Superman movie franchise gets a reboot. It's official.

[huedell]

OK, 3 sucked due to the non descript villains, including the pre helsinki Formula Robert Vaughn, and Richard Pryor shoehorned in for comic relief. Even as a youngster I despised that movie.

You can say a lot of bad things about 3---I mean it's your opinion, go
right ahead, if you don't like the tone then you don't like the tone---but
NOTHING about 3 was "shoehorned"----it's plot (though arrguably corny)
was the tightest of the 4 and the most tightly executed.

I think the only valid way to use the term "shoehorn" is that you could say they shoehorned the WHOLE MOVIE (with it's Pryorish style) into the series
which was quite different with 1 (TMP) and 2.

[Hector]

Man, Supes 3 SUCKED. never saw 4 but I bet it was a stinkburger, too.

[Raydeen1]

I think I saw part of 4 but it stunk so bad I turned it off. Good concept, HORRIBLE execution.

[BlackKnight]

I like the Concept in Superman 4,... but it no way beats Superman Returns,.. even with Reeves. 3 Was just Horrible,.. the minute it started showing the opening logo.

[thunderbolt]

You can say a lot of bad things about 3---I mean it's your opinion, go
right ahead, if you don't like the tone then you don't like the tone---but
NOTHING about 3 was "shoehorned"----it's plot (though arrguably corny)
was the tightest of the 4 and the most tightly executed.

I think the only valid way to use the term "shoehorn" is that you could say they shoehorned the WHOLE MOVIE (with it's Pryorish style) into the series
which was quite different with 1 (TMP) and 2.

you did see the same Superman 3 I did, right? Or was it the Bizarro World one that didn't suck eggs. Tightest of the 4?? Seriously?? WOW.

[Raydeen1]

[huedell]

you did see the same Superman 3 I did, right? Or was it the Bizarro World one that didn't suck eggs. Tightest of the 4?? Seriously?? WOW.

The PLOT being the tightest, yes, seriously.

And I thought 3 was far from "sucking eggs" because of that reason ---plus
a few more I listed earlier in this thread.....which REMINDS me....

It always amazes me that whenever this debate gets brought up---no one
gives a flying fig about my multiple reasons for 3 being good, they
just criticize the movie because it isn't like what they "expected" out of a
Superman movie. The reasons they give for it being "horrible" are always paper thin.

---for example---sorry, but "non-descript villains" isn't a good enough
reason to say that 3 was "horrible" in my eyes.

Just because the villains in 3 weren't Bizarro or Brainiac doesn't mean they
didn't have character.

If you rewatch 3, you'll see that the relationship between Ross, Vera
and Loreli---and subsequently, Gus---- is complex-----and quite hilarious.

[Collect 'em all!]

How does every Superman movie thread degenerate into "The Values of Superman III and IV: Why They Don't Suck" or "THEY SUCK!!!"?

One of these days I'll start a thread about SUPERMAN III to amp the debate
again (or maybe this one'll do JUST fine!)

but I think SUPERMAN III may be the "best" overall of the original four.
(Although the PZ villains may continue to make me take II over III)

huedell,

I'm with you all the way--I love SUPERMAN 3 too, so I'll gladly join you in defending it here and take some of the flack.

I think it works on all levels. I've watched it dozens of times, and I could go and watch it right now.

I think it's A LOT of fun, and I don't mind Richard Pryor being in it at all. I love how underdog/computer whiz Gus Gorman figures out a way to cut himself a HUGE bonus check with all the unpaid "half cents" from his corporations payroll accounts--and then comes rolling into work the next day, squealing tires driving a flashy, brand new sports car--that's funny!

Annette O'tool was gorgeous as Lana, and I really enjoyed seeing Clark falling for her all over again at his high school reunion. I also enjoy how Clark still has to deal with the jerk who used to bully him in school (without using his super powers), and how he helps Lana's son with his low self-esteem problems. Of all the original Superman movies, this one has the warmest heart.

Superman 3 also gave Superman plenty of action scenes for him to use his superpowers and save people. The sequence where Superman uses his super breath to freeze a lake, then fly the gigantic piece of ice above the out of control Chemical Plant fire, melting it, creating a pouring rain shower to put it out --is quintessential Superman. I love it!

