"Flash Gordon" came out 2 years later. And you just made my point for me.
Nobody in their right mind would sit there and say "Flash Gordon has terrible production value" because it doesn't for a 1980 movie. Compared to "Star Wars" or "Alien"? Of course. Compared to the average special effects back then? Hell no. So why single out "Superman"?
I'm 37 years old, I actually seen all these movies within a few years of their release. And no, nobody was shytting on the special effects in "Superman". Matter of fact, you're wrong about your last sentence too. "Superman" received rave reviews and is (or was) the 6th highest grossing film in history. So yeah, it was a cinematic landmark super hero movie.
Me personally I always thought it was trash, even as a kid, but you're blatantly rewriting history here.
Fred.
You do know Superman had much better name recognition with moviegoers than either of those movies right? It also had twice the budget. So whats the excuse for antiquated green screens, terrible acting, and costumes sets from the 50s? I think that comparing Superman to those movies are not only fair but mandatory. Those movies surpass superman in terms of quality, directing, acting, nearly all aspects of film. I am speaking from strictly fan/average viewer perspective not critics. Nobody mentions Superman ever in terms of legacy. You never see replays on AMC or it receiving special edition Its been reduced to a forgettable, long 2 hour campy bore fest in the mind of fans. I think that Superman Returns was a flop because it was shot in similar fashion to those movies. Nolan batman reboot is superior in everyway to Burton/schmuckmaker version but ppl still like those flicks. Hell, ppl even would choose shyt like Robocop or the first TMNT over it
