Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,069
|
Post by Metallo on May 31, 2023 8:00:07 GMT -5
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. Their age really wasn’t an issue. People just make it one. Look at the actors playing these characters now. Even in their primes they are older than the Superman IV main cast. The hangup is with the audience. We have this is idea that because the characters are ageless in the comics they should remain the same age on screen. Stuck in amber. That’s the difference between mediums. On film if you’re going to have the same actors they’re going to age. The only issue was to address it. Look at Fox. Look at Marvel. The characters get older. Look at RDJ. But in those films they address the characters changing and what comes with that in the passage of time. They don’t try to pretend they’re the exactly same even visually. But that’s also a difference in the approach to these projects now vs then. As for Superman IV if you tackle a serious real world issue you have to do it in a serious real world way. Once you step into that territory you can’t ride the fence but unfortunately Superman IV did. They didn’t tackle the films main story with the kind of depth and details they should have. Again another product of the time. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 31, 2023 9:45:37 GMT -5
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. Their age really wasn’t an issue. People just make it one. Look at the actors playing these characters now. Even in their primes they are older than the Superman IV main cast. The hangup is with the audience. We have this is idea that because the characters are ageless in the comics they should remain the same age on screen. Stuck in amber. That’s the difference between mediums. On film if you’re going to have the same actors they’re going to age. The only issue was to address it. Look at Fox. Look at Marvel. The characters get older. Look at RDJ. But in those films they address the characters changing and what comes with that in the passage of time. They don’t try to pretend they’re they exactly same even visually. But that’s also a difference in the approach to these projects now vs then. As for Superman IV if you tackle a serious real world issue you have to do it in a serious real world way. Once you step into that territory you can’t ride the fence but unfortunately Superman IV did. They didn’t tackle the films main story with the kind of depth and details they should have. Again another product of the time. For parts of the approach I do think Lois/Margot was done well- other parts I feel they wrote her as a little too much as if she hadn’t aged at all.. which felt off to me. Superman 4’s attempt to tackle a real world issue but have a sort of resolution I admired for trying as it’s seemingly impossible. I don’t think studios were ready for the Dark Knight yet so it doesn’t get the credit but derision for trying to push the boundaries…. Though- as you said, the execution was off. I do get where you’re coming from but I do think that script got closer to straddling light hearted family fare and being a darker ambitious comic book film that says something than I would have expected coming off of the bad of Supergirl and S3. At the same time, some Superman movie fans saw this when they were extremely young and loved it as their first Superman film and aren’t as critical as us. Considering the company and lack of other studios willing or committing to making another Reeve Superman film- it was such a long shot I was giantly disappointed but still glad they made it for its parts and to see Reeve as Supes one more time. |
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850 
|
Post by dejan on May 31, 2023 10:55:47 GMT -5
Hi Metallo
I definitely agree that Furie upheld the essential characteristics of what makes Supes....Supes.
An area where Snyder has failed miserably.
The problem for me was in the contrast of the tone of the material(of SIV) relative to prior entries.
Furie specifically stated that he wanted SIV to harken back to STM.
So he had already set out his creative stall or intent.
But if we use Hackman as an example:
Under Donner, Hackman applied a subtle, almost sarcastic tone,yet at the same time, fully aware of his physical limitations relative to Supes.
There is a brief reaction from an awe inspired Hackman, it's barely a few seconds long, blink and you will miss it....as Supes breaks through the door to the lair.
It's a very clever insertion from Baird and Donner, highlighting that aspect of.......verismilitude!
So we as the audience get the idea instantly:
Luthor is toying with something that's potentially out of his control.....as if he is out of his depth.
So when Lex says to Otis:
"Get the gentleman's cape"
....it's almost like he is pretending to be cool!
And whilst it's funny....there is also a distinct sense of unease with the 2 bad guys.....as if Supes could blow them away at any second.
That little glance from Reeves at Beattie which induces the:
"I don't think he wants me to, Mr Luthor"!
....confirms it!
And to be fair you even got it in SIII ; when Supes says to Gus and co:
"You could have fooled me Mister"!
The look on Prior's face of:
"oh s**t"!
....was reminiscent of the reaction from Lex and Otis in STM.
One could even argue that Snyder got that beat, when Lex confronts Supes on the roof after showing the Martha mug shots!
But in SIV that sense of gravitas was completely missing.
I never felt Lex was afraid or in awe of Supes at all.
Which ended up diminishing the dramatic impact of the interaction between the two protagonists.
When Luthor whispers to Supes:
"He's(NM) not one of your great thinkers"!
.....the way Hackman delivers it.....just feels so jokey.....as if the whole upcoming fight is not to be taken seriously anyways, no matter how good the effects would have been!
Blame goes not just to Furie, but to Rosenthal,Konner and quite frankly Reeve himself.
These were the kind of scenarios that Donner wanted to avoid with STM in the first place.
However, I do like how Hackman, after saying:
"partying(or parting?) is inevitable"
....then turns to NM with a serious face:
"destroy Superman"!
