New Man of Steel Pictures

[emeraldknight47]

Well said!

I'm just getting a tad tired of Marvel characters, time for DC, baby.

Dark Knight, Man of Steel...then JLA...so they can kick major Avengers arse, lol.

I'd settle for a really well made "WORLD'S FINEST" movie featuring Superman and a more comics-loyal version of The Batman...

[Operation:Mego]

[Hector]

Wow!! From what was said in that featurette and from the footage and imagery I saw, THIS movie is going to kick some SERIOUS butt!! I think MARVEL's days as top dog in the super-hero cinematic universe may be on the verge of an eclipse. Look out world----SUPERMAN is freakin' BACK!!!

Well said!

I'm just getting a tad tired of Marvel characters, time for DC, baby.

Dark Knight, Man of Steel...then JLA...so they can kick major Avengers arse, lol.

[Hector]

This is too much for me to bear, I can hardly sleep, I want to see it sooooooo bad, never felt about this way since, well, Superman Returns...lol...but I know Man of Steel is going to be a thousand times better, I just know it.

Time for DC superheroes to kick arse besides Batman flicks, lol.

[Operation:Mego]

Wow!! From what was said in that featurette and from the footage and imagery I saw, THIS movie is going to kick some SERIOUS butt!! I think MARVEL's days as top dog in the super-hero cinematic universe may be on the verge of an eclipse. Look out world----SUPERMAN is freakin' BACK!!!

You took the words right out of my mouth. If this is really the start of a DCMU, then it'll be one hell of a start. The town scene had me on the edge of my seat.

[emeraldknight47]

Wow!! From what was said in that featurette and from the footage and imagery I saw, THIS movie is going to kick some SERIOUS butt!! I think MARVEL's days as top dog in the super-hero cinematic universe may be on the verge of an eclipse. Look out world----SUPERMAN is freakin' BACK!!!

[Operation:Mego]

[huedell]

MIB and Chris... you guys pretty much have the same route of thinking as me. I know we differ on S3 being a solid movie or not, but that's about all the difference there is, because we all pretty much agree about the production summations and how they affected the franchise.

As MIB essentially said, S4 just went way, WAY too far cutting corners... even for ME!... otherwise, I'd probably be saying much better stuff about S4 to this day instead of cringing at it instead. A new S4 edit? I believe the cut scenes were too poor to include. If I made an edit... I'd edit that baby down to about an hour to see how much crap I could get rid of. There's still some nice stuff there. I even like stuff you guys'd probably cringe at, such as the Clark/Supes double-date farce-type scene.

One more thing though, whereas you guys were not happy with Vaughn and his ladies in S3, I was VERY pleased with their dialogue AND their performances. In fact, I thought Vaughn, Stephenson (Loreli) and Ross (Vera) BURIED Hackman and (especially) Cryer's performances in S4. Don't even get me started on the guy who played Nuclear Man's acting skills (or lack thereof)!

[Earth 2 Chris]

Superman IV had some good ideas, but right before production began, the budget was slashed in half. I'm not sure the story would have been any better, but it would have LOOKED better had the money remained. The fact that Canon/Golan/Globus got a hold of the Superman franchise in the first place is unforgivable on Warners part. They should have bought it back from the Salkinds when they sold the movie rights, instead of it going to that low-budget outfit. Superman III actually did pretty well at the box office despite the response, so the franchise was still a money maker. It's hard to believe WB let one of their cash cows flounder in such a way.

Chris

[MIB41]

I thought the first quarter of Superman 3 was descent with Pryor. Without question this film has it's memorable moments. I like it when Superman fights his dark half. That was fun and had a nice comic flavor to it. I just didn't care for the main villain. Robert Vaughn could not have been more of a yawner when it comes to compelling arch enemies. After General Zod, this was quite the come down. And the fact they tried to inject humor between him and his two female co-stars was notably bad in places. That didn't give anyone for Pryor to play off. This likely explains why he looks like he's trying too hard when he shares screen time with them. Too many clowns in one shot. So while the idea had possibilities, I think the overall execution was pretty uneven. But it's a fun movie. And I always watch it when I'm running through my Superman collection. It's really just Superman IV that I can't get past. You can only forgive so much. And that film has entirely too many deficits. I even tried watching it with commentary, but that made it worse! The script writer suggested this movie could have been so much better with the deleted scenes. There's only one problem with that. The majority of the deleted scenes are WORSE than what is in the movie itself! So this movie was DOA no matter what they did. I know Reeves had a hand in the script. But being the lead actor does not a good writer make.

[huedell]

I read that the producers and other creatives expected Pryor to improvise a lot on the set. He didn't, and hence the flat comedy...or lack there of, in my opinion.

But again...why make a Superman comedy to begin with? It stinks of the type of stuff the Salkinds wanted to do with the franchise before Dick Donner refused most of it. Things like Superman attempting to capture Luthor but grabbing Telly Savalas instead.

Ha. That's actually pretty funny.

Anyways...

Why make Superman a comedy?

I dunno. Why make the Batman TV show a campfest?

