A couple of good Reeve interviews

[Metallo]

The Charlie Rose interview from 92 is a re upload that I’m happy to see back on YouTube.


This one is on Wogan and I’ve never seen it before. It’s fascinating to see him discussing some big franchises and across of that era.

[atp]

He thought Godfather 3 was going to be good !!!,🤣🤣🤣

[atp]

Jan 10, 2022 8:59:00 GMT -5 Metallo said:

The Charlie Rose interview from 92 is a re upload that I’m happy to see back on YouTube.


This one is on Wogan and I’ve never seen it before. It’s fascinating to see him discussing some big franchises and across of that era.

Are these Reeve Only Interviews?

[EnriqueH]

You gotta love him.

[dejan]

Metallo

Thanks for the uploads.

It's kinda funny and great to hear Reeve say that Hollywood is run by MBAs who report to their CEOs and all they are concerned about is balancing that Ledger.
Nothing new and it's now worse than ever!
Indeed ,little did Reeve know that one day, Charlie Rose himself would be approached by those very same MBAs , so that they could balance The Ledger for a project called ......Dawn Of Justice!.......which definitely did not respect(as Reeve would say) the audience.

It's also nice  to see Reeve defend STM and SII("for the time capsule").
SIII was "marginal".
SIV "get swept under the carpet".

Personally that's where I stand too.
IMHO I would go further and say that SIV should never have got made and even though it was nice to see Reeve done the cape one final time........that ultimately should have been SIII's prerogative(no matter what it's intrinsic deficencies).

Never saw the 1989 Wogan interview before(and I live in the UK!).
There, Reeve states that they made "2 Superman sequels too many".

My understanding was that there was always going to be a SIII(assuming SII was a commercial success). 
I think it was in Starburst ,June 1981(to coincide with SII's U.S theatrical release) where Reeve categorically stated that SIII should only get made if there was a justifiable artistic reason for doing so. Too bad that belief was betrayed.

On Edit:
The Matrix Resurrections is testimony to the almost 30 year old analysis by Reeve!


 

[atp]

Jan 12, 2022 2:54:25 GMT -5 dejan said:

Metallo

My understanding was that there was always going to be a SIII(assuming SII was a commercial success). 
I think it was in Starburst ,June 1981(to coincide with SII's U.S theatrical release) where Reeve categorically stated that SIII should only get made if there was a justifiable artistic reason for doing so. Too bad that belief was betrayed.

 

Betrayed.
Betrayed.
Betrayed.
Betrayed.

[dejan]

Jan 12, 2022 6:33:33 GMT -5 atp said:

Jan 12, 2022 2:54:25 GMT -5 dejan said:

Metallo

My understanding was that there was always going to be a SIII(assuming SII was a commercial success). 
I think it was in Starburst ,June 1981(to coincide with SII's U.S theatrical release) where Reeve categorically stated that SIII should only get made if there was a justifiable artistic reason for doing so. Too bad that belief was betrayed.

 

Betrayed.
Betrayed.
Betrayed.
Betrayed.

Golan and Globus are too primative-you can flee to other producers like Merchant & Ivory, where the corporate corruption and greed of The Cannon Group are long forgotten.

[crazy_asian_man]

Jan 12, 2022 2:54:25 GMT -5 dejan said:

Metallo

Thanks for the uploads.

It's kinda funny and great to hear Reeve say that Hollywood is run by MBAs who report to their CEOs and all they are concerned about is balancing that Ledger.
Nothing new and it's now worse than ever!
Indeed ,little did Reeve know that one day, Charlie Rose himself would be approached by those very same MBAs , so that they could balance The Ledger for a project called ......Dawn Of Justice!.......which definitely did not respect(as Reeve would say) the audience.

It's also nice  to see Reeve defend STM and SII("for the time capsule").
SIII was "marginal".
SIV "get swept under the carpet".

Personally that's where I stand too.
IMHO I would go further and say that SIV should never have got made and even though it was nice to see Reeve done the cape one final time........that ultimately should have been SIII's prerogative(no matter what it's intrinsic deficencies).

Never saw the 1989 Wogan interview before(and I live in the UK!).
There, Reeve states that they made "2 Superman sequels too many".

My understanding was that there was always going to be a SIII(assuming SII was a commercial success). 
I think it was in Starburst ,June 1981(to coincide with SII's U.S theatrical release) where Reeve categorically stated that SIII should only get made if there was a justifiable artistic reason for doing so. Too bad that belief was betrayed.

On Edit:
The Matrix Resurrections is testimony to the almost 30 year old analysis by Reeve!


 

For my point of view-

I was giantly disappointed by SIV- but at the same time, I'm glad it was made- there's still bits and pieces that I feel make it worth getting done. If SIII was the final note, I, for one, would have been more disappointed. I liked the original script I was able to preview from a convention for SIV- far more than SIII and the heart seemed in the right place from the interviews with the director in Starlog at the time.

