In keeping with the positive and uplifting spirit of this thread, what are your memories of the music when you first saw Superman: The Movie?
I remember it all when the opening music started as we "traveled across the galaxies", then again moments later when that "noble-sounding" Krypton theme played when the camera approached the large dome, followed by the, "This is no fantasy" speech. I can't explain why, but it gave me chills/goosebumps. It all seemed so... important --- even though it was just a comic book adaptation!! I loved every minute of it...
My first memory of the music was months before I saw the movie and heard the album. The TV ads at Christmastime 1978 ended with the final chord of the destruction of Krypton, which even then seemed a striking new way to do the same big-brass orchestral idiom that captured our hearts in Star Wars.
The difference is that all of the original Superman tracks were digitally transferred from the 6-tracks at the time. With the other titles you mentioned, there was unreleased material that needed to be transferred.
The ONeg of the film itself was reportedly just about shot in 2000 (and I'm not sure if they doing the 4k from it or the restoration dupe), however the 35mm mag reels containing the six-track mix were said to be in pristine condition at the time.
Superman 2 was dreadful. So over the top cheesy. Badly directed and acted. They turned Lex into Otis. Huge let down after Superman the Movie. Didn't like how they tracked music from the first film either. I actually like Superman 3 more, at least you know they're being cheesy on purpose.
Upon release, Superman II was considered the superior film of the two. The bitching about it started fairly recently.
That's a pretty broad statement. That certainly wasn't my initial reaction. And I don't remember meeting anyone who liked II better than the original until years later. (Same goes for The Empire Strikes Back, but that's a different story....)
I wish I still had a copy of them, but I lost all of my newspaper review clippings in a basement flood, however local papers touted it as film that "believe it or not, even out soars the original." I remember that line distinctly. I didn't agree either, the first film was magical, but I loved them both
I also had a few reviews that claimed Star Trek III was an even better film than The Wrath of Khan.
Upon release, Superman II was considered the superior film of the two. The bitching about it started fairly recently.
That's a pretty broad statement. That certainly wasn't my initial reaction. And I don't remember meeting anyone who liked II better than the original until years later. (Same goes for The Empire Strikes Back, but that's a different story....)
I wish I still had a copy of them, but I lost all of my newspaper review clippings in a basement flood, however local papers touted it as film that "believe it or not, even out soars the original." I remember that line distinctly. I didn't agree either, the first film was magical, but I loved them both
I also had a few reviews that claimed Star Trek III was an even better film than The Wrath of Khan.
I remember the same thing, reviews I read at the time, and some TV reviews , saw it as a better film with a lighter tone.
I recall back in the day lots and lots of people thinking 2 was better than 1. Probably mostly because they felt the Kryptonian villains were a better match than Luthor. It was a solid sequel and on paper it advanced most of the characters in good ways.
But over the years I've come to find it nearly unwatchable. Partly because I now know the history. Partly because I feel what I think of as the condescension that Lester brings to it that Donner studiously avoided. Donner bought into it. Lester didn't.
(OTOH the Donner Cut fixes nothing. Sadly that ship sailed.)
As for the score, I can't for the life of me tell you why the underscore to "You will travel far my little Kal-El" sounds better and works better in 2 than it did in 1. That and when Superman flees Metropolis are really the only two parts of 2 I ever listen to.
Yes, I bought the Box, but I really only ever listen to 1.
Oh, and I and the people around me started thinking that Empire was better than Star Wars probably in the later 80's. Now I'll call it a tie because they both do things better than the other.
I remember the same thing, reviews I read at the time, and some TV reviews , saw it as a better film with a lighter tone.
Wha? I love III and prefer it in a number of ways to II, but "a lighter tone" is not one of the reasons. It's really quite a somber film despite the happy ending (but let's not forget David's brutal murder...that was more rough for me as a kid than anything in II).
I also had a few reviews that claimed Star Trek III was an even better film than The Wrath of Khan.
When the credits rolled for STIII, upon exiting the theater I heard a much older guy, still seated, and obviously someone who caught TOS when it aired, exclaim "That sucked!!"
Superman 2 was dreadful. So over the top cheesy. Badly directed and acted. They turned Lex into Otis. Huge let down after Superman the Movie. Didn't like how they tracked music from the first film either. I actually like Superman 3 more, at least you know they're being cheesy on purpose.
Superman II is a good time because of the Phantom Zone villains. But it's not only cheesy, it's riddled with errors. Superman: The Movie has aged better. "That's the fact, Jack!"
Upon release, Superman II was considered the superior film of the two. The bitching about it started fairly recently.
That's a pretty broad statement. That certainly wasn't my initial reaction. And I don't remember meeting anyone who liked II better than the original until years later. (Same goes for The Empire Strikes Back, but that's a different story....)
I wish I still had a copy of them, but I lost all of my newspaper review clippings in a basement flood, however local papers touted it as film that "believe it or not, even out soars the original." I remember that line distinctly. I didn't agree either, the first film was magical, but I loved them both
I also had a few reviews that claimed Star Trek III was an even better film than The Wrath of Khan.
I remember Sup II being a big hit with critics and audiences on first release. Though I disliked it then and still dislike it today. Critics and fans were saying Empire was the superior film on first release too. I still prefer the original, but Empire is a very good film too. For those thinking Trek III is better than II? No comment!
I think III is better *in some ways* than II. Overall I think II is stronger for its very balanced, impressive and literate script/story thanks to Nicholas Meyer, excellent direction by him as well, and strong performances from Nimoy and Shatner, especially the latter doing the best work of his career. Spock's Death at the end is I think the only time Trek has moved me to tears.
