Considering the havoc that suddenly reversing the Earth's rotation would have upon the surface of the planet, Superman would have a whole lot more to save than just Lois.
I mean, to the people saying that that's not how time travel works...okay. That's not how flight works, either. Yet you'll believe a man can fly. And let's not get started on x-ray vision, breathing in space, or the infamous disguise. Or, you know, the fact that in literally the previous scene you've got him reversing tectonic fractures by going underground and pushing. There are all kinds of ways to appreciate a film, but Superman really isn't the franchise to try to make rigidly adhere to the laws of physics and logic.
I would fully agree with your interpretation ... IF ... He didn't have to start flying the other way to "return the earth to rotating forward". If this was a means of visually showing "He is going back in time" there is NO reason to show him "restoring the earth to spinning forward". I 100% believe that's what the film makers intended us to interpret - he spins the earth backwards to roll back time, then returns the flow of time forward. Funny, the script tells neither scenario...
@@neutrino78x Right - we know that doesn't cause time travel. But the movie is IMHO inferring that is the case. The question is - was the spinning earth a means of CONVEYING time travel or intended to mean spinning the earth backwards would turn back time. I believe it is the latter (a work of fiction after all) because there is a purposeful showing of "restoring" the earth's rotation.
@@Darkuni " But the movie is IMHO inferring that is the case." Nah. It's just being used to convey the idea that Superman is traveling through time. "The question is - was the spinning earth a means of CONVEYING time travel" I feel like this interpretation is that of common sense, although I suppose you can interpret the movie however you like. "because there is a purposeful showing of "restoring" the earth's rotation." Yes, but I think most of us would see that as "ok, I went too far backward, now I'm going to go forward a bit".
He obviously overflew the time he was trying to get to so he then had to go forward in time to get to when he was trying to get to. Which is why the representation of flying in the opposite direction.
I remember as a 10 year old the excitement of going to see this movie in Jan 79,. Now 56 year old me almost going full circle and in a way closure next weekend as I look forward to going back to the theatre to see Super/man , Chris reeves story .
in addition, the reason Superman is flying around the earth is to watch exactly how much time he is going back. he makes sure to watch so that he does not go back to far.
Another thought - if Supes can fly fast enough to go back in time (FTL), how come earlier on he's not fast enough to catch the two nuclear missiles - which Luthor even taunts him about, and which proves to be true?? That's a pretty big plot hole right there!
There's an app for that... I mean, a video: ua-cam.com/video/haTCh_HVShI/v-deo.html We present a couple of possiible answers in it, and people chime in with a bunch of great answers in the comments.
Well you could argue he is still suffering effects of Kryptonnate when going after the rockets by the time of lois death he is fully recovered hence now at full power again and fast enough he can go back in time. Not perfect I know but....
If he were literally turning the earth around, that wouldn't work because there is nothing but vacuum between him and the earth. So there is nothing to create drag to pull the earth. It would have no effect at all. Obviously there is some kind of timey physics going on.
8:39 I keep wondering about what it would’ve been like if Lois found out what he did for her. Wow. You briefly addressed it while I was typing. But I would be interested in the emotional impact to her if she found out what he did. For her.
I would guess that version of Lois Lane never learns what he did... "moving heaven and earth" to preserve her life. Superman definitely wouldn't have told her. It could only deepen her love for him and add gratitude to the list of her feelings about her friend. Long lasting love is a mix of gratitude, real passion, intellectual enjoyment, recognized similarity, curiosity and friendship, so he would become, literally, the love-of-her-life. The Romance between Superman and Lois was supposed to be almost unrequited back then, at least, that is how I understood it. It was a surprise to me when they did have their moments of passion in the second movie, but that was a time when things were changing in societal norms and I thought it definitely appropriate. They implied in the later movies that they would never marry. But in the recent versions they actually do Lois and Clark (1990s) Smallville (early 2000s) Superman and Lois (2020s) and I understand a series of comics was about the family life of the Kents.
Thanks for the insightful discussion. You brought up some things that have troubled me for decades and made them much clearer. You made the movie better for me.
I agree with your interpretation and it addresses my long time issue with the notion that he was spinning the earth backward to reverse time, which doesn’t work for many obvious reasons. Although having watched video commentary, it’s unclear that the film makers even had a clear perspective on what exactly what was supposed to be happening.
We kids who saw it at the time knew it was just a visual representation. Silver and Bronze Age Supes would travel through time all the time back, in the day.
Incorrect, Superman turns the whole planet back in time. All the water goes back in the dam, dam repaired, all the explosions fold back inside their molecular bindings, all the property damage and displaced people are safe at home, the nuclear missile never launches, Lois and her car is just sitting on the road and the sky is blue. Superman didn't just go back in time to the moment she was being buried and pull her out a hole. Maybe I should get my own channel so I can help cats see the obvious 🤔
Great points! I really like what you are saying about that scene. It makes sense. Of course, the changing scene mid air, but Superman can act so fast it would seem like magic to a human observer. I do remember the way they portrayed time travel in the comics back when I still read comics. Yes, when I was in the theater in 1978 that surrealistic trip from Krypton reminded me of 2001. Definitely.. so did his training in the Fortress. 2001 was an incredible movie, still is, if you aren't a jaded old man or woman. It was an attempt to portray 'first contact' in the most serious way possible. Arthur C. Clarke was always a very weird author, a favorite of mine, I always wondered If I really understood his work. He left a lot unsaid. He was supposed to be an Atheist but he wrote some nearly mystical stories and Novellas. He had a perspective that would cause me to catch my breath a moment, put down book.. anyone watching could have seen a question mark appear above my head. Your discussions remind me of my debates with my husband. We were still debating differences between the Lord of the Rings books vs. the Movies in 2019. I'm 73 and I've never grown up . Growing up is highly over-rated, so is being serious, all the time. Life is short, painful and difficult. Laugh sometimes. Oh, maturing into an adult is necessary. But being too sophisticated to enjoy a good romance or Superhero movie is just pathetic. That is how minds die. Nihilism will just depress you and make you wish for death.. It's a dead end. . Don't go there. If you can't clap when Clark Kent first changes into Superman to save the love of his life.. well, that's just sad.
When I was a kid and watched the movie at movie theater and also rewatched it on TV, I never really cared that turning the Earth backwards could turn back time. I also didn't care that Lois was dead, lol. You know. A kid like 7, 8 years old. I just remember loving the movie. When I was a teenager, turning the Earth backwards and turning back time was really stupid, lol. But I could understand his sadness over Lois' death better. Now, watching your video, I finally understand what Donner and Mankiewicz did in their way of showing us that he is traveling through time. Good point.
I totally agree that over-analysing the turning-the-world-back thing ruins the sentiment that Superman is willing to give it all up for Lois. Remember, he literally gives it all up in Superman 2.
I’m your 69th like… nice. Honestly love the analysis you guys go into as it either affirms what I believe or opens my mind to things I didn’t realise or never would have thought of
My theory is Superman had a low level form of magic. He’s doing Bing that he’s doing things that only mystical Bing or people who have control or can manipulate magic can do. Such as you know the S on his chest and him magically manifesting is costume on his body. This is really cool stuff. Just subscribed, notifications bell on!!!
There is a part in this video where you guys said, "there is no explanation or narration to explain what is going on." Looking at the title Superman the Movie, it had to evolve from the comic narration because in the comics, there is a narrator filling in the gaps of what the characters are doing. But in a movie, sure you can use narration, nothing wrong with that, but for Superman, it had to be a movie, not a moving comic book. And you guys are correct in your statement. Love the videos by the way.
Thanks Tyrone! Yeah for me this is one of the reasons why what Donner accomplished was so important for the genre. He was the first person to really “get it” as far as how comic books can be adapted to film. Took quite awhile for Hollywood to catch up with him, I think in part because the kids inspired by that film had to finish growing up first. Cheers man! Always enjoy your comments.
I watched this film daily as a boy (born in ‘84) and I never, until seeing your interpretation, realized it was a metaphor. I guess I just never thought about it. The course correction, while I love the term, doesn’t make much sense. If he over shoots, he can go grab coffee and wait it out if he’d rather not use that time to stop the second missile.
Just found your channel because of the OG video, and I 100% agree. Film, itself, is a magic trick - using still images to convey movement. Richard Donner, as director, had to work within the confines of the budget and technology of the time to best present the story. Everyone agrees the scene shows Superman 'going back in time and undoing what happened' - but they get caught up in the details of HOW it's been presented. But that's not the point. It's art. It's quasi-abstract. No one knows what time travel looks like. (let alone if its even possible) For simplicity, they show the Earth spinning as Superman zips around in orbit. Is he moving the Earth back in time? Or himself? Or time itself? That doesn't matter. It conveys the point in a visually pleasing way, and that's all that matters. It reminds me of an argument Alfred Hitchcock used when making Lifeboat (1944). Hitchcock didn't want ANY musical score, thinking it ruined the 'reality' of the scene and said something to the effect of "they're stranded on a lifeboat. Where would you fit an orchestra?" To which a composer replied "you couldn't fit in the camera, lights, director, etc. either." It's just a movie. Presentation is not necessarily diegetic/in-canon.
Film is definitely a magic trick. It fools the mind into immersing itself into a story for 2 hours, that is, the best movies, do. I miss theaters for that reason, watching a movie at home just isn't the same.
I saw it as a kid in the 70s and still get chills when i hear williams' theme. Love that you guys finally fixed my only gripe with this masterpiece. Thank you! And who's the skinny guy on the left?😂
I always thought the line about him being forbidden to interfere with human history was a bit weird. They kept hammering that home as if that was his prime directive. Not, "don't use your power for evil," or "don't kill people." Reminds me of the ten commandments, where I'm like. "Really?!?! That's it? God couldn't be bothered to say something like, 'Don't own people as property?'"
Of course, if you've read the silver age comics, Superman was constantly breaking the time barrier with his super speed, although in the comics, they showed a line of calendar pages.
Yep! We mentioned that in the last video, and how that wouldn't really translate to film... and it certainly wouldn't have fit the tone Donner was going for. I do so love that old goofy stuff, though.
I have more of an issue with the kryptonian council suddenly being in the crystal recordings. It was only his father whom made them, against the will of the council. The council itself were haughty, pompous pricks so no sadness for causing their own planet's destruction, but they would NOT have crystal recordings to help Kiel (or however you spell his name).
If Superman goes back in time....what about the Superman who is already there? Can a person REALLY pick up a car by its bumper? The scene with Clark Kent with Superman's costume just appearing can be explained by super speed, but Superman can't rebuild the Wall of China with his eyes. Clearly something was done to bring costs down, or the producers simply don't know the character.
Even as a kid that scene took me right out of the film… about a man who I believed could fly - but I grew up and got it was visually illustrating going back in time - but as a kid I was confused and didn’t get why he didn’t just fly her back to fortress of solitude and use a special crystal to bring her back to life - but as an adult I realise that wouldn’t have been so super
I've always interpreted it as when Superman reversed time by spinning around the earth it caused the very force of the explosion to stop at the point that he had stopped and went back the other direction - returning the rotation back to normal. This allowes jimmy to be still saved from falling off the bridge by superman but also allowing lois to survive due to the effects of hurricane no longer reaching her.
I've always known, even as a kid of 11 that even slowing up the earth's rotation would be catastrophic, so I've always had issues with turning it backwards, and quite how flying round the earth would cause such a pulling force in the opposite direction. I've never considered that you're seeing him fly as fast, if not faster than light, and this having a temporal effect of going back in time. I've known since a kid you can go 7.5 times round the world in a second at light speed, so i've even tried to count his rotations in a second, and technically he is going faster than light. I'm now choosing to go with your theory, that what we are seeing is TIME going backwards, not the earth physically. That just feels easier to digest. Now all I have to do is fly round the earth, and go back in time and tell my younger self to not sweat it so much. His scream still curdles my blood, and it's a fantastic scene
I love this movie SO MUCH! I've actually had parts of the soundtrack going through my head for the past weeks. For me it was a masterpiece that shouldn't be scrutinized in a technical way, but we must accept that it works in its own universe. There are so many technical inconsistencies that examining them would ruin the movie.
I love it too. My #1 favorite movie of all time. You're totally right about the technical inconsistencies, so just proceed with caution because we LOVE talking about that stuff.
