Luthor tells his plan to Superman | Superman (3 Hour TV Version) 

Superman thinking" this guy is ridiculous'

I thought Christopher Reeve broke character because he noticed otisburg.

It’s the classic Luthor/Superman relationship from the get-go. Lex creates an insane master plan and Superman shakes his head and stops him again and again.

@@iguana9173 I thought so too.

Salvo Superman 2.

greyztone brilliant observation

Never noticed that....hilarious

Nice spot, thousands of views, never saw that.

I Kinda Forgot How Much of a Freaking Smoke Show Valerie Was

In the MAD magazine parody, when Luthor springs the Kryptonite on Superman, they show Miss Teschmacher in the background and Luthor says something like "What's the matter, Stupidman? Feeling weak in the knees all of a sudden?" and Superman answers, "Yeah, and the broad in the bikini isn't helping things!"

Yep, total amateur hour at WB/DC compared to this classic.

Greatest Superman of all time. His example should destroy any "but what about the bright colors and the trunks over the tights" objections to comic-accurate costumes and portrayals. By taking the role seriously, playing it straight, and never doing a "I'm too cool for this, I'm not a comic book nerd" mocking of the source material, he got the audience to buy in completely. Superman never looked silly even though there was too much silliness in the supporting cast

And the most human Superman

This Superman cared for the people.

He will always be Superman to me 😊

Henry cavil is better

At least Otisberg became a reality in Arkham Knight

When did he pass away?

@@cptboomerang6317 +1, cptboomerang!

@@billj4525 June of 2021, bill.

Don't mean to be a jerk, but almost every James Bond film has the bad guy tie Bond up and then tell him his whole plan.

I feel like the "businessman/President Luthor" of the modern comics has its roots in Hackman's performance here

people were surprised they got him to agree to the part. You have to understand no movie (legit) had been made about a comic book character and the idea that an actor with his level of credibility would be on board was unthinkable. The same thing happened with Jack N in Batman. They were very surprised he agreed to the role

@@jeffreymorgan8687 To be fair though, the Batman TV series did have some big names as villains.

Don't forget Heartbreakers

Nicolas Matteo that was meant as a reference for Batman Arkham knight

Nicolas Matteo so is Luthorville. That's in Baltimore, Maryland, except it's spelled differently

is it de place where de home of Batman is

Otisburg?

It's just an itty-bitty place...

Still hilarious how Luther keeps mentioning it to Otis who tries vainly to explain it

It's also in DC Universe Online

Only in Arkham Knight

This was out way before Playstation even existed

Because Superman knows he can capture lex at any second and by letting him talk lex is just giving Superman more information to testify to in court.

Really the prototype for all superhero movies, period. Kevin Feige referred to it as the blueprint. Even as Snyder tried to differentiate his Superman movies from them, he still referenced them quite a bit.

@Felix Shut man you look creepy lol

Allowing, of course, for the superior Richard Donner cutnof Superman II, yes?

@@wet-read - THE RICHARD DONNER CUT of SUPERMAN II is still as bad as the Richard Lester cut, but in different ways. It is very unfortunate Donner was not able to complete his vision HIMSELF, firstly by being fired from the original film halfway through principal photography, and secondly, by enlisting Michael Thau (editor on SUPERMAN THE MOVIE) 25 years later, to edit together outtakes and rehearsal footage to make THE DONNER CUT. At least they retook the rights for John Williams's magnificent score. That was the only thing that was better.

@@jondunmore4268 Well, I thought it was better than the theatrical version at least. Maybe even that wasn't as good as it could have been. I'll bet Zod shooting the gun was an outtake scene, eh? I enjoyed it and thought it added to the film. Or knocking down the Washington Monument? I thought that was neat too. But the best part about it is the way Lois found out Clark is Superman.

