Talk:Superman (1978 film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Good Article

The only reason I put this on hold is because it needs more references. Source a few more statements and you got it! RC-0722 (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Such as...? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

How many references are you talking about, like five? Wildroot (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, gimme 5 to start with. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally think this is one of the dumbest reasons I've ever heard. This film came out roughly 30 years ago, and it's quite impossible to find suitable info. Wildroot (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Try sourcing statements like this, " Some critics found analogies similar to Jesus, which Mankiewicz claims were set purposely as he himself finds the character to be a symbol of Christ." RC-0722 (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! you've fixed all the problems. You've kicked the pig! Lets Kick This Pig! (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Awards

The lead section needs to mention the awards that Superman won for its technical achievements, in line with a concise overview of the article per WP:LEAD. Can this be expanded? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Lex Luthor's swimming pool

.... in the movie, did Lex transform Grand Central Terminal into his swimming pool? --84.115.129.76 (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That's kind of the way it looked, but it was never quite clear what that arrangement was about. It seems unlikely they would just abandon a terminal and that Luthor would be able to take it over. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Renaming of the article

While I'm not happy someone moved the article without discussion (it's been an issue before), I actually agree that this is the more appropriate title as there's been no other film named simply "Superman" besides this one. There's been the serial, and the animated short, but no other full-fledged film. So, unless someone objects, I think it should stay where it is now. The problem is, whoever moved it didn't fix the redirects, so it's all out of whack. I'm a bit too busy right now to tackle it, so can anyone take on this task? There's lots of redirects for Superman: The Movie and Superman the Movie that should also be fixed. If no one hits it in a few days, I'll take a stab, but hopefully someone will take this on. Rhindle The Red (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Assuming someone did it unilaterally without discussion, I recommend you contact an admin and ask them them to put it back the way it was. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I think it's the right move, just that the cleanup needs to be done. As I said, I'll handle it later this week if no one objects and no one else does it. Rhindle The Red (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree that it's the right move, simply because it generates needless work for no apparent gain. But if you're volunteering to fix all the references, then you've got it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The gain is a more accurate article title; one more in line with Wikipedia guidelines. That's worth *something*, no? Rhindle The Red (talk) 04:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you've forgotten this discussion [1] from last August, which you yourself participated in. Changing the article's title again, going through the same tedium again, amounts to busywork and nothing else. However, if you're willing to do that busywork, fine. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course I haven't forgotten it, I mentioned it in the first message here. Last time the argument was different, because we just got the article put back where it had been. We never actually got to a final discussion over the title the article should have. Do you have a problem with Superman (film) in and of itself? Are you against it purely because of the cleanup the move necessitates? If you have no objection to the current title, then you shouldn't refer to the cleanup procedure as "busywork", as it is necessary. (And with a title like this, regular checking for redirects is a good idea, anyway.) But don't worry about it. I'll take care of it this weekend or early next week. Rhindle The Red (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't care either way, as long as it's you doing the busywork and not me. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Richard Lester?

Seems to me that Lester had some role in the direction of this film. Someone needs to watch the DVD specials and find out. I might do that when I get the chance. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure he had nothing to do with this film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.134.186.45 (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Copy edit and length warning

I've just given this a copy edit and removed the copyedit tag, but the page is still throwing up a 30+ kilobytes length warning. The plot summary is nicely written but could probably survive a length cut, should anyone want to take a pop at that. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Revamping

Hello there, I am Wildroot, and I'm the guy who got this article to GA status back in January 2008. I have compiled a lot more research that will be suitable for this article. I will probably finish in the next couple of weeks. Just a little warning. Do not be startled when you find this page changes. This will be better for the article, and who knows, maybe knock up an FA nomination. Cheers. —Wildroot (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Cast or casting section? The stuff on Reeve and Kidder is quite substantial but Brando and Hackman are weaved perfectly in development, and there's not much else. Alientraveller (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