Well materialising clothes is very much one of his powers in the Salkind movies. I mean Supergirl materialises an entire school uniform complete with backpack. I think we have to rely on a contemporary actor here when Mark Hamill is wondering about continuity in Star Wars, Harrison Ford answers "Hey kid, it ain't that kind of movie"
After I had seen this the first time, I was 15 years old, my older sister took me to see it a second time because I was ravong about how great it was. She mentioned both the clothes change scene and the World spinning backwards scene, claiming that would destroy the world if he did that. At that age I didn't even question it, so I explained it to her. It was very simple I said "as for changing his clothes he did it so quickly you couldn't even see him move, somewhere between the time he jumped and the time he flew off in his tights and cape." "As for the time thing he didn't move the world, it just showed it from his perspective" I said. I then went on to say "I believe he created a temporary double( a time shadow), though it didn't show this the double sealed up the San Andreas fault line while the original was saving people from the impact. Then went on and helped other people in trouble from the aftershocks but they weren't nearly as bad because the time shadow had sealed up the fault line way sooner by never letting the large section of earth (the one it showed him lifting the first time around) fall in the first place. and he basically caught up with the original one moments before landing next Lois's car, which would be near the exact time frame for which he had left in the first place thus,avoiding a lingering time shadow and still saving everyone in California from the aftershocks and no one wiser the time had been altered slightly." That is my take on the situation
Awesome. I wish they would have referenced the time travel and the presence of at least 2 Supes. Or that he flew back far enough to stop the missiles. I love the no interference rule, because Jor-El interfered by leaving Superman there in the first place.
I think that those twelve years in the Fortress of Solitude would be the thing they show in Smallville, so he's in the fortress and all that knowledge comes to him as a means of "virtual reality experience". So I coincide in the idea that Superman didn't leave Earth all that time.
I saw the movie in the theater when I was 5 years old. I never thought he was physically turning the planet earth around. I just thought it was their way to visualize time travel. And he turned around and flew the other way because he would have been in the past. So he needed to travel back to the point he left.
Donner filmed both movies at the time but didn't trust the Salkinds and believed he had only one chance at this. Reversing time was the original ending for the second movie. Lois wasn't supposed to die.
I didn't have an issue with him going back in time in Superman: the movie, but for Donner's cut of Superman 2, I had an issue with it. I understand he wasn't able to finish Superman 2, but after he went back in time, he went to the diner to get revenge on the truck driver and it's after he went back in time. I didn't have an issue with it at first until multiple rewatches.
Yeah that is a messy moment. It gets weirder, because that’s actually how Mankiewicz had it scripted before they changed the ending of the first movie. So they really hadn’t thought the time travel implications through very well at that point. But yeah, if Donner had been able to finish it way back when, that wouldn’t have been the case. Thing is the time travel thing works SO much better in the first movie than how it was originally scripted for II. I suspect this is because by the time they got around to that revision, they were really on a roll ("cooking with gas" if you will), so I think the actual Superman II we could have gotten back then would have been miles better than the Donner Cut or the Lester version. MILES better. But sadly we’ll never know!
The Donner Cut is a rough sketch of what might have been and weird as it is we’re lucky to have it so that we at least have some idea of what Donner wanted to do. I almost feel like maybe there should a cut of Superman 1 that ends with him arresting Luthor maybe put the stuff with him rescuing Mrs. Tessmacher back in and have that as a companion piece to the Donner cut of 2.
@@blackrock316 Not to mention, going back in time to fix every problem is lame. In the original, to save Lois, I get it. But going back in time every time you burn toast, gimme a break. It's the "it was all a dream" kind of ending. Nothing really happened. Nothing matters, because he can always go back in time and change it.
@@prodigioussaps Superman went back in time yet again and erased the events of the third film hence why Lana Lang wasn't in the 4th film as it was revealed at the end of the third that she was employed at the Daily Planet and let us not forget actress Annette O'Toole somehow returning to the WB tv series Smallville as Clarks human mother Lara. Clark you got some Splanin' to do! LOL!🦸🌎🎥🎬
If you can believe a man can fly, you can believe he can do crazy things on earth's rotation without physical consequences, and of course go back in time
The way I've always looked at things is. Superman isn't turning back time by rotating the Earth backward, but he's rotating the Earth backwards because he's flying so fast that he's turning back time. He's changing the rotation, but the rotation isn't what's effecting time. That's how I came to undtand it, even as a kid. I hope that made any sense.
Where does the second Superman go when he time travels back to save Lois? One has to still fix and save everyone, right? Or does the time travelling Superman just let them all die because he saved the one he loved? I've never found a satisfactory way to reconcile this.
@@ciphermatrix there isn’t one. It’s an imperfect depiction. The best we can do is speculate within the context of internal consistency and a dash of physics. Thanos turned back localized time without conflict with his past self. It was later stated that time travel isn’t possible within the same universe. 🤷🏾♂️ Maybe it’s garbage or maybe there is more to it than what we see and understand. After all, we never saw him fix ANYthing. If you’d like your brain to hurt more, consider applying the multiversal time travel theory to Superman (1978): to, the world, Superman left and Clark Kent disappeared the day Lex Luthor won and killed Lois. He’d escaped to another time in another universe, in which he wasn’t too late to save Lois.
I know. The crack isn't appearing in the road, when he lands. How much does he change? Is Hoover dam still in the process of collapsing? What about the bridge? Is that where he needs to go when he takes off?
Moreover, if he can travel back in time whenever he wishes, why don't let something bad happen (i.e. Lois dies in the helicopter crash), observe it, then plan how to prevent it (don't let Lois go into the helicopter), go back in time and act accordingly...? Or go back in time and save his uncle from having a heart attack....
I agree with your interpretation of the scene but why does Lois remember everything that happened up until her death? She talks about power lines falling down in front of her car but didn't Superman prevent that from happening? Great video! Thanks!
Yeah the movie is not very clear on what happened differently the second time around. The only thing that appears to be different is the aftershocks didn’t hit the area where Lois’s car stalled. So we can only use our imagination to fill in the blanks. Cheers and thanks!
Honestly, Superman’s quick changes is actually something I’ve been trying to make sense of moreso than the world going backwards thing. The ability to transform is not part of his power set in the comics and I *think* they’re wanting you to interpret it as him using his Super-Speed but it comes off as transformation. At one point as a kid I even pondered if there was some sort of teleportation device at the Fortress that was beaming his suit to him and storing his Clark Kent gear. 😂
Ha! That’s great. Yeah I think it was probably just because of technological and budgetary reasons that they didn’t really get the super-speed changing thing down. I mean clearly changing his clothes is an issue for him or else he wouldn’t bother opening his shirt and trying to find a suitable phone booth, etc. But anyone should be forgiven for thinking his suit just appears seemingly out of nowhere, because after all that’s exactly what we see.
Yeah usually you would have him run into an alleyway or a storage closet and then cut away after the shirt rip. It’s interesting choice that Donner decided to have his changes all be on-camera.
I thought the moment where he has his cape but is still wearing his pants shows that it's a process. I never had a problem because I read the comics. In the 60s comics, he was as fast or nearly as fast as the Flash and the Flash made those near instantaneous costume changes.
@@richardb6260 Absolutely. It’s not something I actually mind, hell the one in Superman II in the alleyway is awesome and as a fan of the comics myself again I basically know that it’s supposed to be his super-speed but you know can’t help but want to figure it out. Does he have the cape pouch like in the Silver Age and folds his clothes into super tiny size? Is he warping space and time to phase out of his CK gear and back again? Just nerding over it.
@@mattlinkous4356 I decided a while back that there are certain mysteries in life that can't be solved and that is OK with me. Superman's changing into this uniform is one of them. So is what exactly I saw in the vicinity of Vega in 2019, I don't know what that was. (it was a mystery. Let mysteries exist) What about his boots? Could he just squeeze his Clark garments into a small ball so they take no space at all...but what about his shoes? (wouldn't everything become so wrinkled he couldn't wear them?) I personally like Clark Kent's spin in Lois and Clark but in one of the early episodes, he brings his uniform to work in a sports bag (tote) and changes in a bathroom stall. In Superman and Lois they hardly ever show him changing.
To the point about him going back in time removes any real stakes, I never felt that this was the case with the first movie. However, I think the decision to do that in the Donner Cut does remove the stakes. That was a situation where it felt like Superman was presented with a problem that he didn't know how to fix, and so he went back in time to make it so that the problems never happened. In that film, it felt like a cop out that actually made it to where nothing can be a credible threat going forward because if Superman doesn't like how something went, he can just go back in time and fix it. Basically, first time he does it, you are right, it can be a choice to not do it again because he realizes he acted from emotion and did something he shouldn't have done. But the minute you do it a second time, you create a character who never has to face consequences, and that just makes the entire story suddenly very boring.
Great points... yeah, the thing that's remarkable to me is that the way they implemented this time-reversal idea in the first movie was MUCH better than how it was originally scripted for the sequel. I reckon this is the result of Donner and Mankiewicz workshopping ideas together as they did everyday during production. They refined the whole concept collaboratively... which is why it's so heartbreaking to think what Superman II COULD have been if Donner hadn't been let go. They were on a ROLL by this point and really firing on all cylinders. But c'est la vie. (And of course, they only reason they did it again in the Donner Cut was they didn't want to use the Lester magic kiss and didn't have another ending for it. They've said if they had completed production as planned back in '78-79, it wasn't going to be reversing time again.)
Today films go through test audiences and focus groups and everyone fills out their comment cards and if something is said to be confusing or unclear, it gets changed. Not everyone in the audience might have felt that way. But they'd rather dumb it down for the majority of the audience than have something in the film that's open to interpretation. I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey in 1968 when I was 12. It blew me away and I had know idea what the ending meant. Then I read the book and it had more meaning. But the book is a very literal translation of what's on the screen with the added detail that Bowman is in a habitat while he undergoes his transformation. But Clarke was writing the book while the film was still being made and Kubrick kept changing things. Clarke was on a deadline and kept asking when there would be a final cut and Kubrick told him to just write what you want. The book will be your story and the movie will be mine. So, even though there's an explanation for the ending in the book. It's clear Kubrick was saying more on screen. I think it's those more mysterious elements that keep people watching the film over and over. I shudder to think how the film would have turned out if it was subject to audience test groups. Probably more like its sequel, 2010: The Year We Make Contact. I like that movie. But they pretty much spell everything out for the audience. Sometimes literally spelled out with big letters across the screen. 2010 is simply a more of a conventional movie than 2001. Speaking of 2001, there's a scene that I've noticed that audiences get wrong that's similar to the whole "Superman reversing the Earth's spin" situation. When the astronauts are on the moon inspecting the recently unearthed (unmooned?) monolith, they all pose in front if it for a photograph and the monolith sends out the ear piercing signal. Nearly every YT reaction has the reactor saying "Oh, it doesn't want to have it's picture taken". Now there's a shot if the Sun rising just before the picture is taken and, having read the short story by Clarke on which the film is based, I know that the signal is sent out because it was exposed to sunlight for the first time it since it was dug up. But would it be clear if I didn't know that? I think when I first saw it in 1968, I may have thought something similar.
I always wondered if they didn't want us to be entirely puzzled by 2001. I was familiar with the original short story ""The Sentinel" when I saw the movie in 1968 but they had changed a great deal in the context of the movie. They never mention the Astronaut eating his breakfast, as an example. I thought it was the position of the sun above it, or Dr Heywood Floyd touching it's surface that awoke the monolith. When we finally do communicate with aliens, real ones, I mean... we may not have a lot of common ground. They will have been around longer that we have been. More than likely they won't look like us. They somehow succeeded to keep a successful civilization running for many centuries. We will still seem to be infants, more than likely. They may remain an incomprehensible mystery. Our physics will be same, math is universal but how different will be everything else? 2001 keeps the mystery, mysterious. I think (just a theory) that Kubrick was trying to impart that sense of mystery and incomprehensibility in the film. We never even SEE the aliens. Superman is just the opposite. Superman is an alien is so familiar that once he puts on our clothing, he becomes one of us. I like 2010, as much or more, also.
@@kathleenhensley5951 there's a great recent book about the making of 2001 that says that Kubrick intended to show the aliens and experimented with several techniques to show them as being something truly alien. Doug Trumbull goes into detail in the book about some of the methods they tried. But none were found to be satisfactory so Kubrick decided to have the Monolith stand in for the aliens.
Yeah, I've always felt that the audience is seeing the earth from Superman's perspective. He's traveling back in time and he's seeing the earth and everything else going backwards. He's not actually making the earth go backwards! That would be catastrophic! When I was young I thought about there being 2 Supermans around at the same time after he time travelers. But then I felt that he didn't have to worry about meeting himself because his other self was getting rid of the rockets at the same moment that he's standing there with Lous alive. That's why he was late saving her the first time. Since those days, we've been shown the multiverse. Another way to look at that scene is that when he went back in time, it created another time-line. So maybe there isn't another Superman there at all. It created another universe. Who knows. Fun to think about. I do have one question though. Why does Superman have teeth fillings? LOL
Haha, yeah his tooth filling is one several things that has jumped out at me as I've been editing these clips. I can imagine someone somewhere has come up with a silly canon explanation for it.
The intention was to make it look like Superman was turning the Earth backwards and turn time backwards. I don't know if ot was put in place of what he was actually doing because the visual was too difficult to get across, or if the director actually meant the Earth was rotating backwards. But when I was a kid, I thought Superman was rotating it backwards and as I got older I thought it didn't make sense. But I love the movie, so I decided that it's just a visual representation of something else.
