Superman 3 or Superman 4?

[Mikey]

I always thought Superman Returns sucked major ***.....

Enough that I like 3 AND 4 WAY better than Fake Supey Returns.

[kingdom warrior]

I always thought Superman Returns sucked major ***.....

Enough that I like 3 AND 4 WAY better than Fake Supey Returns.

LOL!!!........

[Mego Milk]

Too bad Mephisto is in the Marvel Universe.
He could've done Superman a favor and erased movies 3 and 4 from existence.

[The Bat]

Neither! I like to pretend they don't exsist. I think of "Superman Returns"...as Superman 3(as Brian Singer has stated it IS).

[Surfsup]

They're both as bad as each other compared to 1 and 2. What a decline in quality!

[huedell]

There are so many funny moments and lines in SUPERMAN III....

Perry:
"A photographer eats with his camera...a photographer SLEEPS
with his camera..."

Lois:
"I'm glad I'm a reporter."
--------------------------------------

Superman III has "got the goods". Maybe not for a "typical"
classic Reeve Suypes film...but as a standalone in tone, it rises to
the occassion.

The battle between Loreli and Vera for Ross' affections and Loreli
hiding the fact that she is, in fact, not an airhead, but a highly intelligent
educated woman are nifty and funny subplots.

The fact that Brad Wilson (lana's pursuer) is an alcoholic is a strong
subplot and actually conjures some nice comedic moments, one of
which is the Brad/Pryor drinking scene (classic Pryor BTW) which
gives Pryor's character the crucial ability to help Ross with his evil plan
by hacking into a guarded computer (turning that computer on is
more classic Pryor comedy---this time, physical comedy)

If you as a viewer can drop being all "hardcore superhero geek" about it,
its pretty obvious that you can view SUPERMAN III as (as someone mentioned earlier)
a decent Richard Pryor comedy guest starring Superman or something along
those lines.

Superman IV? It relies on the premise of Supes rationalizing helping
the Earth by getting rid of nukes---but it needed more attention to plot
and character....and dialogue.
Superman IV doesn't have the wit nor the big plot twist ending that III has
...Superman IV wishes it was HALF the movie Superman III was.

Even the highly heralded SUPERMAN II's comedy fails in respects to III's
comedy in my opinion. That S2 "Supervillain wind scene" had some decent gags,
but it was out of place in the "more serious" SUPERMAN II movie (and
it went on for too long)

If you're brave enough and want a good giggle as well as some poignant
Superman moments (the raging evil Superman) and some classic Superman
moments as well (Superman freezing and carrying a whole lake, making
a diamond from coal, and getting a strike in bowling with a sneeze)
then watch Superman III and you may be suprised at how "not bad" it truly is.
--------------------------------

I leave you with the classic words of Ross Webster:
"I ask you to kill Superman... and you can't do that one simple thing."

[fallensaviour]

I'm still saying three was a big crapfest and no one has convinced me otherwise.You all elude to the fact that it was a Pryor movie with superman quest starring.Okay fine then IT WAS NOT A SUPERMAN movie and four wins by default...
Yes,... self hi-five.Four wins again..

[jayihdz]

I did not like 3 or 4, have not even watch them again in years.

[Airdave817]

Yeah, I've noticed a lot of copies of Superman 3 and 4 at Best Buy. Like a flood of them. I personally like 1 and 2 the best. Superman 3 was okay, but if I ever saw it again, I would probably stop actually watching it and start playing the home version of Mystery Science Theatre 3000. My wife hates when I do that. To this day I have not seen Superman 4. I'm not sure why.

The only good thing about Superman 3 was the Superman and Clark Kent split. Wasn't Lana in 3? Pretty cool that Annette O'Toole played Lana and later was Ma Kent.

With the most diverse rogues gallery on the planet why is Lex Luthor the only Superman villain that shows up on screen?

[huedell]

I'm still saying three was a big crapfest and no one has convinced me otherwise.You all elude to the fact that it was a Pryor movie with superman quest starring.Okay fine then IT WAS NOT A SUPERMAN movie and four wins by default...
Yes,... self hi-five.Four wins again..

Convince?

Only a comicbook diehard with personal feelings towards this "debate"
(that I could only BEGIN to imagine) would feel that way.

