hursty
New Member
I win! I always win!
Posts: 337
|
Post by hursty on Mar 5, 2012 6:27:48 GMT -5
Its funny, I loathe so much about SIII but still like to watch it every so often, Reeve as Evil Superman is inspired, its a shame it didnt last longer - like the whole film, and at the end, instead of smiling at the audience - he scowls, with the line 'Superman will return in Superman IV: The Quest to become un-evil again' beneath him.
Seriously though, I did wish he did a few more evil deeds, before the junkyard fight.
The good points about SIII? Hmm, well, I think the plot is quite good, computers were all the rage at this point and I think the idea of a computer that identiies Superman's weakenesses and uses them against him is quite novel, just a shame that the whole Gus Gorman stuff had to ruin it.
How the heck does Gus come off a good guy at the end, not withstanding the fact that he didnt put up too much opposition to working with Webster after a slight threat of jail, he did perpetuate a quite nasty fraud against his employers with no encouragement from anybody. In short, Gorman was a scum-bag who decided right at the end that the super-computer that he created was actually not nice and he should save Supes.
Not only does Pryor's very presence cheapen the majesty of Superman, but his narrative is totally inconsistent.
Would have liked to have seen more of Lorelei's supposed intelligence, this is hinted at throughout the movie to no pay off. So she's using Ross to live the high life, but surely after sleeping with Superman, Lorelei's ambitions should have heightened after that, to maybe use her intelligence to take the carpet from under Ross and leave him penniless. Could have dumped Gus Gorman completely and have her as the computer programming genius. Pamela Stephenson is a top actress, and very hot. Wasted in this film.
Obviously the set-pieces of the film are well done, the chemical fire, the junkyard fight, but the slapstick prologue is unforgivable and so is the whole bingo Fat Man business.
Seriously though, it pains me to see how good Reeve is as evil Supes, pains me because it showed how versatile he was as an actor - and he didnt get major roles coming his way as a consequence. It's a big risk to have the lead goody-goody be so totally sleazy, the part when he is swaggering about Lana, coming across as a major jerk - this is genius from Reeve. 'I always get there on time' Lana's look of disgust at this sexual predator - Man, thats great stuff, I could watch it all day.
All in all, like IV, I have soft spot towards III, but there was some criminal mistakes made by the Salkinds in their desperation to interpret Supes in their own way, completely ignoring the fact that everyone loved how Donner did it.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 5, 2012 11:50:42 GMT -5
I only found about how talented Pamela Stephenson was AFTER reading about her years ago.... definitely wasted talent. In looking back, the money and support were THERE with STM and SII making bank ..... so why did everything have to look SO cheap compared to SII? (Though the question could also be asked: Why does SIV look so cheap compared to SIII?) Richard Lester made a brilliant action-comedy with his "Three Musketeers" classic... My disappointment with SIII is this: If he wasn't (and he didn't) going to go with Donner's direction, then he coulda/shoulda gone full bear with HIS version of Superman--- only, to me, he didn't really even do that. Superman isn't in a good chunk of the film....much of the screentime goes to Pryor and the villains. As Mank said, "The problem with Superman III was that Superman was a guest star in his own movie". But then again..... there's that whole UNNECESSARY five-minute sequence in Metropolis without ANY of the leads during the 'wind' gags.... so, who knows? Even if Pryor wasn't in the film, maybe Lester would have had even more stuff non-Superman related in the film. (Look at the credit sequence)  ((*For all of its sins, the portion of SIV where Superman has the comedic 'double date' with Lacey and Lois simultaneously felt like something that might have played up to Lester's strengths--- it could be argued that Lester had no control over the script, but it's unlikely- given the differences between the script that the Newmans (under him) wrote for SII and what ended up in the theatrical (which took the comedy schtick MUCH further than the script).)) |
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Mar 5, 2012 12:52:12 GMT -5
How the heck does Gus come off a good guy at the end He took the Darth Vader approach. Last-second turn to rescue the hero, and everything else is forgiven. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 5, 2012 13:16:15 GMT -5
Gus's "No" isn't as laughably bad though.