Just like in the scene in Transformers the Movie when we see Prime turning grey after he dies, I never for a second thought that that was supposed to be literally happening..but i'd have a hard time trying to convince many tf fans that I'm right.
Absolutely. It's a metaphor. Works well. He is flying at APPROACHING the speed of light, which, relativity tells us, results in time dilation taking place. The issue, though, in doing so, when he gets back to Earth, it would be the future, not the past. Surely?
Well not that it matters for something like this, but apparently there is some wild theory about tachyons and reverse time travel specifically if you exceed the speed of light. 🤷
I never really thought about this until I got older, of course Superman came out when I was 1 year old, and I had it on vhs that we recorded off HBO in the early 80s, so I didn't really see the movies again until the DVDs came out, but yeah, I see now that it was simply a representation of time travel, I mean seriously how do you show time travel, the DeLorean going 88, or the Klingon Bird of Prey slingshotting around the sun... it is difficult to visualize something like time travel that have no point of comparison for.
Yeah, good points -- it's weird to me that a lot of people in the comments keep suggesting that this was a failure by the filmmakers. Brendan and I both think this whole sequence is brilliantly executed. It's very simple and concise. And no one will ever be able to do it again without being accused of ripping this film off.
I have to admit that while I very much enjoyed "Superman: The Movie", I do have a couple of issues with it. First, it tends to drag in a few scenes, thus, making it seem longer than 2 hours and 20 minutes. Second, that time travel scene was offputting to me even when I first saw the film when I was a kid. The film was nearly flawless up until that point, however, towards the end of the movie, Supes is desolated by Lois's death so he decides to go back in time and undo it. But right before he does, we hear a voiceover of Jor-El saying that it is forbidden for him to interfere with human history. Huh? He's already interfering with human history just by being on Earth, regardless if he is time traveling to the past or not. He's made history the moment he first showed up to save Lois the first time around with the helicopter accident situation. In addition, we also hear another voiceover and it is Supes' voice saying, "All those things I can do.... All those powers and I couldn't even save him", referring to his Earth father, Jonathan, and that got me thinking, why doesn't he go back further in time to save his father?!? His father was just as important to him as Lois. That way, he will be preventing the deaths of both Jonathan and Lois in one shot. I'm surprised nobody has even mentioned that part yet. For that matter, why doesn't he also go back in time to prevent a young Lex Luthor boy from becoming a criminal by setting his dad straight? Or go even way back in time to prevent both world wars? You get my point. From an aspiring screenwriter's perspective, time traveling into the past to change history ruins the dramatic tension. In drama there has to be consequences but time travel flys (no pun intended) in the face of those results, it's a stupid gimmick and a copout. As a science fiction and fantasy fan I have no problems suspending my disbelief because it inherently comes with the terrority within the science fiction / fantasy genre. I can let slide the fact that Supes has x-ray / laser vision, super strength / speed, and fly, that's fine, but pulling out the time travel card was really pushing it to the extreme and I wish Hollywood stops using this tired old trope. And while I understand that Superman is mainly fantasy, even the aforementioned genre has to follow certain rules and logic. This scene nearly kills the movie for me, almost but not quite. Thankfully, Supes never does it again in the later installments. It would have been bold to let Lois die and have Supes deal with the loss of someone very close to him because it will make him relatable. Plus, you could end the story in which the Daily Planet hires a new reporter that looks exactly like Lois Lane but it is a new character. Okay, I know, it sounds like a soap opera idea but that would have been better than using time travel. It would have given Supes someone new to interact with and Margot Kidder the chance to play a similar yet new character. While we're on the subject, despite reading a few Superman comic books I am by no means a Superman expert because I've never found the Superman character interesting with all his excessive powers to begin with but I have friends who are and have read many Superman comic books, and they informed me that the whole point of Superman is that he has all these God-like powers but he can't save everybody. Anyway, that's my two cents. I very much enjoyed listening to you guys, Chad and Brendan, you provide some very insightful and intellectually stimulating conversations! I look forward to seeing more of your videos! You just earned a new subscriber! 😎
Man, thanks Julian! And thank you for your very articulate thoughts on the matter, you bring up a lot of good points. Will have more to say later, just wanted to show my appreciation 👊
@prodigioussaps Thank you Chad and Brendan for the kind words! 😁 I appreciate you guys as well! 👍🏻 I also understand where you guys are coming from and you've made some good points on why this scene works to the film's benefit. I will admit that I tend to be a time travel Grinch, I despise it in general because time travel stories are hard to do and don't make any sense. The only acception to this rule are time travel stories that resolve the grandfather paradox via parallel timelines / universes. And I give shows like Doctor Who, Voyagers!, and Quantum Leap a pass because their entire premise is based on time travel. Please keep me posted on your next live chat and I will be there! 😉
By the way, have either of you noticed when Clark jumps out the window and his costume appears, he's still wearing Clark’s pants and dress shoes when the top half of his costume appears?
YES! Thank you for mentioning that. I've been laughing at that in the edit everytime I use that clip, and I'm repeatedly kicking myself that neither of us noticed it before we did the episode about the first movie. Rest assured it will come up at some point. It's really funny. Imagine if he showed up at Luthor's lair with slacks on.
This whole 'time-travel backwards' thing - in Superman: The Movie - is fine by me. Of course it has no basis in any (currently known) science, it is complete bunkum from that point of view. But so what? It's emotional heart of the movie, it's from a comic, it's wonderful: and I love it! Justify it any which way you like - if this is seriously anyone's main issue with this movie... A man who can fly just because he is near our Sun? Come on!!
And another point you guys made. If Superman can do this, clearly he is overpowered and he can do this whenever he wants to. Well, in the Richard Donner version of Superman 2, he does this again and sends Zod and gang back into the Phantom Zone. This gets a bit unrealistic and less heroic of Superman to do. When he goes back to the fortress after saving Lois from the helicopter accident, Jor'El talks to Superman about the burden of being a hero and what he must do. He also cautioned him about vanity and because of it, Krypton's population ceased to exist because they thought they were indestructible, even godly. And another point, Superman's energy is not limitless. He does get tired if he expends a lot of energy. Don't forget, he was exposed to Kryptonite for the first time for a long while and then still performed the feats he did not at full strength.
Orrr, it's showing that Superman in his guilt tried to fly so fast that he could catch up to himself (thhs needing to go in a circle) and kick his own butt, only to acfidentally break the Multiversal barrier, repeatedly, which happens to show each new universe's Earth at what happens to be a slightly different rotation/position, and then once he realizes whats happened and spots this parallel Lois still being alive and so prevents her suffering his Lois' fate, which he does. And luckily for him this Earth has no Superman anymore so he's able to stay and take the place if its Clark Kent. Seems pretty obvious to me actually.
The fact is no one know exactly how time travel backwards through time would actually work if it were possible, there are theories but they are just that theories. Until time travel is actually made possible and proven no one would really know for certain. Till then movies depict it on different ways to help visualize it whether based in true science or not, it is just a way to visually show it to the audience usually in an artistic way. It is fun to have the discussions on whether or not it would actually work in the way shown, but in the end you are discussing and artistic representation of it.
I'm late to the party here, but here's the detail that I can't square with your explanation: if it was really a simple matter of Superman flying so fast that he's travelling back in time, then why woukd the movie go out of its way to specifically show him circling AGAINST the rotation of the Earth to reverse time, then specifically show him switch directions to correct its rotation again? If it's just a matter of speed to travel through time, why does he need to switch directions halfway through?
Because visually it helps clue the audience into what's happening. "Oh, he's going back in time" or "he's causing time to run in reverse". The mechanics really don't matter in the end. That's kind of our point really... getting hung up on the mechanics to the point that it ruins the movie is unnecessary and a damn shame (not saying that's the case for you, but many people in the comments have said that). Interpreting it the way we describe is just more satisfying, IMO. So in a nutshell: Does it look as though he's reversing the Earth's rotation? Of course it does, that's how it's scripted and that's how they shot it. Does that mean you're required to interpret it 100% literally? I say NAY! 😀 Thanks for chiming in 👊
Hey Saps. I like you guys I value your opinions, and as I'm sure you guessed I am a huge fan of Christopher Reeve Superman! I wanted to ask just random, if Christopher Reeve had been in Star Wars, wich character can you see him as, Han or Luke? I personally would have to go with Luke Skywalker on that one. I read online that Reeve had lobbied to play Westley in Princess Bride, ironically, Cary Elwes when he was 15 got his first job as a crew member on Superman 1 and Marlon Brando called him Rocky!
Oh man! Luke Skywalker would be my first thought, since the characters are closest in their idealistic nature. But I could also see Reeve doing Han Solo. I think he would have had a blast playing up the smarmy, smart-assery stuff... his turn as "asshole superman" in III made me think of that. And THANK YOU Buddy, appreciate you! Cheers
The logic of the whiners is just asinine. "Superman is impervious to any damage." ...ok.... "Superman can fly with no means of propulsion". ok " Superman can project x-rays and heat beams from his eyes." "ok" "Superman can freeze things with his breath, or emit beyond hurricane force wind". "ok" "Superman has unlimited strength". - "Ok" "Superman can run at unlimited speed". "Ok" Superman can fly so fast, he goes back in time. "WHAAATT??? ARRGHH! GAHHH! WAHHH! That's impossible!!!! Whiners can F-off and consume feces already.
It would have been better if Superman stopped the second nuclear missile from impacting California after going back in time. It would have made more sense that way.
If only Richard Donner stayed as the director and did part 1 and 2 his way where the ending of part 1 is when he sends a missle to space and breaks the phantom zone to release the villains and part 1 would have ended in a To be continued. Part 2 would have ended with Superman turning back time.
Well they changed the ending of the first movie before he was fired. That was his idea to do that, so I wouldn’t want that to be different, personally. But yes it’s a damn shame he got let go when he did. Not only was he unable to finish Superman II… he and Mankiewicz had already started working on ideas for III and IV as well. It’s heartbreaking to hear them talk about it in interviews.
It would be an interesting issue----IF NOT FOR THE TWO UNACCOUNTED FOR NUCLEAR MISSILES!!!!! Why does no one wonder what happened to the missiles? Sure he turned the world back, but we never saw what the hell he did to make everything right; that always vexed me as a kid---what the hell even happened? Turning the world back is a trivial matter, I assumed he was surpassing light speed because he seemed to become light himself (I was only 11).
Well based what Lois and Jimmy say after he turns back time, the earthquake still happened, meaning the second missile still struck. In the end apparently the only thing he did differently was prevent Lois's death. We still don't know exactly what he did, so yeah it's puzzling.
Thank you, you're the first person to ignore the confusion and explain the logic that I just couldn't see through--and neither could anyone else, they'd just get irritated and say "I dunno, it's just a movie"
The explanation you give that it was actually FTL speed what turned time back and not the reverse rotation, is a more elegant one, and you can believe it if you like, and I like that explanation better (for science geeks as myself), but.... The literal interpretation is better for the dramatic effect on the scene. Superman making the earth rotate backwards with his superpowers, literally, adds more to the drama for Louse's death, mere FTL travel, doesn't do it.
That’s cool man, the important thing is that it resonates with you. The literal interpretation feels too much like sorcery to me, which isn’t really a Superman thing IMO. Traveling faster than light by sheer force of will still sounds pretty dang dramatic to me.
@@prodigioussaps well, the filmakers took their liberties to make that scene, I'm not into comics, so maybe that's why I'm ok with it, even if it's ridiculous (well it is) but for the scene it works for me. Found your channel through youtube's recommendation for this video btw.
Cool! Yeah it’s all ridiculous. The comics stuff we talk about really boils down to esthetics, different ways to tell fantastical stories. Superhero comics are kinda of like pulp sci-fi, fantasy and mythology all mashed together.
Not fond of that part - I mean, I love the scene because Margot’s performance is so good, but the idea that Clark couldn’t just allow her to work through her grief like an adult is weird, IMO.
@@prodigioussaps Yes but in Superman 4 after Clarks near suicide with Lois she remembers everything untl after there Superflight together once again putting her into a trance and she forgets again LOL! 🦸🤯🤷🙆♂
@@SuperMarioBrosIII Yeah jeez that was awkward. I remember theorizing when IV came out that maybe Lois had just been pretending to forget the whole time, and was just humoring Superman until that moment.
All I can say, they were real close to making this make sense _if_ they intended for him to travel back in time by going faster than light. I never saw this scene as he literally spinning the planet backwards because 1, he's too far and 2, it would be an even worse explanation using atmospheric drag to spin the planet backwards... I only question the intentionality of the writer. Not your explanation. Your explanation makes perfect sense until he goes 180° and and goes fast _again_ to slow down the temporal momentum. My point is, his spacetime manipulation is pure movie magic. Superman might not be using the speed of light to do that. He's doing something else that doesn't need an explanation, because it's a movie... In short, I just think the writer didn't think about the speed of light idea. He just wanted to visually show superman doing _a thing_ to go back in time
Yeah they don't explain that bit... you kind of have to call on head-canon to fill in the blanks. I just assume he must have dipped back in time just far enough to do something to prevent the aftershocks from reaching Lois. But it's not that big of deal to me, really.. fun to think about, though.
