|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 21, 2022 0:23:21 GMT -5
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 21, 2022 11:42:49 GMT -5
That’s a great find, CAM. Thanks. There’s lots of great insight from Mankiewicz there. I’ve read a lot of what he said before but this interview goes into much more detail than I’ve ever seen. The Connery story is a good example of that.
They really approached Superman just right. There’s an interview out there with Reeve from the promotional circuit and the journalist interviewing him talks about being a victim of being too good in the role and that’s the curse of playing a character like Superman.
I’ve always had mixed feelings on what Mank said about dealing with real world problems like limit s or war. I think he’s right to a point. You have to be careful. You can’t just have Superman interfere with a war because it would be over in hours.
But I think there’s a good story there if you approach it the right way like Watchmen where that’s the point or if you do a story where Superman realizes he can’t solve all of mankind’s basic problems himself. Superman: Peace On Earth deals with famine and hunger across the world and it works. Superman IV had a good idea but the wrong approach.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823 
|
Post by atp on Jun 21, 2022 14:36:11 GMT -5
He helped ruin the Donner Cut in 2006
|
|
|
|
Post by Kamdan on Jun 22, 2022 10:44:17 GMT -5
Mankiewicz really did with the statement of “Clark should never kiss Lois. Only Superman should.” Him and Donner really went out of their way to immediately discredit anything Richard Lester directed. They knew it was a well acted scene between Reeve and Kidder, but they couldn’t let it go that someone did their job for them and it was adequately received at the time. You just knew it ate at Donner’s ego when critics claimed that II was better than I. The worst realization any creator can have it is that you can be replaced. Gene Roddenberry thought it was the only one who could do Star Trek correctly, but was proven wrong when Harve Bennett and Leonard Nimoy took the reins.
This exact mentality can also be applied to the first film of how Superman is able to restore the San Andreas Fault. The act itself is a super feat, but the challenge is how Superman has to deal with the severe aftershock. It really was a stroke of brilliance that the payoff to this sequence lead to the death of Lois, who was originally scripted to have been saved and it ended with a terrible joke about who was going to return the rented car. Sources have stated that Richard Lester contributed to the ending we got that utilized turning the world backwards for the first film instead of the second. Of course, Donner and Mankiewicz aren’t going to give any credit to Lester for a good idea, but it truly was a great one that propelled Superman: The Movie to the status it maintains in our eyes as the greatest comic book movie ever.
I believe Mankiewicz said all those concerns to Reeve as polite way of saying “no, thanks.” He and Donner probably had great regrets not taking the job after his accident and that’s likely where they sprang up this whole story about wanting to further sequels if they were allowed to finish II. All they were concerned about was the two films they were hired to do and likely wanted use the clout and success of Superman to move on to other projects they wanted to do. Superman was likely a bitter memory for them and being asked to do a fourth after stumbling into a third for all the wrong reasons made them feel vindicated inside, but not enough to carry on what Reeve had in mind.
There had to of been further arguments over the whole idea of a child’s letter setting off this story. It was naturally based on Samatha Smith’s letter to Andropov and the response to that was built on the Soviets wanting to gain good publicity from American Soviet sympathizers. The rest of that plot line is very child-like with the reaction to Superman declaration of ridding the planet of all nuclear weapons being of thunderous applause. Did they not understand that the whole point of why the threat of nuclear weapons is to prevent an actual war? The closest we get to that is the nuclear arms dealers Luthor cons into making excessive capital rearming the world (in a sequence that should have stayed in the film). Then again, Superman IV gets heavily criticized for chopping down the runtime and the budget, which could just as easily ruined Superman: The Movie if those factors played into their deal.
In regard to the article itself, it’s another great insight of what it’s like to write a Superman story, especially someone like Mankiewicz who really thinks about the material. This isn’t like the comic book writers who write for a month by month basis with a problem for him to keep the readers’ interest. This has to maintain a film audience’s interest for the runtime and appeal to to their more sophisticated mentalities, especially for back then when films were more mature and material like the first Star Wars was considered to be for children.
I enjoyed the anecdote that I don’t believe I ever heard the story about how he had to try to convince Sean Connery to return for Live and Let Die where he told him that enough is enough when he did six films and if you do more than that, you risk the audience never taking you seriously in another film and Mankiewicz saw that was true with Reeve in Monsignor.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 22, 2022 11:28:04 GMT -5
I’ll defend comic book writers on this one. SOME write month to month. Some plot out their ideas long term. Comics have become more and more serialized over the last 30 years simply to survive. They have to keep people on the hook to keep them buying month to month but too often companies are driven to do this by money and greed rather than good storytelling.
Even some long term storytellers don’t work it all out before they start and that can lead to disaster. It depends on what your goals are. If you are writing a long term story that you don’t plan out you’ve got a problem especially if it turns out to be garbage. If you’re writing stand alone stories that are of high quality that’s fine.
