Superman IV: Release the Furie Cut?

[Silver Nemesis]

I remember years ago seeing a thread on the IMDb where someone asked who was a better director: Richard Donner or Sidney J. Furie? The immediate responses were ones of outrage that anyone would have the audacity to compare a genius like Donner to a hack like Furie. The OP then answered these attacks by challenging the other people in the thread to look beyond their Superman films and compare their other work. Yes, we all know Superman: The Movie is a better film than Superman IV. I can't imagine anyone would disagree with that. But the OP in that IMDb thread was asking a different question: Superman movies aside, who was the better filmmaker out of Donner and Furie? Personally, I consider them to be roughly on the same level. I wouldn't call either of them an auteur, but they're both talented yet inconsistent directors whose bodies of work comprise a mixture of good and bad films, and whose best efforts have stood the test of time to become classics.

Back when he made Superman, Donner had an impressive list of TV credits directing episodes of Wanted: Dead or Alive, Route 66, Wagon Train, The Twilight Zone, The Man from U.N.C.L.E., The Fugitive, The Wild Wild West, Kojak and many more. But his only really notable theatrical credit at that point was The Omen (1976). By contrast, Furie already had an extensive and diverse cinematic filmography when he made Superman IV. Sadly The Quest for Peace marked the beginning of a decline in his career, and pretty much everything he's done since has been poor, while Superman: The Movie marked an upward turn in Donner's career that led to pictures like The Goonies (1985) and Lethal Weapon (1987). Nowadays most people don't look beyond Superman IV to see the rest of Furie's work, similar to how they ignore Joel Schumacher's accomplishments because of Batman & Robin. But in his prime, Furie was a good director.

The Ipcress File (1965) is one of the greatest spy thrillers ever made. It launched Michael Cain's Harry Palmer film series and deservedly holds a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It's a classic.

Lady Sings the Blues (1972) is a musical biopic of singer Billie Holiday which earned nominations for 5 Academy Awards, 3 Golden Globes and a BAFTA. The excellent performances from Diana Ross, Billy Dee Williams and Richard Pryor make it a drama worth watching, even if you're not particularly interested in the subject matter.

The Boys in Company C (1978) introduced audiences to the incomparable R. Lee Ermey and is thought to have been an influence on Stanley Kubrick when he directed Full Metal Jacket (1987). I don't know why it's so forgotten these days.

The Entity (1982) is often overshadowed by The Shining (1980) and Poltergeist (1982) when discussions of early eighties ghost movies arise, but it's still one of the best horror films of that era. Martin Scorsese ranked it among the 11 scariest films he'd ever seen, and I think it still packs a punch today.

I don't particularly want to turn this into a Donner vs. Furie thread (though feel free to comment on that if you like). I just wanted to say a word in Furie's defence. He was a talented director who made some very good films, and Superman IV is not representative of his best work. With that in mind, and considering Furie himself has expressed frustration with the theatrical cut of The Quest for Peace, would it be worth revisiting Superman IV and trying to fix what went wrong in 1987? Could the film be improved, and if so would it be worth the effort to do so? Here's a fan trailer that shows a different perspective on the movie.

Perhaps the film itself could be re-cut to match this tone. I don't think Superman IV could ever be a really good film, no matter how much tinkering you did. But maybe it could be improved slightly. How? Well here are a few ideas.

It's no secret that the budget ran out midway through production, and this is reflected in the inconsistent quality of the 'finished' special effects work. Some of the model shots are just as good as those of any big budget movie from that era, but most of the chromo key work is dire. The backgrounds during the aerial scenes are precisely the kind of thing that could be fixed using modern digital effects. For example, the scene where Lacy is dangling over the Earth as Nuclear Man carries her through space. Those changes alone would make a big difference.

I like how they colour corrected Superman's suit and digitally removed some of the visible wires for the Blu-ray release, but there's a lot more that could be done. For one thing, they could fix Superman's cape so that it doesn't flutter when he's in the vacuum of space. They should also replace that one shot of Superman flying towards the camera that's reused throughout the movie. For the Great Wall of China scene...