Hot take: Superman (1978) is a FAR better movie than 2001: A Space Odyssey. Heck, one of its knockoffs is better: Star Trek: The Motion Picture. 2001 was drier than ashy elbows! I'm ready for the pitchforks... Oh & I think it's a visual representation of time travel, not a literal one. The visual of the Earth rotating backward is just that: him going backward. And while it's not my favorite scene, I think it works because of Reeve, the effects & equally as important as Reeve: JOHN WILLIAMS! You don't even need the scene on the screen. Just listen to the track & it's straight 🔥🔥🔥
👍Great take on it. I love Star Trek: The Motion Picture as well. You’re totally right about the music! John Williams elevated that film to another plane, just as he did with Star Wars, Indiana Jones, et al. But that Superman score is something special for sure.
The problem wasn't so much the effect of going back in time, it was the blah nothing scene after the event there was no real resolution to the plot, it came across as a big nothing.
I'm not sure exactly but I think it should have involved a resolution, that would have involved him finding a way to prevent the missiles from striking at all then fading away as the new timeline continues
Jor-El is the Father/God. Kal-El is the Son/Christ. El-ohim, the Sons God. The greatest story of all time. That's what it's loosely based on in my humble opinion, though heavily altered of course.😂😂
I personally not only didn't have any qualms with your assertions made in the last video, at all. In fact, I really, REALLY liked it, and felt a little dopey for not considering it on my own. The only thing I didn't like was the snarky delivery, the "duhhhh" insulting mockery of people who have the world-spin-back opinion was... well... exactly as rude in the other direction as the "nerds" and "it's just a movie" crowd. Had you not felt the need to include that, your original video would have been perfect. With it, it's not. Great (probably even true) theory, rotten delivery.
I’m sorry, that’s just our sense of humor. It’s not meant to be taken that seriously. Those “nerd” comments you mention actually didn’t offend us at all. That’s why I included them, they’re funny. But anyway If our kind of sass bothers you, you’ve got the wrong channel, because we’re not going to alter our sense of humor. Appreciate your honesty though.
@@prodigioussaps Yeah, my sensitivity is in how there's enough anger and pointless meanness and othering these days, and people like me come to places and discussions like this in hopes to escape some of it, but here it is too. You know? It strikes me as a topic that should be a reason to bring fans together, not celebrating the division. But again, that's just me. Just get me to fucking mid-november! UGH!
I really don't understand how people think that Superman is spinning the Earth when we just don't see him do that. We clearly see him fly around it. And also why would spinning the Earth turn back time?
He flew so fast doing the earth he made it spin backwards, and thus reversed time. When he re-winded the earths time enough, he reverse reversed course, and flew the opposite way round the earth, to get it spinning the right way again, so that made time move forward again at normal speed. Edit: he didn’t literally spin the earth with his hands using his muscles. The speed by which he was flying caused a gravitational pull that made the earth spin the opposite way. Either that, or the flying caused like a wind like a hurricane but much stronger, that blew the earth in the different direction.
@@RichieW90210That doesn't make sense. But then again, neither does his flying. It completely ignores the most basic laws of physics. And that's fine in a fantasy.
@@RichieW90210 Why would spinning the Earth to the other direction reverse time? That's ridiculous. He flew around the Earth and since he passed the speed of light he went back in time.
It goes against the principle but I can't hold back----for those who believe he's just rotating the world back and forth, that would kill just about everything on Planet Earth. Unless you believe it's like a god power and he's also magically fixing things as he does it; I wouldn't like that idea but I'd accept it in an argument (if the fan was adamant enough). It's such a shame they don't know how to do Superman anymore, they really don't know what to do with him, too scared of this shitty quasi-political climate to allow legends or real story telling on the screen---this was written by the guy who wrote The Godfather!
Well Mario Puzo wrote the first couple drafts. Tom Mankiewicz wrote the final shooting script we're familiar with. The turning back time thing was Tom's.
@@prodigioussaps Yeah, but the STORY was Puzo. You're missing the point; if you sell this to a friend who thinks caped heroes are dumb, are you gonna say "I think it's good, honest" or are you gonna say "Well, the story was conceived by Mario Puzo." "Fuck off was it." "Yip, doesn't seem so dumb now, does it?" (That's a messy example but you see what I'm getting at, it sold me as a kid, as all kids in my school had already seen the Godfather 1 and 2).
@@prodigioussaps Tom effing Mankiewicz may shine even more than Puzo, but your mates would say, "Who? Nah, I'll give it a miss," and then probably start talking about Godfather 2---so everyone misses out. Trust me, saying badass Godfather dude wrote a Superman movie is the best selling point (and did I mention it's the only good Superman movie, though no. 2 is good for a laugh, with its camp villains).
The truth is that he turned back the world... This is evident in the soundtrack to Superman the movie written by John Williams. That is literally the title that was given to the music for that scene. Williams who works close to the director obviously.
@@prodigioussaps I didn't say it did. I am just putting my input as to what I see. I have always wondered why, if he went back in time, things were different? Maybe a third scenario... He went to a mirror universe where Lois Survived because she did see the earthquake but was never hit by the earthquake that originally killed her. So why did history change? He didn't stop the bomb hitting the fault in Cali, but things were different. It would have better explained it if it showed him saving her before the earth breaking apart swallowed her up. But when her car wasn't starting is where we first see him showing up.
NOW you’re talking! Those are fun theories. The stuff you point out though speaks to why I’m not satisfied with just taking everything we see in stark literal terms. You’re right, we don’t see what he changed to save her. So it can’t just be what we’re shown. But, I don’t think they needed to show us, really. Asking these questions is more fun, and the movie ends in this confidently weird way that I find really hard to poke holes in. I mean, I do anyway, but it doesn’t diminish my love for the film. Cheers 👊
It's not the part where everything rewinds as it spins the opposite direction, that alone could work as a visual metaphor for moving back in time. If that's all it was, he wouldn't need to fly really fast in the opposite direction to get the planet rotating the right way. I know you address it briefly (a bit too briefly since that really is the core problem with alternate explanations as it is quite easy to explain away the first part, not so much the second) but it really feels like coming up with convoluted explanations to explain away that what's actually happening on screen isn't what's actually happening, a lot of which feel like modern interpretations of time travel and not something filmmakers making the first big budget comic book superhero film in 1978 would have come up with. You bring up other movies like 2001 and even other scenes in this movie to justify an alternate explanation, but I don't feel like they apply here. In those instances, it's deliberately vague so it actually requires you to fill in the gaps. This wasn't vague, they show you exactly how it's happening. If it wasn't meant to be interpreted literally, it wouldn't have been presented in such a literal way, it would have been presented in a more abstract way. Even just the first half of the scene would be abstract enough, but they take that extra step to make sure you see what's going on. You bring up the Fortress training sequence, that was an abstract way of showing what happened over a decade compressed into a few minutes, that's a lot different to showing exactly what's happened. While I agree that not everything has to be spoon-fed to an audience, when it actually IS, as it was in this case, its not secretly something else.
Incorrect, Superman turned the entire planet back in time. The water reversed back into the damn. All the explosions reverted back into stable molecules. All the destruction and displaced people were safe back at home. The missle never launched. The earthquake never happened. Lois was stranded on the cleanest road I've ever seen, with her car, and the sky was completely blue. Superman didn't go back in time, to the moment she was being buried alive, and then pull her out before it was too late. Maybe I should get my own channel so I can help clear up situations like this one? 🤔
It made no sense. Why didn't the same things that already happened just happen again? Why didn't Lois get killed all over again? The original script was written by Mario Puzo, the author of The Godfather. Puzo took this movie very seriously and wrote it like a Greek tragedy in which Lois dies. Superman must accept that despite all his power, even he can't reverse death. This was considered *too* tragic, so other writers were brought in to make the movie more fun. I see their point, but they turned a serious movie into a goofy circus with goofy people. Superman is goofy, Luthor is goofy, Lois is goofy. It was maddening. So sad. An opportunity to tell a serious entertaining story was lost.
Writing a character to have resurrection power is extremely problematic in terms of storytelling. You basically have no stakes, because if someone dies you can simply bring them back to life. The audience has no reason to fear for anyone's safety. Death must be final in storytelling. If it isn't nothing threatening in the story matters. Also, it does not look good to have Superman value one human life above the rest. I understand he loved Lois on a level that goes deeper than his general compassion for the people of earth. However, if he is willing to break the law for her he should do the same for anyone else who needs it. The favoritism he gave Lois suggests he would save her first in any situation and help others in danger second. If saving Lois meant another person had to die he would let that person die because he can't be without the love of his life. Superman is supposed to be better than that. He can't allow himself to put one woman's life above the rest of the people on earth. He moved the entire planet for her completely disregarding how it would effect other people.
@@prodigioussaps Aaron Price has worked very hard in restoring and remastering scenes from Superman IV: The Quest For Peace. He has made a plea with WB to grant him permission to restore the whole film including the deleted scenes giving the film the finess that the original release was lacking. But they have yet to respond. He as even redone the opening sequence in HD 4K recently and it is fantastic! Retitling it Superman IV: The Director's Cut! It is on his youtube channel. 🦸🦹🦸♂🦹♂
Hang on, you guys are wrong. Because he flew so fast he went back in time, that is the claim, and that the way they represented that to us was to show the earth spin backwards. Ok I’ll buy your premise there. But it falls down unfortunately, because we then see him fly the opposite way, to get the earth spinning the correct way round again. So in conclusion, your premise is wrong. He was just flying round the earth so fast he re-winded it. And when it was rewound enough, he changed direction to have it spin the rig he way again, so that time moves forward again.
Yeah, the fact he over-shot his target time by some 9500% is a bit problematic. I still tend to believe they're right about the whole "speed of time" thing, but there clearly is something off about it's delivery if it's truly, truly intended to be taken as such.
As one of the audience of this movie in the 1970s (I was 27, by the way) NO I was not more intelligent. I did though, know it was science fiction and suspend my disbelief, at least, some. I had questions when i thought about it, later, but there was something about watching it on the BIG screen that made it special. Over-powering?
Considering the havoc that suddenly reversing the Earth's rotation would have upon the surface of the planet, Superman would have a whole lot more to save than just Lois.
I mean, to the people saying that that's not how time travel works...okay. That's not how flight works, either. Yet you'll believe a man can fly. And let's not get started on x-ray vision, breathing in space, or the infamous disguise. Or, you know, the fact that in literally the previous scene you've got him reversing tectonic fractures by going underground and pushing.
There are all kinds of ways to appreciate a film, but Superman really isn't the franchise to try to make rigidly adhere to the laws of physics and logic.
I would fully agree with your interpretation ... IF ... He didn't have to start flying the other way to "return the earth to rotating forward". If this was a means of visually showing "He is going back in time" there is NO reason to show him "restoring the earth to spinning forward". I 100% believe that's what the film makers intended us to interpret - he spins the earth backwards to roll back time, then returns the flow of time forward. Funny, the script tells neither scenario...
ok but if the earth suddenly stopped rotating right now, and then started rotating the other way, we wouldn't go back in time....
@@neutrino78x Right - we know that doesn't cause time travel. But the movie is IMHO inferring that is the case. The question is - was the spinning earth a means of CONVEYING time travel or intended to mean spinning the earth backwards would turn back time. I believe it is the latter (a work of fiction after all) because there is a purposeful showing of "restoring" the earth's rotation.
@@Darkuni
" But the movie is IMHO inferring that is the case."
Nah. It's just being used to convey the idea that Superman is traveling through time.
"The question is - was the spinning earth a means of CONVEYING time travel"
I feel like this interpretation is that of common sense, although I suppose you can interpret the movie however you like.
"because there is a purposeful showing of "restoring" the earth's rotation."
Yes, but I think most of us would see that as "ok, I went too far backward, now I'm going to go forward a bit".
10:32 They actually address this fact about him starting to spin the other way.
He obviously overflew the time he was trying to get to so he then had to go forward in time to get to when he was trying to get to. Which is why the representation of flying in the opposite direction.
I remember as a 10 year old the excitement of going to see this movie in Jan 79,. Now 56 year old me almost going full circle and in a way closure next weekend as I look forward to going back to the theatre to see Super/man , Chris reeves story .
I'm 57 and i think i'll watch it privately. We both know why☹
in addition, the reason Superman is flying around the earth is to watch exactly how much time he is going back. he makes sure to watch so that he does not go back to far.
Yep, I like that idea as well. We feature a comment that touches on that idea at 11:33
One thing I've noticed in recent times... time travel in general just melts peoples brains.
