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

[thunderbolt]

Wow, I go to sleep for 8 hours and look at all I missed. Seriously, 3 is the Super analog to Batman and Robin (but Hue probably likes that one, too). Its what happens when the studio, director, writers have no clue what to do with a character. It was horrid movie then and now. It should have been the franchise killer, and pretty much was.

[huedell]

Let me rephrase guys.

What I meant was that only a "comicbook fan" would be so stubborn
as to judge a movie that way----i.e. the context compared to the other two
movies....so I wasn't particularl;y meaning that a comicbook fan
would be a "stickler for comicbook accuracy" in films.

Heck----Batman Begins showed us how flexible comic fans could be
in THAT regard.

And...Anthony....
As Hector said catching my mistake WAS a good catch----but I feel
I'm not the king of contradicting myself (as Hector pretty much said)----rather the King of "inarticulateness" and using the exact same word to mean two different things in two seperate posts and then forgetting about it!

I'll try to work on that in the future.

It's actually becoming more frequent lately.

And, yes, I DO love you Hector.

Anthony? I dunno---I don't know you as well.

[huedell]

Wow, I go to sleep for 8 hours and look at all I missed. Seriously, 3 is the Super analog to Batman and Robin (but Hue probably likes that one, too). Its what happens when the studio, director, writers have no clue what to do with a character. It was horrid movie then and now. It should have been the franchise killer, and pretty much was.

SUPERMAN III.
Horrid movie? I still say "no".

As badly written and executed as Batman and Robin?
You'd have to be joking.

The wit in B&R was Mr. Freeze shooting his gun and saying: "Freeze"
SIII had great gags galore---the "pen speech" alone is funnier than all of B&R.

The end plot of the villains was to freeze the city and Batman et al.
foiled the crime by shutting down the machine.
Do I have to retell the end of SUPERMAN III?
Sneaking the illusively lethal acid into the computer was a brillaint
scheme plotwise.

Yes it WAS a gamble to make such a farcical movie following
the (somewhat) more serious SUPERMAN II---but---hey---
it made a HECK lot more sense then that toy commercial that
was BATMAN AND ROBIN----and it certainly had it's "act" together
more than the horrid production that was SUPERMAN IV---
how people lump III in with IV, I'll never know.

EDITED YET AGAIN TO ADD>..T-bolt---you saying I probably like
BATMAN & ROBIN too---was a low freakin' blow!

[thunderbolt]

Do you sleep ever, or just look around for stuff that only you like? The comic fans only hating 3 is a lame arguement. The general public didn't like it either, hence it was a bomb. Why do comic fans have to be flexable to accept Begins? It was a reboot of the Bat franchise that ignored the crap that was the last two Bat movies. Even non comic fans passed on Batman and Robin.

[thunderbolt]

The look on Supes face is priceless.

[The Toyroom]

Let me rephrase guys.

What I meant was that only a "comicbook fan" would be so stubborn
as to judge a movie that way----i.e. the context compared to the other two
movies....so I wasn't particularl;y meaning that a comicbook fan
would be a "stickler for comicbook accuracy" in films.

Once again for the reading impaired...my opinion on III has nothing whatsoever to do with "comic book accuracy" or lack thereof. It's simply that III doesn't flow from the same fountain as I and II.

At the risk of using another analogy...it's like Roger Moore's more light-hearted James Bond as compared to Sean Connery's. Both had humor but Moore's was more apparent and over the top. So quite often there is a split amongst Bond movie fans as far as the change in tone in the franchise. But it works more than the Supes flicks because of the change in actors. You can view them both as different branches of the same franchise. Same with Dalton, Brosnan and now Craig. With Superman, it's all Reeves, so the change in tone in III is readily apparent (to some).

And as T-bolt said, it wasn't just comic fans who disliked III....it was a box office bomb.

And...Anthony....
As Hector said catching my mistake WAS a good catch----but I feel
I'm not the king of contradicting myself (as Hector pretty much said)----rather the King of "inarticulateness" and using the exact same word to mean two different things in two seperate posts and then forgetting about it!

I'll try to work on that in the future.

That sounds like some weird double-talk I'm just not going to take the time to understand. LMK when you've got it all figured out with what you really mean when you say it.

And, yes, I DO love you Hector.

Anthony? I dunno---I don't know you as well.

[huedell]

Do you sleep ever, or just look around for stuff that only you like? The comic fans only hating 3 is a lame arguement. The general public didn't like it either, hence it was a bomb. Why do comic fans have to be flexable to accept Begins? It was a reboot of the Bat franchise that ignored the crap that was the last two Bat movies. Even non comic fans passed on Batman and Robin.