...you could keep the footage of the wall being rebuilt but add a digital blur to represent Superman moving at super speed as he's reconstructing it (which was the original plan before the budget ran out). Obviously you'd also have to remove the shots of him using his telekinetic vision (which were clumsily mirror flipped anyway - note how his spit curl moves from one side of his brow to the other). But this could quite easily be fixed.

The Fortress of Solitude set in Superman IV was tiny compared to the earlier films.

This is another thing that could probably be fixed with some basic digital tinkering. Even if the effects were only Smallville quality, that would still be a massive improvement.

Nuclear Man himself could also be enhanced with digital effects. The filmmakers originally intended for him to be a darker, scarier character than what we got in the finished film. I've always thought he looked quite menacing when he first emerges from the sun. He's glowing gold in that scene, his eyes are red and he's covered in crackling flames and electricity. You could make it so that he looks like this throughout the entire film, thereby concealing the awkwardness of his costume while still capitalising on Mark Pillow's imposing height and physique. This would almost certainly make him appear more intimidating.

I also wouldn't mind seeing some digital alterations to improve the cinematography.

In terms of deleted scenes, most of them weren't very good to begin with and are better off being left on the cutting room floor. There are exceptions though, and it might be worth restoring some of the material that was featured in the original 134 minute version. My old VHS copy includes the Kansas tornado sequence, complete with finished special effects. It wasn't until I saw the DVD that I realised this scene wasn't in every version of the film. If they could digitally smooth out some of the rougher effects, then they may as well restore this sequence.

The scene of Superman saving the Russian generals from the missile was also in my VHS copy, but not in the DVD version. It's not a bad scene, so I'd restore that one too.

The scene of Clark visiting his parents' graves wouldn't go amiss. It was included in the comic book adaptation, so why not in the film?

I'd also restore the 'Red Alert' scene from the end of the movie, where Nuclear Man almost triggers a war between the US and USSR. That scene gets to the heart of the Cold War anxiety that fuelled the film's central premise, and its restoration would help up the stakes during the final act.

Needless to say the opening title sequence should also be redone in the style of the first movie. Something like this:

So what does everyone think? It's no secret that Hollywood studios are currently looking for old movies to re-cut in the absence of the new projects they've been unable to film in 2020. Would it be worth revisiting Superman IV in this way? Does Sidney J. Furie deserve the chance to go back and finish his film properly, without the crippling budget restraints he had to work with in 1987? Would you buy the 'Furie Cut' if it was released on Blu-ray, and what changes would you like to see made to the theatrical version?

Returning to the Donner vs. Furie issue I began this post with – for me, Donner wins. That's mainly due to his Superman and Lethal Weapon movies, as well as the fact he produced The Lost Boys and has a better overall batting average. Furie has directed almost twice as many feature films as Donner, and consequently he's had far more failures. But comparing their best directorial work objectively, I think they're pretty even.

[thecolorsblend]

For me, it comes down to consistency. At their respective peaks, I might actually say that Furie and Donner are pretty evenly matched.

But there's really no equivalent to Superman IV on Donner's resumé. You're hard-pressed to find a truly awful Donner film. He may not have a perfect batting average but he is (was?) more consistent. Whereas Furie hit the wall going about 200mph and the rest is history. I don't hang Superman IV's many problems on Furie. As you say, the in-camera stuff actually looks on a par with anything in previous Superman films. What cripples the movie is post-production.

Even so, the movie is still a stinker. Furie apparently had final cut and we can see how that turned out. Vanishing subplots, plotholes, etc. Even the comic adaptation suffers from multiple artists working on the thing. It corrects a lot of the story problems but other problems exist in the comic.

To knock on Donner tho, I do wonder what a more visionary filmmaker could do with Timeline since there's so much dramatic potential going on with that concept. Maybe someday we'll find out. Remaking Jurassic Park would be sacrilege but remaking Timeline might be just what the doctor ordered.