BUT I love the greater sense of family and camaraderie in III. The supporting cast is treated much better, with Uhura, Sulu, Chekov, and Scotty all getting wonderful moments to shine and contribute. Everyone sacrificing their careers to steal the Enterprise and rescue Spock is one of my favorite things in all of Star Trek. I think Christopher Lloyd's performance as the Klingon antagonist is also somewhat underrated, probably because he isn't as well written or integral to the story as Khan is in the previous film.
I am one of those who thinks Horner's score is overall a clear improvement over his first (I feel the same about his Zorro scores -- love the first, but love the second even more). It's more mature and developed (and those who think III is a mere rehash and II was more of a "fresh" composition must be ignoring Battle Beyond the Stars and all of the classical music "inspirations"). I love how he focuses so much more on the melancholy "B" section of the main title theme, as well as Spock's Theme.
The biggest blemish on III for me is the awkward recasting (and recharacterization) of Saavik...it really wasn't the actress's fault, but it honestly felt like a completely different character that all the other characters were pretending was the same. Ah well...
Oh -- back to Superman: I think the first film is clearly better than the second, though there are *moments* in the second I like. But honestly even the first film gets dumb to me after the impressive and powerful opening half. For all its faults, Superman Returns did a much better job of making Lex Luthor a threatening villain while still having some comedic moments. I think Hackman is a good actor but I really don't care for his Luthor, particularly his henchman/woman interactions. It's just silly and hasn't aged well IMO. Chris Reeve is great all the way through, and lends even the silly scenes a sense of gravitas, but that doesn't change the fact that the second half is full of silly scenes which detract from the grand opening half of the film. And don't get me started on the spin-the-world-around-in-reverse-and-somehow-turn-back-time ending. So, so dumb. (Again, despite Reeve's best attempts to sell it emotionally.) The Krypton and Clark growing up sequences at the beginning of the film are so good they really make me wish the second half of the film had more weight and threat and a similar degree of treating the material like it isn't some silly comic book.
In the matter of sonic improvement, I think any improvement only would be possible if a better source than the used in the blue box were found, in this case the original 24-track masters. Regarding audio format, as a wide available score that still in print, the high resolution release is welcome.
Upon release, Superman II was considered the superior film of the two. The bitching about it started fairly recently.
That's a pretty broad statement. That certainly wasn't my initial reaction. And I don't remember meeting anyone who liked II better than the original until years later. (Same goes for The Empire Strikes Back, but that's a different story....)
I wish I still had a copy of them, but I lost all of my newspaper review clippings in a basement flood, however local papers touted it as film that "believe it or not, even out soars the original." I remember that line distinctly. I didn't agree either, the first film was magical, but I loved them both.
I definitely remember some film critics liking Empire better (Pauline Kael, etc.), but not the fans I'd spoken with. The dollars sure weren't there either. Empire only grossed about 2/3 what Star Wars grossed...
By the way, I liked Star Trek III slightly better than Wrath of Khan too....
Upon release, Superman II was considered the superior film of the two. The bitching about it started fairly recently.
That's a pretty broad statement. That certainly wasn't my initial reaction. And I don't remember meeting anyone who liked II better than the original until years later. (Same goes for The Empire Strikes Back, but that's a different story....)
I wish I still had a copy of them, but I lost all of my newspaper review clippings in a basement flood, however local papers touted it as film that "believe it or not, even out soars the original." I remember that line distinctly. I didn't agree either, the first film was magical, but I loved them both
I also had a few reviews that claimed Star Trek III was an even better film than The Wrath of Khan.
Yeah... here's a paragraph from Sheila Benson's 1981 LA Times review:
"The script is largely the work of David Newman and Leslie Newman from Mario Puzo's material with Tom Mankiewicz as creative consultant. What may account for the sequel's blacker humor-- and its richer content-- was its change of director Richard Lester replacing Richard Donner at some point during production, imperceptible to the viewer."
That's a pretty bold take at the time.
Janet Maslin's 1981 New York Times review: "But the makers of the 1978 Superman have set out to build a better mousetrap, and they've succeeded."
Roger Ebert's 1981 Chicago Sun-Times review: This scene has a lot of humor in it, and the whole film has more smiles and laughs than the first one. Maybe that's because of a change in directors. Richard Donner, who made the first "Superman" film and did a brilliant job of establishing a basic look for the series, was followed this time by Richard Lester ("A Hard Day's Night," "The Three Musketeers"), and this is some of Lester's best work. He permits satire to make its way into the film more easily. He has a lot of fun with Gene Hackman, as the still-scheming, thin-skinned, egomaniacal Lex Luthor.
With the ultimate irony being that Lester shot NONE of Hackman's scenes. But yes... Superman II was generally considered to be superior to I at the time. II hasn't aged as well by a long shot. Superman: The Movie remains an amazing movie.
Well, I guess you can point to various film critics and say, "...this is what everyone thought back then". But I just remember sitting in the theater when Nonn tried to burn the snake with his eyes and made the little sound. A friend turned to me and said, "He squeaks??" Unfortunately, our reactions were like that throughout.
When we walked out of the theater, another friend turned to us all and said "What the hell was that???"
Well, I guess you can point to various film critics and say, "...this is what everyone thought back then". But I just remember sitting in the theater when Nonn tried to burn the snake with his eyes and made the little sound. A friend turned to me and said, "He squeaks??" Unfortunately, our reactions were like that throughout.
When we walked out of the theater, another friend turned to us all and said "What the hell was that???"
When I saw the film in the theater everyone laughed positively at that scene. But thank you for reminding me why I find Sup II so groan inducing.
