|
|
Post by reevevsrouth on Dec 4, 2009 6:47:11 GMT -5
any thoughts on this film?
|
|
|
|
Post by MAVERICK on Dec 4, 2009 12:28:32 GMT -5
Superman III is a terrible idea executed very well.
Superman IV is a great idea executed terribly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Dec 4, 2009 12:33:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 4, 2009 12:33:26 GMT -5
Honestly--- in reading the magazines that came out about how the director hated what Lester did in S3 (as did I), and after the long gap of NO Superman movie for awhile, I was THRILLED that a serious director was going to try to restore it.
In reading the seriousn TONE of the script, on paper, it read decent enough. Luthor was given a layer of intense hatred that hadn't existed before and the fx and production values imagined on paper of course was perfect. The Lois/Superman aspect was weak (there wasn't even the scene with the glasses coming off, but it was always a weird quirk anyways), but there was a lot of excitement I had in going to see an attempt to go back to the glory of STM.
When it came out--- My jaw dropped. What the heck was this cardboard cutout of Reeve flying across the screen? Moreover, what about all those dramatic scenes that were in the script? A few were very nice (I actually love the U.N. speech- simplistic, but it's a fantasy 'what if' story to begin with and the Superman/Clark/Lacey/Lois bit with the Penthouse was fun)--- and it was nice to see the original actors on screen as their characters at LEAST one more time--- (although Kidder's makeup artist should have been fired and she should have been given throat lozengers)....
But so much of the film was gutted, that it felt like a lot was missing- and then- boom! Halfway through, right after Reeve gets his power back from the 'crystal power source' (huhhhh? But I was willing to let it slide in the script)--- the story suddenly gets a plot hole the size of South America, as if the movie was limping along with one compromise after another, then just decided to give up and die and not even TRY to make sense!
Still.... my hunger for even scraps of a good Superman film were so strong, (and there was very little else out at the time), that I saw the film again, trying to enjoy it even as a super-low budget fare with good intentions.
When SIV came to the DVD box set, I was glad that at least there was a commentary by the screenwriter- but I would have loved one by Sydney Furie.
I wasn't crazy about the terrible fx, but I actually would have forgiven that, if the rest of the film were done a little better--- but as is, I still can enjoy Reeve as Supes, and enjoying seeing him in scenes in SIV far more than S3, where it's a full blown would-be comedy.
Does SIV fail even with the extra deleted scenes?- Yes, but, I see it like the RDC: We can't know the whole story until someone in the know can reallly let us know what went on.
Pity that, on the whole, the tradition of Superman movies falls more in the 'mighta been something' category, rather than 'it's really something special' category. *sigh*
|
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Dec 4, 2009 13:35:43 GMT -5
Superman III is a terrible idea executed very well. Superman IV is a great idea executed terribly. i hear this one a lot, enrique says this whenever it comes up. personally, i think its sorta the opposite. or at least too simple. superman 3 is several great ideas married/mismatched to some equally bad ideas executed well. a richard pryor caper-comedy could have been good, a superman vs evil AI with the return of lana coulda been sweet but they cancelled each other out. superman 4 is a shit-ton of BADBADBAD ideas executed badly and a few nice ideas also executed shittily. ( yes, i said " shittily" ) |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Dec 4, 2009 14:00:52 GMT -5
Horrid, naive politics. Not a "good idea" to start off with at all. It has a child's mentality of World politics, a childlike villain, wimpy subplots, etc
The script was wrong from the start. A £200M budget wouldn't have made it better (see SR). It was doomed from the "go".
Sincere tone in places definitely helps though. (again, see SR)
Rips off other Supes films in places (Yeah, see SR)
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Dec 4, 2009 14:17:40 GMT -5
The entire room of UN delegates rising in cheer when Superman announces he's getting rid of nukes makes me crack up.
SOOOOOOOOOOOOO STUPID.
The point of having nuclear weapons is to prevent other countries or groups from using them against you. (Mutual assured destruction). As the movie told us (and the deleted scenes explicitly showed us), Superman was never capable of destroying them all as Lex is selling them to Russia and US a few scenes later.
So at the end of the day, you have a world where countries are stripped of their nuclear arsenal and there is a freaking BLACK MARKET to get nukes. Bravo, screenwriters, bravo.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Dec 4, 2009 14:52:09 GMT -5
and a solar powered villain ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 4, 2009 15:15:13 GMT -5
It's fantasy, and to me, it was intended to answer the question: "why doesn't Superman solve all humanitarian problems?"--- Paul Dini did it more seriously in "Peace on Earth", but I thought that the screenwriters did a fine job, given their parameters. Is it really more stupid than Superman turning back time and resurrecting the dead?  |
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Dec 4, 2009 15:17:49 GMT -5
Definitely not.
|
|
|
|
Post by MAVERICK on Dec 4, 2009 15:20:42 GMT -5
When I say good idea, I mean it should have taught Supes a lesson.
See: Superman Peace On Earth by Alex Ross.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Dec 4, 2009 15:23:42 GMT -5
In Superman IV, they're tackling a serious issue. STM dealt with a fantasy issue. That's the difference, I feel.