DVD release

Nobody change it to "2000 director's cut" or "2000 restoration" because it was released in 2001. They may have started work in 2000, but released in 2001. I don't know why editors are cautious of that. —Wildroot (talk) 06:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What does the copyright on the DVD say? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

2001 —Wildroot (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Those two photos in the "Visual effects" section

One of those photos would probably suitable to use. The other looks like some old-farty-grainy shot of a TV. Should that photo be taken out?—Wildroot (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the photos is to demonstrate the difference between the publicity still (which at one time was claimed to be a screen shot) and the actual, corresponding screen shot (which may be a little dark but is from the DVD and is not "grainy" unless you try to blow it up). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It also illustrates the greenish-colored suit they used for certain types of process shots. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't green at all. I know for a fact I am not color blind. It was probably claimed to be a screen shot because some Wikipedia editor felt it looked like some screen shot and didn't know it was used for publicity and advertising purposes.—Wildroot (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's blue in the shot on the left, a widely-circulated publicity still. In the picture on the right, from the actual film, the suit has a greenish tinge to it. It's perhaps a little more obvious in the original sized frame: Image:Superman movie vid cap2 larger.JPG Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No it still looks black and useless. I don't see a "greenish tinge" or whatever. It basically falls under WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. —Wildroot (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you need your eyes checked (as well as your attitude). At least you got to see the larger version before they deleted it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's also possible the contrast on your computer screen is dark. Darker photos show up better on my home PC (this one) than on my work PC. That would allow you to see the colors better. It won't fix your "ownership" attitude, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well neither image is that useful really. It would be better to upload a DVD screenshot of Reeve against a bluescreen. Alientraveller (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Closing "signature"

Maybe it's not quite like the James Bond signature, but it's there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. Wildroot (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The James Bond "signature" is the opening gunbarrel scene. Maybe this is not nearly as "iconic" but it's how they closed all 4 films. Why do you have a problem with it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the "no mentioned in a source, not notable" belief could apply here to keep the plot summary short. It could be mentioned if there's a source discussing why it was created or kept, but as it stands it won't be mentioned now. Alientraveller (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I recall reading after Superman I came out, and with Superman II in production, that this closing looked like a Bonds-like "signature". That was one reviewers speculation. Turned out he was right. It's certainly noticeable, and no question it's verifiable. Maybe there's another more appropriate place to bring it up. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

My two cents

In the interests of keeping the plot succinct, it seems like a good idea to leave it out. However, some of the other reasons given by Wildroot don't hold up. WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC is a guideline to not use "it's unencyclopedic" as a reason for deleting something, and instead to come up with more specific reasons. It is a much stronger argument to say it isn't notable since there are no sources discussing why it was created or kept, as Alientraveller has done. See WP:JNN. However, I fail to see why it's inclusion is OR, unless we are being really strict on the WP requirement to not appeal to primary sources for research. But as there is no improper synthesis involved, I don't think it really qualifies as OR.

Succinctness and non-notability (given absence of third-party discussion) seem to be strong arguments. Unencyclopedic and OR seem to me to be weak ones.

--WickerGuy (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Plot suggestions

A couple of weeks ago, I expanded the plot a lot and got reverted on the grounds it was just too long. Fair enough.
However, it seems to me that the current plot synopsis does not do justice to three things:

1) The three-act structure of the movie, Krypton, Smallville, Metropolis.
2) The character arc of Kal-El in coping with personal issues in his private life as Clark Kent, both in Smallville and as an adult. Part of the charm of this film is dealing with these things as well as adventure story.
3) The dual relationship with Lois Lane as both Clark and Superman. He saves her life without her knowledge as Clark Kent when confronted with a gunman before saving her publicly as Superman. Similarly, we get no mention for showing up for the same appointment twice, once as Superman and then as Clark Kent. In both case, the contrast between the two episodes is important, and these are not currently in the plot synopsis.

Given the perception on the talk page, that the synopsis had once been bloatedly humoooongous and my reverter had gone to a lot of trouble to cut it down to managable size, I let it go as I have other WP fish to fry. However, IMO I think the plot synopsis could be improved by a reworking that draws out more of these elements.