Skinnymandria, anyone?

trublu71 I be to differ. Kevin Spacey is the best Lex Luthor

I wanna an OTISBURG shirt. I already have the SAY JIM..that's a baaad outfit

No he was terrible. Part of it was the fault of the writers and the producers with the goofiness. But part of it was Hackman himself. So little respect for the role he refused to shave his head or even wear a bald cap (except for one scene at the end). Donner even had to trick him into shaving his mustache, which Hackman was furious about. Think if Patrick Stewart had played the role

@@gregorbegger9291 But he acted like a werewolf and went wild by kicking Superman many times and stabbing him with kryptonite. Just like Joaquin Phoenix's Joker said. Gene Hackman's Lex wouldn't go that far. In fact Hackman's Lex respects his archenemy. In Superman IV, If Hackman's Lex had been very sadistic and had despised Superman so much to death, he didn't need to create Nuclear Man and could have just killed Superman with dangerous kryptonite.

Yeah, poor guy deserved to be on the big screen.

general rieekan from Empire Strikes Back

You will obey my word as the word of Gawd! We must keep our heads until this peace craze blows over!

1977

Hahaha 😂

I wonder what royalties he's gotten just from that little Empire appearance

1977

I always assumed the problems he referred to was Otis messing up the coordinates of one of the missiles and that Lex intended to use both missiles on the fault, so he had to find an optimum stress point due to having less explosive power at his disposal.

@@spect100man Nah, that was definitely a happy accident. Otis was responsible for the Hackensack trajectory due to his short arm. The one Miss Tessmacher reprograms is the San Andreas-bound missile.

Or maybe the soviets panicking after seeing two missles armed with by far the largest nuclear weapons ever made and launching a counterattack that would lead to the end of civilization. Or that the economy would be so trashed by the loss of the west coast it would be years, possibly not In Lex’s liftetime, he would see any major return on his investments in a radioactive disaster zone.

@@axebomber2108 Are you sure? I thought the whole point of Miss Teschmacher going back to the site was to undo the mistake Otis had made.

EG Marshall wearing a bad wig.

@@ricardocantoral7672 In the MAD magazine parody, Zod threatens to "huff and puff and blow your cheap toupee off."

And the two Generals in the Launch control will be seen later with the President in the Oval office when the Zod trio attack the White House in Superman II in fact the Army General gets his patch ripped off him by Ursa when she collects her symbols .

Good catch.

@@andysahs1599 Jean-Pierre Cassel has a cameo in that White House scene as a French general.

Agreed

Agree with Brandon Routh being a close second

I'd rather be in Tesmacher

As it’s just a little bitty place and all, I think it would suit me well.

Was this before or after his time on Hoth?

@@annahelander2881 Before. Ratzenberger was part of a cadre of American and Canadian actors living in London who worked a lot in the '70s and '80s, like Alan Tilvern (his fellow controller here), Phil Brown (the senator in glasses), Billy Mitchell (the bearded senator who complains about how much the test cost), Shane Rimmer, Richard Le Parmentier, William Hootkins, etc.

He was also in the second Superman working for NASA

@@kristinadospoy7347 With Shane Rimmer as the other controller.

No it's a stupid silly scheme unworthy of the grandeur and epic sweep that a Superman movie, especially the first one of a franchise and the first one with Luthor, should have.

@Biñas Shareholders Bizarre rant. California has no significant pro Confederate influence and never did. The illuminati have been irrelevant since the late 18th century - it's like discussing Jacobites or Bonapartists as if they are still numerous amd important, let alone actually running things. As for Communists, California was much more conservative then than today - it elected arch anti Communist Richard Nixon to the House and Senate (including when he harshly attacked one opponent for being "pink" and another for being "cowardly" about Communism), and it elected Ronald Reagan as governor twice (and voted for him for President twice too). Conspiracy kooks imagine themselves to be wise and skeptical but in fact they are foolish and gullibly believe ridiculous nonsense that sensible people have the sound judgement to reject.

