Superman III and Batman Forever

[Silver Nemesis]

Last year marked the 35th anniversary of Richard Lester's Superman III, and after recently revisiting the film on Blu-ray I was struck by a number of similarities between it and Joel Schumacher's Batman Forever. Identifying parallels between the Reeve Superman films and the Burton/Schumacher Batman series is nothing new, but I wanted to get a little more specific with this thread. I should start by saying that I like both of these movies. Both are obviously flawed (Superman III a lot more so than Batman Forever, IMO), but both have good qualities that are too often overlooked whenever modern appraisals crop up. Right now though I want to look at the similarities between them.

Both films offer a hard line of demarcation between the style of an outgoing director and that of his successor. In the case of the Superman series, the changeover between Donner and Lester occurred during the production of Superman II. But Superman II was still plotted, cast and scripted according to the creative vision of Donner. Because of this the theatrical cut of Superman II, though credited to Lester, is still partly a Donner film (and by the same token, the Donner Cut of Superman II is still partly a Lester film). With Superman III we get the first and only Superman film that is 100% Richard Lester's. And with Batman Forever we get the first Joel Schumacher Batman film.

Both directors were criticised for marginalising the dramatic content and verisimilitude that characterised their predecessor's work in favour of a campier style that overemphasised humour and nonthreatening villains. The villains in Superman: The Movie weren't particularly threatening either – not when compared to the Phantom Zone criminals in the second film – but they functioned well in that particular story, and Hackman brought some gravity to Lex's villainy through his charismatic screen presence. Ross Webster on the other hand feels like a second-rate knockoff of Lex Luthor, and the absence of any real comic book villains in Superman III is sorely felt. That's not a dig at Robert Vaughn, but rather a criticism of the way the character was conceived and written.

Similarly one of Batman Forever's greatest weaknesses is the performance by Tommy Lee Jones, who reduces one of Batman's most psychologically-complex rogues to a cackling buffoon. If Webster is a poor man's Lex, then Jones' Two-Face is a poor man's Joker. And that's a real shame, since Tommy Lee Jones is a fine actor and could have made an excellent Two-Face had he played the part in a more serious film. But at the end of the day, Webster and Two-Face both feel like inferior imitations of better villains that appeared in earlier films.

Christopher Reeve consciously chose to tone down Clark's bumbling in Superman III, which allowed for more emotionally earnest scenes between himself and Lana. Similarly Kilmer portrayed the playboy aspect of Bruce's personality with a confident and relaxed charm that was a departure from the reclusive and socially-awkward Bruce portrayed in Burton's films. In both cases, the lead character's alter ego is presented in a way that is more consistent with the comics of the era than the previous two films.

The lead love interest in both films is a redhead, while the villain has two female companions with contrasting personalities: one blonde, the other brunette.

Both movies feature a sexually-charged scene where the hero visits a love interest in her apartment at night. In Superman III the Man of Steel is acting under the influence of the synthetic kryptonite when he visits the villainous femme fatale Lorelei, while in Batman Forever Bruce visits Chase in the guise of his costumed alter ego.

Both films feature a geeky tech wizard (played by an actor previously known for comedic roles) who sets out to screw his billionaire employer. In Superman III Gus Gorman quickly forms an alliance with Webster, while in Batman Forever Edward Nygma initially wants to go into partnership with Bruce but ultimately teams up with Two-Face. Both geek villains then embark on a criminal scheme to gain power by exploiting modern technology to the detriment of the public. Gus uses computers, while the Riddler uses 'the Box'.

The primary line of attack used by the villains in both films is psychological rather than physical. Webster tries to kill Superman using the synthetic kryptonite, and in doing so inadvertently triggers a split personality disorder that renders the Man of Steel useless as a crime fighter. Nygma bombards Bruce with riddles in an effort to confuse and intimidate him, then exploits the secret of his true identity by attacking his home and threatening the lives of his friends. Bruce is already struggling with repressed memories at the start of the film, and the Riddler's machinations exacerbate those problems further.

Both films include a sequence where the hero confronts an externalised projection of his inner alter ego. In Superman III this takes the form of the junkyard fight, while in Batman Forever it's the deleted scene where Bruce confronts the bat-creature in the cave. Both of these scenes were adapted directly from comics: the junk yard fight in Superman III is taken from Adventure Comics Vol 1 #255, while the scene of Bruce confronting the bat in the cave was taken from the first chapter of The Dark Knight Returns.