As for Superman IV’s concept it’s an interesting concept but as has been said it was approached in a simplistic way and even that got sidetracked by the Nuclear Man shenanigans. The arms race issue became a B plot that got hastily resolved in a half arsed way when it should’ve had long term repercussions. It’s something even the MCU has done a better job with. Superman IV’s got the basis for a good story in there but it was poorly executed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kamdan on Jun 22, 2022 13:39:50 GMT -5
Mankiewicz was likely asked to preform the same duty he did for Donner by rewriting the finished screenplay, but didn’t want to go through the whole ordeal of not getting the proper credit for his work.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 23, 2022 2:46:52 GMT -5
I’ll defend comic book writers on this one. SOME write month to month. Some plot out their ideas long term. Comics have become more and more serialized over the last 30 years simply to survive. They have to keep people on the hook to keep them buying month to month but too often companies are driven to do this by money and greed rather than good storytelling. Even some long term storytellers don’t work it all out before they start and that can lead to disaster. It depends on what your goals are. If you are writing a long term story that you don’t plan out you’ve got a problem especially if it turns out to be garbage. If you’re writing stand alone stories that are of high quality that’s fine. As for Superman IV’s concept it’s an interesting concept but as has been said it was approached in a simplistic way and even that got sidetracked by the Nuclear Man shenanigans. The arms race issue became a B plot that got hastily resolved in a half arsed way when it should’ve had long term repercussions. It’s something even the MCU has done a better job with. Superman IV’s got the basis for a good story in there but it was poorly executed. There were a few books put out years ago that talked to writers of Spiderman over the years and Fantastic Four (If memory serves) that detailed a lot of the problems and restrictions that would be put upon them by the editors or higher ups- So that, plus the "Star Trek: Next Generation"'s bible for writers and directors decades ago also made me take a step back and think not just on what a story is for a comic character- but the restrictions and parameters put upon said writer for comics or movies (or tv). That being the case- I actually thought SIV's script was good enough for all the checkmarks and restrictions that a Superman movie following Superman 2 had to have. Did it make things overly simplistic? Well, yeah.... but I do like the daring and the premise- even if Mank felt it was a giant no-no to touch. Also, it was following Lester's SIII which I detest - and could but won't go into my disdain for anything Lester did on SII, good or bad... I've already said my own opinions on him and his contributions a zillion times on the forum, so I'll pass on elaborating- (What purpose would it serve?) Anyhow- compared to SIII, even with SIV's horrifying bad fx and production values and whatnot- still... The script (which I read a draft before seeing the finished movie) seemed like a step in the right direction compared to the end of SII and SIII. #1: It took the character seriously- no Richard Pryor diversion, it was a Superman-centric film. #2: A superhero battle- sure, but it (on paper) took itself seriously. check. #3: Lex Luthor- (in the script) with a new level of hatred to play off of Superman? Interesting! #4: A way to use Lois- well, it tried... though it might have also been interesting if they decided to make it a real continuation of SIII and had Annette O' Toole, though the Ricky in SIII was (no fault of the actor) a bit annoying to me and that probably would be hard to exclude if going that way. #5: The stakes were sincere- and the best part of SIV- Reeve's all-in performance as Supes.... still make the film more watchable than it should be to me. The funny thing is that Donner hit upon just the right tone- STM was a romantic fairy tale with levels of sincerity and comedy. The idea for SIV about a child writing a wish for Superman to play God (pretty much) I admired as it was something I'd never seen tackled so directly in comics and it's a tricky thing to get in and out of scriptwise, for sure. A similar (but far less successful in my opinion) ambition I thought was in Star Trek V, where they gave the impression that they were going to see 'God'- but, that script and movie was such a mess that SIV in my opinion is a classic. But at the same time- it dared to have a provocative idea going in... similar to SIV- and no matter what, it seemed like it was going to be a tricky task scriptwise to get out- but it would have been interesting to have seen Mank give it a go. |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on Jun 23, 2022 4:51:58 GMT -5
I’ll defend comic book writers on this one. SOME write month to month. Some plot out their ideas long term. Comics have become more and more serialized over the last 30 years simply to survive. They have to keep people on the hook to keep them buying month to month but too often companies are driven to do this by money and greed rather than good storytelling. Even some long term storytellers don’t work it all out before they start and that can lead to disaster. It depends on what your goals are. If you are writing a long term story that you don’t plan out you’ve got a problem especially if it turns out to be garbage. If you’re writing stand alone stories that are of high quality that’s fine. As for Superman IV’s concept it’s an interesting concept but as has been said it was approached in a simplistic way and even that got sidetracked by the Nuclear Man shenanigans. The arms race issue became a B plot that got hastily resolved in a half arsed way when it should’ve had long term repercussions. It’s something even