One way to have improved Superman IV
- Thread starter the Dagman
- Start date
Even when I was about five years old, I remember watching Superman IV and thinking "What the **** is this?"
Yes, I think that might have been a nice scene. We all know it would not have saved the movie, but it would have been nice.
I mayhave to kind-of agree with that. Four was bad due to many reasons, not the least of which being a limited budget, but I think it at least tried. With a better budget I think it could've been a much better movie, along with a bit more logic in it. (At one point isn't a human woman surviving in the vacuum of space?!) but the movie was more bad from just pure lack of budget and maybe competency but I do not think there's anything inherently wrong with the plot/story.
Superman III? Sucks because Lester is a hack.
The long slapstickian opening sequence? Yeah. So much better than the bombastic score and space-credits of the first two (heavily Donner) movies! Prominence on Pryor's (funny of a comedian as he is) antics? Oy!
Superman III and Superman IV are both bad movies for different reasons.
All said and done, I'd say III was worse because those reasons were intentional and a result of hack director. Superman IV was bad due to lack of budget and perhaps an expereienced/poor director who was atleast trying to make a good movie.
Superman and slapstick nonsense? No thanks.
Fun Link
I agree IV had more potential than III, but as far as the final product goes, I find III a lot more watchable.
The FX are still at the high level of the first two movies, there are at least a few exciting and well-executed sequences--the chemical plant fire, the wheat field rescue, and the junkyard fight -- where IV has literally none, and then there's the Clark/Lana scenes which are actually rather sweet and well-done.
Plus there's rather a lot of Superman action in this, which is always cool to see (as corny as the opening is, I never get tired of that part where he flies across the street and lands on that car).
Honestly it's only at the end, when they get to the cavern with the cheesy Atari videogame, that I usually have to turn the movie off.
Yeah, at least III looks like it was made by a technically competent crew, whereas IV looks like it was made by the guys you hire when you can't get Uwe Bolle.
I personally can't see any way IV could have been saved so long as it had that Nuclear Man angle.
I watched it for the first time in 20 years when the "Ultimate Collection" tin box came out a couple years back and I found the best scenes in the film were those involving Smallville and the Daily Planet. Despite being turfed from III, Margot Kidder seemed quite relaxed and the others were great. I didn't mind the double-date scene at all. In fact it was a scenario straight out of the comic books.
But once they got into the whole "Superman saving the world" thing, the story basically got too big for itself. And it lost all control with the nuclear man business. I was happy to see Gene Hackman back in the wig, but he needed a better scheme.
They'd have been better off doing the Bizarro story (though that would have followed much of the same path as III did in terms of Good vs. Evil Supes). Or they could have simply brought in Solomon Grundy and let the chips fall where they may.
It's interesting that in the last few days we've had several threads discussing films that the studios have messed around with in a negative way: Blade Runner for example. Superman IV was another -- didn't the studio order an hour cut from it? -- but in this case I don't think restoring that extra hour would have done any good. A stinkweed still smells like a stinkweed. It's only a shame that Reeve didn't get a chance to do a Superman V to try and make up for the awful III and IV. As it is, the only Supermen films that matter to me are I, II (sorry - I prefer the Lester version over Donner's) and Returns.
Alex
I watched it for the first time in 20 years when the "Ultimate Collection" tin box came out a couple years back and I found the best scenes in the film were those involving Smallville and the Daily Planet. Despite being turfed from III, Margot Kidder seemed quite relaxed and the others were great. I didn't mind the double-date scene at all. In fact it was a scenario straight out of the comic books.
But once they got into the whole "Superman saving the world" thing, the story basically got too big for itself. And it lost all control with the nuclear man business. I was happy to see Gene Hackman back in the wig, but he needed a better scheme.
They'd have been better off doing the Bizarro story (though that would have followed much of the same path as III did in terms of Good vs. Evil Supes). Or they could have simply brought in Solomon Grundy and let the chips fall where they may.
It's interesting that in the last few days we've had several threads discussing films that the studios have messed around with in a negative way: Blade Runner for example. Superman IV was another -- didn't the studio order an hour cut from it? -- but in this case I don't think restoring that extra hour would have done any good. A stinkweed still smells like a stinkweed. It's only a shame that Reeve didn't get a chance to do a Superman V to try and make up for the awful III and IV. As it is, the only Supermen films that matter to me are I, II (sorry - I prefer the Lester version over Donner's) and Returns.
Alex
I'm such a geek that the thing I really found terrible was the cutting of a strand of Superman's hair with bolt cutters.
The rest of it was just plain bad.
The rest of it was just plain bad.
Agreed, and does anyone else really think the nations of the world would EVER give up there NUKES WILLINGLY? I think not!
Agreed, and does anyone else really think the nations of the world would EVER give up there NUKES WILLINGLY? I think not!
Superman can be pretty persuasive.
Maybe not, but I thought it WAS kind of cool seeing Reeve as Superman in such a setting.
I have never seen Superman IV, but I always thought I would get around to it. Unless someone can tell me the other 90 minutes of the movie are even slightly better than those 9 I think I may actually have to pass.
Sadly, that may be the "best" sequence in the movie.
Did you know that Superman had magical, telekentic, brick-laying vision?
It is so depressing that the Reeve superman franchise turned into this. The first two films are near perfect.
Donner really held it together, and when he was gone....poof
Donner really held it together, and when he was gone....poof
They tried. They didn't have enough money to buy the rights. There are individuals involved in this film who I feel very sorry for - Christopher Reeve and screenwriter Mark Rosenthal in particular.
People really should listen to Rosenthal's DVD commentary on the film. It's very clear how Golan and Globus' penny pinching ruined every single minute of the film.
Why? It had an almost Bringing Up Baby feel to it. Quite fitting since Reeve based his performance of Clark Kent on Carey Grant in that movie.
It's one of the most enjoyable scenes in the movie. I can't completely dismiss Superman IV. Like the Pryor movie guest starring Superman, this film has a lot of good Clark Kent material in it.
Superman IV had a budget that probably wouldn't cover Michael Bay's cocaine budget for one day on Transformers 2. I mean, the UN sequence was filmed in Milton Friggin' Keynes, ferchrissakes. IIRC, I remember an interview with Reeve, where he said it was filmed in a car park, with about 12 people comprising the 'crowds' - for the first 2 movies, Dick Donner would probably have filmed outside the real UN and brought New York to a halt. And how many times do we see the same stock footage of Superman flying?
Bad as it is, I do sort of prefer it to III, because at least it tries to take Superman seriously. There are nods to the first 2 movies in the Smallville sequences and Lois is given something to do. III is primarily a Richard Pryor vehicle and an outlet for Lester's penchant for slapstick. The action sequences in III are inevitably much better, because at least it had a decent budget. But it's silly and sneering - for my money, IV's heart is in the right place.
Bad as it is, I do sort of prefer it to III, because at least it tries to take Superman seriously. There are nods to the first 2 movies in the Smallville sequences and Lois is given something to do. III is primarily a Richard Pryor vehicle and an outlet for Lester's penchant for slapstick. The action sequences in III are inevitably much better, because at least it had a decent budget. But it's silly and sneering - for my money, IV's heart is in the right place.