Wuuuh?
Superman reversing time is the least craziest thing he's done.
Certainly not as crazy as the magic mind erasing kiss at any rate.
I was today years old when I realized you don't have to take the world spinning scene literally... and I thank you for it!!
Thank YOU sir! Cheers 👊
5:08 Loving that Mankiewicz is mentioned in the same breath with Donner.
That moved me, even though they’re both gone. I feel both were underrated.
I found out something about Donner, he directed some of the early "Wild Wild West" episodes. That surprised me.
Yeah, gotta give props to "Mank". He's like the McCartney to Donner's Lennon.
Another thought - if Supes can fly fast enough to go back in time (FTL), how come earlier on he's not fast enough to catch the two nuclear missiles - which Luthor even taunts him about, and which proves to be true?? That's a pretty big plot hole right there!
There's an app for that... I mean, a video: ua-cam.com/video/haTCh_HVShI/v-deo.html
We present a couple of possiible answers in it, and people chime in with a bunch of great answers in the comments.
Well you could argue he is still suffering effects of Kryptonnate when going after the rockets by the time of lois death he is fully recovered hence now at full power again and fast enough he can go back in time. Not perfect I know but....
it’s about trying to
If he were literally turning the earth around, that wouldn't work because there is nothing but vacuum between him and the earth. So there is nothing to create drag to pull the earth. It would have no effect at all. Obviously there is some kind of timey physics going on.
8:39 I keep wondering about what it would’ve been like if Lois found out what he did for her.
Wow. You briefly addressed it while I was typing.
But I would be interested in the emotional impact to her if she found out what he did. For her.
I would guess that version of Lois Lane never learns what he did... "moving heaven and earth" to preserve her life. Superman definitely wouldn't have told her. It could only deepen her love for him and add gratitude to the list of her feelings about her friend. Long lasting love is a mix of gratitude, real passion, intellectual enjoyment, recognized similarity, curiosity and friendship, so he would become, literally, the love-of-her-life. The Romance between Superman and Lois was supposed to be almost unrequited back then, at least, that is how I understood it. It was a surprise to me when they did have their moments of passion in the second movie, but that was a time when things were changing in societal norms and I thought it definitely appropriate. They implied in the later movies that they would never marry. But in the recent versions they actually do Lois and Clark (1990s) Smallville (early 2000s) Superman and Lois (2020s) and I understand a series of comics was about the family life of the Kents.
Thanks for the insightful discussion. You brought up some things that have troubled me for decades and made them much clearer.
You made the movie better for me.
Thanks so much for telling us, that's great to hear!
I agree with your interpretation and it addresses my long time issue with the notion that he was spinning the earth backward to reverse time, which doesn’t work for many obvious reasons. Although having watched video commentary, it’s unclear that the film makers even had a clear perspective on what exactly what was supposed to be happening.
We kids who saw it at the time knew it was just a visual representation. Silver and Bronze Age Supes would travel through time all the time back, in the day.
Incorrect, Superman turns the whole planet back in time. All the water goes back in the dam, dam repaired, all the explosions fold back inside their molecular bindings, all the property damage and displaced people are safe at home, the nuclear missile never launches, Lois and her car is just sitting on the road and the sky is blue. Superman didn't just go back in time to the moment she was being buried and pull her out a hole. Maybe I should get my own channel so I can help cats see the obvious 🤔
@@onemanalone1493 He's not turning the planet back in time, he himself is traveling back in time. (I agree with terriercomics)
Great points! I really like what you are saying about that scene. It makes sense. Of course, the changing scene mid air, but Superman can act so fast it would seem like magic to a human observer. I do remember the way they portrayed time travel in the comics back when I still read comics. Yes, when I was in the theater in 1978 that surrealistic trip from Krypton reminded me of 2001. Definitely.. so did his training in the Fortress. 2001 was an incredible movie, still is, if you aren't a jaded old man or woman. It was an attempt to portray 'first contact' in the most serious way possible. Arthur C. Clarke was always a very weird author, a favorite of mine, I always wondered If I really understood his work. He left a lot unsaid. He was supposed to be an Atheist but he wrote some nearly mystical stories and Novellas. He had a perspective that would cause me to catch my breath a moment, put down book.. anyone watching could have seen a question mark appear above my head.
Your discussions remind me of my debates with my husband. We were still debating differences between the Lord of the Rings books vs. the Movies in 2019.
I'm 73 and I've never grown up . Growing up is highly over-rated, so is being serious, all the time. Life is short, painful and difficult. Laugh sometimes. Oh, maturing into an adult is necessary. But being too sophisticated to enjoy a good romance or Superhero movie is just pathetic. That is how minds die. Nihilism will just depress you and make you wish for death.. It's a dead end. . Don't go there. If you can't clap when Clark Kent first changes into Superman to save the love of his life.. well, that's just sad.
When I was a kid and watched the movie at movie theater and also rewatched it on TV, I never really cared that turning the Earth backwards could turn back time. I also didn't care that Lois was dead, lol. You know. A kid like 7, 8 years old. I just remember loving the movie. When I was a teenager, turning the Earth backwards and turning back time was really stupid, lol. But I could understand his sadness over Lois' death better. Now, watching your video, I finally understand what Donner and Mankiewicz did in their way of showing us that he is traveling through time. Good point.
I totally agree that over-analysing the turning-the-world-back thing ruins the sentiment that Superman is willing to give it all up for Lois. Remember, he literally gives it all up in Superman 2.
I’m your 69th like… nice. Honestly love the analysis you guys go into as it either affirms what I believe or opens my mind to things I didn’t realise or never would have thought of
Hahaa! Man thanks James! That means the world to us.
My theory is Superman had a low level form of magic. He’s doing Bing that he’s doing things that only mystical Bing or people who have control or can manipulate magic can do. Such as you know the S on his chest and him magically manifesting is costume on his body. This is really cool stuff. Just subscribed, notifications bell on!!!
Cheers, thanks Jordan!
There is a part in this video where you guys said, "there is no explanation or narration to explain what is going on." Looking at the title Superman the Movie, it had to evolve from the comic narration because in the comics, there is a narrator filling in the gaps of what the characters are doing. But in a movie, sure you can use narration, nothing wrong with that, but for Superman, it had to be a movie, not a moving comic book. And you guys are correct in your statement. Love the videos by the way.
Thanks Tyrone! Yeah for me this is one of the reasons why what Donner accomplished was so important for the genre. He was the first person to really “get it” as far as how comic books can be adapted to film. Took quite awhile for Hollywood to catch up with him, I think in part because the kids inspired by that film had to finish growing up first. Cheers man! Always enjoy your comments.
love you guys, thanks for the explanations
Cheers Victor! Appreciate you
I watched this film daily as a boy (born in ‘84) and I never, until seeing your interpretation, realized it was a metaphor. I guess I just never thought about it. The course correction, while I love the term, doesn’t make much sense. If he over shoots, he can go grab coffee and wait it out if he’d rather not use that time to stop the second missile.
Just found your channel because of the OG video, and I 100% agree. Film, itself, is a magic trick - using still images to convey movement. Richard Donner, as director, had to work within the confines of the budget and technology of the time to best present the story. Everyone agrees the scene shows Superman 'going back in time and undoing what happened' - but they get caught up in the details of HOW it's been presented. But that's not the point. It's art. It's quasi-abstract. No one knows what time travel looks like. (let alone if its even possible) For simplicity, they show the Earth spinning as Superman zips around in orbit. Is he moving the Earth back in time? Or himself? Or time itself? That doesn't matter. It conveys the point in a visually pleasing way, and that's all that matters.
It reminds me of an argument Alfred Hitchcock used when making Lifeboat (1944). Hitchcock didn't want ANY musical score, thinking it ruined the 'reality' of the scene and said something to the effect of "they're stranded on a lifeboat. Where would you fit an orchestra?" To which a composer replied "you couldn't fit in the camera, lights, director, etc. either." It's just a movie. Presentation is not necessarily diegetic/in-canon.
Film is definitely a magic trick. It fools the mind into immersing itself into a story for 2 hours, that is, the best movies, do. I miss theaters for that reason, watching a movie at home just isn't the same.
Expertly put, thanks!
I saw it as a kid in the 70s and still get chills when i hear williams' theme. Love that you guys finally fixed my only gripe with this masterpiece. Thank you! And who's the skinny guy on the left?😂
Hahahaaa!!! Ooo bonus points for BB! Thanks, appreciate you.
I always thought the line about him being forbidden to interfere with human history was a bit weird. They kept hammering that home as if that was his prime directive. Not, "don't use your power for evil," or "don't kill people." Reminds me of the ten commandments, where I'm like. "Really?!?! That's it? God couldn't be bothered to say something like, 'Don't own people as property?'"
Of course, if you've read the silver age comics, Superman was constantly breaking the time barrier with his super speed, although in the comics, they showed a line of calendar pages.
Yep! We mentioned that in the last video, and how that wouldn't really translate to film... and it certainly wouldn't have fit the tone Donner was going for. I do so love that old goofy stuff, though.
I have more of an issue with the kryptonian council suddenly being in the crystal recordings. It was only his father whom made them, against the will of the council.
The council itself were haughty, pompous pricks so no sadness for causing their own planet's destruction, but they would NOT have crystal recordings to help Kiel (or however you spell his name).
If Superman goes back in time....what about the Superman who is already there? Can a person REALLY pick up a car by its bumper? The scene with Clark Kent with Superman's costume just appearing can be explained by super speed, but Superman can't rebuild the Wall of China with his eyes. Clearly something was done to bring costs down, or the producers simply don't know the character.
Haha oh man, yeah Superman IV is a train wreck! That wall-rebuilding thing is way sillier than anything Lester did in Superman II.
@@prodigioussaps I read that they were going to show Superman rebuilding the wall with his super speed, but they ran out of money.
Even as a kid that scene took me right out of the film… about a man who I believed could fly - but I grew up and got it was visually illustrating going back in time - but as a kid I was confused and didn’t get why he didn’t just fly her back to fortress of solitude and use a special crystal to bring her back to life - but as an adult I realise that wouldn’t have been so super
I've always interpreted it as when Superman reversed time by spinning around the earth it caused the very force of the explosion to stop at the point that he had stopped and went back the other direction - returning the rotation back to normal. This allowes jimmy to be still saved from falling off the bridge by superman but also allowing lois to survive due to the effects of hurricane no longer reaching her.
I've always known, even as a kid of 11 that even slowing up the earth's rotation would be catastrophic, so I've always had issues with turning it backwards, and quite how flying round the earth would cause such a pulling force in the opposite direction. I've never considered that you're seeing him fly as fast, if not faster than light, and this having a temporal effect of going back in time.
I've known since a kid you can go 7.5 times round the world in a second at light speed, so i've even tried to count his rotations in a second, and technically he is going faster than light.
I'm now choosing to go with your theory, that what we are seeing is TIME going backwards, not the earth physically. That just feels easier to digest.
Now all I have to do is fly round the earth, and go back in time and tell my younger self to not sweat it so much.
His scream still curdles my blood, and it's a fantastic scene
I love this movie SO MUCH! I've actually had parts of the soundtrack going through my head for the past weeks. For me it was a masterpiece that shouldn't be scrutinized in a technical way, but we must accept that it works in its own universe. There are so many technical inconsistencies that examining them would ruin the movie.
I love it too. My #1 favorite movie of all time. You're totally right about the technical inconsistencies, so just proceed with caution because we LOVE talking about that stuff.
Well materialising clothes is very much one of his powers in the Salkind movies.
I mean Supergirl materialises an entire school uniform complete with backpack.
I think we have to rely on a contemporary actor here when Mark Hamill is wondering about continuity in Star Wars, Harrison Ford answers "Hey kid, it ain't that kind of movie"
Yikes. Yeah… well, important distinction there is that Mark is a total comic book nerd, while Harrison most definitely is not. I stand with Hamill. 🫡
After I had seen this the first time, I was 15 years old, my older sister took me to see it a second time because I was ravong about how great it was.
She mentioned both the clothes change scene and the World spinning backwards scene, claiming that would destroy the world if he did that.
At that age I didn't even question it, so I explained it to her. It was very simple I said "as for changing his clothes he did it so quickly you couldn't even see him move, somewhere between the time he jumped and the time he flew off in his tights and cape."
"As for the time thing he didn't move the world, it just showed it from his perspective" I said. I then went on to say "I believe he created a temporary double( a time shadow), though it didn't show this the double sealed up the San Andreas fault line while the original was saving people from the impact. Then went on and helped other people in trouble from the aftershocks but they weren't nearly as bad because the time shadow had sealed up the fault line way sooner by never letting the large section of earth (the one it showed him lifting the first time around) fall in the first place. and he basically caught up with the original one moments before landing next Lois's car, which would be near the exact time frame for which he had left in the first place thus,avoiding a lingering time shadow and still saving everyone in California from the aftershocks and no one wiser the time had been altered slightly."
