How could you re-write Superman IV?

[crazy_asian_man]

For Superman 4- Tom Mankiewicz advised against writing about Superman tackling any real world problem- but I admired S4 for trying- while under the inherent (at the time) mandates that a superhero film be extremely family friendly and hit all the checkmarks for a adventure-romantic-comedy.

Given the restraints, I thought the script was pretty good-

But... it's gotten a lot of hate.

Question is: for the haters, how would you have rewritten it to be acceptable (to your tastes)?

To me- I kind of think that the supposed SR 2 (Man of Steel?)- rumored script kind of tackles the 'why doesn't Superman remove all nuclear weapons'/'solve all world problems' theme head on and could be considered a bit of a rewrite of SIV.

With SIV- the incomplete cut is the main sin to me, though the slashed budget and some of the directing choices didn't help, despite what seems like the heart in the right place.

But- I still love certain scenes and the attempt. It's just too bad it wasn't a win.

[atp]

I would have removed the recycling of things from the previous movies.

No Lex Luthor (done in STM and S2)
No tampering with a missile (done in STM)
No superpowered villain (done in S2)
No Lois Lane love story and memory wipe (done in S2)


We needed something more original

I would also have kept Annette O'Toole as Lana and built up that relationship instead of introducing Lacy.

[crazy_asian_man]

May 28, 2023 14:27:06 GMT -5 atp said:

I would have removed the recycling of things from the previous movies.

No Lex Luthor (done in STM and S2)
No tampering with a missile (done in STM)
No superpowered villain (done in S2)
No Lois Lane love story and memory wipe (done in S2)


We needed something more original

I would also have kept Annette O'Toole as Lana and built up that relationship instead of introducing Lacy.

Thanks for sharing thoughts ATP!

In the script version- actually some of those elements were progressed that you felt were recycled:

#1: Luthor had a mini-monologue towards the Superman statue that added a darker edge (which actually would show up in SR instead) to his character-

#2: Lois Lane love story- I thought was 50 percent well done and had a progression-
On one hand, I thought the removal of glasses was an interesting way (kind of successful) to have Lois remember - while addressing the memory kiss and not hiding from it...

But- later on, it goes back and forth with a progression/regression of the relationship- with the filmmakers trying to pretend that Lois was still the same young perky/slightly ditzy character with the double date... but then being a more mature Lois who may/may not remember who Supes is in the muddled scene with her and the sick Clark Kent.

But- I gave it credit for trying. And.... while it had a lot of parts that failed, it also was (to me) great to see the actors in their original roles one more time with a sincere attempt back the STM greatness and seriousness.

SIII to me was a silly romp that was worth it to see Reeve as Supes and Annette O'Toole as Lana- though both wholly underutitlized there, outside the somewhat interesting Supes vs. Clark scene (I would have been more interested if they wrote it to have more depth and really be deeper if they were going for darker. It just got darker and creepier without more depth imo.)

[dejan]

I am definitely a hater of this one.....maybe even virulently so!


My solution would be simple.

To not write(let alone rewrite) Superman IV at all!

As I said before, should never have been made ,period - just like Last Crusade(I know that's not a popular opinion),Crystal Skull, Dial Of Destiny, Aliens 3,4,Prometheus,Covenent and Terminators 3,4,5 and 6.

But all of those are still head and shoulders above SIV(Ok...I have not even seen Dial Of Destiny......but if it can reach the depths of SIV........).
Maybe Aliens 3 was veering into SIV territory....but it still had some ooomph to it.

I love Reeve as much as the next guy(platonically speaking of course!)......but he gets too much of a free pass in his rather uninspired contribution to the absolutely diabolical quality of this movie.

His performance was so so as far as I am concerned.
Kidder and Hackman were far worse.
As for Pillow......jeez ...the less said about that guy's acting chops the better.....even Cavill looks like Lawrence Olivier compared to this guy!

Hackman would shoot the superb Missippi Burning with Willem Defoe within a few months of SIV.....and his performance for that flick is like night and day when compared to SIV. 

Of course , Furie has to take the lion's share of the blame for not remotely being capable of exacting any meaningful performances from any of the leads.

Tellingly, it's the scenes which did not need any VFX which are so poorly directed that it's hard to believe that this was the same guy that gave us the excellent The Ipcress File 23 years prior.

Sure the UN stuff is not bad but still flat as heck.

In an era(outside of Bond) where any major movie franchise was a trilogy......Supes should have remained that way too.

Sorry....a bit of a rant......but there are no redeeming qualities to SIV at all IMHO.

Reeve said it best to Charlie Rose in 1992:

Sweep SIV under the rug! 

Pretend it never existed.

[crazy_asian_man]

May 28, 2023 17:12:52 GMT -5 dejan said:

I am definitely a hater of this one.....maybe even virulently so!


