Superman 1978 sets off Superhero movies early

in 1978 Superman came out and made $300,218,018, today thats $1,098,797,946, Superman would have 3 Sequels (1980, 1983, and 1987) and one Spin-off (1984's Supergirl) but it'd be 11 years before another Superhero got a major release (1989's Batman) and after Batman it'd be another 9-11 before the big 3 (1998's Blade, 2000's X-Men, and 2002's Spiderman) made Superhero movies a genre of movies

so what what if the Superhero movies took off in 1980s? what movies would be made?
 
Well the biggest factor in all of this is going to how well the special effects can replicate the comics. Think of that 1994 Fantastic Four movie, obviously we don't want anything like that. Also, we should probably not think about how they were considering making a very In Name Only version of Watchmen in the 1980s.

So, what could work. I suppose a Wonder Woman movie could be made reasonably well with those limitations. Captain America is another potential canidate, they did try to make such a movie in both the 1970s and 1990s, so with a bit better writing and sense of direction that could work.

I know there was a Hulk tv series that did reasonably well, so maybe that too. Perhaps a Captain Marvel/Shazam movie as well?
 
There was a Dr Strange movie, too.

From what I understand it was a made for TV movie with hopes of spinning off into a TV series, and I also understand it wasn't particularly good

Similarly, Thor and Daredevil appeared in made for TV movies with Hulk in hopes of getting there own series
 
There was a Dr Strange movie, too.

According to the wikipedia list, there actually were quite a lot of superhero movies at the time, it's just that most of them were turkeys that sank without trace (has anybody ever seen the 1990 "Captain America" movie, forex?). What you really need is a way of getting them to not be rubbish, or at least making them popular despite that.

As for what else that could have been made that was as successful as Superman - it's already been mentioned that Wonder Woman and Hulk both had successful TV series at about the right time, so they could have had cash-in movies. And there's always Batman - though I'm slightly afraid to contemplate what a pre "Dark Knight Returns" movie looks like, probably lots of 60's style campness.
 
According to the wikipedia list, there actually were quite a lot of superhero movies at the time, it's just that most of them were turkeys that sank without trace (has anybody ever seen the 1990 "Captain America" movie, forex?). What you really need is a way of getting them to not be rubbish, or at least making them popular despite that.

As for what else that could have been made that was as successful as Superman - it's already been mentioned that Wonder Woman and Hulk both had successful TV series at about the right time, so they could have had cash-in movies. And there's always Batman - though I'm slightly afraid to contemplate what a pre "Dark Knight Returns" movie looks like, probably lots of 60's style campness.

Well, there was a movie based on the 60s Batman and Robin that was as campy as the show, and of course the Tim Burton Batman movie. I think movies based on certain Marvel character could work if they had more input from Stan Lee than that attempts in OTL. So Captain America and Daredevil might potentially work. Black Panther maybe, but it could quickly turn into a bad blacksploitation film.

For DC maybe Green Arrow?

Also, I know there was a Japanese Spider-Man show. Not much like the comics, but still seems pretty good in its own right, Stan Lee liked it. Maybe have it get a film?
 
in 1978 Superman came out and made $300,218,018, today thats $1,098,797,946, Superman would have 3 Sequels (1980, 1983, and 1987) and one Spin-off (1984's Supergirl) but it'd be 11 years before another Superhero got a major release (1989's Batman) and after Batman it'd be another 9-11 before the big 3 (1998's Blade, 2000's X-Men, and 2002's Spiderman) made Superhero movies a genre of movies

so what what if the Superhero movies took off in 1980s? what movies would be made?

CGI, that's what separated the turkeys of the 1970s-early 90s and what came after. That, and trying to do the superhero movies seriously.

Real actors and real writers with real careers, not unknowns lucky to be working. And another key: Make sure they know the subject matter. Don't hire producers, directors, writers, and actors who were jocks and prom queens and all think that superheroes were for nerds. Use those who read the comics when they were kids. unfortunately, back then there were still too many older generation execs who considered the genre "stupid" and frankly were themselves too old for comics back when they were kids (past adolescence by 1939?). Also, except for Batman and Superman the genre mostly died in the 50s, so you had a generational gap there for fandom as well.

Part of the problem was that for many years you couldn't get anyone to take the genre seriously, especially after the campiness of the 60s Batman series. Captain Marvel/Shazam! also had a very dumbed down live action zero budget Saturday Morning show in the early 70s that spent most of its time pontificating to a teenage audience who weren't watching.:rolleyes: In the 60s there were numerous Marvel and DC superhero cartoons very well made and faithful to the comics, but in the 70s it seems the child psychologists being produced in legions coming out of 60s colleges took over and turned what was made in that decade into such insipid pap (the Superfriends!? Writing the Human Torch out of the Fantastic Four because they thought his character encouraged children to play with matches!?) that they would have made any child over 7 cringe. Thank God for Japanese anime.