[Silver Nemesis]

For me, it comes down to consistency. At their respective peaks, I might actually say that Furie and Donner are pretty evenly matched.

But there's really no equivalent to Superman IV on Donner's resumé. You're hard-pressed to find a truly awful Donner film. He may not have a perfect batting average but he is (was?) more consistent. Whereas Furie hit the wall going about 200mph and the rest is history.

Very true. Donner made his share of mediocre films, but none that I'd say were truly worthless. Even some of his more average films like Ladyhawke (1985), Scrooged (1988) and Assassins (1995) are fun to watch. Furie's situation is perhaps comparable to someone like Sidney Lumet, whose prolific nature meant that for every classic film he made he also directed numerous weaker efforts. This ultimately prevented him from achieving the level of respect enjoyed by many of his peers, despite the fact he directed several legitimately great films (12 Angry Men, Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon, etc). Sadly for every film as good as The Ipcress File or The Entity, Furie directed five or six mediocre-to-bad movies. Even so, I stand by my earlier statement – during his peak era, Furie's best films were just as good as Donner's best movies.

Even Iron Eagle (1986) has at least one devoted fan in a certain karate instructor.

Furie apparently had final cut and we can see how that turned out.

I didn't know that. Usually directors with final cut opt for longer runtimes, but if Furie willingly shortened his film by over 40 minutes then he must have known he had a bomb on his hands. I can imagine that by time he was in the editing room he probably just wanted done with the whole debacle.

To knock on Donner tho, I do wonder what a more visionary filmmaker could do with Timeline since there's so much dramatic potential going on with that concept. Maybe someday we'll find out. Remaking Jurassic Park would be sacrilege but remaking Timeline might be just what the doctor ordered.

I saw Timeline on television many years ago, but all I can remember about it is thinking that the premise had potential but the execution was poor. I love time travel stories, so I wouldn't object to seeing a remake either. Timeline would have been a bum note for Donner to end his career on, but luckily he followed it up with 16 Blocks (2006). I've always thought that film was underrated and it makes for a much better swansong than Timeline.

Going back to the subject of deleted footage, if the 'Red Alert' sequence were to be restored then that would have to include the extra scenes relating to Lacy's kidnapping. In the theatrical cut Nuclear Man just grabs her and flies into space, but the original cut had a more interesting sequence of events where he takes her back to his hideout and explains his plan to annihilate humanity. This scene, and the 'Red Alert' sequence as a whole, would also help protract the duration of Superman's absence after he's been defeated on the moon, and that would hopefully make his return a bit more dramatic.

Lacy's goodbye scene should also be put back in the movie. It helps humanise her by showing how she's matured and become independent of her father's influence, and it gives closure to the storyline between her and Clark. In the theatrical cut she just disappears after Superman flies her back to Earth. This deleted scene offers a more satisfying exit for the character.

The scene of Clark deteriorating in his apartment after Nuclear Man gives him radiation poisoning should probably be put back in the film too. In the theatrical cut we see him speaking with Lois when he first becomes sick, then we see him using the green crystal when he's at death's door. This deleted sequence offers a bridge between those two scenes, showing how his health worsened from one state to the other.

[The Joker]

Having just watched the Extended Cut of Superman: The Movie, just last night, I say give Superman IV the same treatment, and let's see what comes out of it.

Usually directors with final cut opt for longer runtimes, but if Furie willingly shortened his film by over 40 minutes then he must have known he had a bomb on his hands. I can imagine that by time he was in the editing room he probably just wanted done with the whole debacle.

Personally, I would want to get more clarification on that. Cause it could very well be a case of Furie being 'diplomatic' in the same way David Ayer was in 2016 with Suicide Squad's theatrical cut being his "vision". Until it wasn't.

Cannon Films was a interesting company for numerous reasons, but towards the end, which was around Superman IV time, the company was in complete disarray and it's not too difficult to imagine that shenanigans was being had in the editing department just as it was on set, and with the budget.