My solution would be simple.

To not write(let alone rewrite) Superman IV at all!

As I said before, should never have been made ,period - just like Last Crusade(I know that's not a popular opinion),Crystal Skull, Dial Of Destiny, Aliens 3,4,Prometheus,Covenent and Terminators 3,4,5 and 6.

But all of those are still head and shoulders above SIV(Ok...I have not even seen Dial Of Destiny......but if it can reach the depths of SIV........).
Maybe Aliens 3 was veering into SIV territory....but it still had some ooomph to it.

I love Reeve as much as the next guy(platonically speaking of course!)......but he gets too much of a free pass in his rather uninspired contribution to the absolutely diabolical quality of this movie.

His performance was so so as far as I am concerned.
Kidder and Hackman were far worse.
As for Pillow......jeez ...the less said about that guy's acting chops the better.....even Cavill looks like Lawrence Olivier compared to this guy!

Hackman would shoot the superb Missippi Burning with Willem Defoe within a few months of SIV.....and his performance for that flick is like night and day when compared to SIV. 

Of course , Furie has to take the lion's share of the blame for not remotely being capable of exacting any meaningful performances from any of the leads.

Tellingly, it's the scenes which did not need any VFX which are so poorly directed that it's hard to believe that this was the same guy that gave us the excellent The Ipcress File 23 years prior.

Sure the UN stuff is not bad but still flat as heck.

In an era(outside of Bond) where any major movie franchise was a trilogy......Supes should have remained that way too.

Sorry....a bit of a rant......but there are no redeeming qualities to SIV at all IMHO.

Reeve said it best to Charlie Rose in 1992:

Sweep SIV under the rug! 

Pretend it never existed.

If Reeve's Supes had ended on Lester's SIII.... I would have HATED it. SIV is a giant disappointment- but more on execution than intent. And I still prefer SIV's low budget bomb to the fully budgeted SIII any day of the week.

But... again.... appreciate the thoughts! As far as SIV being superior to SIII... I know I might be only one or two people on the planet who feel this way, but- oh well!

[atp]

SIV is still better than MOS though

[crazy_asian_man]

May 28, 2023 23:53:29 GMT -5 atp said:

SIV is still better than MOS though

I still actually like little parts of MOS- but the bad stuff really buries the rest of it. Some feel BvS is worse, but I feel like it's the reverse.

And.... I actually feel SIII is less offensive than MOS as well. To me, SIII is mainly painful for squashing a successful franchise (and the beginnings of a movie genre) dead in its tracks... and wasting such huge talents and a huge opportunity for great superhero films to have been made at that time.

But- MOS just damaged the character big time (imo) with those mind-bogglingly bad scenes.

Ironically, the trailer was awesome (so long as you don't know what's in the film). (Actually same with Pearl Harbor).

[Kamdan]

With the way everyone looked and acted in this film, I wish it had been an adaptation of What Ever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow. Problem is that story is very post-modern and I don’t believe they wanted to handle at that time, even now. We all saw what happened with Snyder trying to be post-modern with Man of Steel.

[dejan]

hehe

I think we all have slightly different views on just how bad SIV is!

I am probably in  the extremist zone as I truly hate it.

And for me to concede that Snyder did a better job than a Reeve film is a huge concession for my part....but I prefer MoS(overall) to SIV, and by some considerable distance.

I dislike Snyder's vision of Supe.....but at least he is true to his vision.
Not much of a fan of Singer's approach either, but again, at least he believes in his interpretation.
Same for Donner or Lester.

But Furie misfired because he claimed to believe in Donner's original depiction.
That's fantastic at face value.

But in every scene that was straight ahead live action.....just actors talking and interacting......they betrayed everything that Donner's dogma stood for.
Actors taking their characters seriously?
Nope.
Versimilitude.
Nope.
A sense of passion and joy for the work.
Nope.
An attempt at perfection.
Absolutely not!
They did not even try!

I could pick any number of scenes......happy to go through them.

The initial UN scene was as close as Furie would get to emulating Donner.
But it's far, far, far too little.

The scene where Clark entertains Lacy and Lois and knocks the phone onto the floor by accident and runs to the kitchen:
Reeve does a quasi Charlie Chaplinesque movement with his legs!.....seriously it's painful to watch.

I could go on..... 

So yeah....Furie talked the talk....but did not walk the walk, IMHO.
Either the material was not his cup of tea....or he lacked the genuine talent to tackle the job(and I think it's the latter).

Also, principal photography was 4 months for SIV. A not insignificant amount of time.
No different to SIII or most productions, really.
And the best they could do was all this lackadaiscal stuff.
It's like the actors are drained of any passion for the project.....Kidder turns to Reeve and says:
"Clark....you gotta go with your gut".
Absolutely awful delivery from Kidder and a poorly framed shot too.
All Furie had to do was say "cut"!
Try again.