Would have been nice if SIV actually brought back the franchise as hoped....but with no budget, it's arguable if this was the best that could have been done- but I also wondered if the final edit hadn't hacked the last act beyond comprehension, if it would have at least broke even or slightly more to encourage a better sequel from that.

[atp]

Jan 13, 2022 1:06:25 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Jan 12, 2022 2:54:25 GMT -5 dejan said:

Metallo

Thanks for the uploads.

It's kinda funny and great to hear Reeve say that Hollywood is run by MBAs who report to their CEOs and all they are concerned about is balancing that Ledger.
Nothing new and it's now worse than ever!
Indeed ,little did Reeve know that one day, Charlie Rose himself would be approached by those very same MBAs , so that they could balance The Ledger for a project called ......Dawn Of Justice!.......which definitely did not respect(as Reeve would say) the audience.

It's also nice  to see Reeve defend STM and SII("for the time capsule").
SIII was "marginal".
SIV "get swept under the carpet".

Personally that's where I stand too.
IMHO I would go further and say that SIV should never have got made and even though it was nice to see Reeve done the cape one final time........that ultimately should have been SIII's prerogative(no matter what it's intrinsic deficencies).

Never saw the 1989 Wogan interview before(and I live in the UK!).
There, Reeve states that they made "2 Superman sequels too many".

My understanding was that there was always going to be a SIII(assuming SII was a commercial success). 
I think it was in Starburst ,June 1981(to coincide with SII's U.S theatrical release) where Reeve categorically stated that SIII should only get made if there was a justifiable artistic reason for doing so. Too bad that belief was betrayed.

On Edit:
The Matrix Resurrections is testimony to the almost 30 year old analysis by Reeve!


 

For my point of view-

I was giantly disappointed by SIV- but at the same time, I'm glad it was made- there's still bits and pieces that I feel make it worth getting done. If SIII was the final note, I, for one, would have been more disappointed. I liked the original script I was able to preview from a convention for SIV- far more than SIII and the heart seemed in the right place from the interviews with the director in Starlog at the time.

Would have been nice if SIV actually brought back the franchise as hoped....but with no budget, it's arguable if this was the best that could have been done- but I also wondered if the final edit hadn't hacked the last act beyond comprehension, if it would have at least broke even or slightly more to encourage a better sequel from that.

I'm also glad S4 exists, but only for nostalgic reasons. It reminds me of a happy era in my teens, and was also the last movie I saw at a particular cinema with lots of memories.

I am also glad Superman 3 was made. STM and S2 told the origin story, and it would have been premature to end there. At least S3 gave us one more story, showing Superman as an established part of the world. And it did go into a lot of new stuff, without retreading the first two. The Smallville/ Lana/Evil Superman parts were all excellent. And back in 1983, computers were something novel and out there. So while that aspect has dated badly, at the time it did make sense.

[crazy_asian_man]

Jan 13, 2022 2:17:26 GMT -5 atp said:

Jan 13, 2022 1:06:25 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

For my point of view-

I was giantly disappointed by SIV- but at the same time, I'm glad it was made- there's still bits and pieces that I feel make it worth getting done. If SIII was the final note, I, for one, would have been more disappointed. I liked the original script I was able to preview from a convention for SIV- far more than SIII and the heart seemed in the right place from the interviews with the director in Starlog at the time.

Would have been nice if SIV actually brought back the franchise as hoped....but with no budget, it's arguable if this was the best that could have been done- but I also wondered if the final edit hadn't hacked the last act beyond comprehension, if it would have at least broke even or slightly more to encourage a better sequel from that.

I'm also glad S4 exists, but only for nostalgic reasons. It reminds me of a happy era in my teens, and was also the last movie I saw at a particular cinema with lots of memories.

I am also glad Superman 3 was made. STM and S2 told the origin story, and it would have been premature to end there. At least S3 gave us one more story, showing Superman as an established part of the world. And it did go into a lot of new stuff, without retreading the first two. The Smallville/ Lana/Evil Superman parts were all excellent. And back in 1983, computers were something novel and out there. So while that aspect has dated badly, at the time it did make sense.

I'm glad if you and other fans found joy in SIII- After SII, SIII could have gone in a more serious or a broader comedy... but in getting the script before the movie (the Star Trek conventions at the time were great at having dealers who had movie scripts for sale)I pictured the execution as far more dynamic- but Lester's resume and way of shooting was pretty conventional- it told the story, but I was expecting something more on the level of Empire Strikes Back or Indiana Jones level like STM, which was present around the same time.

SIV of course was even lower quality production wise, but the scenes tried to be more iconic, I felt- plus the film of couurse had a fully committed Reeve performance (though there's no film I've seen of his that he wasn't fully committed) the speech to the UN and the scenes of Supes/Clark concerned about nuclear destruction still shine despite any cheapness of the surrounding production values.

I'm glad, though, that Donner/Reeve's Superman was the foundation that would make stuff like Raimi's Spiderman, Singer's X-men, and the Marvel Universe happen later on, even though it took decades from STM's beginnings. I think as a comics fan seeing the cinematic superhero evolution from STM to now, we're really blessed.