The movies plot idea of villain Robert Vaughn forcing Gus to re-create a synthetic Kryptonite (which Gus makes substituting tar in place of the missing "unknown" element) that unexpectedly turns Superman "bad" instead of killing him, is great!

The transformed "bad boy" Superman flies around the Globe vandalizing and making a super-nuisance of himself--and even accepts the wiles of a femme fatal temptress when he gets it on with Vaughn's personal assistant, Loreli/Pamela. And, I love the scene with the burned-out looking Superman in a bar, busting booze bottles on the shelf by flicking peanuts like bullets! The action packed, final climax in the junk yard battle between Clark and the evil Superman is classic!

Superman 2 was awesome, with it's "end of the world" vibe at the hands of ZOD and the Phantom Zone villains--BUT, in order to keep the series fresh, they really needed to lighten things up and have some fun in Part 3, and I think they did just that.

Superman movies should be fun and enjoyable for all ages, which this one is.

I don't want to see them ever make a Superman movie that you can't take a 5 yr old to see.

But yeah, no arguement out of me, Superman 4 is pretty awful--
--I once dubbed my own, shortened, Re-edit on VHS to try to make it more watchable

[huedell]

Hi Collect 'em all---wow----your post surprised me----
I swear---I don't think I've ever seen someone write more than a couple nice
words about S III other than the cliche: "the Clark/Supes" fight was
"the only good thing" about it.

What I don't think the majority of people that criticize SIII don't get
is it's one thing to resent SIII because of it's tone---the corniness--
or it's lack of costumed or traditional Superman villains....but to call
it a "horrible movie" is just unwarranted.

SUPERMAN III---if you can get past it's ----er----"unique" vibe
within the Reeve era----is a very solid, witty, smart----and
(what it was trying to be) a very FUNNY movie.

And...it happens to be a funny movie that has a lot of heart buried in it too
----the "inspiration" for Clark to fight Supes in the first place---the
"child that believes in Superman's ability to be good--- in spite of the
vast power that has corrupted the superbeing" is quite moving

Cheers, Collect 'em!

"I wanna enjoy my money while I'm young! Get down! Boogie!"

[huedell]

I like the Concept in Superman 4,... but it no way beats Superman Returns,.. even with Reeves. 3 Was just Horrible,.. the minute it started showing the opening logo.

BK---I saw you awkwardly lash out at me in the other thread.

Care to expound upon why SUPERMAN III is so horrible?

Other than the logo, I mean.

My curiosity is piqued.

[Collect 'em all!]

Hi Collect 'em all---wow----your post surprised me----
I swear---I don't think I've ever seen someone write more than a couple nice
words about S III other than the cliche: "the Clark/Supes" fight was
"the only good thing" about it.

What I don't think the majority of people that criticize SIII don't get
is it's one thing to resent SIII because of it's tone---the corniness--
or it's lack of costumed or traditional Superman villains....but to call
it a "horrible movie" is just unwarranted.

SUPERMAN III---if you can get past it's ----er----"unique" vibe
within the Reeve era----is a very solid, witty, smart----and
(what it was trying to be) a very FUNNY movie.

And...it happens to be a funny movie that has a lot of heart buried in it too
----the "inspiration" for Clark to fight Supes in the first place---the
"child that believes in Superman's ability to be good--- in spite of the
vast power that has corrupted the superbeing" is quite moving

Cheers, Collect 'em!

"I wanna enjoy my money while I'm young! Get down! Boogie!"

You're preaching to the choir, here.

It always makes me scratch my head when I hear people on one hand complain that the tone of superhero movie is too corny (most people who don't like comic books would say that ALL superheroes are corny), but on the other hand, say that what it really needed was a big super villian to fight, lol.

Let's face it, the very idea of a realistic costumed superhero is the definition of corny/campy, so what? C'mon everyone, that's part of their charm.

Would anyone in the real world NOT be able to recognize that Clark Kent is Superman without his glasses--Or not think that even the coolest looking Super hero costume looks silly?