But no.
We got what we got.
Or if that take was the best of the lot for that scene, then that pretty much says it all.

The scene where Hackman tells Reeve:
"Why don't you smell the roses?"
The camera cuts to Reeve.....and it's almost like Chris is taking it personally(IMHO!).....i.e "yep, you got me"!

Also , when Hackman does these weird mannerisms which are unique to SIV....I can see a young Jesse Eisenberg saying to himself:
"Cool...that's the way I am gonna play this guy"!

Martin Lakin's fandom for SIV is admirable(we are the same age) but he is resurrecting a hollowed out carcass of a zombie of a movie.....not some long lost treasure. 

[atp]

May 29, 2023 5:44:58 GMT -5 dejan said:

hehe

I think we all have slightly different views on just how bad SIV is!

I am probably in  the extremist zone as I truly hate it.

And for me to concede that Snyder did a better job than a Reeve film is a huge concession for my part....but I prefer MoS(overall) to SIV, and by some considerable distance.

I dislike Snyder's vision of Supe.....but at least he is true to his vision.
Not much of a fan of Singer's approach either, but again, at least he believes in his interpretation.
Same for Donner or Lester.

But Furie misfired because he claimed to believe in Donner's original depiction.
That's fantastic at face value.

But in every scene that was straight ahead live action.....just actors talking and interacting......they betrayed everything that Donner's dogma stood for.
Actors taking their characters seriously?
Nope.
Versimilitude.
Nope.
A sense of passion and joy for the work.
Nope.
An attempt at perfection.
Absolutely not!
They did not even try!

I could pick any number of scenes......happy to go through them.

The initial UN scene was as close as Furie would get to emulating Donner.
But it's far, far, far too little.

The scene where Clark entertains Lacy and Lois and knocks the phone onto the floor by accident and runs to the kitchen:
Reeve does a quasi Charlie Chaplinesque movement with his legs!.....seriously it's painful to watch.

I could go on..... 

So yeah....Furie talked the talk....but did not walk the walk, IMHO.
Either the material was not his cup of tea....or he lacked the genuine talent to tackle the job(and I think it's the latter).

Also, principal photography was 4 months for SIV. A not insignificant amount of time.
No different to SIII or most productions, really.
And the best they could do was all this lackadaiscal stuff.
It's like the actors are drained of any passion for the project.....Kidder turns to Reeve and says:
"Clark....you gotta go with your gut".
Absolutely awful delivery from Kidder and a poorly framed shot too.
All Furie had to do was say "cut"!
Try again.

But no.
We got what we got.
Or if that take was the best of the lot for that scene, then that pretty much says it all.

The scene where Hackman tells Reeve:
"Why don't you smell the roses?"
The camera cuts to Reeve.....and it's almost like Chris is taking it personally(IMHO!).....i.e "yep, you got me"!

Also , when Hackman does these weird mannerisms which are unique to SIV....I can see a young Jesse Eisenberg saying to himself:
"Cool...that's the way I am gonna play this guy"!

Martin Lakin's fandom for SIV is admirable(we are the same age) but he is resurrecting a hollowed out carcass of a zombie of a movie.....not some long lost treasure. 

Which weird Hackman mannerisms do you mean?

[crazy_asian_man]

May 29, 2023 5:44:58 GMT -5 dejan said:

hehe

I think we all have slightly different views on just how bad SIV is!

I am probably in  the extremist zone as I truly hate it.

And for me to concede that Snyder did a better job than a Reeve film is a huge concession for my part....but I prefer MoS(overall) to SIV, and by some considerable distance.

I dislike Snyder's vision of Supe.....but at least he is true to his vision.
Not much of a fan of Singer's approach either, but again, at least he believes in his interpretation.
Same for Donner or Lester.

But Furie misfired because he claimed to believe in Donner's original depiction.
That's fantastic at face value.

But in every scene that was straight ahead live action.....just actors talking and interacting......they betrayed everything that Donner's dogma stood for.
Actors taking their characters seriously?
Nope.
Versimilitude.
Nope.
A sense of passion and joy for the work.
Nope.
An attempt at perfection.
Absolutely not!
They did not even try!

I could pick any number of scenes......happy to go through them.

The initial UN scene was as close as Furie would get to emulating Donner.
But it's far, far, far too little.

The scene where Clark entertains Lacy and Lois and knocks the phone onto the floor by accident and runs to the kitchen:
Reeve does a quasi Charlie Chaplinesque movement with his legs!.....seriously it's painful to watch.

I could go on..... 

So yeah....Furie talked the talk....but did not walk the walk, IMHO.
Either the material was not his cup of tea....or he lacked the genuine talent to tackle the job(and I think it's the latter).