We needed way more of that in the dialogue only scenes.
So for me it's not a case of budget or time, but skill with very delicate material....which Furie and his creative team team did not have.
As for Snyder's directorial skills in general, be it with Dawn Of The Dead,300,Watchmen,Sucker Punch, Supes or Army Of The Dead....he can't elicit any real spontaneity from his actors.
They are indeed,like stones.
I have never seen The Owls Of Ga'Hool or even his DC version of JL.....but my instincts tell me it won't be any different!
So for me Furie's sin was to contradict Donner's premise....whilst claiming to uphold it in the scenes which needed no VFX.
Snyder on the other hand ,simply conformed to his tried and trusted formula of slo mo(ok MoS held back on slow moing everything) kick booty, CG top heavy action with dour and uninspired acting - lol!
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,069
|
Post by Metallo on May 31, 2023 17:02:44 GMT -5
Their age really wasn’t an issue. People just make it one. Look at the actors playing these characters now. Even in their primes they are older than the Superman IV main cast. The hangup is with the audience. We have this is idea that because the characters are ageless in the comics they should remain the same age on screen. Stuck in amber. That’s the difference between mediums. On film if you’re going to have the same actors they’re going to age. The only issue was to address it. Look at Fox. Look at Marvel. The characters get older. Look at RDJ. But in those films they address the characters changing and what comes with that in the passage of time. They don’t try to pretend they’re they exactly same even visually. But that’s also a difference in the approach to these projects now vs then. As for Superman IV if you tackle a serious real world issue you have to do it in a serious real world way. Once you step into that territory you can’t ride the fence but unfortunately Superman IV did. They didn’t tackle the films main story with the kind of depth and details they should have. Again another product of the time. For parts of the approach I do think Lois/Margot was done well- other parts I feel they wrote her as a little too much as if she hadn’t aged at all.. which felt off to me. Superman 4’s attempt to tackle a real world issue but have a sort of resolution I admired for trying as it’s seemingly impossible. I don’t think studios were ready for the Dark Knight yet so it doesn’t get the credit but derision for trying to push the boundaries…. Though- as you said, the execution was off. I do get where you’re coming from but I do think that script got closer to straddling light hearted family fare and being a darker ambitious comic book film that says something than I would have expected coming off of the bad of Supergirl and S3. At the same time, some Superman movie fans saw this when they were extremely young and loved it as their first Superman film and aren’t as critical as us. Considering the company and lack of other studios willing or committing to making another Reeve Superman film- it was such a long shot I was giantly disappointed but still glad they made it for its parts and to see Reeve as Supes one more time. I didn’t really have a problem with what we got with Lois in IV. I just wish it was more and done better. But what we got character wise wasn’t bad. It wasn’t a complete misfire like Amy Adams as Lois Lane. I think all the characters in all those films stayed in a state of arrested development not just Lois. Jimmy is a perfect example. The most personal development he got wasn’t even in the main film series but in Supergirl when he got a girlfriend at the end. But that’s just how it was back then. A change or growth usually didn’t happen until it was forced on the production by other forces beyond their control As for Superman IV’s Story the wall they’d hit is there is no quick fix solution to the problems they addressed. But to give the film credit that’s the point Superman makes at the end. The problem is that point is driven home hard enough. The movie just ends without time to really dig into that conclusion and reflect on it. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,069
|
Post by Metallo on May 31, 2023 17:17:07 GMT -5
Hi Metallo I definitely agree that Furie upheld the essential characteristics of what makes Supes....Supes. An area where Snyder has failed miserably. The problem for me was in the contrast of the tone of the material(of SIV) relative to prior entries. Furie specifically stated that he wanted SIV to harken back to STM. So he had already set out his creative stall or intent. But if we use Hackman as an example: Under Donner, Hackman applied a subtle, almost sarcastic tone,yet at the same time, fully aware of his physical limitations relative to Supes. There is a brief reaction from an awe inspired Hackman, it's barely a few seconds long, blink and you will miss it....as Supes breaks through the door to the lair. It's a very clever insertion from Baird and Donner, highlighting that aspect of.......verismilitude! So we as the audience get the idea instantly: Luthor is toying with something that's potentially out of his control.....as if he is out of his depth. So when Lex says to Otis: "Get the gentleman's cape" ....it's almost like he is pretending to be cool! And whilst it's funny....there is also a distinct sense of unease with the 2 bad guys.....as if Supes could blow them away at any second. That little glance from Reeves at Beattie which induces the: "I don't think he wants me to, Mr Luthor"! ....confirms it! And to be fair you even got it in SIII ; when Supes says to Gus and co: "You could have fooled me Mister"! The look on Prior's face of: "oh s**t"! ....was reminiscent of the reaction from Lex and Otis in STM. One could even argue that Snyder got that beat, when Lex confronts Supes on the roof after showing the Martha mug shots! But in