The 1970s Wonder Woman TV series was initially done very well (they went back to the 1942 version). but when they moved her to the present day, it stopped being Wonder Woman and became the Lynda Carter Show.:rolleyes: Though it was nice to see a 20 year old Debra Winger as a voluptuous Wonder Girl.:cool:

One reason why Superman was a practical superhero going all the way back to 1940s BW movie serials was because the nature of the character's abilities allowed for camera work to make the difference back then for special effects. Trying to do that for Green Lantern (any version) or Wonder Woman would just look too cheesy. Imagine trying to "film" Wonder Woman doing battle on the wings of her Invisible Jet in flight. Easy in the comics, but without CGI, impossible.

Believe me, as a kid growing up I certainly wanted these movies to be made, but you needed both the tech and for the older generations (pre-60s comics readers) to either die off or retire before you had the right people in place in Hollywood that would not take the instinctive negative reaction to the words "comic book" that their predecessors had.
 
Last edited:
I think it's even possible using this ATL around circa 1990, a Wonder Woman movie is finally made--starring one Lucy Lawless (people forget Lawless is definitely tall enough and has the right body build to play the role back then). And Lawless--instead of getting famous in the Xena: Warrior Princess TV series in the 1990's the OTL--becomes famous in maybe one to two sequel movies, too.
 
I think it's even possible using this ATL around circa 1990, a Wonder Woman movie is finally made--starring one Lucy Lawless (people forget Lawless is definitely tall enough and has the right body build to play the role back then). And Lawless--instead of getting famous in the Xena: Warrior Princess TV series in the 1990's the OTL--becomes famous in maybe one to two sequel movies, too.
I think she would have made a great Wonder Woman.
 
CGI, that's what separated the turkeys of the 1970s-early 90s and what came after. That, and trying to do the superhero movies seriously.

I don't think so, I mean other sci fi and action movies managed just fine with out it and 1978's Superman, and 1989's Batman were HUGE hits, as for the turkeys (Dr. Strange, Captain America, Captain America II, Swamp Thing) between Superman and Batman 3 were TV movie cash ins and Swamp Thing was a minor movie never meant for major release, other 1990s movies (other then Batman) are much the same, never meant to be seen by lots of people, take Roger Corman's The Fantastic Four in 1994, it was literally made to never be seen, small German production company Constantin Film wanted to hang onto the rights to hired B-movie god Roger Corman, gave him 1 million dollars and told him to make a movie that they would never release, in truth its in fact better then Fantastic Four or Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, Ironically, I'm getting off track any ways none of those movies was marketed or made to be a big hit, they were cash grabs to make a little money off Batman take the poster for 1990's Captain America

Captain_america.jpg


and here's 1989's Batman:
Batman-1989-Hungarian-Movie-Poster.jpg


see a theme? I wasn't saying there were no Superhero movies between 1978 and 1998 that weren't Superman or Batman, just that there were none made with the idea that they'd be seen by a lot of people, or anything, lots of cheep 3 weeks of shooting movies made for little money ether of TV, direct to video or a fairly limited release to cash in on the hit status of Batman, the 1990s I guess was a bit of a richer field, maybe if a major non-Batman hit could have been made out of a Marvel comic it might have kicked off early a lot of superhero movies came out though not every one really knew they were comics since movie makers (maybe embarrassed?) picked not very famous comic figures to make movies out of in the 1990s
 
I think it's even possible using this ATL around circa 1990, a Wonder Woman movie is finally made--starring one Lucy Lawless (people forget Lawless is definitely tall enough and has the right body build to play the role back then). And Lawless--instead of getting famous in the Xena: Warrior Princess TV series in the 1990's the OTL--becomes famous in maybe one to two sequel movies, too.

I think she would have made a great Wonder Woman.

Agreed. Certainly someone like Chris Hemsworth as Thor turned out to be buried treasure, but the trick is to have a serious casting crew that can find such lightening in a bottle. Would someone have been able to FIND Lucy Lawless? Lynda Carter was cast as Wonder Woman on little more than her height (she's a six footer IIRC) and beauty (Miss USA 1972). That showed sadly.