Also, principal photography was 4 months for SIV. A not insignificant amount of time.
No different to SIII or most productions, really.
And the best they could do was all this lackadaiscal stuff.
It's like the actors are drained of any passion for the project.....Kidder turns to Reeve and says:
"Clark....you gotta go with your gut".
Absolutely awful delivery from Kidder and a poorly framed shot too.
All Furie had to do was say "cut"!
Try again.

But no.
We got what we got.
Or if that take was the best of the lot for that scene, then that pretty much says it all.

The scene where Hackman tells Reeve:
"Why don't you smell the roses?"
The camera cuts to Reeve.....and it's almost like Chris is taking it personally(IMHO!).....i.e "yep, you got me"!

Also , when Hackman does these weird mannerisms which are unique to SIV....I can see a young Jesse Eisenberg saying to himself:
"Cool...that's the way I am gonna play this guy"!

Martin Lakin's fandom for SIV is admirable(we are the same age) but he is resurrecting a hollowed out carcass of a zombie of a movie.....not some long lost treasure. 

With horror stories about working with the Cannon group - and Furie’s refusal to talk about the film situation- I would put an asterisk on what Furie was able to do. Lester got full backing for his ‘comedy gold’ (sorry sarcasm alert) on the Reeve Supes material… Furie wasn’t a hack but there was something seriously wrong behind the scenes- possibly even with how many hours they were allowed with takes. maybe it was a case of ‘one take only and we move on’—- we really don’t know…. But we do know the budget was hashed to bits.

[crazy_asian_man]

May 29, 2023 5:44:58 GMT -5 dejan said:

hehe

I think we all have slightly different views on just how bad SIV is!

I am probably in  the extremist zone as I truly hate it.

And for me to concede that Snyder did a better job than a Reeve film is a huge concession for my part....but I prefer MoS(overall) to SIV, and by some considerable distance.

I dislike Snyder's vision of Supe.....but at least he is true to his vision.
Not much of a fan of Singer's approach either, but again, at least he believes in his interpretation.
Same for Donner or Lester.

But Furie misfired because he claimed to believe in Donner's original depiction.
That's fantastic at face value.

But in every scene that was straight ahead live action.....just actors talking and interacting......they betrayed everything that Donner's dogma stood for.
Actors taking their characters seriously?
Nope.
Versimilitude.
Nope.
A sense of passion and joy for the work.
Nope.
An attempt at perfection.
Absolutely not!
They did not even try!

I could pick any number of scenes......happy to go through them.

The initial UN scene was as close as Furie would get to emulating Donner.
But it's far, far, far too little.

The scene where Clark entertains Lacy and Lois and knocks the phone onto the floor by accident and runs to the kitchen:
Reeve does a quasi Charlie Chaplinesque movement with his legs!.....seriously it's painful to watch.

I could go on..... 

So yeah....Furie talked the talk....but did not walk the walk, IMHO.
Either the material was not his cup of tea....or he lacked the genuine talent to tackle the job(and I think it's the latter).

Also, principal photography was 4 months for SIV. A not insignificant amount of time.
No different to SIII or most productions, really.
And the best they could do was all this lackadaiscal stuff.
It's like the actors are drained of any passion for the project.....Kidder turns to Reeve and says:
"Clark....you gotta go with your gut".
Absolutely awful delivery from Kidder and a poorly framed shot too.
All Furie had to do was say "cut"!
Try again.

But no.
We got what we got.
Or if that take was the best of the lot for that scene, then that pretty much says it all.

The scene where Hackman tells Reeve:
"Why don't you smell the roses?"
The camera cuts to Reeve.....and it's almost like Chris is taking it personally(IMHO!).....i.e "yep, you got me"!

Also , when Hackman does these weird mannerisms which are unique to SIV....I can see a young Jesse Eisenberg saying to himself:
"Cool...that's the way I am gonna play this guy"!

Martin Lakin's fandom for SIV is admirable(we are the same age) but he is resurrecting a hollowed out carcass of a zombie of a movie.....not some long lost treasure. 

in some alternate universe I’m guessing I adore Lester on how he saved the Superman series and you adore Superman 4- all good!

[dejan]

Hi ATP

The scene with Hackman's overacting bit:
  
It's at 37:04 where he says:
"a number with a lot of zeros behind  it"

He then raises his hands to accentuate said number and does this weird expression.
He never did anything comparable to that under Donner.

He does something less egregious but still over the top in a kinda Batman 66' way at:
1:07:40 

...when he is talking to the arms dealers:

"My first official act is to say......you're fired"!

To think of an analogous situation in STM:

When he yelled  twice at Miss Tesmacher .......

The first one in Supe's presense was just a teaser - done with restraint but still downright authoratative!
So much so that Reeve looks up suddenly ,shocked, almost not expecting it - lol!

.....the second one when Luthor realises the rocket has been taken over by Supes, is a no B.S scream with anger.