​@@IrishCarney "No it's a stupid silly scheme unworthy of the grandeur and epic sweep that a Superman movie" I stopped taking you seriously right there. You seem to lack the concept of context of time. NOBODY wanted a James Bond villain straight off comic books with some far-fetched plan to rule the the entire world. This movie finally *matured* the caricature villain of Lex Luthor from the Superman comics - where he at the time was nothing more than a scientist madman hellbent on destroying Superman for the sake of destroying Superman (comes across as a mad obsession of pure hate/jealousy and nothing more). Lex Luthor before Superman the Movie was simply a moustache twirling villain straight off a comic book (pun intended, for that expression used to hold negative connotations before you nerds began hailing it as some high-brow art and in your very own words "grandeur" ). He was described as ridiculously petty-minded and childishly loathsome. He was jealous of Superman's heroic acts and he was intentionally portrayed as bald even as a young man to accentuate his "bitterness". Bet those childish comics also implied he blamed Superman for that. At core his motivations were as badly described as a twelve-year old would describe a bully ("He/she is just jealous of me"). *Virtually every single Superman comic Lex Luthor appeared in had him concoct some silly scheme which involved some super-weapon he invented - he was a mad scientist after all. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum. Quality stuff right there. Now that might work for KIDS - i.e. the target demographic of comic books back in those days - but wisely the producers and writers of Superman the Movie understood that was *never going to work with a movie meant to have an appeal with adults as well* . The mad scientist Lex Luthor of the Superman comics was never going to fly so they re-invented the character as a shrewd criminal mastermind whose goals involve making money and more money - and lord knows we have quite a few of those in big business with an utter disregard for all the countless of lives they end up ruining. The megalomania of Luthor still shines through here where he names all new places after himself but that's merely an effect of his business scheme not the driving force behind everything he does. Do you like the Lex Luthor being the billionaire businessman owning the mighty corporation of LexCorp? *Well, without this movie that version of Lex Luthor would never have existed and he'd still be a pettyminded, mad scientist inventing weapons to destroy Superman* . I am therefore not sure what kind of "grandeur and epic sweep" (never use those words to describe anything based on comics) you had in mind and what kind of Lex Luthor you magically can retroactively portray as he is portrayed today - which only happened due to the dramatic changes in the character brought about by this very movie. There were none back in the mid 70's when they began planning for the film. I don't think you understand what a great risk Warner Bros took by risking $40 million to make two superhero films. Like I said at the very beginning. Context. At the time *nobody* dared making a big budget movie about a superhero. Certainly not in the 1970's where the name of the game was brutal realism. See movies like French Connection. The Godfather, Deliverance, Taxi Driver, All the President's Men. The 1970's was the second renaissance of Hollywood films and they finally began portraying corruption, drugs, greed, prostitution etc up close. You probably think that making a comic book movie was a "sure hit" back in 1978. That was *far* from the case. At the time anybody above the age of 13 saw anything comic book related as childish. You should also be aware that Superman the Movie was already being shot before Star Wars was released. So a "fantasy adventure" movie was a huge risk for any movie studio because potentially could be an expensive FLOP. Understand? This modern day era of the 21st century where superhero movies make a billion worldwide did NOT exist back in 1978. So what other proof do I have of your inability to understand context of the time? "Think if Patrick Stewart would have played the role?" Game over. Listen. You *can't* apply fame and acting roles *retroactively* . WHY can't you understand that? Patrick Stewart is a British actor who made his name on the live stage. Back in the 70's he *solely appeared in British tv-dramas* and played serious roles like the de-facto emperor Sejanus ("I, Claudius") , king Oedipus (the ancient Greek drama by Sophocles) and Hamlet (Shakespeare's famous drama). None of which you have ever seen I bet. If any studio executive would have suggested Patrick Stewart to play Lex Luthor back in 1976 the president of the studio and everybody else would say:"Who the h*ll is Patrick Stewart?" and those who *did* know who he was at the time (provided they loved British tv drama) would have realized he was utterly unknown to the general public back in the late 70's. They needed an actor the American movie going audience recognized as a bankable star. Ever wondered why they cast Marlon Brando for a few short scenes as Superman's father? They needed well-known and well-respected actors, especially since it was decided that Superman himself would be cast by the then unknown Christopher Reeve (just *because* he wouldn't be associated with another role - the very same reason you think Patrick Stewart is the ideal anachronistic choice). Now, let's hypothetically assume the studio did want Patrick Stewart for some inexplicable reason back in 1976-1977. So they approach him. "Say, Mr.Stewart. We really need a British drama actor to play Lex Luthor in a Superman movie we're making. We also know that you've never once appeared in a Hollywood movie but we think this role fits you..." Patrick Stewart is going to take them seriously and think:"Oh yes, I am trying to make my name playing serious dramas by Shakespeare and Sophocles, but Hollywood offers me the role as some villain in a movie about a superhero? Why, of course I'll see that as the logical next step in my career." In what universe? For you however the "thinking" process was simple. It was like this:"I loved Patrick Stewart as Professor X in X-men. I also loved him in Star Trek. He appears in my favorite franchises. And he is also bald. That makes him perfect." Out of ALL quality actors and "big name" famous ones of Hollywood at the time you're suggesting a virtually unknown British stage-actor appearing in British tv dramas is the best choice? Like I said, game over. And since you made a serious reply to the obvious troll comment of Binas Shareholders - who obviously is pulling your leg with an intentionally nonsensical comment - I'm not sure you're in the position to assess or pass judgement on anything. You claim it's a bizarre rant but never stop to think if something bizarre is even serious to begin with. Here's what you need to understand. As dated as Superman the Movie might appear in places today the fact is it was a pivotal point in movie history as far a your precious comic book superhero movies are concerned. You see without it, and if it had flopped, there would have been no further films in that genre and it might have been several decades before somebody dared making a big budget one. It happened to other genres. The "sword&sandal" epics were pretty much killed following the infamously expensive Cleopatra back in 1963. In fact we didn't see such a "sword&sandal" epic for almost 40 years before Ridley Scott's Gladiator in 2000. The two Superman films Warner planned were going to be the most expensive films ever. Had they flopped? Another Cleopatra, i.e. the death of a genre. At least at the time of Cleopatra expensive epics like Ben Hur and Spartacus had been commercially successful and loved by movie goers and critics alike. The fundamental difference between me and you is that I see Superman the Movie for its *movie* qualities and as a standalone work. I haven't read comics since I was 12 and for me a movie doesn't need to tie in to some comic book lore or "established narrative" . It has to stand on its own legs and have an appeal to those who have zero interest in comics. For you it has to tie in to your own modern day comic book/superhero flick obsession. At least you're showing some knowledge in your serious reply to Binas Shareholder by pointing out the historic realities of California. Sadly you dismantled a troll comment. "that sensible people have to sound judgement to reject" I smell a sense of irony here with cast Patrick Stewart as Lex Luthor back in 1977 and the fact you can't spot an obvious troll. Learn from this. It'll do you good. Bye-bye.