[EnriqueH]

Ive always enjoyed SIII.

[dejan]

Jan 13, 2022 1:06:25 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Jan 12, 2022 2:54:25 GMT -5 dejan said:

Metallo

Thanks for the uploads.

It's kinda funny and great to hear Reeve say that Hollywood is run by MBAs who report to their CEOs and all they are concerned about is balancing that Ledger.
Nothing new and it's now worse than ever!
Indeed ,little did Reeve know that one day, Charlie Rose himself would be approached by those very same MBAs , so that they could balance The Ledger for a project called ......Dawn Of Justice!.......which definitely did not respect(as Reeve would say) the audience.

It's also nice  to see Reeve defend STM and SII("for the time capsule").
SIII was "marginal".
SIV "get swept under the carpet".

Personally that's where I stand too.
IMHO I would go further and say that SIV should never have got made and even though it was nice to see Reeve done the cape one final time........that ultimately should have been SIII's prerogative(no matter what it's intrinsic deficencies).

Never saw the 1989 Wogan interview before(and I live in the UK!).
There, Reeve states that they made "2 Superman sequels too many".

My understanding was that there was always going to be a SIII(assuming SII was a commercial success). 
I think it was in Starburst ,June 1981(to coincide with SII's U.S theatrical release) where Reeve categorically stated that SIII should only get made if there was a justifiable artistic reason for doing so. Too bad that belief was betrayed.

On Edit:
The Matrix Resurrections is testimony to the almost 30 year old analysis by Reeve!


 

For my point of view-

I was giantly disappointed by SIV- but at the same time, I'm glad it was made- there's still bits and pieces that I feel make it worth getting done. If SIII was the final note, I, for one, would have been more disappointed. I liked the original script I was able to preview from a convention for SIV- far more than SIII and the heart seemed in the right place from the interviews with the director in Starlog at the time.

Would have been nice if SIV actually brought back the franchise as hoped....but with no budget, it's arguable if this was the best that could have been done- but I also wondered if the final edit hadn't hacked the last act beyond comprehension, if it would have at least broke even or slightly more to encourage a better sequel from that.

It's interesting because something happened in that little period of the late 80s where 3  beloved franchises(Jaws,Superman and Star Trek) were assaulted by 3 irredeemably bad sequels-Jaws 4, SIV and Star Trek 5.
And IMHO-they were not just bad-they were truly awful in practically every aspect!
Let's not forget that we also had what I would consider a few other relatively lacklustre(although nowhere near as offensibly bad as the 3 mentioned above!) sequels to boot, like Ghostbusters 2, Back To The Future 2(sorry ATP!) and Indy Jones And The Last Crusade( I concede that many regard Indy 3 in high esteem- but personally I was very dissapointed in the summer of 89').
I will also admit that I was never blown away by Terminator 2 in September 91'--I thought it was ok but much preferred the original and still do!(again I know that is not the general consensus!).
But in my view, Hollywood just does not get it......that true inspiration(Star Wars/Empire,STM,Raiders,Star Trek II,Back To The Future ,Ghostbusters,Terminator 1,Predatator 1,Die Hard 1,Lethal Weapon 1, Romancing The Stone ect ect ) cannot be replicated or regurgitated. It's lightning in a bottle representing a point in time never to be repeated, beyond the control of any one individual and where the sum is greater than the parts of which it is constituted.
Proof was in the pudding as the late 80s spat out some rather burnt out sci fi/fantasy sequels.
 
As a 10 year old in 83' , I was dissappointed that SIII did not scale the heights of STM or SII(although I felt it exceeded them on a technical level i.e the flying) , but I was definitely reconsciled with the fact that there would be no more Supes movies at that point and ultimately had no problem accepting that.
And I remember Reeve appearing on UK TV promoting SIII- giving the definitive statement that this was the end for Supes at the cinema:

www.facebook.com/watch/?v=565843864085447



In a way I remember this news as kinda sucking , but to me personally , at that point as a young child ,SIII , whatever it's imperfections, did feel ultimately final.

SIV changed all that!

[dejan]

Jan 13, 2022 2:17:26 GMT -5 atp said:

Jan 13, 2022 1:06:25 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

For my point of view-

I was giantly disappointed by SIV- but at the same time, I'm glad it was made- there's still bits and pieces that I feel make it worth getting done. If SIII was the final note, I, for one, would have been more disappointed. I liked the original script I was able to preview from a convention for SIV- far more than SIII and the heart seemed in the right place from the interviews with the director in Starlog at the time.

Would have been nice if SIV actually brought back the franchise as hoped....but with no budget, it's arguable if this was the best that could have been done- but I also wondered if the final edit hadn't hacked the last act beyond comprehension, if it would have at least broke even or slightly more to encourage a better sequel from that.

I'm also glad S4 exists, but only for nostalgic reasons. It reminds me of a happy era in my teens, and was also the last movie I saw at a particular cinema with lots of memories.

