Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 1, 2020 15:55:05 GMT -5
From the same artist who did the great work on his Superman vs Death Star short
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850 
|
Post by dejan on Aug 1, 2020 18:27:09 GMT -5
Thanks for the links Metallo!
Cool concept.
I am one of the harshest critics of SIV.
But to be more clear......outside of Nuclear Man's constume(and some rather shoddy editing) there is nothing wrong per say......with the real live footage that was shot by Furie way back then(it's still not in the same class as either Donner or Lester though...….in terms of acting or set construction).
It's just that the analogue post production(already bereft of any meaningful budget) could not fill out the gaps to make a complete , coherent and visually arresting movie.
That's one area where I will begrudgingly concede that CG is particularly effective.
These days you can....even with a relatively modest budget......compensate with greater efficacy..... the visual effects...…. for any short comings that you may have experienced during the live shoot.
If some competent(and quite frankly dedicated VFX artist!) could find a way to overlay a more sophisticated costume over nuclear man(ala what Snyder did with Mike Shannon in MOS)…..that would be interesting!
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 1, 2020 19:44:07 GMT -5
SIV’s biggest issues are with its execution not its concepts. Conceptually it had some good ideas. It’s just that the time and money weren’t there to do them justice.
Even with the right amount of money it was a very ambitious story and had ambitions set pieces. It was probably too big of a film to do exactly as it was even back then. To do that movie properly in today’s dollars we’re talking about a 200 million dollar budget easily. Probably more than that. Probably a MOS/BVS sized budget and on paper the film reads as even bigger than either of those. Fight on the moon, battle across the world, etc.
As for the raw footage the biggest issue is its rather flat. There are some good shots here and there that look nice but the cinematography isn’t cinematic looking enough. It didn’t have to look like Geoffrey Unsworth’s hazy soft focus glow of Krypton or the Rockwellian warmth of Kansas or atmospheric lighting of Metropolis but it needed to look more grand and epic.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 3, 2020 18:53:12 GMT -5
SIV’s biggest issues are with its execution not its concepts. Conceptually it had some good ideas. It’s just that the time and money weren’t there to do them justice. Even with the right amount of money it was a very ambitious story and had ambitions set pieces. It was probably too big of a film to do exactly as it was even back then. To do that movie properly in today’s dollars we’re talking about a 200 million dollar budget easily. Probably more than that. Probably a MOS/BVS sized budget and on paper the film reads as even bigger than either of those. Fight on the moon, battle across the world, etc. As for the raw footage the biggest issue is its rather flat. There are some good shots here and there that look nice but the cinematography isn’t cinematic looking enough. It didn’t have to look like Geoffrey Unsworth’s hazy soft focus glow of Krypton or the Rockwellian warmth of Kansas or atmospheric lighting of Metropolis but it needed to look more grand and epic. I admired what Sydney Furie said in interviews before Superman IV- and agreed with his statements on Superman III .... but I really wonder what Furie might have wanted to say about SIV--- the fact that he won't talk about it I assume means that it had to be anything but a pleasant experience --- and how far reaching that unpleasantness went, who knows? On the flip side, I thought he stopped making movies after that- but wiki shows he was still active for years later up to 2014 making movies--- so, good for him... but... I still would like to hear this thoughts on SIV. I thought also that Reeve wanted Kidder for Lois- to hear Kidder say that he DIDN'T want her to return.... ouch. So--- was it Furie that fought for her? Not sure, but I'm not totally sure it worked either by that point. Reeve looked pretty young still, but the other cast members noticeably were a lot older than before. The script maybe should have adjusted for the time passage. In any case, so many issues with SIV..... |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 4, 2020 14:42:33 GMT -5
I think that was just Margots feeling because they went with another romantic interest and Lois’s role was still reduced compared to the first two movies of at least was less important. Not sure she ever said Reeve said that to her. Me may have wanted to move on from the Lois and Superman relationship because they said most of what there was to say in Superman 2 unless they were willing to take it to the next level like Lois & Clark and the Arrowverse did. But Reeve is on camera saying he’d have to ask Margot about coming back circa 1985 when WB and Cannon wanted him back.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Aug 4, 2020 16:29:20 GMT -5