SIV that sense of gravitas was completely missing. I never felt Lex was afraid or in awe of Supes at all. Which ended up diminishing the dramatic impact of the interaction between the two protagonists. When Luthor whispers to Supes: "He's(NM) not one of your great thinkers"! .....the way Hackman delivers it.....just feels so jokey.....as if the whole upcoming fight is not to be taken seriously anyways, no matter how good the effects would have been! Blame goes not just to Furie, but to Rosenthal,Konner and quite frankly Reeve himself. These were the kind of scenarios that Donner wanted to avoid with STM in the first place. However, I do like how Hackman, after saying: "partying(or parting?) is inevitable" ....then turns to NM with a serious face: "destroy Superman"! We needed way more of that in the dialogue only scenes. So for me it's not a case of budget or time, but skill with very delicate material....which Furie and his creative team team did not have. As for Snyder's directorial skills in general, be it with Dawn Of The Dead,300,Watchmen,Sucker Punch, Supes or Army Of The Dead....he can't elicit any real spontaneity from his actors. They are indeed,like stones. I have never seen The Owls Of Ga'Hool or even his DC version of JL.....but my instincts tell me it won't be any different! So for me Furie's sin was to contradict Donner's premise....whilst claiming to uphold it in the scenes which needed no VFX. Snyder on the other hand ,simply conformed to his tried and trusted formula of slo mo(ok MoS held back on slow moing everything) kick booty, CG top heavy action with dour and uninspired acting - lol! To cut Furie SOME slack while he wasn’t as good a director as Donner was he also didn’t have even the same kind of freedom and support Donner had while filming Superman and Superman II (which we know wasn’t much). He was a gun for hire for Cannon Films. Someone who they probably thought could get the movie made on their timetable and for the kind of money the were willing to spend which wasn’t much even before the schedule got cut down and the budget dropped. Furie didn’t have the time or the money to do any of it as well as he probably wanted. Golan and Globus were probably on him to get scenes done with as few takes as possible as quickly as possible to save even more money. That was something beyond his control. Snyder’s just an incompetent manchild playing director. His leads in MOS had zero chemistry. The Kent’s come off as unlikable even when they weren’t supposed to be. Michael Shannon was the best thing about the movie and he was chewing scenery left and right like he was in a different movie. That’s not even getting into BvS or Justice League. Jessie Eisenberg is absolutely unbearable. Did you hate Nuclear Man in Superman IV? Well Zack Snyder reworked the character and made him even worse in BvS!  |
|
crown
New Member
Posts: 1,226
|
Post by crown on Jun 1, 2023 17:18:10 GMT -5
Reeve was paid $6 Million for Superman 4. That's over $16 Million adjusted for inflation. Something tells me Reeve was very happy with SIV and wouldn't have changed a thing he laughed all the way to the bank. Feel more bad for Mark Pillow as he was only paid $2,500 for the role (and wasn't even allowed food from craft services on set, they made Pillow bring his own lunch) but Reeve kept telling him that the film would make him a big star. Pillow bought that story and even showed up to meet the late Queen Elizabeth wearing the Nuclear Man costume further humiliating himself... Reeve was supposed to back him up by showing up in his Superman outfit but he backed out which really pissed off Pillow since he didn't bring a change of clothes.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 2, 2023 12:49:12 GMT -5
Reeve was paid $6 Million for Superman 4. That's over $16 Million adjusted for inflation. Something tells me Reeve was very happy with SIV and wouldn't have changed a thing he laughed all the way to the bank. Feel more bad for Mark Pillow as he was only paid $2,500 for the role (and wasn't even allowed food from craft services on set, they made Pillow bring his own lunch) but Reeve kept telling him that the film would make him a big star. Pillow bought that story and even showed up to meet the late Queen Elizabeth wearing the Nuclear Man costume further humiliating himself... Reeve was supposed to back him up by showing up in his Superman outfit but he backed out which really pissed off Pillow since he didn't bring a change of clothes. In reading his memoirs, Reeve really was hoping that SIV was going to help him make a comeback of sorts, as his career was going downhill by that time with the box office and critical reviews not being great for many of his films. I don't think he was laughing even as he was cashing the check for SIV... As for Mark Pillow- if I was that fit and good looking at that time- then, think I wouldn't be THAT embarrassed walking around with those biceps- though, yeah, I wouldn't have worn that while meeting the queen.  I'm skeptical of Reeve agreeing to show up in his Superman costume. Where did that come from? Did Mark Pillow say that in an interview? |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 2, 2023 12:52:51 GMT -5
To cut Furie SOME slack while he wasn’t as good a director as Donner was he also didn’t have even the same kind of freedom and support Donner had while filming Superman and Superman II (which we know wasn’t much). He was a gun for hire for Cannon Films. Someone who they probably thought could get the movie made on their timetable and for the kind of money the were willing to spend which wasn’t much even before the schedule got cut down and the budget dropped. Furie didn’t have the time or the money to do any of it as well as he probably wanted. Golan and Globus were probably on him to get scenes done with as few takes as possible as quickly as possible to save even more money. That was something beyond his control. That was my conclusion, too. But adding fuel to the fire had to be the resentment mentioned that Kidder had towards Reeve for not wanting her to be in the film for being a tad too old by then. Even though reportedly they hated each other in STM/SII- Donner was there for part of it- (Though, sadly, I can see Reeve's point for what kind of story they were going for) |
