Is Superman: the movie the greatest independent film achievement in the last century?

S

stephensunproductions

For those of you who don't know, the 1978 superman movie was essentially an independent film. The film broke new ground in sfx and created the superhero franchise. It's pretty amazing when you think about it no?
 
I'd rank the original Star Wars higher on that list, but yah - Superman set a few new standards of its own, for sure. :cool:
 
stephensunproductions said:
For those of you who don't know, the 1978 superman movie was essentially an independent film. The film broke new ground in sfx and created the superhero franchise. It's pretty amazing when you think about it no?
Click to expand...

I didn't know that - do you have any reading materials?

But Superman I and II have stood the test of time - I prefer them to the Man of Steel.
 
I'd agree with Zensteve, and rank Star Wars higher on the list than Superman. Star Wars took special effects to a whole new level, and really introduced computer generated visual effects to the world (whether that's a good thing or not is debatable). Star Wars also introduced merchandising of a film to the world in a big way, and did a lot with sound design as well.

But yes, Superman is on the list, not at the top of the list, but certainly on it. :)
 
Good points on Star Wars guys, especially the sound design aspect of that film. Superman was made completely outside the control of it's eventual distributer, Warner Bros. Was that the case with Star Wars? I also prefer the first two Superman films more than Man Of Steel, despite the campy moments. I really wanted to like the reboot but the tone is just not right for a Superman film. The movie lacks charm and Henry Cavill is so dull. The first two Superman films still work, in part, because of Christopher Reeves' performances. I also think much of the battles between Superman and the kryptonian's looks like a video game. I'm not as excited about the sequel as I was about Man of Steel.
 
According to Lucas's IMDB bio, the first Star Wars was not an independent film. And though Superman was technically independent, C'MON! It had a budget of $55mil! And that's in 1978 dollars! Might as well call Avatar independent (which I believe it technically is)!
 
We do get into arguments over what is “independent” don't we?

Some say a movie cannot be called “independent” if it reaches a
certain budget. Some say it can't be “independent” if it has a name
actor in it. Some say if it's made in “Hollywood” it cannot be called
“independent”.

My definition is really simple; any movie made without involvement
of any of the six “majors”. I count among the majors their so-called
“Arthouse/Indie” branches.

“Star Wars” was financed by Fox – so not “independent”. “Superman”
and “Superman II” were financed by the Salkind's and Pierre Spengler
with no input from any studio. Warners and Columbia/EMI won the bid
for distribution rights. Fox advanced a substantial amount (I have heard
60%) of the budget for “Avatar” through “Dune” with the rest raised
by Ingenious - so to me that's a studio film.

But if a $55 milion budget (for both films) makes “Superman” not
“indie” and it wasn't financed or produced by a studio then what is it?
$55 million in 1977 is about $208,000,000 today. For two movies.
”Man of Steel” was $225,000,000
 
Last edited:
I just spent an hour looking up my Star Wars & Greyhound connection, and I have no idea where I got that idea from. :blush:

It must be from a parallel universe, 'cos it's a fact I know - though apparently it ain't. :abduct:
 
stephensunproductions said:
For those of you who don't know, the 1978 superman movie was essentially an independent film. The film broke new ground in sfx and created the superhero franchise. It's pretty amazing when you think about it no?
Click to expand...

Superman: the Movie (and the sequels) by producers Alexander and Ilya Salkind was a NEGATIVE PICKUP deal with Warner.

A Negative Pickup deal is where the producers get total control creatively, but then have to fund the film entirely themselves too. The studio grants them the right to use the material (Warner Bros. owned {owns} the entire DC Comics catalog) and gets the exclusive right to distribute, which includes their own expense for P&A (Print and Advertising, for the newbs).

During the course of shooting Superman I & II back to back, Richard Donner went severely over budget, much to the chagrin of the producers, and Warner Brothers was funding the overages, which gave the studio creative control before the end of shooting. So when the Salkins went to fire Richard Donner, Warner was able to say "Are you kidding me? Look at these dailes! You guys are idiots" and they vetoed the idea.

So it's not exactly a "independent" film.

Very similar story for STAR WARS, except it was a (semi) original idea from George Lucas, although he did license the right to remake Kurasawa's HIDDEN FORTRESS, but Alan Ladd Jr., head of 20th Century Fox at the time, went to the mat for George on STAR WARS, and it cost him his job, even though the movie single-handedly tripled the stocks for Fox.
 
51sftHvMxiL._SL500_SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg


from this book which I own on the making of Superman I & II is a great read
 
I haven't read that book in years. So "Superman" isn't "independent"
after all. I was under the impression it wasn't a negative pickup. But
since Warner owned the DC library (since 1969) then they had control
from the beginning.
 
directorik said:
I haven't read that book in years. So "Superman" isn't "independent"
after all. I was under the impression it wasn't a negative pickup. But
since Warner owned the DC library (since 1969) then they had control
from the beginning.
Click to expand...

Yup. I LOVED that (and all the paperback making of's from the late 70's and early 80's) book.

books01.jpg



Before these things became oversized (and god forbid eBooks) color picture things, the text based books on making film were so much more informative and interesting. Also political correctness affected the quality, as these old books told more truth and drama behind the scenes than anything you'd see today.
 
Oh, so instead of getting their $55mil budget from a group of investors who very much wants to see a return on their investment, they actually got their $55mil budget from a different group of investors who very much want to see a return on their investment. That makes it totally different.

Semantics be damned, a $55mil movie is not independent!

I think we need a new definition for "independent". How's this one?

On an independent film, there's no such thing as an executive producer. The person who is putting their own personal money on the line is also intimately and actively involved in the process of making the film. Because if it doesn't succeed, they just might lose the roof over their head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top