the MCU has done a better job with. Superman IV’s got the basis for a good story in there but it was poorly executed. There were a few books put out years ago that talked to writers of Spiderman over the years and Fantastic Four (If memory serves) that detailed a lot of the problems and restrictions that would be put upon them by the editors or higher ups- So that, plus the "Star Trek: Next Generation"'s bible for writers and directors decades ago also made me take a step back and think not just on what a story is for a comic character- but the restrictions and parameters put upon said writer for comics or movies (or tv). That being the case- I actually thought SIV's script was good enough for all the checkmarks and restrictions that a Superman movie following Superman 2 had to have. Did it make things overly simplistic? Well, yeah.... but I do like the daring and the premise- even if Mank felt it was a giant no-no to touch. Also, it was following Lester's SIII which I detest - and could but won't go into my disdain for anything Lester did on SII, good or bad... I've already said my own opinions on him and his contributions a zillion times on the forum, so I'll pass on elaborating- (What purpose would it serve?) Anyhow- compared to SIII, even with SIV's horrifying bad fx and production values and whatnot- still... The script (which I read a draft before seeing the finished movie) seemed like a step in the right direction compared to the end of SII and SIII. #1: It took the character seriously- no Richard Pryor diversion, it was a Superman-centric film. #2: A superhero battle- sure, but it (on paper) took itself seriously. check. #3: Lex Luthor- (in the script) with a new level of hatred to play off of Superman? Interesting! #4: A way to use Lois- well, it tried... though it might have also been interesting if they decided to make it a real continuation of SIII and had Annette O' Toole, though the Ricky in SIII was (no fault of the actor) a bit annoying to me and that probably would be hard to exclude if going that way. #5: The stakes were sincere- and the best part of SIV- Reeve's all-in performance as Supes.... still make the film more watchable than it should be to me. The funny thing is that Donner hit upon just the right tone- STM was a romantic fairy tale with levels of sincerity and comedy. The idea for SIV about a child writing a wish for Superman to play God (pretty much) I admired as it was something I'd never seen tackled so directly in comics and it's a tricky thing to get in and out of scriptwise, for sure. A similar (but far less successful in my opinion) ambition I thought was in Star Trek V, where they gave the impression that they were going to see 'God'- but, that script and movie was such a mess that SIV in my opinion is a classic. But at the same time- it dared to have a provocative idea going in... similar to SIV- and no matter what, it seemed like it was going to be a tricky task scriptwise to get out- but it would have been interesting to have seen Mank give it a go. S4 would definitely have benefitted from having Lana come back. Lana was one of the best things about S3. They could have continued from S3, and explored the rivalry between Lana and Lois more. I'd have preferred that instead of the Lacey/Lois rivalry. A double date with Lana and Lois would have been better too. And Ricky could have been the one to write the letter to Superman, not Jeremy. That would have built nicely on Ricky and Superman's relationship from S3. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 24, 2022 18:34:57 GMT -5
There were a few books put out years ago that talked to writers of Spiderman over the years and Fantastic Four (If memory serves) that detailed a lot of the problems and restrictions that would be put upon them by the editors or higher ups- So that, plus the "Star Trek: Next Generation"'s bible for writers and directors decades ago also made me take a step back and think not just on what a story is for a comic character- but the restrictions and parameters put upon said writer for comics or movies (or tv). That being the case- I actually thought SIV's script was good enough for all the checkmarks and restrictions that a Superman movie following Superman 2 had to have. Did it make things overly simplistic? Well, yeah.... but I do like the daring and the premise- even if Mank felt it was a giant no-no to touch. Also, it was following Lester's SIII which I detest - and could but won't go into my disdain for anything Lester did on SII, good or bad... I've already said my own opinions on him and his contributions a zillion times on the forum, so I'll pass on elaborating- (What purpose would it serve?) Anyhow- compared to SIII, even with SIV's horrifying bad fx and production values and whatnot- still... The script (which I read a draft before seeing the finished movie) seemed like a step in the right direction compared to the end of SII and SIII. #1: It took the character seriously- no Richard Pryor diversion, it was a Superman-centric film. #2: A superhero battle- sure, but it (on paper) took itself seriously. check. #3: Lex Luthor- (in the script) with a new level of hatred to play off of Superman? Interesting! #4: A way to use Lois- well, it tried... though it might have also been interesting if they decided to make it a real continuation of SIII and had Annette O' Toole, though the Ricky in SIII was (no fault of the actor) a bit annoying to me and that probably would be hard to exclude if going that way. #5: The stakes were sincere- and the best part of SIV- Reeve's all-in performance as Supes.... still make the film more watchable than it should be to me. The funny thing is that Donner hit upon just the right tone- STM was a romantic fairy tale with levels of sincerity and comedy. The idea for SIV about a child writing a wish for Superman to play God (pretty much) I admired as it was something I'd never seen tackled so directly in comics and it's a tricky thing to get in