@@jamesshunt5123 _You seem to lack the concept of context of time_ . _NOBODY wanted a James Bond villain straight off comic books with some far-fetched plan to rule the the entire world_ You’re perfectly, exactly wrong. “The Spy Who Loved Me”, released in 1977, featured a *literal James Bond villain* who planned to destroy the world and then rule humanity from underwater, complete with elaborate hidden lair, etc. It was a box office smash hit, earning back more than ten times its budget and in its day was United Artists’ highest-grossing film EVER. _Do you like the Lex Luthor being the billionaire businessman owning the mighty corporation of LexCorp_ ? _Well without this movie that version of Lex Luthor would never have existed and he'd still be a pettyminded mad scientist inventing weapons to destroy Superman_ I don’t see why you couldn’t have both a mogul and scientist. Elon Musk for example is well-known as being both a highly talented engineer and a business tycoon with grandiose plans. And before you start with more hooting and screeching about retroactive vision and anachronisms, ever heard of Howard Hughes? Thomas Edison? In any case, even if you were going to only have the tycoon aspect rather than the mad scientist, this movie Luthor was still too silly. You’re the one who went on at length about the gritty grounded 1970s. OK great then, have a serious villain instead of a clown! You talk about the “wisdom” of the producers, but the Salkinds were the problem. They kept trying to drag the movie down to the silliness of the 1960s Batman TV show. Now THAT tone was what was incongruous for the times of this movie. _I am therefore not sure what kind of "grandeur and epic sweep" (never use those words to describe anything based on comics) you had in mind_ Have you SEEN the movie? Have you heard the John Williams score? Noticed the seriousness of tone with which the Krypton and Kansas acts were done? You talked about Marlon Brando - have you listened to his dialogue? Not exactly “Otisburg” stuff there. So yeah, that’s the kind of “grandeur and epic sweep” I had in mind, .. the kind that was already in the movie! You strain and labor to scoff and guffaw over casting Stewart as Luthor. Aside from not admitting for a second the obvious, that he would have smashed it out of the park and been by far the best imaginable Luthor, you foolishly dig yourself an ultra deep hole by going on and on about how risky it would have been to cast an unknown for such a crucial role. An unknown, like, say, CHRISTOPHER REEVE? You can’t have it both ways. Can’t scoff at casting Stewart with talk about how the movie was too much of a gamble to trust a top role to an unknown who exactly looked the part and did (or would have done) a brilliant job acting it too, and then be OK with Reeve. Although I would not have bothered with Brando’s huge payday and unprofessionalism, assuming him being in the cast, that's already covered the issue of the supposedly necessary big name to reassure the audience or spark their curiosity. On top of that, Stewart did genre Hollywood well before Next Generation. He was in “Dune” in 1984 and “Excalibur'' in 1981. So by no means certain that he’d have turned up his nose at this. And if you only want to count the 1970s, he did 20th century villainous roles as the KGB spymaster in “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy”, and as Lenin in “Fall of Eagles”. None of that was Shakespeare or Sophocles.