But in SIV , Hackman's shouting just comes across as buffoonish.
Maybe that was Furie's intent....but it does not work for me. 
Rendered even more egregious , given the comparison with Hackman's performance under Donner.

[dejan]

Hi CAM

Yeah I know.....I am familiar with what could have been the mitigating circumstances behind the scenes that may have contributed to  compromising what ended up on screen.
And those are valid arguments.
Totally agree with you.

Obviously all the post production stuff can be forgiven.
I read one report where Furie left the project before the actual editing was done!
See if I can dig it out.
Usually the editing is a collaboration between the director and editor.

I remember Zemekis saying that because he was occupied with shooting Back To The Future III.....that he could not be in the editing booth as much for the completion of Part II.....which may have effected the rather frenetic and haphazard nature of that film.


But that notwithstanding, with regards to SIV....the tone of the acting is way off.
I can't believe Reeve,Hackman and Kidder just subscribed to this level of performance,given their substantial experience with the Supes franchise ,and as actors in general.

The scene when Hackman introduces himself  to the arms dealers at 34:31:

The 3 guys pull their guns out on Luthor in such a Batman 66' way that I can't believe Hackman did not reign in Furie and say:
"under Donner that's not the way we would act out such a scene"

I could go on......

[crazy_asian_man]

May 29, 2023 17:33:31 GMT -5 dejan said:

Hi CAM

Yeah I know.....I am familiar with what could have been the mitigating circumstances behind the scenes that may have contributed to  compromising what ended up on screen.
And those are valid arguments.
Totally agree with you.

Obviously all the post production stuff can be forgiven.
I read one report where Furie left the project before the actual editing was done!
See if I can dig it out.
Usually the editing is a collaboration between the director and editor.

I remember Zemekis saying that because he was occupied with shooting Back To The Future III.....that he could not be in the editing booth as much for the completion of Part II.....which may have effected the rather frenetic and haphazard nature of that film.


But that notwithstanding, with regards to SIV....the tone of the acting is way off.
I can't believe Reeve,Hackman and Kidder just subscribed to this level of performance,given their substantial experience with the Supes franchise ,and as actors in general.

The scene when Hackman introduces himself  to the arms dealers at 34:31:

The 3 guys pull their guns out on Luthor in such a Batman 66' way that I can't believe Hackman did not reign in Furie and say:
"under Donner that's not the way we would act out such a scene"

I could go on......

Hey Dejan-
I actually agree with you on most of the performances!- but... again, I actually have a hunch based on the snippets of everything that Reeve and Furie may have had a falling out but were kind of stuck with a terrible shooting schedule with (pretty much) zero money.

Add to that- the hacking to pieces of the final cut made the story incomprehensible. 2/3rds of it might have told the story, but the end of it.

In regards to how passionate the actors might have been- we know it was a passion project for Reeve.... but it took some asking for the others. Reeve's Superman may be a hobby/passion for us, but for the actors?

It had to be mixed. Kidder said in interviews that Reeve opposed her coming back- so that couldn't have helped on-set for the performances where she was supposed to be in love with him.

Hackman has said in one of Nicholas Meyer's interviews that he had misbehaved on a number of his films, ruining said movie to different degrees. (Remember he didn't even want to shave his mustache until Donner tricked him). So, his loyalty to any one role might have been questionable. (I thought he was fine as Lex- but I wanted the Lex with a new level of hatred in the production script)

[dejan]

Hi CAM

Nice catch, highlighting the fact that Reeve had been cited in the press a couple of times ,during the 1981-82 seasons, saying the narrative arc of the Clark/Lois relationship had come full circle and that there was nowhere left to go with it.

That was before SIII came out!

So as you astutely observed,by the time of SIV, some bad feelings may have still been lingering.......

Ofcourse, given our discussions on this thread, and because I had to cite the timings of one or 2 scenes so I could answer ATP, .....thought I'd pop in the old DVD from 2003/4 for SIV and give it a quick spin(sorry it's not worthy of a Blu Ray or UHD viewing - I know, you guys think I am waging some kind of jihad against SIV - lol!)
But one tends to forget just how short SIV is!
Hour and a half and done!


But it gave me a chance to re-appraise(or not!- lol!) the acting.

Sheesh!

The actor who plays the american arms dealer, William Hootkins, was given waaay too much latitude to play his character over the top.......over the top?.....he was practically in the statosphere! - lol!

(By the way, love the actor :Star Wars,Raiders,Batman to name but a few.......)

But Furie completely misdirected him in SIV.

When Luthor opens the blinds Hootkins blatters out:
"The sun is hurting my eyes!"

Then later on with Luthor again:
"We have been thinking about increasing your commission"!

Hootkin's deliveries are just so campy that even Batman 66' looks serious by comparison!

Furie is the director and it's his duty to inform the actors on tone,pacing,intuition and performance.