There's a book titled, "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Companion" that details over the TCM series from the 1974 classic up to the 2003 remake. TCM Part 2, which was under Cannon, has a generous chapter going over it's entire production, and it's a doozy to say the very least. Getting more to the point, Cannon was fairly hands off with the pre-production and script development of TCM 2 until it came time for actually filming it. At that stage, Cannon wanted the film to be completed yesterday, causing the cast and crew to literally work at a frenzied pace just to get the film completed, as Cannon continued to make several threats that funds would be completely severed by a particular date, and whatever film was in the can, would be edited together. No matter what it was, that's what we're going with. Evidently, Cannon pre sold TCM2 to premiere in Japan by a certain date for a deal that would at least have them break even. So the film, in their eyes, was going to be completed one way or the other. In addition, representatives from Cannon would show up in a limo, completely unannounced, rip out pages of the script in front of the crew, and say something to the effect of, "Ok. Now you're ahead of schedule." before departing the set.

To Tobe Hooper's credit, he never once bad mouthed the guys over at Cannon in the book, and actually admits that he personally dug their old school movie mogul approach to movie making. However, he does acknowledge that even by 1986, Cannon finances was taking a hit, causing their rather obscene behavior during production of TCM2 in particular. Evidently, the film was originally intended to be even more of a satire than what we ended up with (which has also been addressed in documentaries and such), but Cannon was in charge of final editing.

And this was the guy that Cannon openly courted, and subsequently offered a generous three picture deal to.

So yeah, Furie stating this is his final cut could very well be the truth, or it could be Furie wanting to completely wipe his hands of the whole ordeal, and not be continually asked about what his "cut" would have entailed. We know there was a lot of half assery going on during the making of Superman IV. Not too difficult to imagine the same was continuing on during the editing process as well.

[thecolorsblend]

Having just watched the Extended Cut of Superman: The Movie, just last night, I say give Superman IV the same treatment, and let's see what comes out of it.

Usually directors with final cut opt for longer runtimes, but if Furie willingly shortened his film by over 40 minutes then he must have known he had a bomb on his hands. I can imagine that by time he was in the editing room he probably just wanted done with the whole debacle.

Personally, I would want to get more clarification on that. Cause it could very well be a case of Furie being 'diplomatic' in the same way David Ayer was in 2016 with Suicide Squad's theatrical cut being his "vision". Until it wasn't.

Cannon Films was a interesting company for numerous reasons, but towards the end, which was around Superman IV time, the company was in complete disarray and it's not too difficult to imagine that shenanigans was being had in the editing department just as it was on set, and with the budget.

There's a book titled, "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Companion" that details over the TCM series from the 1974 classic up to the 2003 remake. TCM Part 2, which was under Cannon, has a generous chapter going over it's entire production, and it's a doozy to say the very least. Getting more to the point, Cannon was fairly hands off with the pre-production and script development of TCM 2 until it came time for actually filming it. At that stage, Cannon wanted the film to be completed yesterday, causing the cast and crew to literally work at a frenzied pace just to get the film completed, as Cannon continued to make several threats that funds would be completely severed by a particular date, and whatever film was in the can, would be edited together. No matter what it was, that's what we're going with. Evidently, Cannon pre sold TCM2 to premiere in Japan by a certain date for a deal that would at least have them break even. So the film, in their eyes, was going to be completed one way or the other. In addition, representatives from Cannon would show up in a limo, completely unannounced, rip out pages of the script in front of the crew, and say something to the effect of, "Ok. Now you're ahead of schedule." before departing the set.

To Tobe Hooper's credit, he never once bad mouthed the guys over at Cannon in the book, and actually admits that he personally dug their old school movie mogul approach to movie making. However, he does acknowledge that even by 1986, Cannon finances was taking a hit, causing their rather obscene behavior during production of TCM2 in particular. Evidently, the film was originally intended to be even more of a satire than what we ended up with (which has also been addressed in documentaries and such), but Cannon was in charge of final editing.