Or in not in the synopsis, some of this could be discussed in the themes section in addition to the current discussion of quasi-Biblical parallels.

Regards,

--WickerGuy (talk) 01:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the three specific points are important aspects. It's true that the old synopsis was ridiculous - in the end, it's supposed to quicky walk you through the plot of the film rather than explore the themes. I think there's probably a good middle ground to be had somewhere, because I would like to see your three points at least somewhere in the article. Jumble Jumble (talk) 09:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well put comment. However, those three comments might be better off for the Themes section. I agree with Jumble Jumblie that the Plot is supposed to be a quick walk through the storyline rather than explore the themes. Wildroot (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add to this that from the current article you would not know that Superman wears a brightly-coloured costume when using his powers! I'd like that to be in there. Also a brief sentence on the "Superman's first night" sequence would probably be good. Jumble Jumble (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow what you're getting at. There is no connection between Superman using his powers and wearing his costume. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, yeah that wasn't very clear. All I mean is that the costume isn't mentioned at all, which seems like a huge omission to me. Not that important I guess. Jumble Jumble (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Another addition: I reinforce that we need to go for concise, rather than short. Short is this:

Kal-El, the infant son of Jor-El, is sent to Earth before his home planet explodes. Growing up as Clark Kent on this planet to discover the capability to perform superhuman feats, he eventually takes a job at a city newspaper and meets Lois Lane, with whom he falls in love. After he averts a series of minor disasters and crimes, he meets Lex Luthor, a criminal mastermind who plans to sink the West Coast of America into the sea. In his first attempt to foil this plan he fails to save the life of Lois Lane; against his biological father's advice he reverses time in order to prevent her death.

Jumble Jumble (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ending

This bit of text has been removed a few times based on WP:OR:

The film ends with a sequence that was to feature at the end of every Superman film that followed (including Superman Returns), with Superman flying high above the Earth at sunrise, and breaking the fourth wall to smile briefly at the camera.

The second time it was deleted, it was with the comment "was to feature = OR". I don't really understand that comment. It's definitely not OR to state that the ending was featured at the end of every Superman film that followed. It did! Saying "was to feature" is a valid enough turn of phrase, indicating hindsight. However, if it's the phrase "was to feature" that somehow causes a problem, how about this:

The film ends with a sequence that has featured at the end of every Superman film since (including Superman Returns), with Superman flying high above the Earth at sunrise, and breaking the fourth wall to smile briefly at the camera.

Would that be OK to reinsert, do you think? It's not original research, it's stating something that's happened and that anyone can check WP:V. It is a walkthrough of the plot, and this is the ending. We have a description of this sequence at the end of the Plot sections in the other articles (although I accept that this is not necessarily a justification for its inclusion here). Any thoughts? Jumble Jumble (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been following this and think your suggestion is eminently sensible. It's no more OR than anything else in the plot summary, the source for all of which is the movie itself. Gonzonoir (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The OR gets bandied about a bit excessively to cover a variety of sins. As I noted above in the "my two cents" section of the #Closing "signature" part of this talk page, there were actually 4 different rationales given at different times for the removal of this. IMO, two charges that have modest credibility is that the plot is already too long and the ending does not satisfy WP's criteria of notability. However, the claim that it's unencyclopedic is weak, and the charge that it constitutes OR is really just downright silly. OR should be a specific and focused charge, not a generic one that gets bandied about for a broad range of problems!!!