I don't think so, I mean other sci fi and action movies managed just fine with out it and 1978's Superman, and 1989's Batman were HUGE hits, as for the turkeys-Dr. Strange, (1)

1) That movie wasn't TOO too bad, save for that they messed up the basis of the story too badly, making Clea frex basically just a Jane Foster (comics version) character. OTOH, they turned Wong from a loyal butler into a loyal sorcerer in his own right.:)

Captain America, Captain America II, Swamp Thing (2)-

SPOILERS!!! For anyone who hasn't seen the original Swamp Thing

The Return of the Swamp Thing was a travesty, but believe it or not, the original Swamp Thing got a two thumbs up on Siskel & Ebert! Siskel, the hardcase critic, was at a drive-in looking for a "Dog of the Week", and when he saw it as the under billing of one of the worst films he'd ever seen, he was certain he'd found one in Swamp Thing. Instead, he was shocked to find a film that was very much a case of a Hollywood 1930s classic movie monster film, with the monster as the sympathetic character trying to save the damsel in distress (Adrienne Barbeau) from the ruthless evil scientist (Louis Jordan), IN WHITE DUE TO SPOILERS who falls victim to his own dark science and winds up transformed into a monster himself. Only to die in a climatic battle with Swamp Thing as Swamp Thing defends the life of Abigail Cable, in this movie changed from the niece of Swamp Thing's life long nemesis into a government agent trying to expose the works of the evil scientist and his minions.

The two legendary movie critics went over numerous instances where the film showed homage to the Golden Age of Horror.

Check it out.

between Superman and Batman 3 were TV movie cash ins and Swamp Thing was a minor movie never meant for major release, other 1990s movies (other then Batman) are much the same, never meant to be seen by lots of people, take Roger Corman's The Fantastic Four in 1994, it was literally made to never be seen, small German production company Constantin Film wanted to hang onto the rights to hired B-movie god Roger Corman, gave him 1 million dollars and told him to make a movie that they would never release, in truth its in fact better then Fantastic Four or Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer,

I liked the FF movies. Sue me.

I wasn't saying there were no Superhero movies between 1978 and 1998 that weren't Superman or Batman, just that there were none made with the idea that they'd be seen by a lot of people, or anything, lots of cheap 3 weeks of shooting movies made for little money ether of TV, direct to video or a fairly limited release to cash in on the hit status of Batman, the 1990s I guess was a bit of a richer field, maybe if a major non-Batman hit could have been made out of a Marvel comic it might have kicked off early a lot of superhero movies came out though not every one really knew they were comics since movie makers (maybe embarrassed?) picked not very famous comic figures to make movies out of in the 1990s

Oh, you forgot the Punisher. BTW, wasn't Marvel's being in near bankruptcy for awhile in the 90s forcing them to sell a lot of their movie rights for peanuts part of the problem?

I blame a lot on the historic bomb that was Supergirl, one of the worst films ever made period, not just for superheroes. The acting was atrocious, it destroyed the careers of Faye Dunaway and Brenda Vaccaro, humiliated Peter O'Toole, proved that Helen Slater was no actress. The special effects were more primitive than the 50s Superman series in some ways.

That had to have scared a lot of future investors off.
 
Last edited:
Another issue I can see is that comics might not so much be viewed for geeks as for kids. Now, granted, hollywood does make kids movies too, but if it's something that going to cost lots of money for the effects, that might out a damper on their willingness.

On the other hand, more cynically, the prompt was simply what if movies got made, didn't say they had to be good movies...
 
Another issue I can see is that comics might not so much be viewed for geeks as for kids. (1) Now, granted, hollywood does make kids movies too, but if it's something that going to cost lots of money for the effects, that might out a damper on their willingness.

On the other hand, more cynically, the prompt was simply what if movies got made, didn't say they had to be good movies...

1) Exactly! That was the reason for my highlighting the different treatment superheroes got in TV animation in the 1960s versus the 1970s. The TV animated versions of Spiderman, the Fantastic Four, Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, the Flash and Kid Flash, Captain America, Thor, Iron Man, the Submariner, and so on (2) were given superbly dramatic treatment in the 1960s, with stories that read like they were coming straight from the comics themselves (in a few cases they were!).

2) There was a collection of animated Marvel and DC shows each within a single series that featured numerous different characters at different times (even the Classic X-Men and the Avengers once) using Jack Kirby as the artist for Marvel's. One even used the classic FF Susan Storm/Reed Richards wedding (changing it to a "UN peace conference":rolleyes: and writing out the FF!) as the background for showing off the entire Marvel Universe of heroes and villains as they existed at the time.

Then the decision came sometime around 1970 that anything animated HAD to be considered "acceptable to all audiences". Which based on the dreck that came out over the next ten years or so meant anything that might make a sleeping baby wake up and start crying.:rolleyes: Mission accomplished.:rolleyes: I didn't see any changes to that formula until the animated Justice League series (3) done (IIRC) around 1980.