The point of these scenes is to show the heroes reconciling the two halves of their psyches and re-establishing the equilibrium that was previously disrupted by the antagonists. In Superman III the humble and mild-mannered Clark Kent side of Kal-El is reconciled with the powerful and potentially hubristic Superman side, while in Batman Forever Bruce Wayne achieves an equitable symbiosis with his animal totem. The idea of the superhero having to conquer their inner demons has since factored into other CBM threequels such as Spider-Man 3 (2007) and The Dark Knight Rises (2012).

The hero in both movies has to undergo a personal journey that involves confronting an unresolved issue from their past. In both cases this unresolved issue was introduced in the first film of the series, but not referenced in the second film. For Superman, it's a return to Smallville and the feelings of inadequacy, frustration and isolation he experienced as a teen. For Batman, it's a return to the night his parents were killed and the feelings of guilt, fear and desolation he experienced in its aftermath. The hero having to confront an unresolved aspect of his origin story is another plot point that has cropped up in later threequels.

The villains in both films have a large hi-tech lair situated in a remote location, which only comes into play during the final act of the movie.

Both movies feature a sequence where the hero flies to the villains' hideout, only for the bad guys to launch weapons at them using a control console resembling an electronic game. In Superman III Webster fires missiles at Superman using what appears to be an Atari video game, while in Batman Forever the Riddler and Two-Face use a game of Battleships to attack the Batboat and Batwing.

Both sequences climax with the villain pressing a large red button which launches a more powerful attack that knocks the airborne hero out of the sky.

The hero survives and has to endure a series of traps as he advances deeper into the villains' lair.

Both showdowns entail the villains looking down on the hero from an elevated position in the heart of their base.

Both finales depict the hero using his wits rather than his brawn to defeat the enemy. Superman tricks the supercomputer by attacking it with a harmless chemical which he then turns volatile using his heat vision. Batman distracts Nygma with a riddle while he uses his sonar suit to target the brainwave receptor above his throne. In both films the villain's malfunctioning creation directly interfaces with them in such a way that corrupts their physical form.

Both heroes emerge with a more cohesive sense of their own identity, having conquered the inner demons which had previously fragmented their psyche. And both films end with a triumphant image of the hero in action.

While the hero may be upstaged by the villains in both of these films, the lead character nevertheless gets a decent storyline of his own. Superman's arc is not as strong as it was in the previous two films, but I still find it interesting. I like the narrative about him returning to Smallville, reconnecting with his early life as a humble farm boy and rekindling his unfulfilled romance with Lana. Meanwhile Batman Forever does a better job of balancing the Batman and Bruce Wayne personas than either of Burton's films did. I'd argue it has by far the strongest character arc for Bruce of any entry in the Burton/Schumacher series and is the only live action Batman film of the nineties that really tried to look inside the lead character's head and see what makes him tick. It also has a strong character arc for Dick Grayson and does a decent job of highlighting the parallels between Robin's origin story and Batman's.

But what does everyone else think? Are there genuine similarities between these two films, or am I seeing parallels where none exist? Are there other parallels I've not spotted here? Did these films really establish the formula for the superhero threequel, and if so are there any other aspects to that formula you can identify in these two movies?

[thecolorsblend]

Content-wise, I think you covered all or most of the stuff that I would've brought up.

Frankly, I seriously enjoy Superman III. I think it gets an undeserved bad rap from fans who ought to know better. Superman III could just as easily have been published in any Superman comic book published in the early to mid 80's as made into a feature film. People tend to forget that for as big and mythic as Donner wanted STM and S2 to be, that's not the only way to skin the cat. Tons of Bronze Age Superman comics feature stories where a one-off guest star takes center stage, drives the story and propels all or most of the conflicts.

But circling back to the content though, I do see some overlap in the romantic arcs of each film.

I don't see these movies as existing in vacuums. They take place after the two respective previous entries in each series. And in the second film of both series, the hero seriously got his heart broken. While that issue isn't explicitly part of either S3 or BF, I maintain that those romantic arcs make virtually no sense without Lois Lane and Selina Kyle in the background.

In Superman's case, he had no choice but to let go of the woman he loved. He knew it was the right thing but that didn't make the doing of it any easier... as is made more obvious by the resentment he expressed toward his role as a rescuer and hero after being exposed to the pseudo-Kryptonite. In my view, Superman wasn't turned bad by the faux-Kryptonite. Rather, the substance brought his pain and damage to the surface. Left to his own devices, he might've been able to keep it submerged forever.

But he wasn't left to his own devices.