--WickerGuy (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think my mistake was putting it in the "plot" section, as it's really not part of the plot, although it's a logical extension of his takeoff from the prison. Maybe the "legacy" section is the right place, somewhere near wherever it mentions the four (so far) sequels. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this was already in discussion. I'll wait for a consensus before editing it back in again, but as it's a bookend to the film I think it's quite important. We want to keep the synopsis concise, which is slightly different in meaning to short. Avoiding extending the section at all costs should not be our priority. The current synopsis is already admirably short for a 2.5 hour film. I'm slightly vexed that some bad grammar has made its way back in, but can see how it would happen in the midst of other reverts. I'll sort that out as a separate edit now, which hopefully won't be reverted. Jumble Jumble (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

How about this guys - adding a new section called something like "signature ending". I do think the film is notable for this: I can think of few others that have this standard bookend (the start of the James Bond films is one; maybe the first few seconds of the Star Wars films are another).Jumble Jumble (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but the Superman sequels are not anywhere as iconic as Bond or Star Wars. Having a section on Wikipedia devoted to the ending would be wacky. Wildroot (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Iconic and wacky are opinions, but nobody else is contesting them, so I guess they all agree. I'll go along with it. Thanks for replying. ;) Jumble Jumble (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

All this establishes is that you don't want to solve this by a section!! It seems to me that the place for this would be the article on the Superman film series rather than an article on the first film. --WickerGuy (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You're exactly right. I wasn't actually aware there was an article for the whole series; I'm off to have a look at it. Jumble Jumble (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What about the Legacy section? Wildroot (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, good idea. I had a look at the article for the series and it didn't focus on film content at all, it was all out-of-universe stuff, so I don't think it'd fit there. I'll have a look at including it in the Legacy section a bit later on today. Jumble Jumble (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've put it in. See what you think.

Reverted plot stuff

I made some changes to the plot section, which were reverted: [2] - it was an addition of 100 words. Wildroot, please could you tell us what the limit is that you're imposing on the word count, so we can keep within it? The current plot section does not contain the information that nobody knows Clark is Superman, or that he wears a costume when he's Superman, or that he has two separate relationships with Lois Lane. These are prety important plot points (particularly his secret identity). We seem to go into lots of detail on the plot itself but not on the characters. I'm not saying we need to extend it indefinitely, just that I think there's some stuff missing and brevity isn't the only desirable characteristic of a synopsis. Jumble Jumble (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Some months ago I made a much larger expansion of the plot, and was reverted. I was new to this article so didn't fight. However, the plot reads like a list of plot-points without a continuous thread. Gone is the the three-part structure of the film, the character arc of Superman, the significance of growing up in Smallville, and the triangle of Lois Lane/Clark Kent/Superman, all fairly significant elements of the film. Perhaps an expansion of the plot is not the way to resolve it.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Researching and writing this article wasn't easy, and it's hard enough having you guys yell at me. I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but we should all take into account the WP:MOS guidelines (400 word count for the Plot section or something, I can't remember). Wildroot (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That's brilliant, and exactly what I was looking for. Thank you very much. Jumble Jumble (talk) 08:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that page doesn't have it, but this one does. It says the section should be "between 400 and 700 words and should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason, such as a very complicated plot". We currently have just under 600 words, but we also don't quite match up to the other standards laid out in the guideline. I'm going to have a look at it and see what we can do about meeting the guideline. Jumble Jumble (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Structure as per MOS:FILM

This article is really good - we've got loads of great information in it. I just wondered if we could look at reorganising it very slightly into the sections described in MOS:FILM - I think we have all the information we need, but it'd be nice to put it into the sections as described in the MOS. Thoughts, anyone? Jumble Jumble (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, specifically I'm thinking about separating some of the information in the "Legacy" section into a "Reception" section. I think it's absolutely right that we should have a Legacy section even though it's not in the MOS, because there is a lot of valid content that fits best under that heading. Jumble Jumble (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Superman books

Hi Wildroot! I'm new here and I'm writing an article about the TV series Smallville, which deals with the time before Clark Kent became Superman. I would like to improve the development and production section and I'm looking for books that I can cite for that purpose. Maybe you can help me. Thank you very much.Sha-Sanio (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit: Release / Critical Reaction

I took out the reference to Harry Knowles in the release section because he was not reviewing films in the 1970s or even the 1980s, so his opinion of the film really has nothing to do with the critical reaction at its release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.199.11.171 (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)