That is my take on the situation
Awesome. I wish they would have referenced the time travel and the presence of at least 2 Supes. Or that he flew back far enough to stop the missiles. I love the no interference rule, because Jor-El interfered by leaving Superman there in the first place.
Well what's the deal with his super amnesia kiss, then? Is that an artistic representation of him super-speed roofying Lois? 😂😂
Yeah basically. I pretty much despise that plot device, but I do love their performances in that scene.
I think that those twelve years in the Fortress of Solitude would be the thing they show in Smallville, so he's in the fortress and all that knowledge comes to him as a means of "virtual reality experience". So I coincide in the idea that Superman didn't leave Earth all that time.
I saw the movie in the theater when I was 5 years old. I never thought he was physically turning the planet earth around. I just thought it was their way to visualize time travel. And he turned around and flew the other way because he would have been in the past. So he needed to travel back to the point he left.
Yes, thank you. It always seemed pretty simple to me! Cheers.👊
I don’t think it’s beyond the pre crisis man of steel to time warp the Earth.
Donner filmed both movies at the time but didn't trust the Salkinds and believed he had only one chance at this. Reversing time was the original ending for the second movie. Lois wasn't supposed to die.
I didn't have an issue with him going back in time in Superman: the movie, but for Donner's cut of Superman 2, I had an issue with it. I understand he wasn't able to finish Superman 2, but after he went back in time, he went to the diner to get revenge on the truck driver and it's after he went back in time. I didn't have an issue with it at first until multiple rewatches.
Yeah that is a messy moment. It gets weirder, because that’s actually how Mankiewicz had it scripted before they changed the ending of the first movie. So they really hadn’t thought the time travel implications through very well at that point. But yeah, if Donner had been able to finish it way back when, that wouldn’t have been the case. Thing is the time travel thing works SO much better in the first movie than how it was originally scripted for II. I suspect this is because by the time they got around to that revision, they were really on a roll ("cooking with gas" if you will), so I think the actual Superman II we could have gotten back then would have been miles better than the Donner Cut or the Lester version. MILES better. But sadly we’ll never know!
The Donner Cut is a rough sketch of what might have been and weird as it is we’re lucky to have it so that we at least have some idea of what Donner wanted to do. I almost feel like maybe there should a cut of Superman 1 that ends with him arresting Luthor maybe put the stuff with him rescuing Mrs. Tessmacher back in and have that as a companion piece to the Donner cut of 2.
Ouch. Never thought about that.
@@blackrock316 Not to mention, going back in time to fix every problem is lame. In the original, to save Lois, I get it. But going back in time every time you burn toast, gimme a break. It's the "it was all a dream" kind of ending. Nothing really happened. Nothing matters, because he can always go back in time and change it.
@@prodigioussaps Superman went back in time yet again and erased the events of the third film hence why Lana Lang wasn't in the 4th film as it was revealed at the end of the third that she was employed at the Daily Planet and let us not forget actress Annette O'Toole somehow returning to the WB tv series Smallville as Clarks human mother Lara. Clark you got some Splanin' to do! LOL!🦸🌎🎥🎬
He would turn back the world for her.
If you can believe a man can fly, you can believe he can do crazy things on earth's rotation without physical consequences, and of course go back in time
The way I've always looked at things is. Superman isn't turning back time by rotating the Earth backward, but he's rotating the Earth backwards because he's flying so fast that he's turning back time. He's changing the rotation, but the rotation isn't what's effecting time. That's how I came to undtand it, even as a kid. I hope that made any sense.
Yeah, that's pretty much it. It's funny to me that people are so particular about needing every last detail about this scene to make logical sense.
Where does the second Superman go when he time travels back to save Lois? One has to still fix and save everyone, right? Or does the time travelling Superman just let them all die because he saved the one he loved? I've never found a satisfactory way to reconcile this.
@@ciphermatrix there isn’t one.
It’s an imperfect depiction.
The best we can do is speculate within the context of internal consistency and a dash of physics.
Thanos turned back localized time without conflict with his past self.
It was later stated that time travel isn’t possible within the same universe.
🤷🏾♂️
Maybe it’s garbage or maybe there is more to it than what we see and understand. After all, we never saw him fix ANYthing.
If you’d like your brain to hurt more, consider applying the multiversal time travel theory to Superman (1978): to, the world, Superman left and Clark Kent disappeared the day Lex Luthor won and killed Lois.
He’d escaped to another time in another universe, in which he wasn’t too late to save Lois.
I know. The crack isn't appearing in the road, when he lands. How much does he change? Is Hoover dam still in the process of collapsing? What about the bridge? Is that where he needs to go when he takes off?
Moreover, if he can travel back in time whenever he wishes, why don't let something bad happen (i.e. Lois dies in the helicopter crash), observe it, then plan how to prevent it (don't let Lois go into the helicopter), go back in time and act accordingly...? Or go back in time and save his uncle from having a heart attack....
I saw the first video. I found it to be an enlightening explanation. But now I'm wondering why going fast would make you go backward in time.
I agree with your interpretation of the scene but why does Lois remember everything that happened up until her death? She talks about power lines falling down in front of her car but didn't Superman prevent that from happening? Great video! Thanks!
Yeah the movie is not very clear on what happened differently the second time around. The only thing that appears to be different is the aftershocks didn’t hit the area where Lois’s car stalled. So we can only use our imagination to fill in the blanks. Cheers and thanks!
I never thought of it that way To me it was a visual representation of him going back in time Actually going the speed of light or faster.
Honestly, Superman’s quick changes is actually something I’ve been trying to make sense of moreso than the world going backwards thing. The ability to transform is not part of his power set in the comics and I *think* they’re wanting you to interpret it as him using his Super-Speed but it comes off as transformation. At one point as a kid I even pondered if there was some sort of teleportation device at the Fortress that was beaming his suit to him and storing his Clark Kent gear. 😂
Ha! That’s great. Yeah I think it was probably just because of technological and budgetary reasons that they didn’t really get the super-speed changing thing down. I mean clearly changing his clothes is an issue for him or else he wouldn’t bother opening his shirt and trying to find a suitable phone booth, etc. But anyone should be forgiven for thinking his suit just appears seemingly out of nowhere, because after all that’s exactly what we see.
Yeah usually you would have him run into an alleyway or a storage closet and then cut away after the shirt rip. It’s interesting choice that Donner decided to have his changes all be on-camera.
I thought the moment where he has his cape but is still wearing his pants shows that it's a process. I never had a problem because I read the comics. In the 60s comics, he was as fast or nearly as fast as the Flash and the Flash made those near instantaneous costume changes.
@@richardb6260 Absolutely. It’s not something I actually mind, hell the one in Superman II in the alleyway is awesome and as a fan of the comics myself again I basically know that it’s supposed to be his super-speed but you know can’t help but want to figure it out. Does he have the cape pouch like in the Silver Age and folds his clothes into super tiny size? Is he warping space and time to phase out of his CK gear and back again? Just nerding over it.
@@mattlinkous4356 I decided a while back that there are certain mysteries in life that can't be solved and that is OK with me.
Superman's changing into this uniform is one of them. So is what exactly I saw in the vicinity of Vega in 2019, I don't know what that was. (it was a mystery. Let mysteries exist) What about his boots? Could he just squeeze his Clark garments into a small ball so they take no space at all...but what about his shoes? (wouldn't everything become so wrinkled he couldn't wear them?) I personally like Clark Kent's spin in Lois and Clark but in one of the early episodes, he brings his uniform to work in a sports bag (tote) and changes in a bathroom stall. In Superman and Lois they hardly ever show him changing.
To the point about him going back in time removes any real stakes, I never felt that this was the case with the first movie. However, I think the decision to do that in the Donner Cut does remove the stakes. That was a situation where it felt like Superman was presented with a problem that he didn't know how to fix, and so he went back in time to make it so that the problems never happened. In that film, it felt like a cop out that actually made it to where nothing can be a credible threat going forward because if Superman doesn't like how something went, he can just go back in time and fix it. Basically, first time he does it, you are right, it can be a choice to not do it again because he realizes he acted from emotion and did something he shouldn't have done. But the minute you do it a second time, you create a character who never has to face consequences, and that just makes the entire story suddenly very boring.
Great points... yeah, the thing that's remarkable to me is that the way they implemented this time-reversal idea in the first movie was MUCH better than how it was originally scripted for the sequel.
I reckon this is the result of Donner and Mankiewicz workshopping ideas together as they did everyday during production. They refined the whole concept collaboratively... which is why it's so heartbreaking to think what Superman II COULD have been if Donner hadn't been let go. They were on a ROLL by this point and really firing on all cylinders. But c'est la vie.
(And of course, they only reason they did it again in the Donner Cut was they didn't want to use the Lester magic kiss and didn't have another ending for it. They've said if they had completed production as planned back in '78-79, it wasn't going to be reversing time again.)
Today films go through test audiences and focus groups and everyone fills out their comment cards and if something is said to be confusing or unclear, it gets changed. Not everyone in the audience might have felt that way. But they'd rather dumb it down for the majority of the audience than have something in the film that's open to interpretation.
I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey in 1968 when I was 12. It blew me away and I had know idea what the ending meant. Then I read the book and it had more meaning. But the book is a very literal translation of what's on the screen with the added detail that Bowman is in a habitat while he undergoes his transformation. But Clarke was writing the book while the film was still being made and Kubrick kept changing things. Clarke was on a deadline and kept asking when there would be a final cut and Kubrick told him to just write what you want. The book will be your story and the movie will be mine. So, even though there's an explanation for the ending in the book. It's clear Kubrick was saying more on screen. I think it's those more mysterious elements that keep people watching the film over and over. I shudder to think how the film would have turned out if it was subject to audience test groups. Probably more like its sequel, 2010: The Year We Make Contact. I like that movie. But they pretty much spell everything out for the audience. Sometimes literally spelled out with big letters across the screen. 2010 is simply a more of a conventional movie than 2001.
Speaking of 2001, there's a scene that I've noticed that audiences get wrong that's similar to the whole "Superman reversing the Earth's spin" situation. When the astronauts are on the moon inspecting the recently unearthed (unmooned?) monolith, they all pose in front if it for a photograph and the monolith sends out the ear piercing signal. Nearly every YT reaction has the reactor saying "Oh, it doesn't want to have it's picture taken". Now there's a shot if the Sun rising just before the picture is taken and, having read the short story by Clarke on which the film is based, I know that the signal is sent out because it was exposed to sunlight for the first time it since it was dug up. But would it be clear if I didn't know that? I think when I first saw it in 1968, I may have thought something similar.
I always wondered if they didn't want us to be entirely puzzled by 2001. I was familiar with the original short story ""The Sentinel" when I saw the movie in 1968 but they had changed a great deal in the context of the movie. They never mention the Astronaut eating his breakfast, as an example. I thought it was the position of the sun above it, or Dr Heywood Floyd touching it's surface that awoke the monolith. When we finally do communicate with aliens, real ones, I mean... we may not have a lot of common ground. They will have been around longer that we have been. More than likely they won't look like us. They somehow succeeded to keep a successful civilization running for many centuries. We will still seem to be infants, more than likely. They may remain an incomprehensible mystery. Our physics will be same, math is universal but how different will be everything else? 2001 keeps the mystery, mysterious. I think (just a theory) that Kubrick was trying to impart that sense of mystery and incomprehensibility in the film. We never even SEE the aliens.
Superman is just the opposite. Superman is an alien is so familiar that once he puts on our clothing, he becomes one of us. I like 2010, as much or more, also.
@@kathleenhensley5951 there's a great recent book about the making of 2001 that says that Kubrick intended to show the aliens and experimented with several techniques to show them as being something truly alien. Doug Trumbull goes into detail in the book about some of the methods they tried. But none were found to be satisfactory so Kubrick decided to have the Monolith stand in for the aliens.
I want to see the original ending of Superman the movie before Donner took this scene and put on there.
Yeah, I've always felt that the audience is seeing the earth from Superman's perspective. He's traveling back in time and he's seeing the earth and everything else going backwards. He's not actually making the earth go backwards! That would be catastrophic! When I was young I thought about there being 2 Supermans around at the same time after he time travelers. But then I felt that he didn't have to worry about meeting himself because his other self was getting rid of the rockets at the same moment that he's standing there with Lous alive. That's why he was late saving her the first time. Since those days, we've been shown the multiverse. Another way to look at that scene is that when he went back in time, it created another time-line. So maybe there isn't another Superman there at all. It created another universe. Who knows. Fun to think about. I do have one question though. Why does Superman have teeth fillings? LOL
Haha, yeah his tooth filling is one several things that has jumped out at me as I've been editing these clips. I can imagine someone somewhere has come up with a silly canon explanation for it.
The intention was to make it look like Superman was turning the Earth backwards and turn time backwards.