I maintain that things might've been even worse after Superman turned to the Dim And Very Poorly Lit Side if he hadn't met Lana. Lana obviously has a lot of affection for Clark. Not Superman, the superhero or the celebrity or the powers or the cape or anything. Yeah, she admires Superman in just about the same way she admired whoever the President of the United States might be at any given moment. But she didn't have any real romantic affection for Superman.

Rather, her focus was on Clark. She cared about him in no small part because he was a kind, gentle man. Lana had Brad around if she wanted to be submerged in macho stuff and testosterone. But Clark was her childhood friend and also was someone she could believably give her heart to.

And I think that knocked Superman for a loop. He had engineered his Clark disguise not to be repulsive but also not really to be attractive either. Superman wanted Clark to blend in and be forgettable to most people. But what Lana saw was honesty, compassion and kindness. Clark stood up for Ricky when Brad tried embarrassing him at the bowling alley. Clark helped Lana clean up after the big reunion. Clark was happy to go on a picnic with her and her son. He never saw Ricky as a burden or a nuisance.

And I think those things meant EVERYTHING to Lana. And Lana's affection for Clark probably did a lot to soothe Superman's heart break after losing Lois.

On Batman's side, he'd met his virtual soulmate in Selina Kyle. And then she rejected him. When we pick the story up in Batman Forever, I think Bruce is a guy who has seriously lost the plot somewhere. He doesn't understand why he's been stuck in such a rut. And it's not just a romantic thing either. He doesn't want to keep killing but he can't see ever being something else. Vengeance has consumed him and he can't move forward but neither can he move backward. The conflict, this spinning of his wheels, is gradually poisoning his soul.

The arc for Superman in Superman III is that he has to confront his problems. The arc for Bruce in BF is that he must understand that he needs other people.

What Bruce comes to learn is that Bruce, himself, may or may not ever want to settle down and get married. That's up for grabs. But he needs human relationships of some kind in order to keep his perspective. It's not about Dick Grayson or Chase Meridian, specifically. It's about constructing normal, human relationships rather than intentionally cutting them off.

Cutting them off might have been a tempting idea after Selina abandoned him. But he saw how vengeance consumed her without someone to keep her grounded. He knows what the end of his road ultimately will be if something doesn't change PDQ. And when the chips are down in BF, he realizes that it isn't and can't possibly be an either/or proposition between saving Robin and saving Chase. The only way he can keep his grip on reality is by saving both.

What Chase and Lana both do is show the lead characters that they have to move on. In Superman's case, it's dealing with his anger rather than bottling it up. In Bruce's case, it's learning how to love (in general sense) again.

The women serve different functions in each story and the men reach different epiphanies but it's hard at least for me to deny how much they both ultimately helped each hero be his best self.

[Silver Nemesis]

That's an excellent analysis, colors. I've always viewed Brad as being simply a comedic foil for Clark, but you make a good point about Lana's disinterest in him as a romantic partner foreshadowing her disinterest in Superman. When Superman turns bad in the second half of the movie, he effectively turns into a reflection of Brad's negative characteristics: a spurned alpha male, drinking heavily, overly amorous, allowing bad things to happen on his watch. That version of Superman is as unworthy of Lana as Brad. And Brad's line about nice guys finishing last is ultimately disproved when the nicest guy of all, Clark, ends up winning the girl. I think they were going for something similar in Batman Forever when Chase relinquishes her pursuit of the unobtainable fantasy Batman represents in favour of the ordinary man that is Bruce. Though it doesn't work quite as well there, since the 'ordinary man' in question happens to be a billionaire playboy. Chase is basically swapping one fantasy scenario for another, whereas Lana – a woman who's spent her whole life courting alpha males – finally chooses the humble and honest working man that is Clark over the godlike fantasy that is Superman.

O'Toole's Lana is one of my favourite things about Superman III. She's a more likeable character than Lois, and her appreciation for the otherwise underappreciated Clark is surprisingly touching. Even Clark seems taken aback by her affection. He comes across as more comfortable being Clark in Superman III and IV than he was in the first two films, and I wonder if an in-universe explanation for that has something to do with Lana and Lacy. Their attitude towards Kent legitimises his existence, allowing him to evolve from a simple diversionary tactic to a fully rounded person in his own right. Lois never empowered Clark in that way, but Lana and Lacy did.