|
crown
New Member
Posts: 1,226
|
Post by crown on Jun 2, 2023 13:01:59 GMT -5
Reeve was paid $6 Million for Superman 4. That's over $16 Million adjusted for inflation. Something tells me Reeve was very happy with SIV and wouldn't have changed a thing he laughed all the way to the bank. Feel more bad for Mark Pillow as he was only paid $2,500 for the role (and wasn't even allowed food from craft services on set, they made Pillow bring his own lunch) but Reeve kept telling him that the film would make him a big star. Pillow bought that story and even showed up to meet the late Queen Elizabeth wearing the Nuclear Man costume further humiliating himself... Reeve was supposed to back him up by showing up in his Superman outfit but he backed out which really pissed off Pillow since he didn't bring a change of clothes. In reading his memoirs, Reeve really was hoping that SIV was going to help him make a comeback of sorts, as his career was going downhill by that time with the box office and critical reviews not being great for many of his films. I don't think he was laughing even as he was cashing the check for SIV... As for Mark Pillow- if I was that fit and good looking at that time- then, think I wouldn't be THAT embarrassed walking around with those biceps- though, yeah, I wouldn't have worn that while meeting the queen. I'm skeptical of Reeve agreeing to show up in his Superman costume. Where did that come from? Did Mark Pillow say that in an interview? . Yeah Reeve and Pillow were both supposed to show up in costume and put on a little show and fight each other during the premier. Reeve had already cashed his check and told the producers to go kick rocks while laughing about it. Nobody remembered to tell Mark Pillow so he showed up in costume and everyone started laughing at him including the Queen! |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 2, 2023 14:18:50 GMT -5
In reading his memoirs, Reeve really was hoping that SIV was going to help him make a comeback of sorts, as his career was going downhill by that time with the box office and critical reviews not being great for many of his films. I don't think he was laughing even as he was cashing the check for SIV... As for Mark Pillow- if I was that fit and good looking at that time- then, think I wouldn't be THAT embarrassed walking around with those biceps- though, yeah, I wouldn't have worn that while meeting the queen. I'm skeptical of Reeve agreeing to show up in his Superman costume. Where did that come from? Did Mark Pillow say that in an interview? . Yeah Reeve and Pillow were both supposed to show up in costume and put on a little show and fight each other during the premier. Reeve had already cashed his check and told the producers to go kick rocks while laughing about it. Nobody remembered to tell Mark Pillow so he showed up in costume and everyone started laughing at him including the Queen! Is this the caped wonder interview/podcast? I remember that he was embarrassed that he had shown up in costume (but had to) for the queen but don't remember the other part- still, I'm glad that things seemed to turn out ok enough for him even without Hollywood. |
|
crown
New Member
Posts: 1,226
|
Post by crown on Jun 2, 2023 14:44:23 GMT -5
. Yeah Reeve and Pillow were both supposed to show up in costume and put on a little show and fight each other during the premier. Reeve had already cashed his check and told the producers to go kick rocks while laughing about it. Nobody remembered to tell Mark Pillow so he showed up in costume and everyone started laughing at him including the Queen! Is this the caped wonder interview/podcast? I remember that he was embarrassed that he had shown up in costume (but had to) for the queen but don't remember the other part- still, I'm glad that things seemed to turn out ok enough for him even without Hollywood. Things didn’t work out for Mark Pillow he was banned from going to England again for disrespecting the Queen with his outlandish attire. He tried visiting the Reeve estate and demanded Chris fork over some of the $6 million he made but Reeve just laughed at him and siced his dogs on him. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 2, 2023 16:48:01 GMT -5
Is this the caped wonder interview/podcast? I remember that he was embarrassed that he had shown up in costume (but had to) for the queen but don't remember the other part- still, I'm glad that things seemed to turn out ok enough for him even without Hollywood. Things didn’t work out for Mark Pillow he was banned from going to England again for disrespecting the Queen with his outlandish attire. He tried visiting the Reeve estate and demanded Chris fork over some of the $6 million he made but Reeve just laughed at him and siced his dogs on him. Somehow I don't remember reading that part in the Reeve memoirs... (( * Though if he had appeared in full Nuclear Man suit on the Reeve mansion demanding justice, I would have paid good money to have seen that. Sort of like live Superman theatre.)) |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,069
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 2, 2023 19:35:11 GMT -5