I don't know if ot was put in place of what he was actually doing because the visual was too difficult to get across, or if the director actually meant the Earth was rotating backwards.
But when I was a kid, I thought Superman was rotating it backwards and as I got older I thought it didn't make sense. But I love the movie, so I decided that it's just a visual representation of something else.
Just like in the scene in Transformers the Movie when we see Prime turning grey after he dies, I never for a second thought that that was supposed to be literally happening..but i'd have a hard time trying to convince many tf fans that I'm right.
Absolutely. It's a metaphor. Works well. He is flying at APPROACHING the speed of light, which, relativity tells us, results in time dilation taking place. The issue, though, in doing so, when he gets back to Earth, it would be the future, not the past. Surely?
Well not that it matters for something like this, but apparently there is some wild theory about tachyons and reverse time travel specifically if you exceed the speed of light. 🤷
Thank you, gents... I'll tell my old physics teacher they did proud.
Haha, cheers Remo! Thanks again for all your great comments.
I never really thought about this until I got older, of course Superman came out when I was 1 year old, and I had it on vhs that we recorded off HBO in the early 80s, so I didn't really see the movies again until the DVDs came out, but yeah, I see now that it was simply a representation of time travel, I mean seriously how do you show time travel, the DeLorean going 88, or the Klingon Bird of Prey slingshotting around the sun... it is difficult to visualize something like time travel that have no point of comparison for.
Yeah, good points -- it's weird to me that a lot of people in the comments keep suggesting that this was a failure by the filmmakers. Brendan and I both think this whole sequence is brilliantly executed. It's very simple and concise. And no one will ever be able to do it again without being accused of ripping this film off.
I have to admit that while I very much enjoyed "Superman: The Movie", I do have a couple of issues with it. First, it tends to drag in a few scenes, thus, making it seem longer than 2 hours and 20 minutes. Second, that time travel scene was offputting to me even when I first saw the film when I was a kid. The film was nearly flawless up until that point, however, towards the end of the movie, Supes is desolated by Lois's death so he decides to go back in time and undo it.
But right before he does, we hear a voiceover of Jor-El saying that it is forbidden for him to interfere with human history. Huh? He's already interfering with human history just by being on Earth, regardless if he is time traveling to the past or not. He's made history the moment he first showed up to save Lois the first time around with the helicopter accident situation.
In addition, we also hear another voiceover and it is Supes' voice saying, "All those things I can do.... All those powers and I couldn't even save him", referring to his Earth father, Jonathan, and that got me thinking, why doesn't he go back further in time to save his father?!? His father was just as important to him as Lois.
That way, he will be preventing the deaths of both Jonathan and Lois in one shot. I'm surprised nobody has even mentioned that part yet. For that matter, why doesn't he also go back in time to prevent a young Lex Luthor boy from becoming a criminal by setting his dad straight? Or go even way back in time to prevent both world wars? You get my point.
From an aspiring screenwriter's perspective, time traveling into the past to change history ruins the dramatic tension. In drama there has to be consequences but time travel flys (no pun intended) in the face of those results, it's a stupid gimmick and a copout.
As a science fiction and fantasy fan I have no problems suspending my disbelief because it inherently comes with the terrority within the science fiction / fantasy genre. I can let slide the fact that Supes has x-ray / laser vision, super strength / speed, and fly, that's fine, but pulling out the time travel card was really pushing it to the extreme and I wish Hollywood stops using this tired old trope.
And while I understand that Superman is mainly fantasy, even the aforementioned genre has to follow certain rules and logic. This scene nearly kills the movie for me, almost but not quite. Thankfully, Supes never does it again in the later installments. It would have been bold to let Lois die and have Supes deal with the loss of someone very close to him because it will make him relatable.
Plus, you could end the story in which the Daily Planet hires a new reporter that looks exactly like Lois Lane but it is a new character. Okay, I know, it sounds like a soap opera idea but that would have been better than using time travel. It would have given Supes someone new to interact with and Margot Kidder the chance to play a similar yet new character.
While we're on the subject, despite reading a few Superman comic books I am by no means a Superman expert because I've never found the Superman character interesting with all his excessive powers to begin with but I have friends who are and have read many Superman comic books, and they informed me that the whole point of Superman is that he has all these God-like powers but he can't save everybody.
Anyway, that's my two cents. I very much enjoyed listening to you guys, Chad and Brendan, you provide some very insightful and intellectually stimulating conversations! I look forward to seeing more of your videos! You just earned a new subscriber! 😎
Man, thanks Julian! And thank you for your very articulate thoughts on the matter, you bring up a lot of good points. Will have more to say later, just wanted to show my appreciation 👊
@prodigioussaps Thank you Chad and Brendan for the kind words! 😁 I appreciate you guys as well! 👍🏻 I also understand where you guys are coming from and you've made some good points on why this scene works to the film's benefit.
I will admit that I tend to be a time travel Grinch, I despise it in general because time travel stories are hard to do and don't make any sense. The only acception to this rule are time travel stories that resolve the grandfather paradox via parallel timelines / universes. And I give shows like Doctor Who, Voyagers!, and Quantum Leap a pass because their entire premise is based on time travel.
Please keep me posted on your next live chat and I will be there! 😉
By the way, have either of you noticed when Clark jumps out the window and his costume appears, he's still wearing Clark’s pants and dress shoes when the top half of his costume appears?
YES! Thank you for mentioning that. I've been laughing at that in the edit everytime I use that clip, and I'm repeatedly kicking myself that neither of us noticed it before we did the episode about the first movie. Rest assured it will come up at some point. It's really funny. Imagine if he showed up at Luthor's lair with slacks on.
I can enjoy the movie as it is and I also enjoy your videos
Thanks!
Why is it when they put Superman 2 on dvd they won’t put both versions on it ?
There is a 4K Blu-Ray out that has both versions.
This whole 'time-travel backwards' thing - in Superman: The Movie - is fine by me. Of course it has no basis in any (currently known) science, it is complete bunkum from that point of view. But so what? It's emotional heart of the movie, it's from a comic, it's wonderful: and I love it! Justify it any which way you like - if this is seriously anyone's main issue with this movie... A man who can fly just because he is near our Sun? Come on!!
Well said. Cheers 👊
And another point you guys made. If Superman can do this, clearly he is overpowered and he can do this whenever he wants to. Well, in the Richard Donner version of Superman 2, he does this again and sends Zod and gang back into the Phantom Zone. This gets a bit unrealistic and less heroic of Superman to do. When he goes back to the fortress after saving Lois from the helicopter accident, Jor'El talks to Superman about the burden of being a hero and what he must do. He also cautioned him about vanity and because of it, Krypton's population ceased to exist because they thought they were indestructible, even godly. And another point, Superman's energy is not limitless. He does get tired if he expends a lot of energy. Don't forget, he was exposed to Kryptonite for the first time for a long while and then still performed the feats he did not at full strength.
Orrr, it's showing that Superman in his guilt tried to fly so fast that he could catch up to himself (thhs needing to go in a circle) and kick his own butt, only to acfidentally break the Multiversal barrier, repeatedly, which happens to show each new universe's Earth at what happens to be a slightly different rotation/position, and then once he realizes whats happened and spots this parallel Lois still being alive and so prevents her suffering his Lois' fate, which he does. And luckily for him this Earth has no Superman anymore so he's able to stay and take the place if its Clark Kent. Seems pretty obvious to me actually.
You’re my favorite.
The fact is no one know exactly how time travel backwards through time would actually work if it were possible, there are theories but they are just that theories. Until time travel is actually made possible and proven no one would really know for certain. Till then movies depict it on different ways to help visualize it whether based in true science or not, it is just a way to visually show it to the audience usually in an artistic way. It is fun to have the discussions on whether or not it would actually work in the way shown, but in the end you are discussing and artistic representation of it.
I'm late to the party here, but here's the detail that I can't square with your explanation: if it was really a simple matter of Superman flying so fast that he's travelling back in time, then why woukd the movie go out of its way to specifically show him circling AGAINST the rotation of the Earth to reverse time, then specifically show him switch directions to correct its rotation again? If it's just a matter of speed to travel through time, why does he need to switch directions halfway through?
Because visually it helps clue the audience into what's happening. "Oh, he's going back in time" or "he's causing time to run in reverse". The mechanics really don't matter in the end. That's kind of our point really... getting hung up on the mechanics to the point that it ruins the movie is unnecessary and a damn shame (not saying that's the case for you, but many people in the comments have said that). Interpreting it the way we describe is just more satisfying, IMO. So in a nutshell: Does it look as though he's reversing the Earth's rotation? Of course it does, that's how it's scripted and that's how they shot it. Does that mean you're required to interpret it 100% literally? I say NAY! 😀
Thanks for chiming in 👊
Hey Saps. I like you guys I value your opinions, and as I'm sure you guessed I am a huge fan of Christopher Reeve Superman! I wanted to ask just random, if Christopher Reeve had been in Star Wars, wich character can you see him as, Han or Luke? I personally would have to go with Luke Skywalker on that one. I read online that Reeve had lobbied to play Westley in Princess Bride, ironically, Cary Elwes when he was 15 got his first job as a crew member on Superman 1 and Marlon Brando called him Rocky!
Oh man! Luke Skywalker would be my first thought, since the characters are closest in their idealistic nature. But I could also see Reeve doing Han Solo. I think he would have had a blast playing up the smarmy, smart-assery stuff... his turn as "asshole superman" in III made me think of that.
And THANK YOU Buddy, appreciate you! Cheers
The logic of the whiners is just asinine.
"Superman is impervious to any damage." ...ok....
"Superman can fly with no means of propulsion". ok
" Superman can project x-rays and heat beams from his eyes." "ok"
"Superman can freeze things with his breath, or emit beyond hurricane force wind". "ok"
"Superman has unlimited strength". - "Ok"
"Superman can run at unlimited speed". "Ok"
Superman can fly so fast, he goes back in time. "WHAAATT??? ARRGHH! GAHHH! WAHHH! That's impossible!!!!
Whiners can F-off and consume feces already.
It would have been better if Superman stopped the second nuclear missile from impacting California after going back in time. It would have made more sense that way.
If only Richard Donner stayed as the director and did part 1 and 2 his way where the ending of part 1 is when he sends a missle to space and breaks the phantom zone to release the villains and part 1 would have ended in a To be continued. Part 2 would have ended with Superman turning back time.
Well they changed the ending of the first movie before he was fired. That was his idea to do that, so I wouldn’t want that to be different, personally. But yes it’s a damn shame he got let go when he did. Not only was he unable to finish Superman II… he and Mankiewicz had already started working on ideas for III and IV as well. It’s heartbreaking to hear them talk about it in interviews.
It would be an interesting issue----IF NOT FOR THE TWO UNACCOUNTED FOR NUCLEAR MISSILES!!!!!
Why does no one wonder what happened to the missiles? Sure he turned the world back, but we never saw what the hell he did to make everything right; that always vexed me as a kid---what the hell even happened? Turning the world back is a trivial matter, I assumed he was surpassing light speed because he seemed to become light himself (I was only 11).
Well based what Lois and Jimmy say after he turns back time, the earthquake still happened, meaning the second missile still struck. In the end apparently the only thing he did differently was prevent Lois's death. We still don't know exactly what he did, so yeah it's puzzling.
Thank you, you're the first person to ignore the confusion and explain the logic that I just couldn't see through--and neither could anyone else, they'd just get irritated and say "I dunno, it's just a movie"
The explanation you give that it was actually FTL speed what turned time back and not the reverse rotation, is a more elegant one, and you can believe it if you like, and I like that explanation better (for science geeks as myself), but....
The literal interpretation is better for the dramatic effect on the scene.
Superman making the earth rotate backwards with his superpowers, literally, adds more to the drama for Louse's death, mere FTL travel, doesn't do it.
That’s cool man, the important thing is that it resonates with you. The literal interpretation feels too much like sorcery to me, which isn’t really a Superman thing IMO. Traveling faster than light by sheer force of will still sounds pretty dang dramatic to me.
@@prodigioussaps well, the filmakers took their liberties to make that scene, I'm not into comics, so maybe that's why I'm ok with it, even if it's ridiculous (well it is) but for the scene it works for me.
Found your channel through youtube's recommendation for this video btw.
Cool! Yeah it’s all ridiculous. The comics stuff we talk about really boils down to esthetics, different ways to tell fantastical stories. Superhero comics are kinda of like pulp sci-fi, fantasy and mythology all mashed together.
3:41 Loving this so far.
Maybe that’ll change if my comments are 💩 on. 😅
I don't think I've ever seen a 💩-worthy comment from you, sir. 🫡
Also what's up with the memory erasing kiss in part 2?
Not fond of that part - I mean, I love the scene because Margot’s performance is so good, but the idea that Clark couldn’t just allow her to work through her grief like an adult is weird, IMO.