3) When they morphed the "Superfriends" pablum over into a proper superhero animated series in which the Justice League spent most of their time waging battle against the "Legion of Doom" led by Lex Luthor.:eek: NOT pablum.:)
 
Last edited:
1) Exactly! That was the reason for my highlighting the different treatment superheroes got in TV animation in the 1960s versus the 1970s. The TV animated versions of Spiderman, the Fantastic Four, Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, the Flash and Kid Flash, Thor, Iron Man, the Submariner, and so on (2) were given superbly dramatic treatment in the 1960s, with stories that read like they were coming straight from the comics themselves (in a few cases they were!).

2) There was a collection of animated Marvel and DC shows each within a single series that featured numerous different characters at different times (even the Classic X-Men and the Avengers once) using Jack Kirby as the artist for Marvel's. One even used the classic FF Susan Storm/Reed Richards wedding (changing it to a "UN peace conference":rolleyes: and writing out the FF!) as the background for showing off the entire Marvel Universe of heroes and villains as they existed at the time.

Then the decision came sometime around 1970 that anything animated HAD to be considered "acceptable to all audiences". Which based on the dreck that came out over the next ten years or so meant anything that might make a sleeping baby wake up and start crying.:rolleyes: Mission accomplished.:rolleyes: I didn't see any changes to that formula until the animated Justice League series (3) done (IIRC) around 1980.

3) When they morphed the "Superfriends" pablum over into a proper superhero animated series in which the Justice League spent most of their time waging battle against the "Legion of Doom" led by Lex Luthor.:eek: NOT pablum.:)

Though I should point out the reason the Human Torch wasn't in the Fantastic Four 70s animated series wasn't due to moral guardians, but due to Universal considering making a Human Torch movie (who knows how that would have gone), and so the Torch got stuck in legal limbo and replaced by...Scrappy, I mean, HERBIE.
 
Though I should point out the reason the Human Torch wasn't in the Fantastic Four 70s animated series wasn't due to moral guardians, but due to Universal considering making a Human Torch movie (who knows how that would have gone), and so the Torch got stuck in legal limbo and replaced by...Scrappy, I mean, HERBIE.

I didn't know that, but that stupid hunk of junk still positively reeks of the touch of child psychologists. If you ever read the closing credits (do a freeze frame because they flash them by in about 0.5 seconds-no joke) of any of those 70s superhero shows-especially Shazam!-you'll see oodles and oodles of PhDs listed as "advisers". Besides, what you tell of does NOT explain why they didn't simply insert another Marvel Universe character as a substitute instead. Over the years, many have served as the "Fourth Fantastic", or even "Fifth", to fill in a gap when say Johnny Storm was in college, Ben Grimm had lost his powers, Susan Richards was pregnant, and so on.

How about one of the Inhumans? Both Crystal and Medusa were used at one time or another. The Spiderman series that had Iceman and Firestar didn't mind mixing three unrelated MU characters into one show.
 
I didn't know that, but that stupid hunk of junk still positively reeks of the touch of child psychologists. If you ever read the closing credits (do a freeze frame because they flash them by in about 0.5 seconds-no joke) of any of those 70s superhero shows-especially Shazam!-you'll see oodles and oodles of PhDs listed as "advisers". Besides, what you tell of does NOT explain why they didn't simply insert another Marvel Universe character as a substitute instead. Over the years, many have served as the "Fourth Fantastic", or even "Fifth", to fill in a gap when say Johnny Storm was in college, Ben Grimm had lost his powers, Susan Richards was pregnant, and so on.

How about one of the Inhumans? Both Crystal and Medusa were used at one time or another. The Spiderman series that had Iceman and Firestar didn't mind mixing three unrelated MU characters into one show.

The inner working of the minds of kids show producers are a mystery even to me. I can't say why they didn't get someone else; on the other hand, HERBIE did later appear in the comics, so maybe there was a reason
 
The inner working of the minds of kids show producers are a mystery even to me. I can't say why they didn't get someone else; on the other hand, HERBIE did later appear in the comics, so maybe there was a reason

He was used as comedy relief (Ben Grimm hated that robot as much as I did) and was used as a catspaw by a villain that I think the people at Marvel were looking to expunge from the Marvel Universe, Dr. Sun from the "Tomb of Dracula" series. HERBIE, possessed by Dr. Sun's spirit but briefly regaining control, destroys himself and kills Dr. Sun (forever, Dr. Sun in the Marvel Universe is as dead as Omega the Unknown and Marcus, son of Immortus).

As to kids shows producers, I think its that they see themselves as destined for greater things, so why waste their efforts and ideas in the bush leagues?
 
Actually, the Superfriends series where they fought the Legion of Doom is from 1978, and they still werent able to show a superhero show where they could actually fight until 1992 (unless you count GI Joe as a superhero show, which is a real stretch). As for the original post, i wonder if an X-Men movie could work in that time period. If you base it on the original team, it could be done, with the only real problem being how to get Iceman to work on screen (everything else could be done with circa 1970s-80s special effects technology).
 
Top