And this was the guy that Cannon openly courted, and subsequently offered a generous three picture deal to.

So yeah, Furie stating this is his final cut could very well be the truth, or it could be Furie wanting to completely wipe his hands of the whole ordeal, and not be continually asked about what his "cut" would have entailed. We know there was a lot of half assery going on during the making of Superman IV. Not too difficult to imagine the same was continuing on during the editing process as well.

I reserve the right to be wrong.

But the way I heard the story, Superman IV was put through the usual run of test screenings. Test audiences panned the movie. The budget cuts just hurt the movie too much.

It was at that time that Furie removed something like a half hour from the movie. The idea was to make up any box office shortcomings with more showings per day. Obviously, that tactic was not successful but that was the plan.

It's reasonable to ask why the movie didn't have extra money spent on it to bring it more up to snuff in order to salvage something out of it. And that's the million dollar question. It might be that Cannon wanted to cut their losses rather than invest more money in something they already suspected would be a turkey.

I should add that it's quite possible that Superman IV turned a profit overall. In Hollywood, you won't get a sequel with crappy box office and amazing merch sales. But you probably won't go broke either. And Superman IV had some pretty interesting merch and tie-ins that might've put everything (barely) in the black when all was said and done. The box office run wasn't spectacular but it was far ahead of the production cost. So, strange altho it seems, Superman IV might've paid for itself.

The main things I remember from Superman IV are the novelization, the comic book adaptation, some kind of picture storybook thing (with photos of deleted scenes) and some sort of collectible cup tie-in with 7/11.



Anyway...

[The Joker]

I reserve the right to be wrong.

But the way I heard the story, Superman IV was put through the usual run of test screenings. Test audiences panned the movie. The budget cuts just hurt the movie too much.

It was at that time that Furie removed something like a half hour from the movie. The idea was to make up any box office shortcomings with more showings per day. Obviously, that tactic was not successful but that was the plan.

Cannon was funny like that. There's a highly recommended documentary about Cannon films, titled; "Electric Boogaloo: The Wild, Untold Story of Cannon Films", and it covers, in humorous detail, the ideas and sheer brazenness of Menahem Golan/Yoram Globus as movie producers/directors, and it's absolutely comical. To buying theater chains outright in order to play more Cannon films, to literally purchasing an extensive amount of billboards/posters in order to advertise their product at Cannes, to creating one sheets, and ads for movies that were not even in a pre-production phase just to, in the hope, get financers interested. ect. I think Tobe Hooper's amicable relationship with Golan/Globus had a lot to do with their style. As they approached movie making as much more like mavericks, than anything a more reserved corporate studio would. So yeah, I can definitely imagine that, in their estimation, a shorter run time would automatically equal higher profits.

It's reasonable to ask why the movie didn't have extra money spent on it to bring it more up to snuff in order to salvage something out of it. And that's the million dollar question. It might be that Cannon wanted to cut their losses rather than invest more money in something they already suspected would be a turkey.

I personally lean more towards that IF Cannon had acquired the rights to make Superman IV in, say, 1985, the budget and overall care for the film itself would have been more positive. The overall budget would have absolutely been more generous for sure. By 1987, Cannon was in dire straights. To a point where it was rather profound. Hell, one of the biggest reasons why Cannon signed Tobe Hooper to a 3 picture deal, was that "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Part 2" would finally be made under their company. But by the time that film was going into production, the budget was noticeably smaller than the budgets Hooper had with his previous Cannon efforts (Lifeforce, Invaders from Mars remake), and the filming was rather nightmarish. Due to Cannon constantly meddling.

I believe, though not absolutely certain, that with Superman IV's budget being downgraded, Cannon, who by 1986/1987 time frame was feeling extreme financial hardships, was more or less just hoping on "Masters of the Universe" to be the film to save the company. Or reasonably get them back, or close to, the black. Which made sense, as the He-Man toy line was tremendously successful for a number of years prior. Unfortunately, for both Mattel and Cannon, the He-Man toy line saw profits take a rather dramatic nose dive in 1987. Coinciding with the same very year that the movie made it's debut, and the lack of success the movie had, was only reflective of what Mattel too, was experiencing.