@@IrishCarney The simple fact is Lexcorp Lex didn't exist yet, and Lex's plan in this movie is basically a Bond villain plot. Destroying the west coast to make the desert land he bought more valuable is the same idea as Goldfinger irradiating Fort Knox's gold to make his gold supply more valuable. Not every Bond plot is about villains holding the world ransom with some weapon of mass destruction(nor is it a particularly original concept, which is why people remember Goldfinger and not Thunderball). So while you might not think the movie's villain plot was worthy of Lex, it was along the lines of the kinds of villain plots you'd see in another successful movie franchise. And it was refreshing that it was at least something clever and not "give me money or I'll blow the planet up".

In the screenplay, they mention Superman dealing with the fallout and pollution. I think he might suck the mushroom cloud up into his mouth.

Execute order 66

Only The Senate could have pulled something like this off.

@@Mehffort the senate ?

@@willisapril Palpatine calls himself "The Senate" in one of the movies. Basically saying he's so politically powerful that he can tell the actual Senate anything and they will go along with it. So fans sometimes refer to him as "The Senate" as if that's his actual name.

Correction. Hackman.

They should.

It's also a ballistic missile that's fired, yet Superman is chasing a cruise missile.

In 2007 the US Air Force mistakenly loaded six nuclear warheads onto a B-52 bomber that was supposed to be only carrying dummy warheads. The B-52 flew from North Dakota to Louisiana and landed, warheads on board. Nobody noticed that six warheads were missing from ND and that six warheads were sitting without being properly guarded in LA -- for 36 hours.

You do know this is a movie about a guy who can fly, right?

@@Jamthecoolerator Which is exactly why everything else has to be believable. As the director, Richard Donner, said, "verisimilitude" -- to sell the audience on a costumed superhero, you have to make his environment realistic

@@IrishCarney I didn't notice or care about that detail till you mentioned it. So I think the audience in 1978 didn't either.