and out of scriptwise, for sure. A similar (but far less successful in my opinion) ambition I thought was in Star Trek V, where they gave the impression that they were going to see 'God'- but, that script and movie was such a mess that SIV in my opinion is a classic. But at the same time- it dared to have a provocative idea going in... similar to SIV- and no matter what, it seemed like it was going to be a tricky task scriptwise to get out- but it would have been interesting to have seen Mank give it a go. S4 would definitely have benefitted from having Lana come back. Lana was one of the best things about S3. They could have continued from S3, and explored the rivalry between Lana and Lois more. I'd have preferred that instead of the Lacey/Lois rivalry. A double date with Lana and Lois would have been better too. And Ricky could have been the one to write the letter to Superman, not Jeremy. That would have built nicely on Ricky and Superman's relationship from S3. You have some interesting ideas on how that might have worked if Lana/OToole had stayed/been worked into SIV- I love Annette O'Toole in the role as Lana, but felt that the way her role was written in SIII was a big misfire- as if the Newmans were trying to replicate Lois' ditziness (but that was balanced by her grit and courage especially in SII)- for cheap laughs.... and rather than some of the depths that Donner put in, it was kept (as much of Lester's vision of SIII was) - on the surface cartoony level.... and same with Ricky. Having Lana in SIV would have been nice- if they decided to fix it up and change the tone to give her more depth (I have no clue what to do with little Ricky except to say he became a child actor and moved to Hollywood to do a reboot of I love Lucy for SIV, explaining his absence.) But as Lana was done in SIII- I don't think I would have liked a Lana/Lois rivalry--- but maybe it's because Annette O'Toole comes off as so sweet that it's hard for me to picture how it could work without making Lois or Lana look bad. What I was hoping originally in SIII was that the Salkinds would have chosen a good director who took the series more seriously and perhaps guided the writers to have Lana have known as a teen (there's a lot of big gaps in STM on Clark's history in Smallville) - and give more dimension to the Lana/Clark reunion, but, noooo.... but, to be fair, Reeve had script and director approval so whatever came of it- he was as responsible for its outcome as Lester. (And some fans love SIII, so it's a matter of taste and opinion on Lester)....anyhow--- again, I could but won't go into more of feelings on Lester's involvement as it brings out the worst in me.  |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on Jun 25, 2022 4:09:32 GMT -5
S4 would definitely have benefitted from having Lana come back. Lana was one of the best things about S3. They could have continued from S3, and explored the rivalry between Lana and Lois more. I'd have preferred that instead of the Lacey/Lois rivalry. A double date with Lana and Lois would have been better too. And Ricky could have been the one to write the letter to Superman, not Jeremy. That would have built nicely on Ricky and Superman's relationship from S3. You have some interesting ideas on how that might have worked if Lana/OToole had stayed/been worked into SIV- I love Annette O'Toole in the role as Lana, but felt that the way her role was written in SIII was a big misfire- as if the Newmans were trying to replicate Lois' ditziness (but that was balanced by her grit and courage especially in SII)- for cheap laughs.... and rather than some of the depths that Donner put in, it was kept (as much of Lester's vision of SIII was) - on the surface cartoony level.... and same with Ricky. Having Lana in SIV would have been nice- if they decided to fix it up and change the tone to give her more depth (I have no clue what to do with little Ricky except to say he became a child actor and moved to Hollywood to do a reboot of I love Lucy for SIV, explaining his absence.) But as Lana was done in SIII- I don't think I would have liked a Lana/Lois rivalry--- but maybe it's because Annette O'Toole comes off as so sweet that it's hard for me to picture how it could work without making Lois or Lana look bad. What I was hoping originally in SIII was that the Salkinds would have chosen a good director who took the series more seriously and perhaps guided the writers to have Lana have known as a teen (there's a lot of big gaps in STM on Clark's history in Smallville) - and give more dimension to the Lana/Clark reunion, but, noooo.... but, to be fair, Reeve had script and director approval so whatever came of it- he was as responsible for its outcome as Lester. (And some fans love SIII, so it's a matter of taste and opinion on Lester)....anyhow--- again, I could but won't go into more of feelings on Lester's involvement as it brings out the worst in me. I don't think a Lana / Lois rivalry would have been meanspirited or incongrous with Lana being sweet. Perhaps "rivalry" was the wrong word to use. Lois is attracted to Superman but not Clark. And Lana was attracted to Clark, but not Superman. Kind of like Lacey. I think that would have made for an interesting triangle or more accurately a rectangle! |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 26, 2022 3:14:47 GMT -5