But it looks like Furie was absent at the wheel, allowing all sorts of eccentricities to punctuate various actor's performances.

As for Pillow.....he comes across as very nice person in interviews and I am glad that people appreciate the physicallity he brought to Nuclear Man.
But the fact of the matter is that the poor chap cannot act.
Sure the crappy costume did not help......but a decent actor would have given something for Chris to play off from.

As it was.....it's just hilarious to watch Nuclear Man declare:

"Destroy Superman"(even with Hackman's overdub!).

"If you will not tell me...I will hurt people!"


Lol!!!

 

[crazy_asian_man]

May 29, 2023 4:47:19 GMT -5 Kamdan said:

With the way everyone looked and acted in this film, I wish it had been an adaptation of What Ever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow. Problem is that story is very post-modern and I don’t believe they wanted to handle at that time, even now. We all saw what happened with Snyder trying to be post-modern with Man of Steel.

With the actors being a bit older- that actually is an excellent idea- but... it also would have been a story that would have been an ending (though a great one)- rather than something that was trying to jump-start the franchise. Oh well..

[crazy_asian_man]

May 30, 2023 10:56:29 GMT -5 dejan said:

Hi CAM

Nice catch, highlighting the fact that Reeve had been cited in the press a couple of times ,during the 1981-82 seasons, saying the narrative arc of the Clark/Lois relationship had come full circle and that there was nowhere left to go with it.

That was before SIII came out!

So as you astutely observed,by the time of SIV, some bad feelings may have still been lingering.......

Ofcourse, given our discussions on this thread, and because I had to cite the timings of one or 2 scenes so I could answer ATP, .....thought I'd pop in the old DVD from 2003/4 for SIV and give it a quick spin(sorry it's not worthy of a Blu Ray or UHD viewing - I know, you guys think I am waging some kind of jihad against SIV - lol!)
But one tends to forget just how short SIV is!
Hour and a half and done!


But it gave me a chance to re-appraise(or not!- lol!) the acting.

Sheesh!

The actor who plays the american arms dealer, William Hootkins, was given waaay too much latitude to play his character over the top.......over the top?.....he was practically in the statosphere! - lol!

(By the way, love the actor :Star Wars,Raiders,Batman to name but a few.......)

But Furie completely misdirected him in SIV.

When Luthor opens the blinds Hootkins blatters out:
"The sun is hurting my eyes!"

Then later on with Luthor again:
"We have been thinking about increasing your commission"!

Hootkin's deliveries are just so campy that even Batman 66' looks serious by comparison!

Furie is the director and it's his duty to inform the actors on tone,pacing,intuition and performance.

But it looks like Furie was absent at the wheel, allowing all sorts of eccentricities to punctuate various actor's performances.

As for Pillow.....he comes across as very nice person in interviews and I am glad that people appreciate the physicallity he brought to Nuclear Man.
But the fact of the matter is that the poor chap cannot act.
Sure the crappy costume did not help......but a decent actor would have given something for Chris to play off from.

As it was.....it's just hilarious to watch Nuclear Man declare:

"Destroy Superman"(even with Hackman's overdub!).

"If you will not tell me...I will hurt people!"


Lol!!!

 

I'd read Nuclear Man was envisioned as someone who would come off as more of a cool menacing effect--- but... neither the budget (or the sfx tech at the time) could have pulled that off.

Still- imagine Nuclear Man if it was pulled off in the same way that in T2 the 'liquid metal terminator' wowed audiences at the time. Still- even so.... The inner 7 year old preferred the zero-budget battles between Supes and Nuclear Man over the battle between Superman and the robot-secretary at the end of SIII!

[dejan]

Can't argue with you prefering the action sequences in SIV to SIII , bud.

Suffice to say it's the other way round for me!

But more importantly, the acting and directing in IV in the live action material ,was the true nail in the coffin for this endeavour, IMHO.

Even if I stripped out all the effects from STM,II and III...there would still be enough meat in those actual live action sequences(just predominant dialogue scenes ) to carry the narrative.

But IMHO,that's sadly not the case with  SIV .

It's an empty carcass, unfortunately.

I felt that way as a 13 year old in 1987.

And nothing has changed.
     

[dejan]

Was going to add that whilst  I will always regard SIV to be an abomination of a movie.......one thing it did do, was preserve Supe's ethos.....basically saving people and doing good(the Russian cosmonauts,the underground train,the folks on the great wall of China,the Italians at the volcano,Lacy in outer space???!! ect ect.).

But that was also standard for the Supes/Salks/Reeve series up until that point.....so it's not like Furie broke new ground by having Supes perform said deeds.
But at least he preserved them....so that's one thing he failed to s***w up!

What's rather sad is that newer interpretations of the character(here's looking at you Zack!) have kinda forgotten that aspect(or at the very least- distorted it). 