I am also glad Superman 3 was made. STM and S2 told the origin story, and it would have been premature to end there. At least S3 gave us one more story, showing Superman as an established part of the world. And it did go into a lot of new stuff, without retreading the first two. The Smallville/ Lana/Evil Superman parts were all excellent. And back in 1983, computers were something novel and out there. So while that aspect has dated badly, at the time it did make sense.

I saw Tron in 82' and enjoyed the computing aspect of it.
But I enjoyed SIII in 83' more!

But any flick featuring contemporary tech is going to date.
Even the mobile phones used in Superman Returns don't do it any favours!
The smart phones used in Man Of Steel have not aged well either:
"It's coming in on the RSS feed-it's on my phone too"---does not help that the line is delivered with all the charisma of a stone! 

I rewatched the original Matrix recently and those floppy drives that Tank uses for uploads sure ain't pretty-lol!
It's the nature of the beast.

My personal probs with SIII really center on the disequilibrium of the  script.
Someone-Lester, The Salkinds or Reeve himself needed to hone and fine tune it.
Never happened and the rest is history!
 

[atp]

Jan 13, 2022 19:51:49 GMT -5 dejan said:

Jan 13, 2022 2:17:26 GMT -5 atp said:

I'm also glad S4 exists, but only for nostalgic reasons. It reminds me of a happy era in my teens, and was also the last movie I saw at a particular cinema with lots of memories.

I am also glad Superman 3 was made. STM and S2 told the origin story, and it would have been premature to end there. At least S3 gave us one more story, showing Superman as an established part of the world. And it did go into a lot of new stuff, without retreading the first two. The Smallville/ Lana/Evil Superman parts were all excellent. And back in 1983, computers were something novel and out there. So while that aspect has dated badly, at the time it did make sense.

I saw Tron in 82' and enjoyed the computing aspect of it.
But I enjoyed SIII in 83' more!

But any flick featuring contemporary tech is going to date.
Even the mobile phones used in Superman Returns don't do it any favours!
The smart phones used in Man Of Steel have not aged well either:
"It's coming in on the RSS feed-it's on my phone too"---does not help that the line is delivered with all the charisma of a stone! 

I rewatched the original Matrix recently and those floppy drives that Tank uses for uploads sure ain't pretty-lol!
It's the nature of the beast.

My personal probs with SIII really center on the disequilibrium of the  script.
Someone-Lester, The Salkinds or Reeve himself needed to hone and fine tune it.
Never happened and the rest is history!
 

Interestingly, the crystal "technology" of Krypton in STM has not dated. It's timeless. It was a really brilliant idea by Donner and John Barry to go that route for Krypton. Anything involving robots, computers, weapons, spaceships or almost any kind of technology is going to date. But the whole look of Krypton in STM is immune to that. By contrast, the Kryptonian technology in MoS is already dated.

[atp]

Jan 13, 2022 19:13:18 GMT -5 dejan said:

Jan 13, 2022 1:06:25 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

For my point of view-

I was giantly disappointed by SIV- but at the same time, I'm glad it was made- there's still bits and pieces that I feel make it worth getting done. If SIII was the final note, I, for one, would have been more disappointed. I liked the original script I was able to preview from a convention for SIV- far more than SIII and the heart seemed in the right place from the interviews with the director in Starlog at the time.

Would have been nice if SIV actually brought back the franchise as hoped....but with no budget, it's arguable if this was the best that could have been done- but I also wondered if the final edit hadn't hacked the last act beyond comprehension, if it would have at least broke even or slightly more to encourage a better sequel from that.

It's interesting because something happened in that little period of the late 80s where 3  beloved franchises(Jaws,Superman and Star Trek) were assaulted by 3 irredeemably bad sequels-Jaws 4, SIV and Star Trek 5.
And IMHO-they were not just bad-they were truly awful in practically every aspect!
Let's not forget that we also had what I would consider a few other relatively lacklustre(although nowhere near as offensibly bad as the 3 mentioned above!) sequels to boot, like Ghostbusters 2, Back To The Future 2(sorry ATP!) and Indy Jones And The Last Crusade( I concede that many regard Indy 3 in high esteem- but personally I was very dissapointed in the summer of 89').
I will also admit that I was never blown away by Terminator 2 in September 91'--I thought it was ok but much preferred the original and still do!(again I know that is not the general consensus!).
But in my view, Hollywood just does not get it......that true inspiration(Star Wars/Empire,STM,Raiders,Star Trek II,Back To The Future ,Ghostbusters,Terminator 1,Predatator 1,Die Hard 1,Lethal Weapon 1, Romancing The Stone ect ect ) cannot be replicated or regurgitated. It's lightning in a bottle representing a point in time never to be repeated, beyond the control of any one individual and where the sum is greater than the parts of which it is constituted.
Proof was in the pudding as the late 80s spat out some rather burnt out sci fi/fantasy sequels.
 