Fallout requires kicking up irradiated dust into the air. But Lex's plan was to detonate the nuke deep underground to set off an earthquake

@@IrishCarney Nuclear missiles don't explode underground, they either explode on impact or as an air burst which would be much more devastating.

@@albert-nu3gn they even explode underwater 💡

In the movie, Krypton was destroyed because the Red Sun collided with it.

If anyone in charge of the new movies cared about the source material or bothered to crack a gold or silver age book open they could have made the destruction of Krypton a plot point and use kryptonian computers to introduce Brainiac.

@@ianduncan3141 the near destruction of California is very reminiscent of the death of krypton in the movie

@@ianduncan3141 Nope, Brainiac is Coluan, not Kryptonian. It was Superman: The Animated Series that changed his origin to be the Super computer that ran Krypton.

@Power106Fan I am surprised that they voted for Arnold earlier there.

It was after the elevators.

I have the feeling that was supposed to be a Presidential joke, though President Carter allowed the costume designer and production designer to take a non-standard tour of the White House for research; the costume designer opened the wrong door at one point and ended up face to face with Carter in the Oval Office.

Why wouldn't he?

Sean Collins How is it dumb? Yes, it's possible people won't want to buy because of how dangerous it was, but do they really have a choice? Not to mention Luthor is brilliant; it's possible he could do several PR stunts to slowly convince people to buy.

@@clark5317 He is still killing millions of people just to build and sell a bunch of houses and buildings on the new coast.

Sean Collins Your point being? No one can trace it back to Lex Luthor.

Yes, it is pretty dumb indeed...

@@clark5317 I think his point, rather bizarrely, is that the mass murder of millions of people seems a bit of a high price to pay for valuable land. He seems confused at the thought of a villain committing a heinous deed in order to further his financial gain...

Lex's arrogance in full swing

Thing is Kal-El is no simpleton, he has a genius level intellect like Lex does. It’s such a shame that in a lot Superman media he is portrayed as being all brawn and no brains when that is so far from the truth

“I’m afraid we’re just out of Waldorfs…”

1977

You're a good fighter, Luthor! I hate to lose you.

He's also in The Empire Strikes Back. Ratzenberger was part of a cadre of American and Canadian actors who lived and worked in London during the late '70s. The English pound was worth less than the American dollar back then, and there were a lot of British stages and crew available. A lot of American movies were shot at Pinewood, Elstree, and Shepperton back in the day.

John Ratzenberger also appeared in Superman 2 as 1 of the controllers at Houston control center.

William Shaw I know. Also, from Pixar 🎥.

+William Shaw - Yep, Shane Rimmer and William Hootkins were another pair. Rimmer was an X-Wing technician in the original Star Wars, as well as making appearances in Superman II (NASA guy with...John Ratzenberger) and Superman III (policeman at the Smallville fire). He even turned up in Batman Begins. Hootkins played Porkins in SW, Munson in Flash Gordon and showed up in Raiders of the Lost Ark and even Batman. Interestingly he didn’t show up in Superman until Quest for Peace. If it’s an early-to-mid 80s sci-fi blockbuster, you can almost set your watch by these actors’ appearance.

Not to mention the British actors that seem to show up in Star Wars, Superman and other franchises. Lobot condemned Zod to the Phantom Zone. Admiral Ozzel was promoted to Fuhrer and gave Indy an autograph. East Houston Idaho reporter wasn’t frightened by Lord Vader’s sorcerer’s ways. And on and on.

would an "otisburger" be from one of those burger places that, if you eat the burger the size of the plate in less than 30 minutes, you get it for free, otherwise you pay $10 and it would still be worth it anyway?

Kultrick The Kulprit it sure is otis knows how to run that place and the service is excellent

Alec Powers that’s a good idea.

Even the Czar Bomba is only 50 megatons. The Fallout from a weapon like that would make a good amount of Lex's land poisoned. It would be worth even less.

James Earl Jones as Darth Vader

@@fiendsofsociety5369 He's just a voice.