Richard Pryor vs Otis: who was worse?

[atp]

Lots of people criticise S3 because of all the Richard Pryor slapstick crap. But was STM any better with all the retarded Otis stuff?

In fact, I think Otis was even more of a retarded distraction than Richard Pryor was.

Please?

[Rod]

No way.
S3 is a Richard Pryor movie with Superman on it.

Compared to that Otis causes no harm.
Besides, Otis is not on the cover of STM.

[Jimbo]

As a character, I like Gus Gorman more. He certainly fit S3 better than Otis fit STM. Gus was the character designed for that movie. It doesn't clash with anything because he's the backbone. Richard Pryor gives a funny performance. Giant. Foam. Cowboy hat. Nuff said.

With Otis, he's a buffoon in a much more serious movie, and so he stands out like a sore thumb. Now if the roles were reversed, Pryor would ruin STM, while Otis would fit right into S3, as just about everyone is a buffoon.

Odd choice to have Otis at all (not to mention a key figure in the missile scheme) when he was written to be jettisoned in the prison for most of Superman II.

[atp]

Dec 1, 2011 15:42:03 GMT -5 Jimbo said:

With Otis, he's a buffoon in a much more serious movie, and so he stands out like a sore thumb.

Two things stop STM from being perfect: one it turning back the world, and the other is Otis.

[EnriqueH]

ATP, is that the Inside Kung Fu magazine I asked you to get me? Why am I not reading it?

[ye5man]

I thought they had to have an idiot to screw up the missile hijacking plot. Luthor and Miss T scenes might not have been as entertaining without Beatty IMO

[crazy_asian_man]

Odd choice to have Otis at all (not to mention a key figure in the missile scheme) when he was written to be jettisoned in the prison for most of Superman II.

It's in the Mank script that way.....but I wonder when/if it was just decided that he wasn't necessary for him to join Luthor for the rest of SII?

(Perhaps when they went through and figured out they also only needed 3 and not 4 Phantom Zone criminals?)

[Rod]

i guess 3 is more...symbolic?

Otis is not a great character but it is part of the fun to me.
he annoys me a bit, yes, the subway part, etc, etc...BUT STM is more than Otis, of course.

S3 is Richard Pryor. I love him but the thing is that Superman is the distraction there.

So Pryor could not ruin a Superman movie that actually was never been filmed.

[Jor-L5150]

gus gorman is the man. i love that guy.

[HOSNI]

Pyror was big at the time and Lester felt we all needed a comedy. I think it was characters like Lorelei and the whole opening sequence that lowered the tone of the film beyond where it needed to go.

The brief comedic presence of Otis was fare more tolerable because it was balanced with the seriousness of STM. And on the whole Ned Beatty injected far fewer laughs than what Kidder, Reeve and Hackman offered.

[crazy_asian_man]

Pyror was big at the time and Lester felt we all needed a comedy. I think it was characters like Lorelei and the whole opening sequence that lowered the tone of the film beyond where it needed to go.

The brief comedic presence of Otis was fare more tolerable because it was balanced with the seriousness of STM. And on the whole Ned Beatty injected far fewer laughs than what Kidder, Reeve and Hackman offered.

Lester's strengths are his comedies. Ironically, Lester might have been perfect as a director for a superhero film from the get-go that was more comedic at its center (from the comics)- like Plastic Man or the Spirit.

[Valentine Smith]

Wow, a proper Spirit movie with Lester at the helm back in the day really would have been something!

[HOSNI]

Lester Directing a live action version of Banaman would have worked.

Did you guys in the US get that cartoon? Great English product, enjoyed in Australia too.

[Knight]

Yea,Honsi

Banaman was excellent. Haha,Lester would have been perfect for that. Man on skates,ice cream and all.

[cypher85]

Two things stop Nothing stops STM from being perfect

Fixed


I don't know why but, I have never ever had a problem with Otis. As a kid a quite liked him. Nostalgia maybe. But, I like him. It also points out Lex's vanity, and superiority complex when you look at who he surrounds himself with.

[crazy_asian_man]

Lester Directing a live action version of Banaman would have worked.