As a 10 year old in 83' , I was dissappointed that SIII did not scale the heights of STM or SII(although I felt it exceeded them on a technical level i.e the flying) , but I was definitely reconsciled with the fact that there would be no more Supes movies at that point and ultimately had no problem accepting that.
And I remember Reeve appearing on UK TV promoting SIII- giving the definitive statement that this was the end for Supes at the cinema:

www.facebook.com/watch/?v=565843864085447



In a way I remember this news as kinda sucking , but to me personally , at that point as a young child ,SIII , whatever it's imperfections, did feel ultimately final.

SIV changed all that!

I was also not blown away by Indy 3. It felt like a retread of Raiders, but with Sean Connery added as a gimmick. It wasn't horrendous, but even in 1989, I had a sense that it was thinner and not in the same league as the other two.

Terminator 2 is an interesting one. At the time, I was blown away by it. But with 30 years of hindsight, it's clear that it was because of the spectacular effects. Without the novelty factor of the T1000 (CGI villain), it is still a very good sequel, but not as good as the first. The first one was groundbreaking, while the second was more of a typical Arnie movie. By 1991, he had developed into a personality that he would play. He is more or less the same in Predator, Total Recall and T2. In the original Terminator, he is simply a terrifying robot, and does a brilliant job.

Back to 1989. I still remember that fondly as a period of many great movies and sequels. I wasn't fond of Ghostbusters 2, but I did really like The Karate Kid 3.

(By the way, Cobra Kai season 4 builds on Karate Kid 3 very well, and brings back Terry Silver. Highly recommended!)

[crazy_asian_man]

Jan 13, 2022 19:13:18 GMT -5 dejan said:

Jan 13, 2022 1:06:25 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

For my point of view-

I was giantly disappointed by SIV- but at the same time, I'm glad it was made- there's still bits and pieces that I feel make it worth getting done. If SIII was the final note, I, for one, would have been more disappointed. I liked the original script I was able to preview from a convention for SIV- far more than SIII and the heart seemed in the right place from the interviews with the director in Starlog at the time.

Would have been nice if SIV actually brought back the franchise as hoped....but with no budget, it's arguable if this was the best that could have been done- but I also wondered if the final edit hadn't hacked the last act beyond comprehension, if it would have at least broke even or slightly more to encourage a better sequel from that.

It's interesting because something happened in that little period of the late 80s where 3  beloved franchises(Jaws,Superman and Star Trek) were assaulted by 3 irredeemably bad sequels-Jaws 4, SIV and Star Trek 5.
And IMHO-they were not just bad-they were truly awful in practically every aspect!
Let's not forget that we also had what I would consider a few other relatively lacklustre(although nowhere near as offensibly bad as the 3 mentioned above!) sequels to boot, like Ghostbusters 2, Back To The Future 2(sorry ATP!) and Indy Jones And The Last Crusade( I concede that many regard Indy 3 in high esteem- but personally I was very dissapointed in the summer of 89').
I will also admit that I was never blown away by Terminator 2 in September 91'--I thought it was ok but much preferred the original and still do!(again I know that is not the general consensus!).
But in my view, Hollywood just does not get it......that true inspiration(Star Wars/Empire,STM,Raiders,Star Trek II,Back To The Future ,Ghostbusters,Terminator 1,Predatator 1,Die Hard 1,Lethal Weapon 1, Romancing The Stone ect ect ) cannot be replicated or regurgitated. It's lightning in a bottle representing a point in time never to be repeated, beyond the control of any one individual and where the sum is greater than the parts of which it is constituted.
Proof was in the pudding as the late 80s spat out some rather burnt out sci fi/fantasy sequels.
 
As a 10 year old in 83' , I was dissappointed that SIII did not scale the heights of STM or SII(although I felt it exceeded them on a technical level i.e the flying) , but I was definitely reconsciled with the fact that there would be no more Supes movies at that point and ultimately had no problem accepting that.
And I remember Reeve appearing on UK TV promoting SIII- giving the definitive statement that this was the end for Supes at the cinema:

www.facebook.com/watch/?v=565843864085447



In a way I remember this news as kinda sucking , but to me personally , at that point as a young child ,SIII , whatever it's imperfections, did feel ultimately final.

SIV changed all that!

Even though it was decades ago when I saw this documentary on the reponsibilities and what the job was for studio heads- and- the book on the crazy making of the script for Star Trek: Insurrection... I have a feeling much hasn't changed on how many 'green lights' have to happen for a sequel to get made + how many cooks are in the kitchen for a sequel to a successful picture.

That being the case... since even an original film takes so many people to say 'yes' to the process of a film from beginning to end-

I have generally modest expectations for sequels- so when the right (imo) people are in charge of said sequel, I get very excited, knowing the bar that is raised and expectation level for 'the same but different from the original' at the same time.

I don't think it's that Hollywood doesn't get it about making a sequel- but that sometimes it is or isn't even an option on the table if the greenlights are there from actors, director, studio--- but- of course- who owns the rights, too...