[Metallo]

The basics of Superman IV’s story are fine. There’s something good in there under all the flaws. It’s in the details and the execution where they messed up. Obviously to do the story they did you'd need a massive budget. Even by todays standards if you did Superman IV as it was written you’d probably need a budget of $200 million. I’d streamline the film and focus on the basics of its story. The nuclear arms issue wouldn’t take a backseat to nuclear man. It would be the A story.

I’d want to make nuclear man bizarro but Superman III sort of already did it. Nuclear man is supposed to represent and embody the problems Superman’s fighting against with the nuclear issue so maybe I’d take an existing character and try to craft them to be closer to that. I’d keep Lana and Lois. I’d keep Warfield and the plot with the planet but maybe tie it more to what Luthor is doing. I might keep Lacy. Not really sure. For the most part I’d keep the bones of the story and try to make it better.

[Metallo]

May 30, 2023 16:13:20 GMT -5 dejan said:

Was going to add that whilst  I will always regard SIV to be an abomination of a movie.......one thing it did do, was preserve Supe's ethos.....basically saving people and doing good(the Russian cosmonauts,the underground train,the folks on the great wall of China,the Italians at the volcano,Lacy in outer space???!! ect ect.).

But that was also standard for the Supes/Salks/Reeve series up until that point.....so it's not like Furie broke new ground by having Supes perform said deeds.
But at least he preserved them....so that's one thing he failed to s***w up!

What's rather sad is that newer interpretations of the character(here's looking at you Zack!) have kinda forgotten that aspect(or at the very least- distorted it). 

Superman IV is a bad movie but it’s still very much a Superman movie. Man of Steel isn’t. It tried to be a sci fi alien invasion movie but then gave up and became a dumb action movie that completely falls apart by the third act. Man of Steel was made by guys who loathe any classic version of Superman. They look down their noses at most of the characters history and material.

[Metallo]

May 30, 2023 13:29:05 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

May 30, 2023 10:56:29 GMT -5 dejan said:

Hi CAM

Nice catch, highlighting the fact that Reeve had been cited in the press a couple of times ,during the 1981-82 seasons, saying the narrative arc of the Clark/Lois relationship had come full circle and that there was nowhere left to go with it.

That was before SIII came out!

So as you astutely observed,by the time of SIV, some bad feelings may have still been lingering.......

Ofcourse, given our discussions on this thread, and because I had to cite the timings of one or 2 scenes so I could answer ATP, .....thought I'd pop in the old DVD from 2003/4 for SIV and give it a quick spin(sorry it's not worthy of a Blu Ray or UHD viewing - I know, you guys think I am waging some kind of jihad against SIV - lol!)
But one tends to forget just how short SIV is!
Hour and a half and done!


But it gave me a chance to re-appraise(or not!- lol!) the acting.

Sheesh!

The actor who plays the american arms dealer, William Hootkins, was given waaay too much latitude to play his character over the top.......over the top?.....he was practically in the statosphere! - lol!

(By the way, love the actor :Star Wars,Raiders,Batman to name but a few.......)

But Furie completely misdirected him in SIV.

When Luthor opens the blinds Hootkins blatters out:
"The sun is hurting my eyes!"

Then later on with Luthor again:
"We have been thinking about increasing your commission"!

Hootkin's deliveries are just so campy that even Batman 66' looks serious by comparison!

Furie is the director and it's his duty to inform the actors on tone,pacing,intuition and performance.

But it looks like Furie was absent at the wheel, allowing all sorts of eccentricities to punctuate various actor's performances.

As for Pillow.....he comes across as very nice person in interviews and I am glad that people appreciate the physicallity he brought to Nuclear Man.
But the fact of the matter is that the poor chap cannot act.
Sure the crappy costume did not help......but a decent actor would have given something for Chris to play off from.

As it was.....it's just hilarious to watch Nuclear Man declare:

"Destroy Superman"(even with Hackman's overdub!).

"If you will not tell me...I will hurt people!"


Lol!!!

 

I'd read Nuclear Man was envisioned as someone who would come off as more of a cool menacing effect--- but... neither the budget (or the sfx tech at the time) could have pulled that off.

Still- imagine Nuclear Man if it was pulled off in the same way that in T2 the 'liquid metal terminator' wowed audiences at the time. Still- even so.... The inner 7 year old preferred the zero-budget battles between Supes and Nuclear Man over the battle between Superman and the robot-secretary at the end of SIII!

Hootkins wasn’t much different in Batman. I think that’s just how he saw that kind of material. “You mean when you run the show? You ain’t GOT no future, JACK! You’re an A One nutboy and Grissom knows it!” His deliver was pretty darn over the top at times in that movie. Mark Pillow, bless him, had virtually no experience as an actor. The only way to save that performance was to have him not talk at all. He reminded me of a pre Rocky IV Dolph Lundgren only worse.

