Superman III and IV are abominations whose existances do not deserve to be acknowledged.Regarding the discussion of the Superman films, the important thing is that we can all agree none of them are as good as Superman IV.
Superman III is actually kind of fun if you approach it with the mindset of reading a Silver Age comic, just embracing the unapologetic goofiness (ditto for Supergirl). It's more tonally consistent than the previous two films, it serves Clark Kent well as a character rather than just making him a disguise for Superman, and Annette O'Toole is absolutely luminous as Lana. Plus Ross Webster makes a more credible Lex Luthor than the movies' version of Luthor ever did (nothing against Hackman's performance, just the way the role was written).
IV is indefensible, though.
IV is indefensible, though.
Although I disagreed with your opinion on Superman II, I must say that I wholeheartedly agree with you regarding III and IV. The only real complaint I have regarding III is that at times it feels like Superman is not the star of his own movie, with so much focused on Richard Pryor, but like you said if you just accept the goofiness of it, I think it's a pretty darn good film. I don't think Lester is a bad director, and he did a good job with III. I just disagree with the way he handled II.
IV comes back to my theory about not giving actors creative control...
To be fair, I don't think Gus Gorman is all that different in principle than the comic-relief scientists that were a staple of Golden/Silver Age Superman comics, the '40s radio series, and the Reeves TV series. And when I watched the DVD a while back, I was struck by how many of Pryor's scenes they cut out. There was a lot less of Gus Gorman in the final cut than there could have been.
Superman III is genuinely funny in a lot of places. Others have said it: "it's a solid Richard Pryor film that happens to have Superman in it." But it's not a great "Superman" movie. It is a well crafted film though. Unlike Superman IV, which is a good "Superman" story but a lousy film.
I had a choice of seeing S3 or Return of the Jedi one weekend with my dad. I picked Superman III. I enjoyed it then. Saw Jedi a few weeks later.
I had a choice of seeing S3 or Return of the Jedi one weekend with my dad. I picked Superman III. I enjoyed it then. Saw Jedi a few weeks later.
So how about those colors in Star Trek? Yep, a whole lot of colorful... colors.
I'm pretty sure I was surprised when I first saw "Elaan of Troyius" in color and realized that Ambassador Petri had blue-green skin. I definitely remember my surprise when I saw Filmation's Jason of Star Command in color for the first time (on a hotel TV on a trip) and discovered that Commander Stone had blue skin. (I think that may have been the same day I saw "The Immunity Syndrome" in color for the first time.)
I'm pretty sure I was surprised when I first saw "Elaan of Troyius" in color and realized that Ambassador Petri had blue-green skin. I definitely remember my surprise when I saw Filmation's Jason of Star Command in color for the first time (on a hotel TV on a trip) and discovered that Commander Stone had blue skin. (I think that may have been the same day I saw "The Immunity Syndrome" in color for the first time.)
But on those days when they pumped smoke into the air to make clouds, those alien skies looked lovely.
Yes -- I've always been very impressed by how well "Metamorphosis" created the illusion of a real sky.
And it's got the junkyard scene. Which is awesome.
Superman III is a rollicking fun movie when I'm in the right mood, and "evil" Superman is a hoot. Plus, it's Christopher Reeve at his most confident and fit in the role, which should never be overlooked. After close to five years and two movies Reeve was finally comfortable and at ease in the tights.
It's funny that someone over in another forum just started a thread about how they prefer the old DVD versions of TOS vs the Blu-ray because the thread starter thinks the vivid colors are too bright and gaudy and they prefer the more muted colors from the older prints that they grew up watching on television.
Nothing wrong with that. I'm a stickler for the sound mix the episodes had when I grew up with the series. So I often watch the laserdiscs.
Anything with the Galactic Barrier has got to be in the top five especially Where No Man with everyone in their bright new uniform s as well to boot.
JB
JB
I remember thinking after collecting the set of 12 "FotoNovels" , that they really missed the boat by not doing "Journey to Babel". Colourful aliens, plus Spock's parents.
They chose to pick some really bland episodes, color-wise, in comparison to some of the more visually interesting. But I guess they were leaning on more popular choices. But A Taste of Armageddon and The Devil in the Dark wouldn't have been my first choices. But, again, I don't know the requirements they had to work with.
Comparing them to comics, I suppose we can surmise the episodes chosen must have:
* Interesting facial expressions
* Action scenes
* Colorful costumes
* The occasional explosion
Then again, it could simply be that those were the episodes they were given by those who had the images.
* Interesting facial expressions
* Action scenes
* Colorful costumes
* The occasional explosion
Then again, it could simply be that those were the episodes they were given by those who had the images.
Last edited:
I have wondered about what the deal was, behind the scenes, for Star Trek publications in the 1970s. For instance:
• We have learned that the Star Trek Giant Poster Book got its ultra-fantastic (for the era) selection of photos from Lincoln Enterprises, Majel Barrett's kitchen table business. The pics were from those mail order batches of 35mm work-print trims. I bought a few sets myself back then, but the Poster Book editors really went to town on ordering them. They were the same guys who ran the Federation Trading Post in New York City.
• I suspect the FotoNovels were made by cutting up a 16mm syndication print of the episode. Bantam Books probably arranged to buy the film reels from Paramount and license their usage. Maybe they were worn prints being rotated out of service anyway, and Paramount liked the chance to wring a few more bucks out of them. Which episodes got books was probably dictated by which syndy prints were available for this project.
• It's been demonstrated that Mad magazine used press packet publicity stills, plus any and all published photos they could lay hands on, to guide their Star Trek art. And probably the movies they spoofed, most famously The Poseidon Adventure. I doubt if Mad got its hands on the actual films.
I kind of doubt they were worn prints that had already seen broadcast. I'm more inclined to believe they had (probably) 16mm copies struck and cut those up since they didn't have to give them back to anyone. Since Paramount licensed it, they'd provide something a little higher quality than some old print from Dateyoursister, Nebraska. But I can't find anything other than fan reviews regarding the behind the scenes of these books.