Reeve was paid $6 Million for Superman 4. That's over $16 Million adjusted for inflation. Something tells me Reeve was very happy with SIV and wouldn't have changed a thing he laughed all the way to the bank. Feel more bad for Mark Pillow as he was only paid $2,500 for the role (and wasn't even allowed food from craft services on set, they made Pillow bring his own lunch) but Reeve kept telling him that the film would make him a big star. Pillow bought that story and even showed up to meet the late Queen Elizabeth wearing the Nuclear Man costume further humiliating himself... Reeve was supposed to back him up by showing up in his Superman outfit but he backed out which really pissed off Pillow since he didn't bring a change of clothes. In reading his memoirs, Reeve really was hoping that SIV was going to help him make a comeback of sorts, as his career was going downhill by that time with the box office and critical reviews not being great for many of his films. I don't think he was laughing even as he was cashing the check for SIV... As for Mark Pillow- if I was that fit and good looking at that time- then, think I wouldn't be THAT embarrassed walking around with those biceps- though, yeah, I wouldn't have worn that while meeting the queen. I'm skeptical of Reeve agreeing to show up in his Superman costume. Where did that come from? Did Mark Pillow say that in an interview? Exactly. The idea of Reeve being happy with how IV turned out is stupid no matter what he got paid. It’s not worth the embarrassment. The films failure and reputation helped severely damaged his status as a theatrical leading man. It took him years to even begin to turn that around. From what I understand the producers wanted Reeve to show up at one of the premiere screenings in his costume. That’s where those photos of Pillow in costume along with some other cast members come from.  Reeve was never going to do that though. I doubt he told anyone he’d do it either. From what he’s said before he’d never agree to do something like that. He’s talked about refusing to in interviews. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,069
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 2, 2023 19:43:57 GMT -5
To cut Furie SOME slack while he wasn’t as good a director as Donner was he also didn’t have even the same kind of freedom and support Donner had while filming Superman and Superman II (which we know wasn’t much). He was a gun for hire for Cannon Films. Someone who they probably thought could get the movie made on their timetable and for the kind of money the were willing to spend which wasn’t much even before the schedule got cut down and the budget dropped. Furie didn’t have the time or the money to do any of it as well as he probably wanted. Golan and Globus were probably on him to get scenes done with as few takes as possible as quickly as possible to save even more money. That was something beyond his control. That was my conclusion, too. But adding fuel to the fire had to be the resentment mentioned that Kidder had towards Reeve for not wanting her to be in the film for being a tad too old by then. Even though reportedly they hated each other in STM/SII- Donner was there for part of it- (Though, sadly, I can see Reeve's point for what kind of story they were going for) Kidder was pretty blunt that she felt Lacy was there because certain people felt she was too old to be playing the love interest. But that’s absurd. Typical Hollywood ageism. Reeve had starred opposite other leading ladies who were not only much older than him but had larger age gap than the one between him and Kidder. Objectively speaking her age wasn’t an issue. Only to the people hung up on it. It was particularly meaningless since IV’s other problems killed the film. Having a younger or older female lead wouldn’t have made a difference. I don’t think any of that had any impact on Furie’s ability to put together a better film. Any possible resentment didn’t seem to affect Reeve or Kidders performances. |
|
crown
New Member
Posts: 1,226
|
Post by crown on Jun 2, 2023 23:39:07 GMT -5
In reading his memoirs, Reeve really was hoping that SIV was going to help him make a comeback of sorts, as his career was going downhill by that time with the box office and critical reviews not being great for many of his films. I don't think he was laughing even as he was cashing the check for SIV... As for Mark Pillow- if I was that fit and good looking at that time- then, think I wouldn't be THAT embarrassed walking around with those biceps- though, yeah, I wouldn't have worn that while meeting the queen. I'm skeptical of Reeve agreeing to show up in his Superman costume. Where did that come from? Did Mark Pillow say that in an interview? Exactly. The idea of Reeve being happy with how IV turned out is stupid no matter what he got paid. It’s not worth the embarrassment. The films failure and reputation helped severely damaged his status as a theatrical leading man. It took him years to even begin to turn that around. From what I understand the producers wanted Reeve to show up at one of the premiere screenings in his costume. That’s where those photos of Pillow in costume along with some other cast members come from. Reeve was never going to do that though. I doubt he told anyone he’d do it either. From what he’s said before he’d never agree to do something like that. He’s talked about refusing to in interviews. Reeve was perfectly happy with SIV.. it made him the equivalent of $16 Million Dollars setting him for life. Reeve was swimming around his money pit like Scrooge McDuck lighting cigars with $100 bills and laughing while poor Mark Pillow had to ask for a quarter to take the bus home (his Nuclear Man outfit had no pockets). You have to ask yourself why Reeve didn't phone Mark Pillow in advance of the premier and tell him he wasn't going to participate in wearing his costume. Can you imagine the sinking feeling Pillow felt when he realized he was the only one in costume and the Queen was approaching him? |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 3, 2023 3:08:48 GMT -5