You have some interesting ideas on how that might have worked if Lana/OToole had stayed/been worked into SIV- I love Annette O'Toole in the role as Lana, but felt that the way her role was written in SIII was a big misfire- as if the Newmans were trying to replicate Lois' ditziness (but that was balanced by her grit and courage especially in SII)- for cheap laughs.... and rather than some of the depths that Donner put in, it was kept (as much of Lester's vision of SIII was) - on the surface cartoony level.... and same with Ricky. Having Lana in SIV would have been nice- if they decided to fix it up and change the tone to give her more depth (I have no clue what to do with little Ricky except to say he became a child actor and moved to Hollywood to do a reboot of I love Lucy for SIV, explaining his absence.) But as Lana was done in SIII- I don't think I would have liked a Lana/Lois rivalry--- but maybe it's because Annette O'Toole comes off as so sweet that it's hard for me to picture how it could work without making Lois or Lana look bad. What I was hoping originally in SIII was that the Salkinds would have chosen a good director who took the series more seriously and perhaps guided the writers to have Lana have known as a teen (there's a lot of big gaps in STM on Clark's history in Smallville) - and give more dimension to the Lana/Clark reunion, but, noooo.... but, to be fair, Reeve had script and director approval so whatever came of it- he was as responsible for its outcome as Lester. (And some fans love SIII, so it's a matter of taste and opinion on Lester)....anyhow--- again, I could but won't go into more of feelings on Lester's involvement as it brings out the worst in me. I don't think a Lana / Lois rivalry would have been meanspirited or incongrous with Lana being sweet. Perhaps "rivalry" was the wrong word to use. Lois is attracted to Superman but not Clark. And Lana was attracted to Clark, but not Superman. Kind of like Lacey. I think that would have made for an interesting triangle or more accurately a rectangle! Hm... great point!  There's a lot of missed opportunities - but at the very least- STM broke the ice and also created a classic that lasts as long as people are interested in cinema and the world hasn't gone kaboom!--- I do believe Mank that Donner/Mank/Reeve were excited in the beginning enough to have sheparded multiple films drawing on the best of the comic book material. Overpraised Lester never fell in love with the comics as far as I could tell- and would not have wanted to be the George Lucas of the Superman movie series, whereas Donner/Mank might have. Instead, I'm at least glad that Marvel has overall mostly hit a lot of the fanboy itches in their MCU. The road to the Avengers was one amazing feat... but the road to Endgame and it sticking the landing is the closest superhero equivalent I think to that Star Wars size franchise- though- arguably it transcended it with the sheer number of good to great films to their 9 films, (of which only 3 1/2 were any good) WB is hitting a few superhero things correctly- but they've never (so far) seemed to have been able to do any more than 2 films in a row properly.... we know they tried something with the Snyderverse, but.... wrong persons in charge (even though I do enjoy enough of the Snyder cut JLA). |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 26, 2022 13:22:16 GMT -5
“One step forward, two steps back” sums up WB’s DC on screen efforts.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 26, 2022 23:28:04 GMT -5
“One step forward, two steps back” sums up WB’s DC on screen efforts. It definitely feels that way! Well... it'll be interesting to see if the new powers that be gets things done that makes everyone happy. (They can start with.... releasing the extended SII on blu ray/widescreen, darnit!!!) |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 27, 2022 8:53:47 GMT -5
Some people seem to have all kinds of faith in David Zaslav to right the ship at WB wether it’s to get Superman back on track or to bring back the Snyderverse but I think it’s too soon to tell how things are going to turn out. He just strikes me as a corporate animal more driven by numbers than anything remotely creative. If it makes sense and “makes cents” then he’ll go in that direction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kamdan on Jun 27, 2022 11:38:04 GMT -5
I believe all of that talk came way after the fact and was fabricated when Superman Returns came to fruition. They were working with a screenplay previously rewritten and thought that this two part film would represent “ the best of the comic book material.” If anyone should take credit from drawing upon follow ups to the films with comic material it’s Ilya Salkind who whipped up a scenario that involved Brainiac, Mxyzptlk, Supergirl and the return of Lana Lang. Donner‘s whole verisimilitude mindset is not accommodating for most of those characters.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 27, 2022 12:15:16 GMT -5
If anyone should take credit from drawing upon follow ups to the films with comic material it’s Ilya Salkind who whipped up a scenario that involved Brainiac, Mxyzptlk, Supergirl and the return of Lana Lang. Donner‘s whole verisimilitude mindset is not accommodating for most of those characters. Depending on how it was done (Not Ilya’s original way) it could have worked with Brainiac, Supergirl, and Lana Lang. Not with Mxyzptlk. The character as he was simply couldn’t have worked with Donners approach to things in any way. He’s just not that kind of character and his abilities defy any kind of grounded believability. Brainiac is a machine from a different world. Supergirl is another Kryptonian. Ilya’s original story treatment and the tone of it were absurd and if it had been further developed and made as it was tonally it wouldn’t have worked especially as a part of the established film series. It was too much of a sharp left turn from what came before. |
|
|
|
Post by Kamdan on Jun 27, 2022 12:38:25 GMT -5
For the last decade, I was really adamant about trading in Superman III, Supergirl and Superman IV for a solid Superman III that would have incorporated those aspects. The recent Superman ‘78 comic book series fulfilled most of that premise, but I was put off at how much the comic felt like the comics with traced screencaps of the films stuck in place. There was imagination on the filmmakers’ part to make Jor-El and Luthor’s costumes unique for the film. The Mego figures prove that Brando and Hackman looked ridiculous in comic accurate attire.