As an example, it's sheer craziness that Stallone had a story ready for Rocky 6 long ago, but the studio who owned the rights to Rocky didn't want to go forward in the way Stallone wanted to at the time.... and then later on--- actors aged out to do that particular Rocky story!

On the flip side, you had Brandon Routh (and a number of fans- myself included!) who loved for there to be a sequel to Superman Returns- but... no sequel that happened!

Ghostbusters II I enjoyed more than most did- because I didn't know where you could possibly go to really utilize many of the same actors. The movie had a number of dud jokes, but mostly I think they gave enough joyous scenes to me that I'm glad that they did it.

Back to the Future II and III certainly weren't even close to the original.... but it was never meant to have a II and III.
So- the best way I enjoyed them/ enjoy them is as a 'fan film' as storywise I really felt things were limited to begin with---

On the other hand- if I felt story elements were limited with Back to the Future and Ghostbusters- I didn't feel the same way with Superman and its sequels- as..

Superman had decades of comic book material to draw from!
I would have loved to have seen Brainiac become as famous as Darth Vader had for Star Wars!
The visual fx tech had grown leaps and bounds in just a short time from the original Star Wars and Superman movie.... so a decent Superman space opera could have been done in Superman III-

Or...
Something ELSE that had never been done before fantasy wise, due to visual fx technology being limited or budget being overly limited--

But-
Superman I & II were a giant box office success.

Superman III could have been the next Empire Strikes Back in terms of epic scale/whatnot... but the script chosen tried to be 'smaller' when it didn't need to be and the scale of the story was smaller than STM and SII.... why???

There's stuff that can be enjoyed, and the series could have been scaled down if the box office was winding down- but at that point- box office wise, Superman II was a bona fide hit- and WB was behind making it a big event-

So.... Again, I'm glad if other fans enjoyed it. I'm not trying to rain down on that joy. This is just my take on it that it seemed like the amibitions for something equalling STM and SII were there- but the script Reeve approved and the direction Lester took it was shrinking the sense of spectacle and felt more like a tv movie to me.

SIV had ambition but without the money--- It's impossible to know if the best movie was really made that could have, under those conditions.
(Maybe Furie wasn't satisfied with performances , but if you have no money for reshoots, then what? Sadly we know very little for sure)

We do know how Reeve felt about 3 and 4, though... pity.

[crazy_asian_man]

Jan 14, 2022 6:48:00 GMT -5 atp said:

Jan 13, 2022 19:13:18 GMT -5 dejan said:

It's interesting because something happened in that little period of the late 80s where 3  beloved franchises(Jaws,Superman and Star Trek) were assaulted by 3 irredeemably bad sequels-Jaws 4, SIV and Star Trek 5.
And IMHO-they were not just bad-they were truly awful in practically every aspect!
Let's not forget that we also had what I would consider a few other relatively lacklustre(although nowhere near as offensibly bad as the 3 mentioned above!) sequels to boot, like Ghostbusters 2, Back To The Future 2(sorry ATP!) and Indy Jones And The Last Crusade( I concede that many regard Indy 3 in high esteem- but personally I was very dissapointed in the summer of 89').
I will also admit that I was never blown away by Terminator 2 in September 91'--I thought it was ok but much preferred the original and still do!(again I know that is not the general consensus!).
But in my view, Hollywood just does not get it......that true inspiration(Star Wars/Empire,STM,Raiders,Star Trek II,Back To The Future ,Ghostbusters,Terminator 1,Predatator 1,Die Hard 1,Lethal Weapon 1, Romancing The Stone ect ect ) cannot be replicated or regurgitated. It's lightning in a bottle representing a point in time never to be repeated, beyond the control of any one individual and where the sum is greater than the parts of which it is constituted.
Proof was in the pudding as the late 80s spat out some rather burnt out sci fi/fantasy sequels.
 
As a 10 year old in 83' , I was dissappointed that SIII did not scale the heights of STM or SII(although I felt it exceeded them on a technical level i.e the flying) , but I was definitely reconsciled with the fact that there would be no more Supes movies at that point and ultimately had no problem accepting that.
And I remember Reeve appearing on UK TV promoting SIII- giving the definitive statement that this was the end for Supes at the cinema:

www.facebook.com/watch/?v=565843864085447



In a way I remember this news as kinda sucking , but to me personally , at that point as a young child ,SIII , whatever it's imperfections, did feel ultimately final.

SIV changed all that!

I was also not blown away by Indy 3. It felt like a retread of Raiders, but with Sean Connery added as a gimmick. It wasn't horrendous, but even in 1989, I had a sense that it was thinner and not in the same league as the other two.

Terminator 2 is an interesting one. At the time, I was blown away by it. But with 30 years of hindsight, it's clear that it was because of the spectacular effects. Without the novelty factor of the T1000 (CGI villain), it is still a very good sequel, but not as good as the first. The first one was groundbreaking, while the second was more of a typical Arnie movie. By 1991, he had developed into a personality that he would play. He is more or less the same in Predator, Total Recall and T2. In the original Terminator, he is simply a terrifying robot, and does a brilliant job.