@@prodigioussaps Yes but in Superman 4 after Clarks near suicide with Lois she remembers everything untl after there Superflight together once again putting her into a trance and she forgets again LOL! 🦸🤯🤷🙆♂
@@SuperMarioBrosIII Yeah jeez that was awkward. I remember theorizing when IV came out that maybe Lois had just been pretending to forget the whole time, and was just humoring Superman until that moment.
I still think he only needed 1 lap to go back in time.
All I can say, they were real close to making this make sense _if_ they intended for him to travel back in time by going faster than light. I never saw this scene as he literally spinning the planet backwards because 1, he's too far and 2, it would be an even worse explanation using atmospheric drag to spin the planet backwards...
I only question the intentionality of the writer. Not your explanation. Your explanation makes perfect sense until he goes 180° and and goes fast _again_ to slow down the temporal momentum.
My point is, his spacetime manipulation is pure movie magic. Superman might not be using the speed of light to do that. He's doing something else that doesn't need an explanation, because it's a movie... In short, I just think the writer didn't think about the speed of light idea. He just wanted to visually show superman doing _a thing_ to go back in time
The only problem with time travel thing is he reverses it but then puts it back? Unless he gets the rocket then the same thing would happen?
Yeah they don't explain that bit... you kind of have to call on head-canon to fill in the blanks. I just assume he must have dipped back in time just far enough to do something to prevent the aftershocks from reaching Lois. But it's not that big of deal to me, really.. fun to think about, though.
Okay, good talk guys.
👊
Hot take: Superman (1978) is a FAR better movie than 2001: A Space Odyssey. Heck, one of its knockoffs is better: Star Trek: The Motion Picture. 2001 was drier than ashy elbows! I'm ready for the pitchforks...
Oh & I think it's a visual representation of time travel, not a literal one. The visual of the Earth rotating backward is just that: him going backward. And while it's not my favorite scene, I think it works because of Reeve, the effects & equally as important as Reeve: JOHN WILLIAMS! You don't even need the scene on the screen. Just listen to the track & it's straight 🔥🔥🔥
👍Great take on it. I love Star Trek: The Motion Picture as well. You’re totally right about the music! John Williams elevated that film to another plane, just as he did with Star Wars, Indiana Jones, et al. But that Superman score is something special for sure.
🤔🦸Maybe this movie inspired Cher's 1989 hit single If I Could turn back time? 🌎👩🎤🙌🕝
The problem wasn't so much the effect of going back in time, it was the blah nothing scene after the event there was no real resolution to the plot, it came across as a big nothing.
What do you think should have happened?
I'm not sure exactly but I think it should have involved a resolution, that would have involved him finding a way to prevent the missiles from striking at all then fading away as the new timeline continues
Jor-El is the Father/God. Kal-El is the Son/Christ. El-ohim, the Sons God. The greatest story of all time. That's what it's loosely based on in my humble opinion, though heavily altered of course.😂😂
I personally not only didn't have any qualms with your assertions made in the last video, at all. In fact, I really, REALLY liked it, and felt a little dopey for not considering it on my own. The only thing I didn't like was the snarky delivery, the "duhhhh" insulting mockery of people who have the world-spin-back opinion was... well... exactly as rude in the other direction as the "nerds" and "it's just a movie" crowd. Had you not felt the need to include that, your original video would have been perfect. With it, it's not. Great (probably even true) theory, rotten delivery.
I’m sorry, that’s just our sense of humor. It’s not meant to be taken that seriously. Those “nerd” comments you mention actually didn’t offend us at all. That’s why I included them, they’re funny. But anyway If our kind of sass bothers you, you’ve got the wrong channel, because we’re not going to alter our sense of humor. Appreciate your honesty though.
@@prodigioussaps Yeah, my sensitivity is in how there's enough anger and pointless meanness and othering these days, and people like me come to places and discussions like this in hopes to escape some of it, but here it is too. You know? It strikes me as a topic that should be a reason to bring fans together, not celebrating the division. But again, that's just me. Just get me to fucking mid-november! UGH!
What gets me most of all is that MTG thinks Superman III is a documentary.
MTG…? Magic The Gathering?
@@prodigioussaps No, the US Senator who thinks wildfires are caused by Jewish Space Lasers.
I really don't understand how people think that Superman is spinning the Earth when we just don't see him do that. We clearly see him fly around it. And also why would spinning the Earth turn back time?
He flew so fast doing the earth he made it spin backwards, and thus reversed time. When he re-winded the earths time enough, he reverse reversed course, and flew the opposite way round the earth, to get it spinning the right way again, so that made time move forward again at normal speed.
Edit: he didn’t literally spin the earth with his hands using his muscles. The speed by which he was flying caused a gravitational pull that made the earth spin the opposite way. Either that, or the flying caused like a wind like a hurricane but much stronger, that blew the earth in the different direction.
@@RichieW90210That doesn't make sense. But then again, neither does his flying. It completely ignores the most basic laws of physics. And that's fine in a fantasy.
@@RichieW90210 Why would spinning the Earth to the other direction reverse time? That's ridiculous. He flew around the Earth and since he passed the speed of light he went back in time.
It goes against the principle but I can't hold back----for those who believe he's just rotating the world back and forth, that would kill just about everything on Planet Earth. Unless you believe it's like a god power and he's also magically fixing things as he does it; I wouldn't like that idea but I'd accept it in an argument (if the fan was adamant enough). It's such a shame they don't know how to do Superman anymore, they really don't know what to do with him, too scared of this shitty quasi-political climate to allow legends or real story telling on the screen---this was written by the guy who wrote The Godfather!
Well Mario Puzo wrote the first couple drafts. Tom Mankiewicz wrote the final shooting script we're familiar with. The turning back time thing was Tom's.
@@prodigioussaps Yeah, but the STORY was Puzo. You're missing the point; if you sell this to a friend who thinks caped heroes are dumb, are you gonna say "I think it's good, honest" or are you gonna say "Well, the story was conceived by Mario Puzo." "Fuck off was it." "Yip, doesn't seem so dumb now, does it?" (That's a messy example but you see what I'm getting at, it sold me as a kid, as all kids in my school had already seen the Godfather 1 and 2).
I'd say TOM EFFING MANKIEWICZ wrote it, so back off... bucko!
Calling them "Bucko" is the important part.
@@prodigioussaps Tom effing Mankiewicz may shine even more than Puzo, but your mates would say, "Who? Nah, I'll give it a miss," and then probably start talking about Godfather 2---so everyone misses out. Trust me, saying badass Godfather dude wrote a Superman movie is the best selling point (and did I mention it's the only good Superman movie, though no. 2 is good for a laugh, with its camp villains).
The truth is that he turned back the world... This is evident in the soundtrack to Superman the movie written by John Williams. That is literally the title that was given to the music for that scene. Williams who works close to the director obviously.
That doesn’t invalidate anything we’re saying.
@@prodigioussaps I didn't say it did. I am just putting my input as to what I see. I have always wondered why, if he went back in time, things were different? Maybe a third scenario... He went to a mirror universe where Lois Survived because she did see the earthquake but was never hit by the earthquake that originally killed her. So why did history change? He didn't stop the bomb hitting the fault in Cali, but things were different. It would have better explained it if it showed him saving her before the earth breaking apart swallowed her up. But when her car wasn't starting is where we first see him showing up.
NOW you’re talking! Those are fun theories. The stuff you point out though speaks to why I’m not satisfied with just taking everything we see in stark literal terms. You’re right, we don’t see what he changed to save her. So it can’t just be what we’re shown. But, I don’t think they needed to show us, really. Asking these questions is more fun, and the movie ends in this confidently weird way that I find really hard to poke holes in. I mean, I do anyway, but it doesn’t diminish my love for the film. Cheers 👊
@@prodigioussaps yes! So true.
It's not the part where everything rewinds as it spins the opposite direction, that alone could work as a visual metaphor for moving back in time. If that's all it was, he wouldn't need to fly really fast in the opposite direction to get the planet rotating the right way. I know you address it briefly (a bit too briefly since that really is the core problem with alternate explanations as it is quite easy to explain away the first part, not so much the second) but it really feels like coming up with convoluted explanations to explain away that what's actually happening on screen isn't what's actually happening, a lot of which feel like modern interpretations of time travel and not something filmmakers making the first big budget comic book superhero film in 1978 would have come up with. You bring up other movies like 2001 and even other scenes in this movie to justify an alternate explanation, but I don't feel like they apply here. In those instances, it's deliberately vague so it actually requires you to fill in the gaps. This wasn't vague, they show you exactly how it's happening. If it wasn't meant to be interpreted literally, it wouldn't have been presented in such a literal way, it would have been presented in a more abstract way. Even just the first half of the scene would be abstract enough, but they take that extra step to make sure you see what's going on. You bring up the Fortress training sequence, that was an abstract way of showing what happened over a decade compressed into a few minutes, that's a lot different to showing exactly what's happened. While I agree that not everything has to be spoon-fed to an audience, when it actually IS, as it was in this case, its not secretly something else.
Incorrect, Superman turned the entire planet back in time. The water reversed back into the damn. All the explosions reverted back into stable molecules. All the destruction and displaced people were safe back at home. The missle never launched. The earthquake never happened. Lois was stranded on the cleanest road I've ever seen, with her car, and the sky was completely blue. Superman didn't go back in time, to the moment she was being buried alive, and then pull her out before it was too late. Maybe I should get my own channel so I can help clear up situations like this one? 🤔
Then why is Lois still talking about the events of the earthquake? Jimmy as well?
It made no sense. Why didn't the same things that already happened just happen again? Why didn't Lois get killed all over again?
The original script was written by Mario Puzo, the author of The Godfather. Puzo took this movie very seriously and wrote it like a Greek tragedy in which Lois dies. Superman must accept that despite all his power, even he can't reverse death. This was considered *too* tragic, so other writers were brought in to make the movie more fun. I see their point, but they turned a serious movie into a goofy circus with goofy people. Superman is goofy, Luthor is goofy, Lois is goofy. It was maddening. So sad. An opportunity to tell a serious entertaining story was lost.
Lois doesn’t die in the Puzo draft, at least not the one I’ve seen. Superman gives her a potion to make her forget that he’s Clark.
Writing a character to have resurrection power is extremely problematic in terms of storytelling. You basically have no stakes, because if someone dies you can simply bring them back to life. The audience has no reason to fear for anyone's safety. Death must be final in storytelling. If it isn't nothing threatening in the story matters.
Also, it does not look good to have Superman value one human life above the rest. I understand he loved Lois on a level that goes deeper than his general compassion for the people of earth. However, if he is willing to break the law for her he should do the same for anyone else who needs it. The favoritism he gave Lois suggests he would save her first in any situation and help others in danger second. If saving Lois meant another person had to die he would let that person die because he can't be without the love of his life.
Superman is supposed to be better than that. He can't allow himself to put one woman's life above the rest of the people on earth. He moved the entire planet for her completely disregarding how it would effect other people.
Jor-El? Is that you? 😉
Capt marvel and the rock of eternity time travel figure that one out
They don't mention all the nasty toilet waste flushings he reversed or the babies delivered back inside their moms!
Gee, I wonder why
Jerry Seinfeld would be proud.
Now explain Superman 4 😁
PASS!!
Joking aside, we will be covering that soon. Gotta get through II & III first though.
@@prodigioussaps Aaron Price has worked very hard in restoring and remastering scenes from Superman IV: The Quest For Peace. He has made a plea with WB to grant him permission to restore the whole film including the deleted scenes giving the film the finess that the original release was lacking. But they have yet to respond. He as even redone the opening sequence in HD 4K recently and it is fantastic! Retitling it Superman IV: The Director's Cut! It is on his youtube channel. 🦸🦹🦸♂🦹♂
@SuperMarioBrosIII Wow, didn't know about that, thanks!
Hang on, you guys are wrong. Because he flew so fast he went back in time, that is the claim, and that the way they represented that to us was to show the earth spin backwards.
Ok I’ll buy your premise there. But it falls down unfortunately, because we then see him fly the opposite way, to get the earth spinning the correct way round again.
So in conclusion, your premise is wrong. He was just flying round the earth so fast he re-winded it. And when it was rewound enough, he changed direction to have it spin the rig he way again, so that time moves forward again.
Okay, that’s cool dude. Just curious, did you watch the whole video? Because we directly address this in there.
Yeah, the fact he over-shot his target time by some 9500% is a bit problematic. I still tend to believe they're right about the whole "speed of time" thing, but there clearly is something off about it's delivery if it's truly, truly intended to be taken as such.
Hate to say this but I think audiences were just smarter in the 70s. They didn't need to have everything explained to them.
As one of the audience of this movie in the 1970s (I was 27, by the way) NO I was not more intelligent. I did though, know it was science fiction and suspend my disbelief, at least, some. I had questions when i thought about it, later, but there was something about watching it on the BIG screen that made it special. Over-powering?
Audiences weren't smarter back then. Movie studios were less afraid to leave movies open-ended. Big difference.