It should also be said that Cannon literally ran out of money during the production of "Masters of the Universe". As the director has stated that he literally had to pay, out of his own pocket, the filming for the concluding battle between Dolph Lundgren's He-Man, and Frank Langella's Skeletor. Simply because the company ran out of money. This kind of stuff really drives home the fact that as bad as things were for Cannon in 1986, they were on the brink in 1987.

One thing I can say about Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus, was that these guys loved, LOVED making movies. These guys absolutely had a passion for film making, and most certainly did not lack ambition. Unfortunately, their focus (evidently) was more on the overall advertising, process and output, and not so much the quality of the films they produced. As the majority of their library is considered schlocky. The early-mid 1980's was a time where Cannon was rather experimental and generous with their film budgets (in addition to craving legitimacy from Hollywood that they never got, to the point where they sunk large sums of money into more artsy films that flopped), but by 1986/1987, Cannon was on thin ice, and just desperately hoping to be successful with something.

[thecolorsblend]

I reserve the right to be wrong.

But the way I heard the story, Superman IV was put through the usual run of test screenings. Test audiences panned the movie. The budget cuts just hurt the movie too much.

It was at that time that Furie removed something like a half hour from the movie. The idea was to make up any box office shortcomings with more showings per day. Obviously, that tactic was not successful but that was the plan.

Cannon was funny like that. There's a highly recommended documentary about Cannon films, titled; "Electric Boogaloo: The Wild, Untold Story of Cannon Films", and it covers, in humorous detail, the ideas and sheer brazenness of Menahem Golan/Yoram Globus as movie producers/directors, and it's absolutely comical. To buying theater chains outright in order to play more Cannon films, to literally purchasing an extensive amount of billboards/posters in order to advertise their product at Cannes, to creating one sheets, and ads for movies that were not even in a pre-production phase just to, in the hope, get financers interested. ect. I think Tobe Hooper's amicable relationship with Golan/Globus had a lot to do with their style. As they approached movie making as much more like mavericks, than anything a more reserved corporate studio would. So yeah, I can definitely imagine that, in their estimation, a shorter run time would automatically equal higher profits.

It's reasonable to ask why the movie didn't have extra money spent on it to bring it more up to snuff in order to salvage something out of it. And that's the million dollar question. It might be that Cannon wanted to cut their losses rather than invest more money in something they already suspected would be a turkey.

I personally lean more towards that IF Cannon had acquired the rights to make Superman IV in, say, 1985, the budget and overall care for the film itself would have been more positive. The overall budget would have absolutely been more generous for sure. By 1987, Cannon was in dire straights. To a point where it was rather profound. Hell, one of the biggest reasons why Cannon signed Tobe Hooper to a 3 picture deal, was that "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Part 2" would finally be made under their company. But by the time that film was going into production, the budget was noticeably smaller than the budgets Hooper had with his previous Cannon efforts (Lifeforce, Invaders from Mars remake), and the filming was rather nightmarish. Due to Cannon constantly meddling.

I believe, though not absolutely certain, that with Superman IV's budget being downgraded, Cannon, who by 1986/1987 time frame was feeling extreme financial hardships, was more or less just hoping on "Masters of the Universe" to be the film to save the company. Or reasonably get them back, or close to, the black. Which made sense, as the He-Man toy line was tremendously successful for a number of years prior. Unfortunately, for both Mattel and Cannon, the He-Man toy line saw profits take a rather dramatic nose dive in 1987. Coinciding with the same very year that the movie made it's debut, and the lack of success the movie had, was only reflective of what Mattel too, was experiencing.

