with a title change for home video ... but that doesn't change the title of the movie or the way the original release was marketed. The stable version is the more accurate. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Superman (1978 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930173905/http://lso.co.uk/page/3151/LSO-and-Film-Music to http://lso.co.uk/page/3151/LSO-and-Film-Music
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081013013543/http://www.jewishexponent.com/article/10036/ to http://www.jewishexponent.com/article/10036
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060908200137/http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041215/COMMENTARY/41215001/1023 to http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041215/COMMENTARY/41215001/1023
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110205083159/http://www.supermanii.com:80/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_165.html to http://www.supermanii.com/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_165.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110205081943/http://www.supermanii.com:80/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_168.html to http://www.supermanii.com/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_168.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110205082945/http://www.supermanii.com:80/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_166.html to http://www.supermanii.com/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_166.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110211233340/http://www.supermanii.com:80/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_169.html to http://www.supermanii.com/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_169.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110205075839/http://www.supermanii.com:80/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_174.html to http://www.supermanii.com/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_174.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110205082009/http://www.supermanii.com:80/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_194.html to http://www.supermanii.com/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_194.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110205081634/http://www.supermanii.com:80/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_157.html to http://www.supermanii.com/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_157.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110205083001/http://www.supermanii.com:80/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_191.html to http://www.supermanii.com/siiweb/sii%20behind-the-scenes/SMT_191.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710193902/http://www.entertainmentbuff.com/culture/what-if-star-wars-had-never-been-made/ to http://www.entertainmentbuff.com/culture/what-if-star-wars-had-never-been-made/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://connect.afi.com/site/DocServer/10top10.pdf?docID=381&AddInterest=1781
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Superman (1978 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1448874964259
*Added  tag to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1448874611974
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130618040335/http://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/Vol10No2/Stucky_Superman.htm to http://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/Vol10No2/Stucky_Superman.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: See Ghostbusters (2016 film) and Die Hard 2, among other films later marketed under a title that is not the onscreen title. Someone erroneously wrote in an edit summary that MOS precludes clarity and an explanation, but it does not. It doesn't say anything at all about it, actually. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: "as titled onscreen"

message: The article does not mention that, although the time travel could work at the very end of a 1-off movie, it causes such severe plot and logical problems, that it not only was never done again in sequels, but not even mentioned again.  We have 2 problems:
* Timetravel destroys all stakes.
* Timetravel causes extreme logical problems.
If we have time travel, all problems can be undone.  It totally destroys all stakes.  as a "Deus Ex Machina" at the end of a 1-off, it works.
Superman should have encountered himself in the past.  As grand finally of a 1-shot, this is not a problem because the Movie ends.  The audience might figure that we have 2 Supermen, 1 for each missile, and will see both in future movies, but this causes problems in the sequels.
all future sequels never referenced Superman timetravelling. Basically, the sequels pretend that time travel never happened.  It is retconned away.
Future D. C. comics, movies, et cetera kept the option of timetravel, but it is always extremely difficult and has terrible sideeffects.  Basically, it is something one only attempts for saving the world, after it is destroyed, and always has horrendous sideeffects such as the world being transforming into a despotic nightmare where Donald Trump won the 2016 Election instead of Hilary Clinton.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:C002:2830:AD79:A89E:341A:EC41 (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article does not mention the problems that timetravel causes. 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. –  wbm1058 (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Superman (1978 film) →  – Superman: The Movie stands as the official trademark recognized by Warner Bros., affirming its legal and authoritative status for the film. This designation is prominently featured in extensive promotional materials, cementing its place as the WP:OFFICIAL title. Significantly, as the inaugural Superman film following its television and serial appearances, the title holds cultural importance, justifying its "movie" status use as the WP:COMMONNAME. Also noteworthy is the consistent reference to the movie as Superman: The Movie in all past and current home media releases, both digital and physical. This change should have been made decades ago, but with a new Superman movie releasing next year, I thought it would be best to bring this article to light now. The only counter-argument I see being brought to light is the absence of the subtitle in the movie's opening credits. There are numerous examples of the titles of Wikipedia articles of movies differing from their on-screen title. (Examples: Fast & Furious 6 is titled Furious 6 on-screen. + Garfield: The Movie is titled Garfield on-screen.) ScottSullivan01 (talk) 07:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Film has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Science Fiction has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 1 March 2024