sups IV

[supereagle7]

Hey guys, I know superman IV isnt the greatest of films, but is it really that bad! if the budget had been bigger it might have done really well. Even now, if someone spent time fixing it up it, I think it would be a much better film than Fantastic four or hulk etc.

Apart from the lousy effects, I was wondering what you guys thought about the overall style, you know camera shots, narrative that kind of thing?

[Jimbo]

Gene Hackman was good, and the score was good, and that's about it.

I put together a complete cut of this, so I'm sure I've watched these scenes more than the typical Superman fan, and it was quite a chore.

Narrative? Whatever narrative they tried to have was completely destroyed with the removal of 1/4 of the movie. The entire nuclear disarmament plot fizzled out. What in effect was a subplot (Nuclear Man) became the main plot. Even fully restored, the disarmament subplot fell flat. Nothing was really resolved at the end of the movie. Both sides still had nukes. That problem ultimately lies in the original script.

Nothing about the cinematography made me take notice. Almost TV-show style camerawork. It was nothing compared to Unsworth's fine job in STM.

[adam15]

Well there was one cool deleted scene when Clark is staggaring about his house quite sick and feebily attempts to drink water... great stuff. It's best to watch this movie loaded with beer and totally trashed... you actually appreciate it more ca

[ukdrummajor]

does anyone think it would be possible to actually improve the effects/footage that actually did make it into this movie?

therefore making it slightly more appealing?

[adam15]

heck yeah... I kinow Selutron did fantasic stuff with SII.... now he's gotta go and redo SIV!!! I KNOW the movie would be awesome. If WB takes that billion dollars they made with Dark Knight and uses it all to make spectacular CGI sequences when Nuclearman rules the world and then fights with Superman it would be awesome!!

[stargazer01]

Feb 26, 2009 18:00:10 GMT -5 @adam15 said:

Well there was one cool deleted scene when Clark is staggaring about his house quite sick and feebily attempts to drink water... great stuff. It's best to watch this movie loaded with beer and totally trashed... you actually appreciate it more ca

Unfortunately, you are still under age...

[supereagle7]

Feb 26, 2009 17:52:09 GMT -5 Jimbo said:

Gene Hackman was good, and the score was good, and that's about it.

Narrative? Whatever narrative they tried to have was completely destroyed with the removal of 1/4 of the movie. The entire nuclear disarmament plot fizzled out. What in effect was a subplot (Nuclear Man) became the main plot. Even fully restored, the disarmament subplot fell flat. Nothing was really resolved at the end of the movie. Both sides still had nukes. That problem ultimately lies in the original script.

true, but perhaps the whole nuclear disarmament idea was a subplot anyway. nuclear man was basically the personification of the nuclear threat durin the 80s. At the end luthor says 'is the world gonna be vaporized' an supers say no as it always was on the brink of good fighting evil' or somethin like that, so its almost like it was more about his choice whether to interfere. an we'r kinda left with the answer of no, superman might be all powerful but he can't save everyone unless they wanna save themselves?

[Metallo]

Superman stopping the arms race forever wasn't the point of the movie, Jimbo. Superman "fails" and realizes that WE have to do it ourselves. Thats supposed to be the message of the movie.

Mank never got that when he criticized the idea of Superman stopping nuclear weapons.

[adam15]

Why can't Superman just disarm the whole world though Metallo? Does he really NEED to go to the UN?

[Metallo]

Yes

[adam15]

You are wrong muh friend Superman could easily disarm the whole world... he doesn't need to ask permission.

[Metallo]

Chris Reeve had a hand in the story and he said he should ASK.

[adam15]

Who was a better Superman writer Tom Mankewitcz or Chris Reeve? Mank is the authority on story related issues not Reeve. Reeve actually regretted SIV as a "huge blow" to his career. I suspect if he could chat w/ Mank he'd agree that he misfired on the basic premise.

