Very true indeed !

My dad took me to see it in the theater. When Clark pulls his shirt open to see the Superman S under the suit, I stood up in the theater and shouted "Look dad it's superman!!!!" The crowd laughed and cheered. Great memory.

Agreed. Star Wars 4-6 vs. 1-3

Well said.

I'm in 100% agreement with you on this

Personally, I think the FX in this movie have dated quite a bit. I still respect them for their innovation, but you can clearly tell it's projection and bluescreen with blurry background plates and some jerky movement here and there. The issue with CGI today is that a lot of directors just don't know when to hold back, and so everything just becomes a mess of speed and unrealistic physics. Flying effects today tend to have no grace, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible with CGI or that it will ALWAYS look bad JUST becasue it's CGI. That's gatekeeping talk. The best flying I've ever seen that is wirework was the Supergirl movie from 1984. So beautiful and choreographed, and that's what the modern films lack. The projection FX were just as ropy though. CGI could be used to great effect for flying sequences, but ONLY if the physics are natural and kept graceful. Wires for near the ground, CGi for high flight. A perfect combination.

@@Syklonus yep. CGI is meant to assist, not replace. And that's what many VFX artist appreciate-when filmmakers put out the effort first in creating the physical things as much as possible and they simply add the effects needed.

JAZZYLG PRODUCTIONS my favorite first Superman from my childhood.

You do realise that you see CGI all the time and don't realise it?

this.

I agree. The computer stuff is horribly fake looking. I'm proud to have seen the 1978 film when it was released in the theaters. It was an amazing work of art.

da5idnz exactly it requieres a lot more thought

It was magical

Terence Stamp would have made a good ANY'thing. Superb actor.

Terence Stamp Was Magnificent In Zod Role.The Sommum Of His Art. All The Actors Was Perfect Whitout Exception. Superman 👊

WHAT UP? Also, Ian McKellen did a great job as magneto and Gandalf from lord of the rings.

He made a good drag queen too. 😉

I come 10 years from the future to inform you that cgi still looks absolutely horrible.

Well said. Very much test and experimentation.

So you've worked in digital effects then? I mean, you must have in order to make that statement. Who do you think creates the complex software? Not to mention that you still need the artistic flare to make the effect. Or do you seriously think it's all just done at the push of a single button? Undermining an entire industry just to make some boomer-level comment is real low hanging fruit.

@@nebularain3338 I've worked in digital effects and in comparison to building detailed miniature models, it's definitely easier. Nothing worse than watching a movie shot on green screen with computer graphics added later on. It's very lazy and cost cutting to boot. Movies used to take years to produce, now only takes months, thanks to CGI.

I always wondered the same thing bud. Here is my best guess.... they welded the two rings together. For the spinning effect, they used either a turn table (but the actors inside the ring had to remain stationary)or they used a motor with gears (the lower ring that is touching the floor) below the floor to make it spin.

barfman7767 Hey I was wondering the same thing too

Seriously? I could make that effect in my garage with 2 hula hoops.

2 hula hoops conned on one side ande spinning on a rotational ring around them at the base?

Easy. It's two aluminum rings, welded together at a 45 degree angle. Opposite that weld, the lower ring is welded to another ring embedded in a turntable ring in the floor. Inside the turntable ring is the stationary circular base where the actors stand, and outside the turntable ring is regular floor. It's a very interesting effect, and the most difficult part is aligning the rings so they don't wobble. Watch it in slow-mo at .25% and you'll see.

Do you know if he kept any memorabilia from the set?

I don't think so. Nothing in his house I can remember. He mainly dealt with film and miniatures.

Depending on the exact process, blue was used to produce a reverse matte by processing the shots into into high-contrast black and white (the blue screen area would be clear, most everything else would be black). This would be used in the optical printer as part of combining the various elements. The blue fringe would be caused by carelessness, inadequate stability in the optical printer or in the original photography, or increased graininess in the stock image due to multiple passes in the optical printer. Video processes color differently than film stock. The weird green is chosen because it is unlikely to appear in other parts of the set or in skin tones. The green is electronically removed, creating the equivalent of the transparent space that the blue screen would produce , which is then filled with the background image.

Nobody cares