|
|
Gandy
New Member
Admiral
Owner & Creator of Superman Cinema
Posts: 17,343
|
Post by Gandy on Mar 5, 2012 15:27:08 GMT -5
Superman 3 is what Superman 1 would have been like if they shot the Newman draft. It's a terrible script. The film is watchable, only because Reeve is so damn good in the role - and I guess it's not pretentious in any way. A light romp, if you will.
|
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Mar 5, 2012 15:30:50 GMT -5
I don't think I've watched SIII in about 20 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 5, 2012 16:25:45 GMT -5
Reeve is the only real reason to see SIV, too.... but the good intentions with no money make that film fascinating to me. With Margot and the rest of the cast (outside of Reeve) having aged a tad too much by that point- at least SIV makes one not feel too bad that they didn't keep going. Can't help but wonder about the rumored SV Canon-Globus was going to make with deleted scenes from SIV..... Now and then I come across low-budget straight to dvd garbage that licenses stuff from 'real' films, and has a lot of 'filler' to pad the running time- maybe that would have been the strategy.... but if this story is true, it just is mind-boggling to imagine what that SV would have been like....  |
|
|
|
Post by Olly H 82 on Mar 5, 2012 17:55:52 GMT -5
|
|
hursty
New Member
I win! I always win!
Posts: 337
|
Post by hursty on Mar 6, 2012 5:09:16 GMT -5
I shall do later Olly.
|
|
|
|
Post by booshman on Mar 6, 2012 5:22:48 GMT -5
I'd love to be able to read Puzo's draft before any revisions were made to it.
|
|
hursty
New Member
I win! I always win!
Posts: 337
|
Post by hursty on Mar 6, 2012 8:34:49 GMT -5
Watched both your SIII and SIV vids Olly, very interesting, you have a good voice for narration. You are like me, you look upon SIII and SIV as best you possibly can, despite their shortcomings. And this comment 'Superman IV was a good idea done badly and Superman III was a bad idea done well' pretty much sums it up |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 6, 2012 11:45:51 GMT -5
I sort of agree.... It would have been awesome to have had the directors' commentary on both to share and explain more their side of the productions. Was Lester truly happy with the results or was this one done for a quick buck? We know that the producers were fairly happy with lack of creative arguments.... Did ANYTHING go right in Furie's mind for SIV, or was the shooting even worse than imagined and it's a miracle anything got finished? We know his budget was hacked to pieces and that the film got hacked to a point of incoherency, but even then..... Hopefully we'll be able to hear from both of these guys SOMEDAY before too long on their experiences on the Superman series... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2012 23:37:16 GMT -5
Gus Gorman was us - a regular guy, smart but lazy, looking for the quick buck. So he stole money ... so what? He was just a complete and utter moron about it, taking it all in one lump check. But how many people have cushioned expense accounts or stayed clocked in during lunch break? We all do it in some little way, just a bit here and there. Was he hurting anyone? Not really.
He knew he was on the wrong side by working for Webster, but he kept blinders on to the people he eventually hurt. Out of sight, out of mind. (Even when he tried to lay the tar-ladden Kryptonite on Superman in Smallville, I believe his mindset could have been "Fuck it, he's Superman and nothing kills him." or having replaced tar for the "unknown" element would likely make the synthetic substance impotent in a way.)
But, he realized he was hurting people when he saw something hurting right in front of his eyes, where he couldn't turn off a television or put down a newspaper. He had to see it. Of course, it's the scene where Webster is blasting Superman with the Kryptonite ray.