Just for the record, I'm not trying to "convince" anybody of anything.

Just trying to build a logical case on why 3 is a MUCH better movie than 4
(Pyror movie or not) and let the facts speak for themselves

So far all I see in the opposite way is...um...not much

Bring it on!

[Earth 2 Chris]

I will actually agree with you that 3 is a much better MOVIE. It is a techincally well-made, fully-realized motion picture. There are lots of good Superman bits in 3, as you mention. The chemical plant scene, all the Clark/Lana stuff, and of course the Supes/Clark battle. But I don't think Pryor is funny in any of it (and I like most of Pryor's films). So while it is technically a better movie, the emphasis on unfunny "humor" brings it down.

But 4 is so disjointed, it's barely intelligble at some points. Its heart is in the right place, and some of its concepts are welcome (Bizarro-like creature, Supes vs. powerful baddie, ridding the world of nukes, return of Lex, etc.), but the execution is so off it makes 3 look like...Superman: The Movie.

Chris

[huedell]

I will actually agree with you that 3 is a much better MOVIE. It is a techincally well-made, fully-realized motion picture. There are lots of good Superman bits in 3, as you mention. The chemical plant scene, all the Clark/Lana stuff, and of course the Supes/Clark battle. But I don't think Pryor is funny in any of it (and I like most of Pryor's films). So while it is technically a better movie, the emphasis on unfunny "humor" brings it down.

But 4 is so disjointed, it's barely intelligble at some points. Its heart is in the right place, and some of its concepts are welcome (Bizarro-like creature, Supes vs. powerful baddie, ridding the world of nukes, return of Lex, etc.), but the execution is so off it makes 3 look like...Superman: The Movie.

Chris

Which totally makes sense.

If you don't find Pryor's performance funny in S3...well, basically
a huge portion of the movies value goes down...the BIGGEST portion
probably, so I can see why some would despise S3 just for that
(Personally, I find the cheap humor in S3 charming)

Yet, S4 virtually has NOTHING to offer.

So to everyone saying 4 is the better movie---I say this:
So far all I've heard that makes 4 "better" is "a fight on the
moon"...geesh..talk about "farce"
THAT bit on the moon makes S3 look realistic

And fighting a superpowered being? Well, we already saw that in S2
plus in S3 Supes fight a supercomputer who then empowers a human to be
a superhuman-robot---that although may not be wearing a cape and spandex
---freaked the HECK out of me when I was a kid---I can't think of
anything from 4 that would "thrill" a kid like that with something comprably
spooky

PLUS..as said before S3 has Superman vs. Superman is a "superbeing" fight

I think the BEST thing S4 has to offer is the thing that ironically
only I mentioned----and that is the sweet conversation between Lois
and "sickly" Clark

But...the bottom line is (as Chris mentioned) S3 is the one with the
smoother plot----it makes 3, odd as it is, more easy to swallow
than the disjointed S4

[Mikey]

Hue, if you like 3 so much, you should marry it

I like 4 better

[samurainoir]

If you as a viewer can drop being all "hardcore superhero geek" about it,
its pretty obvious that you can view SUPERMAN III as (as someone mentioned earlier)
a decent Richard Pryor comedy guest starring Superman or something along
those lines.

I look at it on the same lines as George Reeves showing up on I Love Lucy.

Or Batman and Robin on Scooby Doo.

[huedell]

Hue, if you like 3 so much, you should marry it

I like 4 better

You always have SO much to bring to the table Mike!

I look at it on the same lines as George Reeves showing up on I Love Lucy.

Or Batman and Robin on Scooby Doo.

Makes sense.

Admittedly, it really IS a bizarre approach:

"Hey Richard Pryor is the big ticket these days, so lets get him in the
new Superman movie."

Yep.
That's what happens when you have "mavericks" with millions of dollars
and the rights to make a Superman movie.

Problem for all the fans that preferred the tone of 1 & 2 is
that not ONLY could they afford PRYOR, they could afford many
others from the cast as well (they probably woulda preferred
Hackman---but I actually prefer the threesome of Ross/Vera/Loreli
to make the plot fresher and work better for that addition)

While it works better as a standalone flick---in the context of the first
two movies its a real departure in tone and really put a ripple
thru many fans and critics that we're still seeing today--in this thread
as well