That was my conclusion, too. But adding fuel to the fire had to be the resentment mentioned that Kidder had towards Reeve for not wanting her to be in the film for being a tad too old by then. Even though reportedly they hated each other in STM/SII- Donner was there for part of it- (Though, sadly, I can see Reeve's point for what kind of story they were going for) Kidder was pretty blunt that she felt Lacy was there because certain people felt she was too old to be playing the love interest. But that’s absurd. Typical Hollywood ageism. Reeve had starred opposite other leading ladies who were not only much older than him but had larger age gap than the one between him and Kidder. Objectively speaking her age wasn’t an issue. Only to the people hung up on it. It was particularly meaningless since IV’s other problems killed the film. Having a younger or older female lead wouldn’t have made a difference. I don’t think any of that had any impact on Furie’s ability to put together a better film. Any possible resentment didn’t seem to affect Reeve or Kidders performances. I guess it's ultimately all subjective. I guess we all have different glitches to casting and age at times. To me, Bosworth worked fine as a young mom in SR- and Kidder was perfect imo for the original Superman films- but with SIV... I agree there were a LOT of issues beyond Kidder's age- but for me, she worked fine in half of the scenes, but the other half felt like her performance was off- partly because of the writing at times - partly because I felt like she did feel a touch too old to be doing the same rom-com bit in some parts --- particularly the scene with Lacey/Clark & Lois/Supes' 'double date'. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,069
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 3, 2023 11:52:28 GMT -5
Kidder was pretty blunt that she felt Lacy was there because certain people felt she was too old to be playing the love interest. But that’s absurd. Typical Hollywood ageism. Reeve had starred opposite other leading ladies who were not only much older than him but had larger age gap than the one between him and Kidder. Objectively speaking her age wasn’t an issue. Only to the people hung up on it. It was particularly meaningless since IV’s other problems killed the film. Having a younger or older female lead wouldn’t have made a difference. I don’t think any of that had any impact on Furie’s ability to put together a better film. Any possible resentment didn’t seem to affect Reeve or Kidders performances. I guess it's ultimately all subjective. I guess we all have different glitches to casting and age at times. To me, Bosworth worked fine as a young mom in SR- and Kidder was perfect imo for the original Superman films- but with SIV... I agree there were a LOT of issues beyond Kidder's age- but for me, she worked fine in half of the scenes, but the other half felt like her performance was off- partly because of the writing at times - partly because I felt like she did feel a touch too old to be doing the same rom-com bit in some parts --- particularly the scene with Lacey/Clark & Lois/Supes' 'double date'. I think she could have worked fine as a really young mom too but that's not exactly what the film was presenting though. Lois had a journalist history before Clark showed up. Then they had a history together. Then Superman was gone for five years and she had and raised a kid. That's a LOT to cram into a limited time. The timelines simply don't add up when you look at how young Bosworth was. And she doesn't come off older. As for Kidder I didn't feel she was too old for what they were playing. It's not like they were trying to present it as s bunch of 20 something's on a double date. I thought it felt pretty age appropriate. It's even funnier to think about since we've seen women older than Kidder doing the romantic comedy/screwball dating scenes for years. I think one could argue the make up and lighting did non of them any favors but that coins have been fixed if the situation were ideal. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 3, 2023 16:46:05 GMT -5
I guess it's ultimately all subjective. I guess we all have different glitches to casting and age at times. To me, Bosworth worked fine as a young mom in SR- and Kidder was perfect imo for the original Superman films- but with SIV... I agree there were a LOT of issues beyond Kidder's age- but for me, she worked fine in half of the scenes, but the other half felt like her performance was off- partly because of the writing at times - partly because I felt like she did feel a touch too old to be doing the same rom-com bit in some parts --- particularly the scene with Lacey/Clark & Lois/Supes' 'double date'. I think she could have worked fine as a really young mom too but that's not exactly what the film was presenting though. Lois had a journalist history before Clark showed up. Then they had a history together. Then Superman was gone for five years and she had and raised a kid. That's a LOT to cram into a limited time. The timelines simply don't add up when you look at how young Bosworth was. And she doesn't come off older. As for Kidder I didn't feel she was too old for what they were playing. It's not like they were trying to present it as s bunch of 20 something's on a double date. I thought it felt pretty age appropriate. It's even funnier to think about since we've seen women older than Kidder doing the romantic comedy/screwball dating scenes for years. I think one could argue the make up and lighting did non of them any favors but that coins have been fixed if the situation were ideal. Very true! It was odd to see Kidder look GREAT in interviews at that time- but as you said, the lighting and makeup didn't help in SIV for the age difference between her and Reeve..... though to be fair, Reeve shockingly (to me) didn't look like he aged hardly at all for some miraculous reason in SIV! |
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Jun 3, 2023 17:12:53 GMT -5
