I don't know what the deal is, but both movie and TV writers always want to add to Superman's powers. I mean, doesn't he already have enough established powers in the comics to choose from? And why do Kryptonians in the films have telekinetic beams and can project images of themselves?

****************************************

Kryptonian villains are on Earth for fifteen minutes and can fire telekinetic beams. Superman is on Earth for 30 years, including a decade of "training" with Jor-El, and has never displayed this ability. Either he's not a show-off or he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

**********************************************

I have refused to watch Superman III and IV since they were released theatrically.  Did they give him any new ridiculous new powers?

********************************************

Unless you consider "Rebuild the Great Wall of China" vision to be "ridiculous."

To me Superman II is the best Superman movie and has been so since I saw it for the first time. Donner's influence was not as big as I thought at first, and as you can see in this thread I have learnt that the movie was very likely not finished by Donner.

Stephen Robinson: The non-powered Superman is pathetic. The film seems to imply that everything that makes him Superman is all in his powers.

What is pathetic with walking to the North Pole without powers?

Stephen Robinson: Even SMALLVILLE depicts a non-powered Clark who is still heroic. And *Superman* beating up the redneck when he's fully powered...

Clark in Smallville lured a criminal in front of a cascade of bullets to a certain death (in the epsiode at the museum where the villain calls them team mates). This is partly because of him knowing Clark's secret as I got it. I always defend Smallville here, but this is as far away from the Curt Swan 70's Superman as you can get, isn't it? Reeve let the guy's head penetrate a pinball machine. Throwing a guy in a pinball machine with a witty comment, from my experiences, yes that is very close to the real word.

Stephen Robinson: The restoration of Clark's powers is also a huge plothole...

Again I don't agree. I don't see this as a plot hole. In Western movies you see them just standing there, you see the villain draw and then you see Eastwood or John Wayne already having drawn and shooting. It's definitely not a plot hole. Couldn't it been that the Fortress scene also was found unessesary, since according to "film school" (if I may call my tiny Western movie example that) it is.

Edited: To note this is in response to Jame's post: That was in 4.

I also despised that Superman was begging Nuclear Man to not harm people. Superman, in my opinion, wouldn't beg. He'd make sure Nuclear Man knew he wouldn't allow the innocents to be harmed.

(To psychobabble a bit, I was stunned by the number of critics and reviewers who professed to prefer II over I --- until I thought about it. "Superman - The Movie" was the first Hollywood treatment of superheroes to follow Adam West's "Batman", and it broke the mold that TV series had taught civilians to expect. Not only did it not lampoon the characters, it actually demanded that the whole thing be taken seriously! Critics gave it high marks, and the box office was phenomenal -- but the next one did better, both in dollars and reviews, and I think it was because it gave the audience permission to laugh at the characters again. Fortunately, we saw precisely the reverse of this with the Batman franchise begun by Tim Burton's film -- the less seriously the subject was taken, the worse the reviews and the lower the box office. I am not prepared to assume this means the shadow of "Batman" (Adam West) has finally stretched so thin as to no longer be noticable -- but it does give some hope. Well, until the rip-offs of "The Incredibles" get rolling.)

This started in SII, and I notice it has made its way into the portrayal of Superman in the comics -- pathologically concerned about human life. Beyond any logic or reason. (See my snarky note on the Hallowe'en issue, where Superman agrees to place the entire planet in jeopardy to save a dozen or so zombies!!)

Batman Forever did better than Batman Returns, probably largely due to Jim Carrey, and kids repeat viewings. Many parents were disturbed by Batman Returns, particularly the Penguin, and some of the lines.

As a kid, I too preferred II to I, largely because, most likely, there is only so many times you can see an origin.  Repeatability is not as high.

The Lex Luthor/Otis characters are pretty jokey.  In both movies.  I always felt they were there to remind the audience "We are not taking this too seriously" and it used to bother me as a kid

What is the laughing at the characters parts of II? Trying to remember. I've seen bits and pieces over the years, but haven't really seen it in awhile

(and arguably America itself, given the whole Zod against the hillbillies scene).

***

A lot of this in movies at the time, sometimes serious (Deliverance) often goofy (some James Bond movies-I think Live and Let Die) and Smokey and the Bandit.

Many goofy southern sheriffs and their deputies in 70s Hollywood (extended into the Dukes of Hazzard).

Stephen Robinson: The restoration of Clark's powers is also a huge plothole...

Again I don't agree. I don't see this as a plot hole. In Western movies you see them just standing there, you see the villain draw and then you see Eastwood or John Wayne already having drawn and shooting. It's definitely not a plot hole. Couldn't it been that the Fortress scene also was found unessesary, since according to "film school" (if I may call my tiny Western movie example that) it is.

*****************************************

These are two completely different things. If it's established that there's no "undoing something" and then we see its being undone with no explanation for how that's even possible, well that's a tremendous plot hole.

***********************************************

I also despised that Superman was begging Nuclear Man to not harm people. Superman, in my opinion, wouldn't beg. He'd make sure Nuclear Man knew he wouldn't allow the innocents to be harmed.

***********************************************

Agreed. I especially didn't like it in the first Superman film in which he's practically begging Luthor not to kill him with the kryptonite. C'mon, it's been established that Luthor is murdering scum. Begging isn't going to help (it would probably amuse him).

*****************************************

This started in SII, and I notice it has made its way into the portrayal of Superman in the comics -- pathologically concerned about human life. Beyond any logic or reason. (See my snarky note on the Hallowe'en issue, where Superman agrees to place the entire planet in jeopardy to save a dozen or so zombies!!)

****************************

Yeah, this goes along with my Luthor comment. It's one thing to not want to see innocent people killed but yelling, "No, please, not those people!" to three villains who you know to have zero regard for human life (heck, they had zero regard for their own species's life, so you can imagine they couldn't care less for an "inferior" race) is just stupid. It hands them an advantage of you.

As for the Halloween issue, I thought the sentiment was worthy of Superman, it was just executed poorly: Superman would definitely sacrifice himself for a dozen people, even just one person. However, he's not so naive or so braindead as to think he can trust the Devil or to allow himself to become the Devil's slave.

This does bring up an interesting dilemma for Superman -- something Batman, for example would never have to face: If Lex Luthor has some sort of "power transfer" device but it can only work if Superman allows Luthor to use it and Luthor is threatening to kill an innocent person if Superman doesn't allow Luthor to steal his powers, what does Superman do? Obviously, giving Luthor his powers would be to endanger the entire planet. But can he let an innocent person die? My gut is that Superman would go along with it, knowing that he would find a way to stop Luthor (lesser of two evils). Thoughts?

Glenn Greenberg: I took part in the letter-writing campaign a year or
two ago to convince WB to do this.

Thank you, Glenn. I also be like a monkey on a banana. Now a question. Even though Superman IV is in comparison a very bad movie, there is lost footage that was cut out because of the reactions during test screenings I guess. Do you know if there is a way to find that Cannon footage even though Cannon is gone? Is that something that would interest you for "nostalic reasons" or do you consider campainging for it a waste of time, since it is a less interesting movie?