If Superman III would've been a hit like the Batman '66 show was, there'd be nothing to debate about, anyways. And it must be stressed that the Salkinds were nuts. And in the midst of all the chaos they caused, it's amazing the Reeve movies succeeded as much as they did, frankly.

Whatever the case, I DO believe there's room for many different variations on the Superman character in media... and now all the people who want a Nolanesque take on Supes are getting that. That should work out nicely for most people concerned.

[Earth 2 Chris]

I read that the producers and other creatives expected Pryor to improvise a lot on the set. He didn't, and hence the flat comedy...or lack there of, in my opinion.

But again...why make a Superman comedy to begin with? It stinks of the type of stuff the Salkinds wanted to do with the franchise before Dick Donner refused most of it. Things like Superman attempting to capture Luthor but grabbing Telly Savalas instead.

Chris

[huedell]

Well, in the Superman comics of the mid-80s, Clark and Lana were getting really close. I'm not sure the creators would have ever made them THE couple, but they definitely were pushing toward that direction before the post-Crisis reboot. Which made it even more poignant in Alan Moore's "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" when Lana overheard Superman tell Perry he would always love Lois more. Despite that, she went out and died to protect him. Powerful stuff!!!

Superman III and Returns actually have quite a bit in common. Both have some really strong moments, but the overall concept of the film is incredibly flawed in the context of the franchise, and nothing that the audience expected or was looking for.

You know, now that I think about it, Star Trek did a "light" film, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, after the heady stuff in the previous two films, only a few years after SIII. It was the highest grossing Trek film in history. BUT, it wasn't an out and out comedy for whole chunks of it AND the TV series also did it's fair share of light episodes...so maybe that's why it worked whereas Superman III did not.

I think the real reason the Trek "comedy" worked and Superman's didn't was that Superman's just wasn't funny...

Superman III is HILARIOUS... a LOT of great humor in there....

...but it's mostly one-liners and great character interaction.

It's basically no comedy scores dominated by the hand of Pryor, who the 1983 movie audience expected would make the movie a funny movie in the style of a Pryor film and that didn't happen. AND it obviously irked a lot of Reeve Superman fans and overall Superman fans by straying into that comedy attempt... again, without even utilizing Pryor.

So, Superman III was a movie without a country, and that's why (overall) people rail against it to this day in my opinion.

[Earth 2 Chris]

Well, in the Superman comics of the mid-80s, Clark and Lana were getting really close. I'm not sure the creators would have ever made them THE couple, but they definitely were pushing toward that direction before the post-Crisis reboot. Which made it even more poignant in Alan Moore's "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" when Lana overheard Superman tell Perry he would always love Lois more. Despite that, she went out and died to protect him. Powerful stuff!!!

Superman III and Returns actually have quite a bit in common. Both have some really strong moments, but the overall concept of the film is incredibly flawed in the context of the franchise, and nothing that the audience expected or was looking for.

You know, now that I think about it, Star Trek did a "light" film, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, after the heady stuff in the previous two films, only a few years after SIII. It was the highest grossing Trek film in history. BUT, it wasn't an out and out comedy for whole chunks of it AND the TV series also did it's fair share of light episodes...so maybe that's why it worked whereas Superman III did not.

I think the real reason the Trek "comedy" worked and Superman's didn't was that Superman's just wasn't funny...




Chris

[huedell]

Also, in Superman III, the true sequel to Superman II (love it or hate it), Clark has moved on from Lois and seems to be considering the possibility of a romance with Lana...as Clark. Those are the parts of the movie that make that outing valid and watchable. It really does feel like the character has grown beyond the instant infatuation he had for Lois, and has looked around to what he let slip away in his younger years, as a lot of people tend to do. THAT humanized him in a way that wasn't the least bit creepy.

Not saying this just because I have that "Superman III reputation", but you are so right on point with this... funny that my only argument to it becomes "zapping S3 from existence", and I'd only make that argument because it's one that Singer and the majority of movie fans made, and the origin of the place in the Reeve sequence that Returns takes place (nixing 3 and 4, and, in effect making Returns into "the new S3").

Regardless, you are right on target, and I'd have to retract that "all versions of Superman have Supes obsessing over Lois". In fact, S3 took a huge detour from that which you really don't see anywhere else in Supes' history that I can think of. And what's more... that detour WORKS! (To me, anyways.)

And, although I like the point that you say that Lang humanized him by having him address mistakes of his youth... I have to clarify my point for even using that term "humanize" in the first place. Dragging that term out... well, it's is actually BASED on him being creepy.

It's like a "Hey, even SUPERMAN can be creepy when he's obsessing over a chick." thing going on. Now, I hadn't had that worked out in my brain earlier on in the thread, but in thinking through why I feel the way I do about the "quasi-stalker" scene in Returns, it brought me to that conclusion.... an ironic conclusion, considering the whole bit we were debating over... basically being: "Is being 'creepy' a negative thing?"

And the funny answer is.. YES it IS primarily a bad thing, yet Supes does it anyway.

That said, I see where you guys are coming rfrom... ESPECIALLY when you point out the direct contradictions to the character from the Reeve movies.

I sure enjoy Returns, though. Hopefully I didn't debate myself into enjoying it less in the future!