SIV’s biggest issues are with its execution not its concepts. Conceptually it had some good ideas. It’s just that the time and money weren’t there to do them justice. Even with the right amount of money it was a very ambitious story and had ambitions set pieces. It was probably too big of a film to do exactly as it was even back then. To do that movie properly in today’s dollars we’re talking about a 200 million dollar budget easily. Probably more than that. Probably a MOS/BVS sized budget and on paper the film reads as even bigger than either of those. Fight on the moon, battle across the world, etc. As for the raw footage the biggest issue is its rather flat. There are some good shots here and there that look nice but the cinematography isn’t cinematic looking enough. It didn’t have to look like Geoffrey Unsworth’s hazy soft focus glow of Krypton or the Rockwellian warmth of Kansas or atmospheric lighting of Metropolis but it needed to look more grand and epic. Yes totally agreed on the efficacy of execution(or lack of!) as being the reason behind SIV's demise. And as you say the analogue technology of the time was not conducive to the high end concepts of the script/story. Reeve did what he could with what was there(script and production values)......but all in all I just wish they never made this film! |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 4, 2020 19:47:01 GMT -5
I think that was just Margots feeling because they went with another romantic interest and Lois’s role was still reduced compared to the first two movies of at least was less important. Not sure she ever said Reeve said that to her. Me may have wanted to move on from the Lois and Superman relationship because they said most of what there was to say in Superman 2 unless they were willing to take it to the next level like Lois & Clark and the Arrowverse did. But Reeve is on camera saying he’d have to ask Margot about coming back circa 1985 when WB and Cannon wanted him back. That's a good point.... the love story did get played out in Superman 2 and thought Superman 4 did include Lois as best as it could- changing it to a friendship rather than romance, but the memory kiss was probably just as big a mess as time reversal--- unless Lois was going to be 'out of town' and Lana take over (which looked like the direction planned at the end of SIII).... how else would you have a meaningful part for Lois and not have her be the love interest anymore? Would have been an issue even if Donner and Mank stuck around, I think--- unless they were going to have Lois eventually remember and go forward from there... |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 4, 2020 19:48:57 GMT -5
SIV’s biggest issues are with its execution not its concepts. Conceptually it had some good ideas. It’s just that the time and money weren’t there to do them justice. Even with the right amount of money it was a very ambitious story and had ambitions set pieces. It was probably too big of a film to do exactly as it was even back then. To do that movie properly in today’s dollars we’re talking about a 200 million dollar budget easily. Probably more than that. Probably a MOS/BVS sized budget and on paper the film reads as even bigger than either of those. Fight on the moon, battle across the world, etc. As for the raw footage the biggest issue is its rather flat. There are some good shots here and there that look nice but the cinematography isn’t cinematic looking enough. It didn’t have to look like Geoffrey Unsworth’s hazy soft focus glow of Krypton or the Rockwellian warmth of Kansas or atmospheric lighting of Metropolis but it needed to look more grand and epic. Yes totally agreed on the efficacy of execution(or lack of!) as being the reason behind SIV's demise. And as you say the analogue technology of the time was not conducive to the high end concepts of the script/story. Reeve did what he could with what was there(script and production values)......but all in all I just wish they never made this film! I'm glad that they tried.... some scenes are enjoyable just to see Reeve playing Supes and Clark again. I still enjoy it much better than SIII, personally... but it definitely was a $2 version of the Superman franchise.... |
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Aug 11, 2020 22:17:13 GMT -5
They should’ve kept and developed Lana instead of rehashing Lois/Clark, and kept Lois as an ex that Superman was still friendly with.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 12, 2020 3:24:59 GMT -5
They should’ve kept and developed Lana instead of rehashing Lois/Clark, and kept Lois as an ex that Superman was still friendly with. That's a great idea. I think that would have worked better- the Supe/Lois love relationship had already pretty much been played out by SII.... |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on Aug 12, 2020 12:23:50 GMT -5
Yes, that would have been better
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Aug 12, 2020 16:50:31 GMT -5
Yes, that would have been better Annette O' Toole was a good/dramatic actress....there are glimpses of it in SIII....the classic look she gives Reeve when he says "what bridge?". She also gave a good dramatic performance in King Of The Gypsies...the film that competed against(and lost!) to STM in December 1978. I am not sure Furie had the directing chops(like Lester or Donner) to tease out the caliber of performance from O' Toole if they had gone down this hypothetical route. Kidder and Reeve barely made it work in SIV(due to their natural onscreen chemistry)….but in my opinion their performances are not on the same level as what was seen in STM & SII(Lester or Donner)….and that is partly due to the lack of ability on the part of Furie as a director. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 12, 2020 20:09:39 GMT -5