It also proved that they could hardly top the Metropolis battle when Superman is pitted against three people of equal strength and the only way he could beat them was to depower them. The idea of Superman turning evil was honestly the only real route they could take that wouldn’t make it all just a retread of previous moments from the first two. The idea of Mxyzptlk being a world bending imp I’m sure could have been worked in if Donner toked more grass and Mankiewicz drank more Jack. I really love the idea of Williams doing his Mork from Ork bit as Mxy so that we could have one movie of the Juilliard roommates together, but it definitely would have blown the screen apart.
The more cosmic angle with Brainiac and Supergirl would have said it apart from the first two, but we have to remember that the franchise couldn’t be sustained with each movie getting more and more expensive. The notion of making this a coast storing vehicle for Richard Pryor was seen as a means of keeping the budget down and why it was approved in the first place.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 27, 2022 12:58:49 GMT -5
For the last decade, I was really adamant about trading in Superman III, Supergirl and Superman IV for a solid Superman III that would have incorporated those aspects. The recent Superman ‘78 comic book series fulfilled most of that premise, but I was put off at how much the comic felt like the comics with traced screencaps of the films stuck in place. There was imagination on the filmmakers’ part to make Jor-El and Luthor’s costumes unique for the film. The Mego figures prove that Brando and Hackman looked ridiculous in comic accurate attire. It also proved that they could hardly top the Metropolis battle when Superman is pitted against three people of equal strength and the only way he could beat them was to depower them. The idea of Superman turning evil was honestly the only real route they could take that wouldn’t make it all just a retread of previous moments from the first two. The idea of Mxyzptlk being a world bending imp I’m sure could have been worked in if Donner toked more grass and Mankiewicz drank more Jack. I really love the idea of Williams doing his Mork from Ork bit as Mxy so that we could have one movie of the Juilliard roommates together, but it definitely would have blown the screen apart. The more cosmic angle with Brainiac and Supergirl would have said it apart from the first two, but we have to remember that the franchise couldn’t be sustained with each movie getting more and more expensive. The notion of making this a coast storing vehicle for Richard Pryor was seen as a means of keeping the budget down and why it was approved in the first place. Mxy’s powers are fifth dimensional magic. The Reeve films didn’t really deal with anything like that. The Supergirl film did but it flopped because they couldn’t make the entire thing mesh together as an overall quality product. You could make Mxyzptlk into something akin to Q or other omnipotent beings from Star Trek but then you begin to radically changing what he is and that’s not even taking into account his absurd personality. His involvement automatically takes the film into the comedy realm. Supergirl and Brainiac could have been adapted to Donner’s style with much less work put in to make them fit into the existing franchise. Yeah they’re cosmic beings but so is Superman. You take the cosmic and ground it quite literally by bringing it to earth. Logically other survivors of Krypton’s destruction would be out there you’d just have to adapt the way that happed. It could be as simple as Argo City being a kryptonian colony set up before Krypton exploded rather than the trippy inner space nonsense or the entire city was shifted into the phantom zone without most people knowing about it during the chaos. Brainiac would have probably been easier to pull off than any of them especially with the revamped 80s version of the character. It seems like that was almost done by design for more modern audiences and adaptations of the era. Unlike Mxyzptlk he’s a more serious character. The way you keep the budget down is setting most of the story on earth which is what the Supergirl film did anyway. Both characters are still very adaptable within those guidelines. It depends on the quality and the execution. |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on Jun 27, 2022 13:23:44 GMT -5
For the last decade, I was really adamant about trading in Superman III, Supergirl and Superman IV for a solid Superman III that would have incorporated those aspects. The recent Superman ‘78 comic book series fulfilled most of that premise, but I was put off at how much the comic felt like the comics with traced screencaps of the films stuck in place. There was imagination on the filmmakers’ part to make Jor-El and Luthor’s costumes unique for the film. The Mego figures prove that Brando and Hackman looked ridiculous in comic accurate attire. It also proved that they could hardly top the Metropolis battle when Superman is pitted against three people of equal strength and the only way he could beat them was to depower them. The idea of Superman turning evil was honestly the only real route they could take that wouldn’t make it all just a retread of previous moments from the first two. The idea of Mxyzptlk being a world bending imp I’m sure could have been worked in if Donner toked more grass and Mankiewicz drank more Jack. I really love the idea of Williams doing his Mork from Ork bit as Mxy so that we could have one movie of the Juilliard roommates together, but it definitely would have blown the screen apart. The more cosmic angle with Brainiac and Supergirl would have said it apart