If you deal with a serious issue in a fantastical way, it will be stupid. If the plot of the movie is a guy shooting a nuke into a fault to wipe out the west coast of California in order to have new beachfront property, I think a bit of time travel is allowed. But if you're tackling something as complex and controversial as nuclear disarmament, you can't F around. 90 minute movie, not to mention being only the B-plot to a solar-powered nuclear guy? Yeah, forget it.
The Man with the Golden Gun comes to mind. Energy crisis? Don't worry about it. There's this Solex Agitator doo-hickey which will make everything better. Eh....not so much.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Dec 4, 2009 16:49:04 GMT -5
When I say good idea, I mean it should have taught Supes a lesson. See: Superman Peace On Earth by Alex Ross. gotcha excellent referance. ( TRY to forget how alex ross feels about obama.... ) and a solar powered villain ;D ... i think he might be the first " green-job" supervillain. maybe he shoulda been on captain planet. wait, no ... uh... on captain planet he'd be made of oil. the eeeee-VIL oil-man. damn- it just doesn't work anyway you slice it. |
|
Shane
New Member
Posts: 2,031
|
Post by Shane on Dec 4, 2009 21:22:29 GMT -5
always loved it
at least there was some action lol
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 5, 2009 11:03:47 GMT -5
I admire the ambition, even if it wasn't totally successful.
Also-
It may be the comics fan in me that grew up always wondering: 'Wouldn't it be great to read a story where Superman actually had to face world problems? They never tackle that in the comics.... I'd at least like to see them try."
They TRIED. DC comics for years on end never (as far as I could tell) did, until this last generation of comics, methinks, have Superman try to tackle world issues head on, and explain why this or that isn't solved.
Not referring to the movie, which was poorly done in many many many ways--- but the script, I thought struck a balance between fantasy and showing SOME credible reason as to why Superman doesn't get involved.
Paul Dini AND Alex Ross's "Peace On Earth" did it better, but I could see why that story wouldn't be the movie I'd even want to see on the big screen, if we're only allowed a few. Why? Sounds bad, but not enough 'fireworks'--- and it's REALLY a downer, although more truthful on why a Superman would be somewhat ineffective to a degree if he really existed.
About the b-plot with Nuclear Man-- the way he was executed was pretty cheesy, but at least there was an attempt for some action as well. (And I've always said that SR would not have been hurt by more action, at ALL).
Did they try to do to much on paper?
It may have been...but after seeing Superman III, with the powers that be (looking like) they weren't trying AT all--- at the end, I still prefer to watch the low-budget Superman IV with cardboard cutouts versus the well-funded heartless Superman III- where Superman is a b plot to his own movie! ;p
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Dec 7, 2009 5:25:45 GMT -5
When I say good idea, I mean it should have taught Supes a lesson. There are probably a billion ways better than SIV to "teach Supes a lesson" heck, it negated lessons learned in STM and S2 Yup, still a better movie (amazingly) than S3. Mostly cos its heart was in the right place. |
|
|
|
Post by MAVERICK on Dec 7, 2009 10:58:51 GMT -5
Agreed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Dec 7, 2009 12:49:58 GMT -5
"The road to heck....."
|
|
Legsy
New Member
Alright, alright, alright...
Posts: 15,339
|
Post by Legsy on Dec 7, 2009 12:59:37 GMT -5
I was watching this special on Bikini Atoll last night. Apparently life has found a way to strive in this once nuclear wasteland. There was a mutation to a species of shark, though. But it hasn't interfered with the species thriving! The only problem is radioactive fruits and tombstones. Other than that, it seems life is returning to normal.
|
|
ye5man
New Member
1%
Posts: 7,928
|
Post by ye5man on Dec 7, 2009 13:05:43 GMT -5
The computer inside will weave enough material
|
|
Legsy
New Member
Alright, alright, alright...
Posts: 15,339
|
Post by Legsy on Dec 7, 2009 13:08:30 GMT -5
;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Dec 7, 2009 16:17:09 GMT -5
I was watching this special on Bikini Atoll last night. Apparently life has found a way to strive in this once nuclear wasteland. There was a mutation to a species of shark, though. But it hasn't interfered with the species thriving! The only problem is radioactive fruits and tombstones. Other than that, it seems life is returning to normal. oh great! next they'll say mutated chimps are learning kung-fu and can speak ! then we're f*cked. |
|
Legsy
New Member
Alright, alright, alright...
Posts: 15,339
|
Post by Legsy on Dec 7, 2009 16:34:33 GMT -5
The mutation was a small; one of the fins transformed into a small hump. I'll post a picture when I get home.
But yes, we don't need Zira or Cornelius running around. Although, I wouldn't mind a Dr. Zaius. And, Zira and Cornelius shouldn't not be allowed to conceive a child/chimp! Or else Caesar cause the end of the human race!
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Dec 7, 2009 16:48:43 GMT -5
Vons --a grocery story here in the US-- is selling SIV for $5.99 I think. ;D Too expensive, I wonder if anyone will buy it.
I don't like this movie, but not everything about it is horrible. And it can actually be funny as a comedy. It's a case of it's so bad it's good.. if you are in the mood. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Dec 7, 2009 16:53:29 GMT -5
I think Vons is So-Cal only.
|
|