It should also be said that Cannon literally ran out of money during the production of "Masters of the Universe". As the director has stated that he literally had to pay, out of his own pocket, the filming for the concluding battle between Dolph Lundgren's He-Man, and Frank Langella's Skeletor. Simply because the company ran out of money. This kind of stuff really drives home the fact that as bad as things were for Cannon in 1986, they were on the brink in 1987.

One thing I can say about Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus, was that these guys loved, LOVED making movies. These guys absolutely had a passion for film making, and most certainly did not lack ambition. Unfortunately, their focus (evidently) was more on the overall advertising, process and output, and not so much the quality of the films they produced. As the majority of their library is considered schlocky. The early-mid 1980's was a time where Cannon was rather experimental and generous with their film budgets (in addition to craving legitimacy from Hollywood that they never got, to the point where they sunk large sums of money into more artsy films that flopped), but by 1986/1987, Cannon was on thin ice, and just desperately hoping to be successful with something.

See, that's always been my view of Cannon. My sense of those guys is that they were a scrappy little startup who wanted to swing their balls around a little bit in Hollywood. Unfortunately, they were producers by trade as well as by passion. There's nothing wrong with being a film producer but when you're running your own production company, you need to have your eye on more than just flashy teaser posters, advertising and all that stuff.

A bit more restraint mixed with a bit more discipline and a bit more stylistic diversity might've allowed them to meet a different fate. People can say what they want about the Salkinds but for as much as the Salkinds valued a marquee saying "starring Marlon Brando and Gene Hackman", they also knew that they had to deliver a quality product or else the whole thing was in vain.

I'll look into that Cannon documentary you mentioned.

[The Joker]

See, that's always been my view of Cannon. My sense of those guys is that they were a scrappy little startup who wanted to swing their balls around a little bit in Hollywood. Unfortunately, they were producers by trade as well as by passion. There's nothing wrong with being a film producer but when you're running your own production company, you need to have your eye on more than just flashy teaser posters, advertising and all that stuff.

A bit more restraint mixed with a bit more discipline and a bit more stylistic diversity might've allowed them to meet a different fate. People can say what they want about the Salkinds but for as much as the Salkinds valued a marquee saying "starring Marlon Brando and Gene Hackman", they also knew that they had to deliver a quality product or else the whole thing was in vain.

Yeah, Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus was a lot of things, but their excessive flamboyancy, spending, and lack of restraint was indeed major contributors to their downfall. "Oh, you won't star in our film for 3 million? How about 12?", "I don't want to be in debt for 2 million. I want to be in debt for 6 million!" Stuff like that. These guys were instrumental in creating the film industry in Israel, and bullishly wanted to replicate their success over in the states. Where the Salkinds were instrumental for the success of "Superman: The Movie" by making quality a focal point, Golan/Globus was decidedly more scattershot in their approach. In their estimation, why focus on just one project, when we can do five at the same time? Admittedly, you get the impression that Menahem Golan would have happily directed literally every movie Cannon produced if he could. That's how much these guys adored cinema. That's the kind of drive they had.

I'll look into that Cannon documentary you mentioned.

Great! Let me know what you think. 

[Silver Nemesis]

...you could keep the footage of the wall being rebuilt but add a digital blur to represent Superman moving at super speed as he's reconstructing it (which was the original plan before the budget ran out).

A talented individual has gone ahead and done this.

And here's his reimagining of the subway scene.

Even if WB doesn't release an official extended cut of the movie, we might end up with a fan-made version.

[thecolorsblend]

If this is ever going to happen (and who knows?), I'm thinking it probably needs to be soon. Not trying to be morbid or edgelordy but Furie is 88. Let's be realistic here about how much time he has left. I don't know the ethics or the legality of reworking a deceased filmmaker's work. But it's easy to imagine how that could be misunderstood.

As to the proof of concept videos, good work! And I'll bet the Great Wall repair sequence probably only took a few weeks to get knocked out. Maybe I'm wrong but it doesn't seem all that complicated. The subway sequence was obviously more labor intensive. But it still speaks to the fact that just using existing footage, you can achieve a lot.