Superman-III & IV

[thecolorsblend]

It goes without saying that some bat fans are attached to a director; nolanites, non-nolanites, or burtonites. The superman films aren't quite to this extent but there's plenty which are Donnerites if you will; only accept his version.

You're actually a lot closer to the mark than you may think. The Reeve movies are great... but the dark side is that they have been exercising a very disproportionate influence over the character. They've come to define the character and The Myth more than they should. The result is that you get asswipe posts like "this is the ONLY Superman I will accept!" I think the writer means well but, as they say in Star Wars, his thoughts betray him. I don't need some jerk who's seen STM umpteen billion times and read two or three trade paperbacks claiming to be a highly knowledgeable fan of the character. You just wouldn't believe how Singerman divided the fanbase back in 2006. Those rifts have yet to heal. Some people won't accept the reboot because it's not continuing the Donnerverse.

I think superman 3 is one of those films which may have picked up over time. A lot of film franchises go south by the 3rd or 4th installment essentially spoofing themselves with poor attempt at comedy. The difference is instead of this film taking itself seriously and attempting to simutaneously be funny, it actually sets out to be comedic and doesn't hide it bringing in Richard Pryor. And unlike the ultra dark bruce wayne, Clark Kent does set out to be bumbling and nerdy so the comedy kind of works as it is natural with the character and thus not forced. Also like you said it doesn't make fun of supes himself.

I'd say it sets out to be more lighthearted than what came before. I don't think of it as comedic in general.

It should also be noted that this film did not flop as some indicated. It did decently at the box office considering it went up against Return of the jedi.

That's one of those misconceptions that rarely ever gets challenged. I think it's because fans had only heard Richard Donner's dumbass side of the story for years and years while the Salkind camp mostly stayed out of the fray. But I've heard him say in various interviews that S3 tanked at the box office and some people just blindly accepted it. Ilya finally started doing some damage control on it and I'd like to think the record will become more balanced in the years to come.

[The Dark Knight]

People cling onto the Reeve movies, I get that. But what I don't get is how they are held up as some high standard of quality. Just like the Robocop franchise. The first instalments of their respective franchises are the best things ever were, but after that? Things dropped off. A lot. People can watch those films, but in terms of the future, they need to be forgotten. New ground needs to be made. If the Donnerverse is the cinematic height, the best Superman can possibly be, well then I can't say I'm interested. There always has to be hope for the future, that things can be done better. I remember seeing Superman 3 and being gobsmacked at how pitiful it was. So low grade, like, why did they even bother. How did they ever think it was up to standard to release?

[thecolorsblend]

People cling onto the Reeve movies, I get that. But what I don't get is how they are held up as some high standard of quality. Just like the Robocop franchise. The first instalments of their respective franchises are the best things ever were, but after that? Things dropped off. A lot.

I would say that's subjective. The tone changed and moved away from what people have come to love about STM but I see value in all the Reeve films.

People can watch those films, but in terms of the future, they need to be forgotten. New ground needs to be made. If the Donnerverse is the cinematic height, the best Superman can possibly be, well then I can't say I'm interested.

Yup. The people who think the Donnerverse is all Superman can or should be are ignorant and shortsighted. There's no nice way to say it so I won't try.

There always has to be hope for the future, that things can be done better. I remember seeing Superman 3 and being gobsmacked at how pitiful it was. So low grade, like, why did they even bother. How did they ever think it was up to standard to release?

Several reasons. The franchise as a whole had been successful, the movie tested well with audiences, Richard Pryor was a big star at the time and, when all's said and done, S3 turned a considerable profit. The production values the movie used hold up pretty well even today and were top of the line at the time. The conflicts it puts Superman through are legitimate, particularly given the events of STM and S2. The villains are well-cast and well-portrayed, their scheme and methods are timely and nothing they do is any more out of bounds than what had been done before by Lex, Otis and Ms. Tessmacher in previous entries. Reeve's Superman was just about as stoic as ever (when not corrupted by faux Kryptonite) while his Clark moved away from the Inspector Clouseau knockoff Donner foisted on us and into more what he had long been in the comics, namely an average, mild-mannered nice guy. Speaking of which, and I don't care what some snooty wannabe fan says to the contrary, the tone of the movie isn't at all out of line with the comics of the time. The movie is a different animal from STM but, in my opinion, in no way an inferior one.

[riddler]

I think of Prior's casting in 1983 similar to Jim Carrey as the riddler 12 years later; Both were deemed 2 of the funniest people on the planet in their times. Now one difference is Carrey was cast as a prominent villain whereas Prior wasn't overly good or bad, his character to Robert Vaughn was basically the equivalent of Otis to Lex Luthor. Though the dynamics of humour is different; Superman is slightly funny as it is, especially Clark Kent. Bruce wayne and batman are not hence why his villains work with more humour than Bizzaro/Zod/Luthor/Braniac etc.


I think the original superman movies are those movies which were good in their day but did not stand the test of time. Maybe to an extent like the adam west batman; you can't fault the film makers for them not standing up but most of the current value is based on nostalgia. I'm not blaming Donner, the one and only superhero film in existance at the time was 13 years earlier. But it's foolish to think 35 years later we can't do better. That doesn't automatically mean they will though, the Batman film made in 2012 wasn't as good as the one which came 23 years prior 

[The Dark Knight]

I honestly don't know if the old Superman movies even stood up 'back in the day'- mainly S3 and S4. I think 60s Batman stands up remarkably well.

It's one thing to have good concepts that have value, but it's another thing to execute those concepts well, and in an entertaining manner. Something you actually want to watch. If there's 10 per cent value and 90 per cent rot, the 10 per cent doesn't win out in my book.

[Azrael]

http://cinematicmethod.com/superman1978-vs-batman1989/

[Bobthegoon89]

Any film with Chris Reeve in the role HAS to be at least tolerated. If you prefer your Dean Cain's or your Tom Welling's instead than you are a strange Superman fan. Even though the films are weaker he's reason enough to count them.

Even though I do now enjoy the Cain series (despite hating it as a kid) I think the campy humour in those episodes and the often cartoonish villains and plots are more of a blasphemy than anything done in Superman III.

I wish Richard Pryor had gone for a more serious tone because he can do that thing well ala his roles in thing like Silver Streak with Gene Wilder, where he can clearly do laughs and be serious when required.

I also think the Superman films HAVE stood the test of time. At least the first 2 anyway. Their still remembered and enjoyed with multiple television showings. That's more than can be said for Marvel's Daredevil and Punisher type movies guys. Let's not overlook or forget the achievement they made in place of more recent tripe from both comic companies movie output. Let the real classics shine!