The scenario of the hero being torn between two potential love interests is definitely another aspect of the CMB threequel formula. In Superman III Clark has Lana and Lois (and Lorelei). Yes, Lois is only interested in him after she finds out he's Superman, but she nevertheless betrays a hint of jealousy when Lana reveals the diamond ring Clark gave her. In Spider-Man 3 Peter has both Mary Jane and Gwen Stacy vying for his attention. And In The Dark Knight Rises Bruce has Talia and Selina. Batman Forever doesn't quite conform to this pattern, since there's only the one love interest. But as you point out, the spectre of Selina haunts Bruce throughout the movie. She's the one aspect of the Burton films to be directly referenced in the dialogue: "You like strong women. I've done my homework. Or do I need skin-tight vinyl and a whip?" And I like to think Bruce's speech to Dick about the futility of revenge was informed by the tragedy of Selina's story as much as his own.

[The Laughing Fish]

On Batman's side, he'd met his virtual soulmate in Selina Kyle. And then she rejected him. When we pick the story up in Batman Forever, I think Bruce is a guy who has seriously lost the plot somewhere. He doesn't understand why he's been stuck in such a rut. And it's not just a romantic thing either. He doesn't want to keep killing but he can't see ever being something else. Vengeance has consumed him and he can't move forward but neither can he move backward. The conflict, this spinning of his wheels, is gradually poisoning his soul.

The arc for Superman in Superman III is that he has to confront his problems. The arc for Bruce in BF is that he must understand that he needs other people.

What Bruce comes to learn is that Bruce, himself, may or may not ever want to settle down and get married. That's up for grabs. But he needs human relationships of some kind in order to keep his perspective. It's not about Dick Grayson or Chase Meridian, specifically. It's about constructing normal, human relationships rather than intentionally cutting them off.

Cutting them off might have been a tempting idea after Selina abandoned him. But he saw how vengeance consumed her without someone to keep her grounded. He knows what the end of his road ultimately will be if something doesn't change PDQ. And when the chips are down in BF, he realizes that it isn't and can't possibly be an either/or proposition between saving Robin and saving Chase. The only way he can keep his grip on reality is by saving both.

What Chase and Lana both do is show the lead characters that they have to move on. In Superman's case, it's dealing with his anger rather than bottling it up. In Bruce's case, it's learning how to love (in general sense) again.

The women serve different functions in each story and the men reach different epiphanies but it's hard at least for me to deny how much they both ultimately helped each hero be his best self.

My opinion of Val Kilmer's acting as Batman has been on and off. I remember liking him as a child and thought he was a good replacement for Keaton, but then I thought he was stiff and awkward when I watched him as a teenager. And then I came around to appreciating him again, partly because I watched the fan cut of BF from this forum and realised Kilmer had even more range that wasn't shown in the theatrical cut.

I won't lie though, I think Batman's arc in Forever would've been richer if Keaton agreed to return. Canonically, it is meant to be the same man from the Burton films. But because of the recasting with Kilmer, it just doesn't feel like it is. I know he'd never return without Burton and didn't rate the overall direction by Schumacher, but a part of me does believe Keaton's legacy on the character would've been even greater if he had reprised the role in that movie. So yes, a part of me does feel this was a missed opportunity.

One might dismiss this and say Forever would've been detrimental for Keaton's image, but I don't quite buy it. As a matter of fact, given how we saw him go through all these experiences he talks to Dick Grayson about on the subject of revenge, it would've been more resonating if we heard it coming from Keaton's Bruce. It also would've further consolidated his pleas to Catwoman at the end of BR, as it might've started a moral wake-up call. It might not have been what Burton nor Keaton would've envisioned for Batman, and that's fine. I just think this particular chapter would've been worthy for Keaton's portrayal to continue had he agreed to do so, regardless if the tone of the movie wasn't what he wanted.

But putting aside the character stuff for the moment, another reason why I don't think Keaton starring in BF would've been bad for him or his character is because, for better or worse, Christopher Reeve's performance and reputation as the Man of Steel remained strong as ever, despite starring in the third and fourth movies.

Speaking of Superman III, I don't remember ever taking a huge disliking over it. At the very worst, I may have been indifferent towards it. But I'll tell you what, that junkyard scene between Clark Kent and Evil Superman - both as an action scene and story - remains one of the most intense moments in Superman film history. I'll take that scene over anything in Superman II any day. And Reeve's acting in both roles during that scene was brilliant. Manic on one hand, and scared on the other. Contrary to what people say, Reeve's Superman wasn't always smiling. As a matter of fact, all the Reeve films have their moments of darkness, if you actually pay attention.