For a more simplistic explanation, just accept that he was a glorified "special guest star" and he just couldn't ... just couldn't be a bad guy. He's funny! Think of those wacky Gene Wilder movies he made! He's not a bad guy! Not Richard!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2012 2:07:18 GMT -5
Val, we must do III and IV one of these days. Do them right.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 7, 2012 7:57:46 GMT -5
...with a bottle of wine and some Marvin Gaye playing in the background? I knew SIV was cheap but jeeeeeez man. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2012 13:19:03 GMT -5
Box of wine and Sisqo.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tristan D on Mar 7, 2012 15:08:02 GMT -5
It strikes me that Lester tried to do SIII 'his' way, but that he lost heart half way. Perhaps he himself got restrained by the Salkinds and lost heart. Anyway, I'm not convinced it would have been a better film anyway.
SIII doesn't entirely strike me as a bad idea. In principle, Evil Superman and the computers theme isn't a bad one. Nor is Clark's return to Smallville and bringing Lana back into the series. They just weren't handled or developed particularly well.
I have a little bit of a soft spot for the title sequence. It's fun, and it almost works, but some of the slap stick is just too forced. Like the businessman with a bucket on his head, who is just one step away from saying "Whoa! Who turned the lights out!?". Nonetheless, the film should have had a proper 'space titles' credit sequence like the first two.
Absolutely, though I imagine the camp would be even higher.
On a side note, when I was very young and my older sister was having ballet lessons, my mum used to have to take me with her. Apparently Pamela Stephenson used to take her daughter to the same lessons and they would sometimes sit together! I was totally oblivious at that age.
|
|
|
|
Post by Olly H 82 on Mar 7, 2012 15:48:04 GMT -5
Cheers Hursty for the kind words on my reviews!.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 7, 2012 16:35:31 GMT -5
You gloriously magnificent cheapskate you.  |
|
|
|
Post by indo77 on Mar 7, 2012 16:42:44 GMT -5
It's such a great movie!!! I seen Superman IV on Bluray and it actually looked great (well the picture did).
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,076
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 7, 2012 18:12:15 GMT -5
Its amused me (in a pitying kind of way) that SIV has basically been in post production for 25 years. They FINALLY started taking those damned wires out.
|
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Mar 7, 2012 23:31:33 GMT -5
I love SIII.
|
|
hursty
New Member
I win! I always win!
Posts: 337
|
Post by hursty on Mar 8, 2012 5:37:14 GMT -5
Gus Gorman was us - a regular guy, smart but lazy, looking for the quick buck. So he stole money ... so what? He was just a complete and utter moron about it, taking it all in one lump check. But how many people have cushioned expense accounts or stayed clocked in during lunch break? We all do it in some little way, just a bit here and there. Was he hurting anyone? Not really.! I don't see how this can be justified at all, if you embezzle from your employers you can expect a hefty jail term, its a very serious offence. He's just lucky his boss was a megalomaniacal nutcase. Well, Richard Pryor had his fair share of real life controversies, I'm not sure if he could be described as one of the good guys of life - but he was a damn funny comedian...and that's where he belonged, in comedies, not in Superman movies. You must be a serious Gus Gorman fan to justify those crimes. |
|
hursty
New Member
I win! I always win!
Posts: 337
|
Post by hursty on Mar 8, 2012 5:41:06 GMT -5
I have a little bit of a soft spot for the title sequence. It's fun, and it almost works, but some of the slap stick is just too forced. Like the businessman with a bucket on his head, who is just one step away from saying "Whoa! Who turned the lights out!?". Nonetheless, the film should have had a proper 'space titles' credit sequence like the first two. It's a complete disaster, you have mimes, rubber faced men falling down holes, blind men with road-line-painting equipment, farcical bank robbers...then the very terrifying sight of a man nearly drowning in his own car. How can you go from laughter to horrification in a matter of seconds? the car bit should have remained, to get a Superfeat in the film early, the photo booth moment too is also cute, but the rest can do - seriously. |
|
hursty
New Member
I win! I always win!
Posts: 337
|
Post by hursty on Mar 8, 2012 5:42:06 GMT -5
Cheers Hursty for the kind words on my reviews!. Pleasure. |
|