Comic fans have to be flexible with Batman Begins because of the Ras Al Guhl
training (for starters)----but let's not "go there"----my BB reference
and the comicbook fan reference aren't really what's important here (admittedly I screwed up talking about comicbook fan's "stubborness" and I
take it back)

What's important here is what you and I are saying about the actual
movie in question....SUPERMAN III

You say the general public didn't like it.

Let me point out that Superman III not fitting in with the general public the
way the first two did is a shame---and a mistake.

Firstly it had great competition that summer with the two biggest blockbusters of all time's sequels (JAWS and STAR WARS)
plus the James Bond sequels: Octopussy and Never Say Never Again.

Also, according to wikipedia...
"In July 1983, ITV showed the Royal Premiere of Superman III. This show
included interviews with actors in the film, who had flown to London for the
United Kingdom and European premiere. Some clips from the film were
shown, including where Superman is flying Gus to the coal mine and
explaining how he used the acid to destroy the supercomputer, thus
revealing the ending of the film."

SUPERMAN III had a great ending and supposedly this show had a lot to do
with revealing it and providing a major spoiler....a shame.

The "MOvie Critics" also hurt the film with criticisms that I think are
inane...the same criticisms YOU guys have.

They are criticisms having to do with HOW the movie was concieved
or put together---not just a critique of the movie itself.

What's up with that?

"A frequent criticism of Superman III was the inclusion of comedian
Richard Pryor." Who cares about the "inclusion" of someone in a critique?
The question is HOW DID HE DO in the MOVIE? The answer: he did fine.
Same goes with the "Robert Vaughn instead of Hackman" critique---
Vaughn was great---because he is a great actor for the kind
of movie comedy SUPERMAN III was.

Hackman may havew been just as good...but we'll never know.

What we DO know...is that Hackman returned in SUPERMAN IV
and stunk up the joint---but it wasn't his fault---he just was
in a horribly written and shot movie.

So, yeah, as far as I'm concerned---the movie critics are as stubborn as
you guys---judging a movie by "Hollywood choices" outside
of the ACTUAL MOVIE ITSELF.

In the end though---international audiences saw the movie for what it was---
a fun Pryor-type comedy----and a good SUPERMAN story....albeit
a bit screwball----
according to wikipedia:

"Despite a considerably poor feedback from the critics and the American audience themselves, hence the usage of the word domestic, the film was highly successful in international territories. In fact, the film still became one of the highest grossing films of 1983."

[huedell]

Once again for the reading impaired...my opinion on III has nothing
whatsoever to do with "comic book accuracy" or lack thereof. It's simply
that III doesn't flow from the same fountain as I and II.

FORGET the "comic book accuracy" thing....I'll take the blame...
but I never actually MEANT anything like that.....JUST the STUBBORNESS
of comicbook fans---and I take/took that unfair assessment back.

Anthony---your BOND ANALOGY is spot on---

--it also explains EXACTLY why we disagree----and why I disagree with
many movie critics----I say who cares if the movies don't all blend together
seamlessly--- just judge the movie oin it's OWN MERIT---otherwise---
-you're spilting yourself or shortchanging yourself on what could be a really
good movie.

Hey man---you're in good company with the big time critics---so
I salute your stance----I just never will get the LOGIC behind it.

That sounds like some weird double-talk I'm just not going to take
the time to understand. LMK when you've got it all figured out with what you
really mean when you say it.

Man---I've been biting off more than I can chew lately with my posts
---it's true that the "weakest link" ruins a good argument by bringing
it down to it's level of poor quality----well, I admit---I've been quite
inarticulate lately----even to MYSELF----usually I disagree with others
when they claim I'm a cloudy writer.

Bottom line Anthony and all---I think SUPERMAN III has gotten
the "shaft" by critics and comibook fans for years---and where else can
I (try to) wax philosophical about it----and debate----compare and
contrast ideas with people who grew up with the movie and have strong connections to it good or bad?

Honestly, despite the tension/heat here---I've really loved the SUPERMAN III
turn this SUPERMAN REBOOT thread has taken----it'll be a while before I
wanna discuss SUPERMAN III again---now that I've gotten this outta my system.

[Earth 2 Chris]

Are we still doing this, really?

Okay, I'll through something more thought provoking into the mix. I just re-read a
Backissue article discussing the proposed Reeve-era Superman films that never got made. One that became the one-shot prestige comic, Superman: The Earth Stealers, and the other being the Cary Bates-written, apparently Reeve approved Superman V, or Superman:The New Movie, or finally, Superman: Reborn. It would have featured Brainiac! In both his green skinned and Super Powers-era robotic versions.