I think there was also the issue with the script. Konner and Rosenthal weren’t exactly great writers. Their Star Trek VI script was mostly trashed for a reason. Superman IV didn’t have the even the people that helped punch up the dialogue and characters. The Newman’s had their weaknesses but they had some positives and Robert Benton is a good writer. But most of all IV didn’t have Mank to improve everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 12, 2020 21:15:24 GMT -5
Yes, that would have been better Annette O' Toole was a good/dramatic actress....there are glimpses of it in SIII....the classic look she gives Reeve when he says "what bridge?". She also gave a good dramatic performance in King Of The Gypsies...the film that competed against(and lost!) to STM in December 1978. I am not sure Furie had the directing chops(like Lester or Donner) to tease out the caliber of performance from O' Toole if they had gone down this hypothetical route. Kidder and Reeve barely made it work in SIV(due to their natural onscreen chemistry)….but in my opinion their performances are not on the same level as what was seen in STM & SII(Lester or Donner)….and that is partly due to the lack of ability on the part of Furie as a director. Furie had a pretty solid movie resume prior to SIV- so I don't know if I would go right to Furie for some of the performances that were underwhelming- it's kind of cobbled with a theory on Furie's work on SIV- I have a guess on why Furie doesn't want to talk about his experiences on SIV... but- the caveat being I have no substantial proof.... so this is a guess based on info we do have with Furie and the production: #1: We know the budget got slashed... severely!. #2: We know that Reeve wanted to direct the movie in the first place (there was an interview but I don't recall which) but ended up only directing the moon material instead. Did Reeve ghost-direct? Were there any conflicts with Furie? #3: We know that (according to Kidder) that Kidder blamed Reeve for almost getting pushed out of the movie for a younger actress... OR... if she was referring to the script where the focus was more on the comical Lacey/Clark romance--- it could have been sour grapes over the script.... in any case- If Reeve didn't have veto power, then he did have influence (or at minimum a voice) in the production- and rightly so, imo... #4:Reeve was at a point in his career where he wasn't really happy where he was at, and really wanted a boost as he originally (according to one of his memoirs) never had to read or audition for a movie when he did STM- but was now at a point where he had to read- Based on those- I'm guessing that with all the pressure and (with no help with the slashed budget)- there could have been some pretty giant battles in a terrible situation to begin with. Furie and Reeve seems/seemed to take the high road by not saying too much.... but I think it is possible in a pressure cooker situation for Star and director to go at each other. It's also possible that star and director were sympathetic to each other's situation and did their best in a bad situation... Regardless of the case, so much time has passed, would love to get Furie's perspective on what went down. My guess is that there could have been creative battles that may have gotten personal and that's why Furie may not want to talk- but on the flip side, it could also add insight on different things that were hoped for and weren't achieved and be able to see the movie that Furie had in his head before the walls fell down. It's said that it takes a million things to go right to get a good movie and only a couple of things for it to all fall apart. Was more time needed for the performances? Was it a lack on the director? (Not ruling it out?) Or was this really as good as it could have been gotten under any director? So many unanswered questions still to today... |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 12, 2020 21:27:35 GMT -5
I think there was also the issue with the script. Konner and Rosenthal weren’t exactly great writers. Their Star Trek VI script was mostly trashed for a reason. Superman IV didn’t have the even the people that helped punch up the dialogue and characters. The Newman’s had their weaknesses but they had some positives and Robert Benton is a good writer. But most of all IV didn’t have Mank to improve everything. Going off of the script that I'd read prior to viewing- I thought the general plot was okay- In that it gave the returning actors something tangible to play with (mostly)-- (Though the new level of hatred that was written for Lex for Supes seemed to have been totally thrown out... though this actually -and oddly- seemed to be realized more in Singer's SR ironically)- Supes/Clark had a real arc, Lois had an arc, even Perry White had an arc--- and the introduction of Lacey's infatuation with Clark was something I thought funny and interesting enough. The material with Nuclear Man was a little too ambitious for the fx tech at the time--- If the writers had envisioned something like the T-1000 in Terminator 2- then it might have been extremely cool and ahead of its time, but as it was executed--- it seemed a bit silly and with no budget even sillier... Parts of the movie I think do work- and I revisit it far more than Superman III- but I won't argue that the script could have been stronger, but with so many things working against it (Not the least of which is also the age of some of the actors, which couldn't be helped)-- I do wonder if they had done this years earlier and a bigger budget if it would have been 'good enough' for it to get enough box office and respect. It might never have had a chance to be STM or SII- but it is sad that it gets the designation of being the worst ever Superman Reeve film. (I still think even with its flaws that it's better than SIII myself). Could have been more if a few things had been different... but how much more with the script, hard to say... |