Did you guys in the US get that cartoon? Great English product, enjoyed in Australia too.

Never saw it. Have to check out youtube, but I am curious- thanks for mentioning it..

Back to Lester-

But, yeah, as much flak as I give Lester--- even Mank says that he thought he was a good director, but not to finish Superman.

Lester's ability to film comedy and cheap would have been far better to do a number of superheroes (Booster Gold, Blue Beetle) in the campy Batman style.

Lester CAN 'ape' Donner to a degree (thus, the reshoots) -and I think he should have - but he simply didn't WANT to on SII. He HAD to have the guy on roller skates, he had to have Leueen (sp?), he had to change the dynamic between Lois/Clark with his screenwriters....

[ye5man]

Lester has his own style. Remember there was no Mank or Unsworth either

Fucking miracle that film got finished at all ;D

[crazy_asian_man]

I don't know why but, I have never ever had a problem with Otis. As a kid a quite liked him. Nostalgia maybe. But, I like him. It also points out Lex's vanity, and superiority complex when you look at who he surrounds himself with.

As Donner said, Hackman can do both comedy and drama well- (Not to mention Beatty) Can you imagine if Donner had treated Hackman and Otis's role as serious as Brando's?

Hackman and Otis add a lot of humor to the pictures, particularly when he's contrasting (and odd that it actually WORKS) with Brando in the FOS, or trying to negotiate with Terence Stamp's Zod in SII.... but if they chose to embrace Hackman's ability to do serious stuff instead for his part in Superman- AND Ned Beatty's ability-

Luthor could have been scary as heck- and Otis might have also given chills, if they went to make the villains REALLY evil. It's amazing to see "the Omen" right before seeing STM- and realize that not only that it's the same director/editor, but that the first film is also what the Salkinds saw before approaching him to do STM!

Again, would have been interesting to see how Hackman & Beatty would have reinvented Lex/Otis if they were rewritten to be scary, and not comedy relief.....

[atp]

i would like to know how STM would have worked out if Lester directed that

[Jimbo]

It most certainly would have kept the Kojak cameo. ;D

[Metallo]

Gus Gorman was worse because while at times I DID find Pryor funny in the film he represented the whole problem with Superman III. Too much..everything. Too much humor not enough drama. Too much Gus in general.

Otis was in STM much smaller doses and Beatty and Hackman had a good comedic rapport.

[stargazer01]

Both sucked hard. But if I have to choose the lesser of 2 evils then I choose Otis. I can still enjoy STM with him in there. Can't say the same for SIII.

[Tristan D]

Otis had a better rapport with Lex. It was fun to see Lex get so frustrated with him. But still, there seems little reason for him to be associated with Otis.

In fact, when Lex says 'Why is the most diabolical leader of our time surrounding himself with total nincompoops?', the question is left unanswered and unaddressed. Just why does Lex keep him around? Maybe he needs someone so stupid that he won't question the morals and ethics of his tasks - but why not get someone who doesn't have morals? I never think it's a good idea for a movie to question plot or motives in-scene without being able to adequately answer them.

In and of themselves, I find Gus more irritating. His mooning is more exaggerated and excessive, and isn't justified since he's supposed to be some kind of genius.

In context, I think Otis is more out of place and 'damages' the film more. Mainly because much of the rest of SIII is also rubbish, so Gus doesn't stick out too much as the worst element. The rest of STM is top bracket cinema, so Otis' unjustified bafoon is quite out of place. That said, he doesn't really bring the film down to his knees.

Maybe Otis is more acceptable because he's only a secondary character, and not particularly integral to the plot. Gus was really the primary villain.

[atp]

Otis damaged STM way more than anything Lester did to damage S2.

[Valentine Smith]

Dec 2, 2011 16:10:18 GMT -5 @stargazer01 said:

Both sucked hard. But if I have to choose the lesser of 2 evils then I choose Otis. I can still enjoy STM with him in there. Can't say the same for SIII.

Yes.

Otis is one of two factors that keep a perfect movie from being perfect. SIII is just lousy. Haven't watched it in years, and have no desire to revisit it.