The problem is that too many fans, comic books, and movies take it all WAAAAAAY TOO SERIOUSLY these days.

Where's the fun in that? What about the kids?

[The Toyroom]

Superman III and Superman IV BOTH suck. III was a poor attempt to ca$h in on some of that Richard Pryor craziness and IV was just an attempt to ca$h in period.

SUPERMAN III---if you can get past it's ----er----"unique" vibe
within the Reeve era----is a very solid, witty, smart----and
(what it was trying to be) a very FUNNY movie.

And as far as III being a "funny movie"...if I want a funny movie I'll go see one...I just don't expect to find the Man of Steel smack dab in the middle of one. By that logic Superman III could have been a "good porn flick" with Superman in it...does that make it a Superman movie?

[huedell]

Superman III and Superman IV BOTH suck. III was a poor attempt to ca$h in on some of that Richard Pryor craziness and IV was just an attempt to ca$h in period.



And as far as III being a "funny movie"...if I want a funny movie I'll go see one...I just don't expect to find the Man of Steel smack dab in the middle of one. By that logic Superman III could have been a "good porn flick" with Superman in it...does that make it a Superman movie?

Your post smacks of unfairness Toyroom---

If this is offensive, then I apologize...

BUT this harsh misguided attitude is typical in bashing SUPERMAN III

The difference between a "good Superman farce" and a "good Superman porn"
as entries into the Superman movie legacy is quite different ---and YOU
know better, man.

[huedell]

You're preaching to the choir, here.

It always makes me scratch my head when I hear people on one hand complain that the tone of superhero movie is too corny (most people who don't like comic books would say that ALL superheroes are corny), but on the other hand, say that what it really needed was a big super villian to fight, lol.

Let's face it, the very idea of a realistic costumed superhero is the definition of corny/campy, so what? C'mon everyone, that's part of their charm.

Would anyone in the real world NOT be able to recognize that Clark Kent is Superman without his glasses--Or not think that even the coolest looking Super hero costume looks silly?

The problem is that too many fans, comic books, and movies take it all WAAAAAAY TOO SERIOUSLY these days.

Where's the fun in that? What about the kids?

I certainly think that the kid-friendly approach worked in SUPERMAN III
---as did many other things---PLUS you had Superman corrupted by sex
and alcohol----and then OVERCOME them---which is edgy adult stuff at the
same time (presented in a very CAREFUL fashion by the director)

---I actually think it's the perfect mix for little kids----a fun and
funny movie with multiple adult-tinged "lessons" contained therein.

Should all superhero movies be so campy and corny????

I don't know...it depends on the quality of the script and the rest of the
execution...

but...Collect 'em---I think the "Bat-West" fans are fooling themselves if they
think that a 60s Bat-episode ever came close to the tight
humor and execution of SUPERMAN III.

[The Toyroom]

That's a load of BS, dude....

Why does the "post smack of unfairness"? Because I don't agree with your opinion?

"Harsh misguided attitude"? Again, because I don't agree with your opinion?

How's this for you then...IN MY OPINION : "Superman III and Superman IV BOTH suck. III was a poor attempt to ca$h in on some of that Richard Pryor craziness and IV was just an attempt to ca$h in period."

That better for ya?

The difference between a "good Superman farce" and a "good Superman porn"
as entries into the Superman movie legacy is quite different ---and YOU
know better, man.

What I do know is that NEITHER a "good Superman farce" or a "good Superman porn" belong as entries in this series. If III was a stand-alone movie that they wanted to make as a farce or comedy, then so be it. After all, no one's complaining about the '66 Batman series and that was a farce, camp, whatever you want to call it. But they didn't go that route....they shoehorned it in as part of the series, which was for the most part played straight in I and II (yes some humor but not Pryoresque). And that's WHY people have a problem with it in context with the previous 2. By the time IV came around they tried to revert to formula but it was too late and that ground had already been covered. Which wouldn't have been that bad, if the flick was actually good, but it wasn't. Nuclear Man? Puh-lease. I love Christopher Reeves' portrayal of Supes but his role in contributing story elements for IV was grandstanding and soapboxing IMO.