[Metallo]

May 29, 2023 5:44:58 GMT -5 dejan said:

hehe

I think we all have slightly different views on just how bad SIV is!

I am probably in  the extremist zone as I truly hate it.

And for me to concede that Snyder did a better job than a Reeve film is a huge concession for my part....but I prefer MoS(overall) to SIV, and by some considerable distance.

I dislike Snyder's vision of Supe.....but at least he is true to his vision.
Not much of a fan of Singer's approach either, but again, at least he believes in his interpretation.
Same for Donner or Lester.

But Furie misfired because he claimed to believe in Donner's original depiction.
That's fantastic at face value.

But in every scene that was straight ahead live action.....just actors talking and interacting......they betrayed everything that Donner's dogma stood for.
Actors taking their characters seriously?
Nope.
Versimilitude.
Nope.
A sense of passion and joy for the work.
Nope.
An attempt at perfection.
Absolutely not!
They did not even try!

I could pick any number of scenes......happy to go through them.

The initial UN scene was as close as Furie would get to emulating Donner.
But it's far, far, far too little.

The scene where Clark entertains Lacy and Lois and knocks the phone onto the floor by accident and runs to the kitchen:
Reeve does a quasi Charlie Chaplinesque movement with his legs!.....seriously it's painful to watch.

I could go on..... 

So yeah....Furie talked the talk....but did not walk the walk, IMHO.
Either the material was not his cup of tea....or he lacked the genuine talent to tackle the job(and I think it's the latter).

Also, principal photography was 4 months for SIV. A not insignificant amount of time.
No different to SIII or most productions, really.
And the best they could do was all this lackadaiscal stuff.
It's like the actors are drained of any passion for the project.....Kidder turns to Reeve and says:
"Clark....you gotta go with your gut".
Absolutely awful delivery from Kidder and a poorly framed shot too.
All Furie had to do was say "cut"!
Try again.

But no.
We got what we got.
Or if that take was the best of the lot for that scene, then that pretty much says it all.

The scene where Hackman tells Reeve:
"Why don't you smell the roses?"
The camera cuts to Reeve.....and it's almost like Chris is taking it personally(IMHO!).....i.e "yep, you got me"!

Also , when Hackman does these weird mannerisms which are unique to SIV....I can see a young Jesse Eisenberg saying to himself:
"Cool...that's the way I am gonna play this guy"!

Martin Lakin's fandom for SIV is admirable(we are the same age) but he is resurrecting a hollowed out carcass of a zombie of a movie.....not some long lost treasure. 

I feel like from a storytelling and acting pov MOS is far more incompetent than Superman IV. Snyder had his vision but it was so poorly handled beyond the visuals. The man doesn't understand the basics of storytelling and has no discipline as a director. Some great actors in MOS totally miss the mark because with Snyder it would by like be blind leading the blind. Cavill isn’t great in much of anything but he’s an absolute plank of wood in man of steel and it’s not just because it was part of Snyder’s vision. Superman IV killed a film series. Man of Steel severely wounded an entire shared universe/franchise right out of the gate. Ten years later they're still struggling to deal with the long term damage done.

[crazy_asian_man]

May 30, 2023 20:19:56 GMT -5 Metallo said:

The basics of Superman IV’s story are fine. There’s something good in there under all the flaws. It’s in the details and the execution where they messed up. Obviously to do the story they did you'd need a massive budget. Even by todays standards if you did Superman IV as it was written you’d probably need a budget of $200 million. I’d streamline the film and focus on the basics of its story. The nuclear arms issue wouldn’t take a backseat to nuclear man. It would be the A story.

I’d want to make nuclear man bizarro but Superman III sort of already did it. Nuclear man is supposed to represent and embody the problems Superman’s fighting against with the nuclear issue so maybe I’d take an existing character and try to craft them to be closer to that. I’d keep Lana and Lois. I’d keep Warfield and the plot with the planet but maybe tie it more to what Luthor is doing. I might keep Lacy. Not really sure. For the most part I’d keep the bones of the story and try to make it better.

I think the idea of a child sending a letter to Superman and that nudging Superman to take a dive into doing what he was forbidden to do and get involved with changing the world- was ambitious as heck- but could have really been moving under a Speilberg perhaps, with script adjustments and healthy production values. There's something fairy tale-like to the story idea that could have really been something (as was the idea at the end to have Superman let Jeremy see the world from his vantage point).... but it would have required a delicate touch, I think, to make it work really well. (And money!)

But- having said that.... the age of the actors I still felt was pushing it, even if. I do think, also, that the retaining of the memory kiss bit was something that was something that the screenwriters danced well enough with- but at the same time.... felt a little like an odd burden that would have been in the back of any following sequels that would have happened, had things worked out.