So do you think Warners and the Salkinds (who got the rights back after IV) could have gotten the series back on track after The Quest for Peace, with Reeve back as Superman?

Chris

[huedell]

Are we still doing this, really?

Okay, I'll through something more thought provoking into the mix. I just re-read a
Backissue article discussing the proposed Reeve-era Superman films that never got made. One that became the one-shot prestige comic, Superman: The Earth Stealers, and the other being the Cary Bates-written, apparently Reeve approved Superman V, or Superman:The New Movie, or finally, Superman: Reborn. It would have featured Brainiac! In both his green skinned and Super Powers-era robotic versions.

So do you think Warners and the Salkinds (who got the rights back after IV) could have gotten the series back on track after The Quest for Peace, with Reeve back as Superman?

Chris

Unfortunately, the Salkinds were all about "the dollar".

THAT'S how they made their decisions and MANY of them were poor ones.

They REALLY knew how to alienate their cast with their brash decisions.

I may have been singing the praises of SUPERMAN III in this thread---
but I'll say straight out---that it wasn't a HEALTHY move
for the franchise---no matter HOW you critique the movie.

Bottom line----the Salkinds are horrid and only got LUCKY with casting Reeve
and the success of the first two movies---in my opinion.

They just about ELIMINATED the great direction DONNER was going on II
by firing him----it's amazing that SUPERMAN II was so successful---
in my opinion----just a lot of the good things "lining up" from the
work of others---- in spite of the Salkinds bad choices.

AND, yeah, they raked in a lotta dough with SUPERMAN III worldwide
----but if they would have continued the route they were going
they woulda dropped ther ball just like Golan Globus did.

Why do I say that?^^^

Because...
...as the 80s progressed, the audience was looking for an edgier
superhero film akin to Burton's BATMAN work---

Again. I'm not saying that I wouldn't have been a fan of a new Salkind movie
---I don't know----but I AM saying the Salkinds were slowly burying the
franchise's future as they went.

[Earth 2 Chris]

Yeah, I agree the Salkinds got in the way of their own successes. What have they really done since Superboy left the air? And that show only improved when they were smart enough to hire comic writers to really inject some life into it.

They did two things right. They hired Donner, and they let him go with Reeve. But they did have some mullah to put behind a good Superman movie, and if WB had maybe gotten more involved with these proposed pictures, it may have worked.


Chris

[MIB41]

Superman III had it's moments. When I'm in the mood for Reeve's Superman, I will include the third installment as part of my nostalgic viewing. As a fan of those original films I think it's watchable, but I don't believe Lester is nearly the director that Donner is. You have to remember a big portion of Superman II was already shot before Lester came onboard, so I feel like the bigger part of that film is still Donner's (and yes, I've seen HIS version on the special Superman II DVD).
What hurts Superman III is the uneven script. The opening sequence (with the none stop blunders)really sums up the whole movie - It doesn't know when to let go of the joke. Lester spends so much time exploring the humor of Pryor that the story is quickly lost on the principle character of Superman. Vaughn is a fine actor but he has no comedic timing and looks very dry against the likes of Pryor who is more instinctual. I can't stand the dumb blonde because her acting is just not believable. She overplays the part so badly I still cringe when I see her.
But the whole "dark" Superman theme is an interesting concept in the movie and I like the face off between Clark and Superman. That in itself makes this movie a keeper, so I can forgive the film for some of it's short comings. In the end I think the film was successful, it just didn't bring in big money like it's predecessors. And it's by no means as bad as the fourth installment. Egads! Watching Reeves fly like the old Shazam television show is just too much.

[Earth 2 Chris]

Yeah, I'll get my III DVD out from time to time and watch the chemical plant scenes and the evil Supes/Clark fight. Those still hold up. I love when he freezes the lake. Typical Silver Age Superman solution to a big problem.

Agree on Lester vs. Donner. You nailed it. Lester doesn't seem to understand that while there can be humor, it shouldn't be so broad and constant. His climatic battle between Supes and the Phantom Zoners in II (which was all him directing) suffers from this. You get pulled out of the direness of the situation by guys getting blown over in phone booths, etc.

One final thing on Superman III. I've read that the film makers expected Pryor to adlib more to make the film funnier, which he often did in his other successful comedies. He didn't, and it shows. Some folks even think it was he reverence for Superman that kept him in check. Kind of ironic considering most diehard fans would say he had no business being in a Superman movie at all! At least with a part as big (and probably bigger) than Supes himself.

Chris

[The Bat]

Wow...I'm coming in late this party...missing all the FUN! I'd join in on the debate...but the sad fact is...niether Superman 3 or 4, are worth disscussing.

[thunderbolt]

Was Jaws 3D really any competition for Superman??