from the first two, but we have to remember that the franchise couldn’t be sustained with each movie getting more and more expensive. The notion of making this a coast storing vehicle for Richard Pryor was seen as a means of keeping the budget down and why it was approved in the first place. Mxy’s powers are fifth dimensional magic. The Reeve films didn’t really deal with anything like that. The Supergirl film did but it flopped because they couldn’t make the entire thing mesh together as an overall quality product. You could make Mxyzptlk into something akin to Q or other omnipotent beings from Star Trek but then you begin to radically changing what he is and that’s not even taking into account his absurd personality. His involvement automatically takes the film into the comedy realm. Supergirl and Brainiac could have been adapted to Donner’s style with much less work put in to make them fit into the existing franchise. Yeah they’re cosmic beings but so is Superman. You take the cosmic and ground it quite literally by bringing it to earth. Logically other survivors of Krypton’s destruction would be out there you’d just have to adapt the way that happed. It could be as simple as Argo City being a kryptonian colony set up before Krypton exploded rather than the trippy inner space nonsense or the entire city was shifted into the phantom zone without most people knowing about it during the chaos. Brainiac would have probably been easier to pull off than any of them especially with the revamped 80s version of the character. It seems like that was almost done by design for more modern audiences and adaptations of the era. Unlike Mxyzptlk he’s a more serious character. The way you keep the budget down is setting most of the story on earth which is what the Supergirl film did anyway. Both characters are still very adaptable within those guidelines. It depends on the quality and the execution. What if Gus Gorman was actually Brainiac in disguise all along? And that explained his superability with computers. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 27, 2022 14:13:08 GMT -5
What if Gus Gorman was actually Brainiac in disguise all along? And that explained his superability with computers. I could see Ilya actually doing something like that. If I were writing it I’d just have the characters tied together in some way. Something like Gus still being a nice guy that’s down on his luck but he somehow gets duped by Brainiac. Gus discovers Brainiacs programming code in the Websco computers and Brainiac uses Gus because he is so computer savvy. Maybe Gus doesn’t even realize he’s a sentient malevolent machine or program. How does the code get there? It could have been something as simple as the Vulcan satellite scanning space and the code being transferred through the satellites transmissions of data. Brainiac tricks Gus into convincing Webster into building his computer and Brainiac is not only the computer but even makes himself a new cybernetic body to fight Superman. Or not. You get to keep Pryor in the film and as one of the good characters instead of a true bad guy. It’s easy to see how “Brainiac” probably eventually became Webster and Gormans supercomputer during rewrites. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 27, 2022 15:47:02 GMT -5
I believe all of that talk came way after the fact and was fabricated when Superman Returns came to fruition. They were working with a screenplay previously rewritten and thought that this two part film would represent “ the best of the comic book material.” If anyone should take credit from drawing upon follow ups to the films with comic material it’s Ilya Salkind who whipped up a scenario that involved Brainiac, Mxyzptlk, Supergirl and the return of Lana Lang. Donner‘s whole verisimilitude mindset is not accommodating for most of those characters. Based on the quality of Mank's other scripts, I choose to believe Mankiewicz. There's no evidence to say he's telling untruths, but I'm open to reading any evidence if that's the case. He seemed actually more objective than Donner in saying he felt Lester was a good director but just a cynical perspective different than Donner's romantic perspective. Ilya Salkind I'll listen with open mind- I'm very glad he shared his point of views in the commentaries. I think it's good to listen to all sides and know also its very possible everyone can have their point of view and still not have the whole truth, but only from what they can see. (Especially if one has siblings with different points of family history- that's VERY true!) One day, I'll be open to reading or listening to Lester give his whole view of what was going on with Superman... and I may or may not shift my views, but I'm open to having my mind changed by the people who were there... and what I personally felt was better material--- but, just like my comment on siblings all having different truths- Love my siblings, but at times we both think each other sees things completely different- but that's ok. Same with whether or not someone is team Lester/Newmans. All good. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 27, 2022 15:50:21 GMT -5