Metallo and CAM Having just rewatched SIV the other day, one thing that struck me which I had not really noticed(or payed much credence to) on my previous viewings over the last 36 years or so, was the fact that both Reeve and Kidder were interacting with each other as if there had been no passage of time from STM to 1987! Outside of the one scene when Supes does the romantic flight thing with Lois......every other scene has Lois treating Clark as if they were still in Perry's office being introduced to eachother for the first time in STM(from a tonal perspective)! Let's be honest, in STM, generally speaking, Lois is pretty dismissive of Clark(and intentionally so). In SIV, she misses him on the train but it's no big deal. Even in the double date scenario, she is still commanding Clark on how to behave and to "notice the dress" of Lacy, instructing the poor fella ,almost like a maternal figure! She even tells Lacy when Supe's drops by: "now there's a different kind of entrance" .....further differenciating Clark from Supes, in a quasi derogatory way. It's cool as it's done for laughs and it's still endearing, but the problem is that we are no longer in 1978. It's now 1987 and Clark is still playing second fiddle to Supes in exactly the same manner that he did 10 years prior! Even in the pivotal scene when she visits the diseased Clark in his appartment, Lois goes on a monalogue about the missing Supes, whilst poor Clark sits there all curled up in his blanket , without barely a caring thought from Lois!(that's not quite true....but he is still is a distant second to Supes!). Without wishing to come across as a Lester apologist, but darn.....he made sure that there was an evolution in the Lois - Clark relationship , relative to STM. And if you break down Lester's scenes for SII, he very deliberately placed one or two exchanges between the 2 characters where Lois begins to express sympathy for Clark: In the office: Lois: "What else are friends for"? Clark: "Friends huh?" In the Honey Moon Haven Hotel room: Clark: "Gee, you look very pretty" Lois: "Thank you Clark"(places her hand on his shoulder) Next to Niagra Falls: Clark: "Maybe we should hold hands too" Lois: "Here is my hand Clark, hold it!" These were fantastic little touches which opened up the Supes/Clark- Lois dynamic.....it was now no longer just Supes that could make an impression on Lois.......Clark could too. And there was only a 2 year gap between STM and SII, but Lester's team were wise enough to at least attempt to exhibit a maturation of the Clark - Lois paradigm. In SIV, we were essentially back to square one. And that was the wrong tonal approach , especially given the fact 10 years had elapsed by that point. It feels like Reeve and Kidder are uncomfortable trying to play their parts from a behavioral perspective(and not a physical one) ,as if they were 10 years younger! That was totally the wrong approach. So going back to CAM's original question at the beginning of this thread(sorry - I seem to have derailed it with my slagging off of SIV!- lol!)......but that's one thing i would definitely change if I was writing the script for SIV......to make it look like there has been a passage of time in how the 2 leads interact with each other.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 3, 2023 18:08:10 GMT -5
Metallo and CAM Having just rewatched SIV the other day, one thing that struck me which I had not really noticed(or payed much credence to) on my previous viewings over the last 36 years or so, was the fact that both Reeve and Kidder were interacting with each other as if there had been no passage of time from STM to 1987! .... In SIV, we were essentially back to square one. And that was the wrong tonal approach , especially given the fact 10 years had elapsed by that point. It feels like Reeve and Kidder are uncomfortable trying to play their parts from a behavioral perspective(and not a physical one) ,as if they were 10 years younger! That was totally the wrong approach. So going back to CAM's original question at the beginning of this thread(sorry - I seem to have derailed it with my slagging off of SIV!- lol!)......but that's one thing i would definitely change if I was writing the script for SIV......to make it look like there has been a passage of time in how the 2 leads interact with each other. That's exactly how I felt- given Kidder had aged a bit (pretty good considering time, but Reeve only looked like he may have aged 2-3 years from SII imo)- Reeve was fine as Supes was always pretty much always a boy scout in every incarnation- but Kidder as Lois I thought should have played it a little less doe-eyed in the hotel scene. On the flip side= scenes where they had executed it as if Lois was more mature and put in a bit of evolution with the relationship with Clark/Lois- I mostly loved- the flying ballet/reunion in particular - as if both were older- outside of terrible fx, was great and more mature, imo). Also the United Nations scene- the one where she goes to see Clark when he's sick--- has issues from its writing, but the intent is nice. Still- while I (and everyone else) wish SIV was better, I'm still glad what we got was good enough for me to be glad that they at least tried, and I do really like the scenes that did work. |
|
crown
New Member
Posts: 1,226
|
Post by crown on Jun 3, 2023 19:24:47 GMT -5