Back to 1989. I still remember that fondly as a period of many great movies and sequels. I wasn't fond of Ghostbusters 2, but I did really like The Karate Kid 3.

(By the way, Cobra Kai season 4 builds on Karate Kid 3 very well, and brings back Terry Silver. Highly recommended!)

Indy III did feel thinner, but in watching all three back to back, the father-son dynamic really is the 'new energy' to it, even if Connery and Ford don't really look alike.
And... if you see the disappointing Indy IV after that- Indy III suddenly seems MUCH better by comparison!!!

Terminator II- Special editon I feel is the best version to see. Without seeing some of the deleted scenes, the movie feels like a longer chase scene, when there were actually more signficant beats I felt were needed in between to be a stronger movie that wasn't just the amazement of the new CGI tech.

And- Cobra Kai is AMAZING--- I could do less with the kids' stories and romances, but that they could hold my interest after I thought the story was done with the first Karate Kid is truly something.

[crazy_asian_man]

Jan 11, 2022 17:41:35 GMT -5 EnriqueH said:

You gotta love him.

The guy is so sharp, polite, and classy. Makes me even sadder that he's not with us now.

[crazy_asian_man]

Jan 13, 2022 19:13:18 GMT -5 dejan said:

Jan 13, 2022 1:06:25 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

For my point of view-

I was giantly disappointed by SIV- but at the same time, I'm glad it was made- there's still bits and pieces that I feel make it worth getting done. If SIII was the final note, I, for one, would have been more disappointed. I liked the original script I was able to preview from a convention for SIV- far more than SIII and the heart seemed in the right place from the interviews with the director in Starlog at the time.

Would have been nice if SIV actually brought back the franchise as hoped....but with no budget, it's arguable if this was the best that could have been done- but I also wondered if the final edit hadn't hacked the last act beyond comprehension, if it would have at least broke even or slightly more to encourage a better sequel from that.

It's interesting because something happened in that little period of the late 80s where 3  beloved franchises(Jaws,Superman and Star Trek) were assaulted by 3 irredeemably bad sequels-Jaws 4, SIV and Star Trek 5.
And IMHO-they were not just bad-they were truly awful in practically every aspect!
Let's not forget that we also had what I would consider a few other relatively lacklustre(although nowhere near as offensibly bad as the 3 mentioned above!) sequels to boot, like Ghostbusters 2, Back To The Future 2(sorry ATP!) and Indy Jones And The Last Crusade( I concede that many regard Indy 3 in high esteem- but personally I was very dissapointed in the summer of 89').
I will also admit that I was never blown away by Terminator 2 in September 91'--I thought it was ok but much preferred the original and still do!(again I know that is not the general consensus!).
But in my view, Hollywood just does not get it......that true inspiration(Star Wars/Empire,STM,Raiders,Star Trek II,Back To The Future ,Ghostbusters,Terminator 1,Predatator 1,Die Hard 1,Lethal Weapon 1, Romancing The Stone ect ect ) cannot be replicated or regurgitated. It's lightning in a bottle representing a point in time never to be repeated, beyond the control of any one individual and where the sum is greater than the parts of which it is constituted.
Proof was in the pudding as the late 80s spat out some rather burnt out sci fi/fantasy sequels.
 
As a 10 year old in 83' , I was dissappointed that SIII did not scale the heights of STM or SII(although I felt it exceeded them on a technical level i.e the flying) , but I was definitely reconsciled with the fact that there would be no more Supes movies at that point and ultimately had no problem accepting that.
And I remember Reeve appearing on UK TV promoting SIII- giving the definitive statement that this was the end for Supes at the cinema:

www.facebook.com/watch/?v=565843864085447



In a way I remember this news as kinda sucking , but to me personally , at that point as a young child ,SIII , whatever it's imperfections, did feel ultimately final.

SIV changed all that

I might have been ok with SIII being the end, if it (in my opinion) it had gone out fulfilling more of what I'd imagined could have been done well from the years of Superman comics. I feel like STM-SII was just getting started, even if some things blew my mind.

SIII also I think had a cool concept- Superman's persona splitting in two/etc.- but half of the movie was trying to be a Richard Pryor comedy, and the other half didn't dig deep enough into Superman/Clark's character and who he was, and SIII had a perfect opportunity for that. I think SR in a few scenes gave me more of that, even if it was an imperfect film.

[crazy_asian_man]

Btw- thanks for the uploads, metallo! As always- great finds!

[dejan]

atp

Absolutely agreed on the look of Krypton. Between Donner, Barry and Unsworth(with his unique lighting techniques)--they hit a home run(and an iconoclastic one at that , seeing as how it diverged from comic cannon).

darn-can't believe I forgot about Karate Kid!
KK1 is perfect-and downright impossible to repeat(as has proved to be the case-whether it be KK 2 or 3 , or the 1994 or 2010 reimaginings).But Cobra Kai has definitely hit the right beats-in someways doing what Matrix Ressurrections failed to do-utilise the intrinsic experience of the actors(gained through the natural process of aging) to consolidate and solidify the arc of the characters.Looks like Garfield and Maguire got a chance to do the same in No Way Home(I have still not seen it though!) 