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Aug 13, 2020 7:00:46 GMT -5
Annette O' Toole was a good/dramatic actress....there are glimpses of it in SIII....the classic look she gives Reeve when he says "what bridge?". She also gave a good dramatic performance in King Of The Gypsies...the film that competed against(and lost!) to STM in December 1978. I am not sure Furie had the directing chops(like Lester or Donner) to tease out the caliber of performance from O' Toole if they had gone down this hypothetical route. Kidder and Reeve barely made it work in SIV(due to their natural onscreen chemistry)….but in my opinion their performances are not on the same level as what was seen in STM & SII(Lester or Donner)….and that is partly due to the lack of ability on the part of Furie as a director. Furie had a pretty solid movie resume prior to SIV- so I don't know if I would go right to Furie for some of the performances that were underwhelming- it's kind of cobbled with a theory on Furie's work on SIV- I have a guess on why Furie doesn't want to talk about his experiences on SIV... but- the caveat being I have no substantial proof.... so this is a guess based on info we do have with Furie and the production: #1: We know the budget got slashed... severely!. #2: We know that Reeve wanted to direct the movie in the first place (there was an interview but I don't recall which) but ended up only directing the moon material instead. Did Reeve ghost-direct? Were there any conflicts with Furie? #3: We know that (according to Kidder) that Kidder blamed Reeve for almost getting pushed out of the movie for a younger actress... OR... if she was referring to the script where the focus was more on the comical Lacey/Clark romance--- it could have been sour grapes over the script.... in any case- If Reeve didn't have veto power, then he did have influence (or at minimum a voice) in the production- and rightly so, imo... #4:Reeve was at a point in his career where he wasn't really happy where he was at, and really wanted a boost as he originally (according to one of his memoirs) never had to read or audition for a movie when he did STM- but was now at a point where he had to read- Based on those- I'm guessing that with all the pressure and (with no help with the slashed budget)- there could have been some pretty giant battles in a terrible situation to begin with. Furie and Reeve seems/seemed to take the high road by not saying too much.... but I think it is possible in a pressure cooker situation for Star and director to go at each other. It's also possible that star and director were sympathetic to each other's situation and did their best in a bad situation... Regardless of the case, so much time has passed, would love to get Furie's perspective on what went down. My guess is that there could have been creative battles that may have gotten personal and that's why Furie may not want to talk- but on the flip side, it could also add insight on different things that were hoped for and weren't achieved and be able to see the movie that Furie had in his head before the walls fell down. It's said that it takes a million things to go right to get a good movie and only a couple of things for it to all fall apart. Was more time needed for the performances? Was it a lack on the director? (Not ruling it out?) Or was this really as good as it could have been gotten under any director? So many unanswered questions still to today... Totally valid points you make there CAM. I have to admit that personally, I am not that familiar with Furie's other work. There is just a general malaise to every shot throughout the whole film. It could be that Furie did not quite get the fantasy/scifi angle of film making.....having directed war/horror or social dramas throughout most of his career until SIV. Not dissimilar to Richard Marquand going into Return Of The Jedi......the only difference being that Marquand had Lucas as a guiding hand......Furie did not have anyone! |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 13, 2020 8:22:28 GMT -5
Furie is a good Director. A solid workmanlike guy who can deliver if he has a good script. But he’s not a visionary or someone who can really lead a massive production like a Superman movie and add something that isn’t there.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Aug 13, 2020 18:41:50 GMT -5
Furie is a good Director. A solid workmanlike guy who can deliver if he has a good script. But he’s not a visionary or someone who can really lead a massive production like a Superman movie and add something that isn’t there. -Sidney J. Furie confluencefilmblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/sidney-j-furie-is-alive-and-well-and.html |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 14, 2020 20:00:08 GMT -5
It looks cool but I would have toned down the frequency of the effect in the last scene.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 16, 2020 12:22:50 GMT -5
It looks cool but I would have toned down the frequency of the effect in the last scene. It looks great. It's fantastic that there's a dedicated fan to fixup SIV.... can't wait to see the whole thing completed! |
|