Metallo and CAM Having just rewatched SIV the other day, one thing that struck me which I had not really noticed(or payed much credence to) on my previous viewings over the last 36 years or so, was the fact that both Reeve and Kidder were interacting with each other as if there had been no passage of time from STM to 1987! .... In SIV, we were essentially back to square one. And that was the wrong tonal approach , especially given the fact 10 years had elapsed by that point. It feels like Reeve and Kidder are uncomfortable trying to play their parts from a behavioral perspective(and not a physical one) ,as if they were 10 years younger! That was totally the wrong approach. So going back to CAM's original question at the beginning of this thread(sorry - I seem to have derailed it with my slagging off of SIV!- lol!)......but that's one thing i would definitely change if I was writing the script for SIV......to make it look like there has been a passage of time in how the 2 leads interact with each other. That's exactly how I felt- given Kidder had aged a bit (pretty good considering time, but Reeve only looked like he may have aged 2-3 years from SII imo)- Reeve was fine as Supes was always pretty much always a boy scout in every incarnation- but Kidder as Lois I thought should have played it a little less doe-eyed in the hotel scene. On the flip side= scenes where they had executed it as if Lois was more mature and put in a bit of evolution with the relationship with Clark/Lois- I mostly loved- the flying ballet/reunion in particular - as if both were older- outside of terrible fx, was great and more mature, imo). Also the United Nations scene- the one where she goes to see Clark when he's sick--- has issues from its writing, but the intent is nice. Still- while I (and everyone else) wish SIV was better, I'm still glad what we got was good enough for me to be glad that they at least tried, and I do really like the scenes that did work. I think SIV Lois looked better than Rat-Lois of SII. Also I think Reeve aged a lot between Superman 1-2 and 4. Even as a kid I knew that something about S4 Superman looked less good with the spare tire hanging over the yellow belt and the wig that looked like a dead possum. When I saw Superman 3 which was the last one I saw it was interesting to see the “in between” look of prime STM and SII Superman to haggard SIV Superman. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 3, 2023 20:49:37 GMT -5
That's exactly how I felt- given Kidder had aged a bit (pretty good considering time, but Reeve only looked like he may have aged 2-3 years from SII imo)- Reeve was fine as Supes was always pretty much always a boy scout in every incarnation- but Kidder as Lois I thought should have played it a little less doe-eyed in the hotel scene. On the flip side= scenes where they had executed it as if Lois was more mature and put in a bit of evolution with the relationship with Clark/Lois- I mostly loved- the flying ballet/reunion in particular - as if both were older- outside of terrible fx, was great and more mature, imo). Also the United Nations scene- the one where she goes to see Clark when he's sick--- has issues from its writing, but the intent is nice. Still- while I (and everyone else) wish SIV was better, I'm still glad what we got was good enough for me to be glad that they at least tried, and I do really like the scenes that did work. I think SIV Lois looked better than Rat-Lois of SII. Also I think Reeve aged a lot between Superman 1-2 and 4. Even as a kid I knew that something about S4 Superman looked less good with the spare tire hanging over the yellow belt and the wig that looked like a dead possum. When I saw Superman 3 which was the last one I saw it was interesting to see the “in between” look of prime STM and SII Superman to haggard SIV Superman. I guess it is all subjective. SIII had the distinction of making me even less impressed with Lester than I already was (though his Three Musketeers is brilliant I will say)- but also with suprising me in the area that I didn't even think he could fail at.... Reeve's dye job that looked brown/black! First Lester was fine with the terrible wig for Lois in SII, then Reeve's dye job in SIII. Huh? wha? SIV Reeve looked fine to me.... suprising given the time frame.... but... small weird thing- I missed the 's' curl! |
|
crown
New Member
Posts: 1,226
|
Post by crown on Jun 3, 2023 22:57:35 GMT -5
I think SIV Lois looked better than Rat-Lois of SII. Also I think Reeve aged a lot between Superman 1-2 and 4. Even as a kid I knew that something about S4 Superman looked less good with the spare tire hanging over the yellow belt and the wig that looked like a dead possum. When I saw Superman 3 which was the last one I saw it was interesting to see the “in between” look of prime STM and SII Superman to haggard SIV Superman. I guess it is all subjective. SIII had the distinction of making me even less impressed with Lester than I already was (though his Three Musketeers is brilliant I will say)- but also with suprising me in the area that I didn't even think he could fail at.... Reeve's dye job that looked brown/black! First Lester was fine with the terrible wig for Lois in SII, then Reeve's dye job in SIII. Huh? wha? SIV Reeve looked fine to me.... suprising given the time frame.... but... small weird thing- I missed the 's' curl! You didn't notice Superman's shrunken biceps, spare tire, and wig that looked like a dead animal that Sydney J Furie scrapped off the side of the road? |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 3, 2023 23:45:29 GMT -5
I guess it is all subjective. SIII had the distinction of making me even less impressed with Lester than I already was (though his Three Musketeers is brilliant I will say)- but also with suprising me in the area that I didn't even think he could fail at.... Reeve's dye job that looked brown/black! First Lester was fine with the terrible wig for Lois in SII, then Reeve's dye job in SIII. Huh? wha? SIV Reeve looked fine to me.... suprising given the time frame.... but... small weird thing- I missed the 's' curl! You didn't notice Superman's shrunken biceps, spare tire, and wig that looked like a dead animal that Sydney J Furie scrapped off the side of the road? I guess I wasn't looking close enough. (shrug) |
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 850
|
Post by dejan on Jun 4, 2023 2:06:59 GMT -5
crown and CAM Superman IV as a whole, felt like a spare tyre(and a cheap one at that!) and looked like a dead animal scrapped off the side of a road!
|
|