It's interesting seeing the likes of Molina and Dafoe who are quasi contempories of Reeve , still give effective performances in modern multiverse blockbusters.
I am sure Reeve could have done the same(sans injury) in a Snyderverse /multiverse mash up.
We a got a glimpse of it in Smallville ofcourse(even if he was not playing Supes and it was not technically multiversing ).

Glad to always come across another T1 adherent!---it's tough when the pressure of T2(a fine movie in it's own right ofcourse) is lurking over your shoulder!

[dejan]

@cam

I hear you on all the moving parts involved in getting a project green lit.
Sometimes you get unexpected hitches which actually favour the endeavour:
You brought up Stallone and Rocky 6(I never knew that back story so thanks for that!)----but it reminded me of the fact that Stallone was scheduled to star in Beverly Hills Cop 1---and pulled out, literally at the 11th hour--and the script was hastily re-written to accomodate the talents of Murphy--and the rest is history!

Did not save the Beverly Hills Cop sequels though! lol

I like the term Reeve used --Sequelitis.

It's a tough equation to crack.
Just look at the poor Wachowskis!

When you really break it down there is not one franchise out there that has not been immune to some form of degeneration.

As for the actors who have partaken, from J Fox to Ford, from Pacino to Machio,from Murray to Reeve himself---it would be interesting to get their nuts and bolts opinions on the matter.
To be fair Reeve was quite open and even explicit with regards to sequels.
But he was ultimately inconsistent!
Money over matter-lol!

[dejan]

@cam

Regarding SIII:
Agreed on your assessment.

It does have a very unusual tone- in the sense that you have that slapstick at the beginning,Pryor's own oblique humor(find me a modern superhero film with dialogue like"rapists who rape robbers!!") combined with the sheer brutality(especially for the time period) of the junkyard fight.
Let's not forget Vera's robotic conversion which scared the f**k out of me.
When SIII came out on home video in 84' I had some friends who were a bit older than me---just fast forward to and slow mo  that one Vera horror sequence ad infinitum!--lol-much to my chagrin ----but  technically it is perfect-incredibly well done.
Funny thing is that there were actually solid components for the makings of a good story.
Maybe have the computer vs Superman in the middle of the flick--have supes win but be incrementally exposed to the pseudo kryptonite in the computers laser beam during the bash up---and the combined effect of the pseudo krypto  and  Clark's love for Lana induce the Supe/Clark split.
Then have Clark rescue Lana from a jealous evil Supes and maybe have Lana and Lois help Supes become good again---good emotional payoff!---albeit with the "his secret identity exposed once more conundrum".

But yes i totally agree that they could have done a supes space opera---but they would have needed more time.
That is the biggest difference between STM/SII(Donner and/ or Lester) and SIII.
SIII 's script was cranked out in half the time......and it shows.

[crazy_asian_man]

Jan 14, 2022 19:21:30 GMT -5 dejan said:

@cam

I hear you on all the moving parts involved in getting a project green lit.
Sometimes you get unexpected hitches which actually favour the endeavour:
You brought up Stallone and Rocky 6(I never knew that back story so thanks for that!)----but it reminded me of the fact that Stallone was scheduled to star in Beverly Hills Cop 1---and pulled out, literally at the 11th hour--and the script was hastily re-written to accomodate the talents of Murphy--and the rest is history!

Did not save the Beverly Hills Cop sequels though! lol

I like the term Reeve used --Sequelitis.

It's a tough equation to crack.
Just look at the poor Wachowskis!

When you really break it down there is not one franchise out there that has not been immune to some form of degeneration.

As for the actors who have partaken, from J Fox to Ford, from Pacino to Machio,from Murray to Reeve himself---it would be interesting to get their nuts and bolts opinions on the matter.
To be fair Reeve was quite open and even explicit with regards to sequels.
But he was ultimately inconsistent!
Money over matter-lol!

In chatting about 'best' franchises that has degenerated the least-

I agree that it's like searching for a rare unicorn...

But what comes to mind to me are two-
One had the advantage of (1) being preplanned from the beginning and (2) being based on novels that they had to stick to, to a degree--- Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings-

((The flip side- would be Peter Jackson's Hobbit... but that's unfair because he stepped in because of De Toro leaving at the last hour and wasn't planning to jump in.- but shows the difference between preplanning versus having to just try to fix something midstream))

The other one-
The Rocky series- which isn't perfect, but damn if Stallone didn't come up with good storylines to make that formula work, over, and over, and over again!- (Rocky V Stallone says Rocky was supposed to die, but even I'm not thrilled with that idea of getting his family back into poverty then croaking. But there's also bits and pieces deleted on youtube that suprisingly improve that one, too!)