What if Gus Gorman was actually Brainiac in disguise all along? And that explained his superability with computers. I could see Ilya actually doing something like that. If I were writing it I’d just have the characters tied together in some way. Something like Gus still being a nice guy that’s down on his luck but he somehow gets duped by Brainiac. Gus discovers Brainiacs programming code in the Websco computers and Brainiac uses Gus because he is so computer savvy. Maybe Gus doesn’t even realize he’s a sentient malevolent machine or program. How does the code get there? It could have been something as simple as the Vulcan satellite scanning space and the code being transferred through the satellites transmissions of data. Brainiac tricks Gus into convincing Webster into building his computer and Brainiac is not only the computer but even makes himself a new cybernetic body to fight Superman. Or not. You get to keep Pryor in the film and as one of the good characters instead of a true bad guy. It’s easy to see how “Brainiac” probably eventually became Webster and Gormans supercomputer during rewrites. It'd be nice one day to know who had the ultimate authority on SIII- we heard now that STM/SII was an indie project, with WB getting distribution only.... and some influence- but who knows what the limits were contractually there.... and I wonder who had ultimate say-so on SIII? Was it still fully indie or did WB/Salkinds renegotiate for control? Reeve had writer/director approval.... but probably so did WB/Salkinds? Maybe? Would be nice to eventually know... |
|
|
|
Post by Kamdan on Jun 27, 2022 20:03:46 GMT -5
Neither did the original comics. A character like that was created because it is a difficult task to come up with formidable photos for an invulnerable character. The Animated Series handled it beautifully of essentially placing Superman in a demented Looney Toons cartoon. That sounds like a riot to me if it could be pulled off in live action.
To me, there isn’t much of a difference between the world conquering Brainiac and the world conquering General Zod. I don’t believe any of the writers would have came up with the concepts that The Animated Series introduced that made the character more interesting.
I always keep hearing people try to claim that this was at one point the original concept, but I think people are getting confused with theories that are not rooted in reality. There are still claims to this day that home alone was supposed to reveal that uncle Frank hired the wet bandits to rob the house while they were on vacation, but that started off as just a theory. People are also to this day trying to say that Jar Jar Binks was conceived to be a villain when again it was just a fan theory. All material involving the writing of III never said that was the case, even though it would have been more comic book friendly. We have to remember that the screenwriters of the time didn’t hold the comics in high regard as they are today.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 27, 2022 22:02:20 GMT -5
Neither did the original comics. A character like that was created because it is a difficult task to come up with formidable photos for an invulnerable character. The Animated Series handled it beautifully of essentially placing Superman in a demented Looney Toons cartoon. That sounds like a riot to me if it could be pulled off in live action. To me, there isn’t much of a difference between the world conquering Brainiac and the world conquering General Zod. I don’t believe any of the writers would have came up with the concepts that The Animated Series introduced that made the character more interesting. I always keep hearing people try to claim that this was at one point the original concept, but I think people are getting confused with theories that are not rooted in reality. There are still claims to this day that home alone was supposed to reveal that uncle Frank hired the wet bandits to rob the house while they were on vacation, but that started off as just a theory. People are also to this day trying to say that Jar Jar Binks was conceived to be a villain when again it was just a fan theory. All material involving the writing of III never said that was the case, even though it would have been more comic book friendly. We have to remember that the screenwriters of the time didn’t hold the comics in high regard as they are today. By the time Mxy showed up in the comics in the 40s they were still more fantastical than the first two Reeve films though and beyond that the comics around Superman got sillier and sillier heading into the 50s and beyond to facilitate characters and stories like that. With Donner at the helm and keeping his previous style with Superman that wasn’t going to work. You’d have to alter things then you lose a major part of what made his films appealing in the first place. Ilya tried to craft what he thought was a proper Mxy story and certain people balked because of that. Zod was portrayed as a pompous narcissist. be relished it. Brainiac by his very nature isn’t that. He’s colder. That’s a major difference. They also had different goals with their world conquering. Again a major difference and that would be reflected tonally. Their methods also make for very different movies depending on how they’re handled. Tying Brainiac to Krypton was the biggest difference Superman TAS made to the character but at his core he was still very similar with similar goals. More than anything it was also Corey Burtons performance that made it work in the animated series. What would be lost by keeping him Coluan would be the more personal connection to Superman and his world but that would make no difference to his core characteristics or what makes him most appealing and a proper threat for Superman. There’s still the idea of two aliens and comparing and contesting them that would be appealing. Superman essentially seeing what he might be without his emotions and Brainiacs fascination with an alien man not of Earth being its protector. |
|
|
|
Post by Kamdan on Jun 27, 2022 22:32:27 GMT -5
To me, you just described the initial characterization of Zod under Donner’s direction. The whole “pompous narcissist” angle didn’t come to into play until Lester came in.
|
|