[adam15]

Feb 26, 2009 19:31:18 GMT -5 @stargazer01 said:

Feb 26, 2009 18:00:10 GMT -5 @adam15 said:

Well there was one cool deleted scene when Clark is staggaring about his house quite sick and feebily attempts to drink water... great stuff. It's best to watch this movie loaded with beer and totally trashed... you actually appreciate it more ca

Unfortunately, you are still under age...

I'm buzzed right now..... call da copZ....

[Metallo]

i don't even see what this has to DO with Mank but mank said Supes shouldn't take all the nukes period. So your legs have just been cut out from under you.

[adam15]

Mank said Superman doesn't have to go to the UN because he could easily take all the nucks in the world in 2 seconds. To dwell on the premise of SIV ... (Superman actually fixing the problems in the world) it just doesn't work because you would realise that WAIT HE CAN EASILY FIX ANYTHING!

[Metallo]

You totally missed the point of S IV. The point wasn't him stopping nukes forever the point was the PEOPLE have to make a difference or did you totally forget Reeves speech at the end of the movie.

And again I said Mank said Superman shouldn't have tried to disarm countries PERIOD before he said Superman should take the nuclear weapons.

[adam15]

But why did Superman say he couldn't give people the freedom from war... WHEN HE CAN!!! He could easily disarm the world... he could feed the world... he can travel backward through time itself so as a writer you can go to a place where Superman can fix things!

[Metallo]

He can't fix human nature.

[adam15]

Doesn't matter... Superman has the power to dispell all the evils we do in our human nature. Tom Mankewitcz would agree with me therefore I win the argument.

[Metallo]

If Tom agreed with you he would have written it into the movie. He didn't. There would be no point of doling the first movie.

[EvilSupes]

I think the Gene Hackman and Reeve chemistry is amazing like STM. But they are both great actors, and probably play off each other really well. Seeing the them reunited was probably the most appealing thing to me out of the whole movie. Oh and maybe Nuclearman's "ROAR!"

[Jor-L5150]

hypothetically superman would prevent a nuke going off aywhere- unless it was a test, or something like it was a bomb headed to , say irans nuclear facility. but if he went around taking weopns he's be hated almost universally.

why stop at nukes ? take the guns, the bows, the sharp kitchen utensils, high-milligram tylonol , trans-fats , and then coat the world in foam-rubber. pave the street with anti-fatigue matting . ban the use of offensive language. medicate everyone to prevent violent tendencies. put them into little pods , and let themlive in comfortable " virtual realities " where they are shielded from any real danger. use thier metabolism as a natural , rewable energy source . for the sake of society , euthenise any resistance.

[Jor-L5150]

Feb 26, 2009 17:42:30 GMT -5 supereagle7 said:

Hey guys, I know superman IV isnt the greatest of films, but is it really that bad! if the budget had been bigger it might have done really well. Even now, if someone spent time fixing it up it, I think it would be a much better film than Fantastic four or hulk etc.

Apart from the lousy effects, I was wondering what you guys thought about the overall style, you know camera shots, narrative that kind of thing?

jimbo's " quest for coherance " did omprove the story structure. but it also maginfied the ill-advised plot, iffy-at-best acting and innane script. you could spend 500 million dollars on SIV and it would be a very expensive awful shitty movie.

[matt]

Feb 28, 2009 13:45:03 GMT -5 Jor-L5150 said:

Feb 26, 2009 17:42:30 GMT -5 supereagle7 said:

Hey guys, I know superman IV isnt the greatest of films, but is it really that bad! if the budget had been bigger it might have done really well. Even now, if someone spent time fixing it up it, I think it would be a much better film than Fantastic four or hulk etc.

Apart from the lousy effects, I was wondering what you guys thought about the overall style, you know camera shots, narrative that kind of thing?

jimbo's " quest for coherance " did omprove the story structure. but it also maginfied the ill-advised plot, iffy-at-best acting and innane script. you could spend 500 million dollars on SIV and it would be a very expensive awful shitty movie.

Just like Transformers ;D