World SUPERMAN IV wasn't that bad.

elvislennon2005 said:
Yep, that is right. That shot wasn't supposed to be set in space. That was one of the many flaws because lack of a big budget.

Here is one that is easy to tell what is going on. When Superman and Nuclear Man are in space. Nuclear Man makes his nails longer. Well, Superman grabs the arms and when you see a view of both of them that is above them. Pause it and notice their feet. They are flat as if they were fight standing on a floor. Shouldn't their feet be pointed downwards since they are in space and since they are flying.:huh: :woot:
For a complete list of flaws like this one go to http://Supermancinema.co.uk and under the Superman IV section there is a bloopers page that show all of the mistakes in the film. I actually constructed an outline for a special edition that fixes just about all of the problems with this...as well as which horrible FX shots to replace. With today's technology, I'm still convinced a cut of this movie could be produced that would own.
 
I was wondering about the doorbell. The one I name I knew for about 8 years now. I pick it when it was shown on TBS about that time. As for the others, it is something that they found all of that in that film. Only if you watch it real closely that you will notice them. Some you will pick right off like Lacy in Space, Superman and Nuclear Man standing in space, and maybe a few others but the rest. They must of watch it in slow motion to see all of that.:woot: :wow:
 
Morgoth said:
Everyone talks about 1 and 2 being the good Super movies, but I rented 4 yesterday, I haven't seen it since I was about 12, and it really wasn't bad at all.

It had a different director which helped, Chris co-wrote it, and it felt more like the comics than 2 and 3 did.

2 sucked with all that campy cheese crap, I can't wait to see the Donner cut, and 3 is all garbage.

But 4 really wasn't campy at all, sure it had 80's special effects but it really was not bad at all.

[Braniac]Why must humans persist in self-deception? Kal-el, I shall never comprehend your insignificant emotion of love for people. Minor miscalulations are irrelevant and are attributed to your naive intellect. *\Commencing with reparations/*[/Brainiac]

SUPERMAN IV wasn't that bad. . .

IN COMPARISON TO BATMAN AND ROBIN, CINO, AND NICK FURY: AGENT OF SHIELD.

*\Reparations complete/*
 
Morgoth said:
Everyone talks about 1 and 2 being the good Super movies, but I rented 4 yesterday, I haven't seen it since I was about 12, and it really wasn't bad at all.

It had a different director which helped, Chris co-wrote it, and it felt more like the comics than 2 and 3 did.

2 sucked with all that campy cheese crap, I can't wait to see the Donner cut, and 3 is all garbage.

But 4 really wasn't campy at all, sure it had 80's special effects but it really was not bad at all.
You're allowed to your opinion of course... But I think in most people's mind, Superman 4 DEFINITLY SUCKED!!! I also agree, after watching superman 2 yesterday, that that one also has a fair amount of camp in it... The ironic thing about all this, is the fact that the story/idea behind superman 4 was propobly the BEST out of the 4 movie's. But it was executed with poor effects (VERY POOR!). also a very very very poor production! Even Nuclear Man is a pretty cool idea when you think about him.. I even like the way they made him (well parts of it)... But he was presented with so much camp and an even campier costume!!! I think that Superman 4 is definitly the weakest of the 4 films.

PS: Superman 3 actually had a bigger production then superman 1, did you guys know that.. There's lots of bull**** in superman 3, but there's definitly also many good things! I love the fact that he returns to SmallVille! I LOVE that Lana comes in instead of Kidder! I love the whole superman-going-bad thing, and how he battles him self at that junk yard, that's cool! I love the flying in the film. I love the small things like Clark blowing that bowling ball so fast that it makes the pins explode! So cool...
Unfortenitly it has more bad things. I think that Gus Gorman is a mistake, it's more like it's his movie. I hate the computer thing and the robot it creates! I hate Ricky, cause child actors in these situations always suck!
 
!!!!! Superman III had several redeeming aspects while IV had NONE. Watching Superman IV was like watching a basket of kittens getting murdered (bad).
 
I have to agree. AAfter watching other super hero movies in recent years and then going back to watch 4--it was much better than I remembered. Some bad effects but also some good ones. Like those I posted in the Chris reeve photo post.

EL
 
SolidSnakeMGS said:
!!!!! Superman III had several redeeming aspects while IV had NONE. Watching Superman IV was like watching a basket of kittens getting murdered (bad).
And that's putting it mildly;):up:
 
I 100% agree that Superman IV wasn't bad. People just don't realize that what we got wasn't ment to be. I feel that if Superman IV was left the way it originally was supposed to be. It would have been one of the best. People would be saying, "My favorite Superman films were Superman I, II and IV. I have always liked Superman IV, still do.
 
Well you have to take this into consideration...even if the 134 min version was released...it wouldn't have changed the fact that the budget was Super-Low! so all the revealing mistakes would still be there, maybe even tenfold
 
Be warned kryptonitedog, I do bannings and that goes to anyone else who decides to bash and resort to name calling and such. If you can't debate nicely then stay out.
 
For those who do not know... here is a little history on the Superman IV production.

The Salkinds after the disastrous Supergirl movie and the not-so-bad Superboy series, sold all their rights to Superman – they could not get another film into production none of the original cast wanted any part of it or the Salkinds. They sold all the film right s to the Golem-Globus group & Cannon films best known in those days for doing the Rambo flicks.

From the get-go there was NO money, they had none of the original cast and were looking to re-cast and start over. Reeve had no interest in returning feeling he would forever be typecast, Golem-Globus were able to lure Reeve back into the cape & tights with a story of his creation, the nuclear arms race. Reeve was instrumental in getting the rest of the original cast to return.

The effects: With an already very tight budget and the producers not being able to use the original Zoptic FX process from the previous three films, Golem-Globus were forced to use low-end blue screen, which caused many problems with the blue super-suit, they also used stock flying footage & flying out-takes from the previous films. Also after production was underway Cannon cut the budget in half thus causing an already tight & troubled production even more damage!

The original Sidney J. Fury cut of the film was 2hours & 14mins… the final release cut had 45mins removed to speed up the film and cut down on the amount of FX shots, resulting in a run time of 1hour 29mins and also creating many many plot holes.

Many of the scenes that were cut explained much of the action and character backgrounds. The whole Nuclear Man #1 sequence was completely removed, a cool knock down drag out fight between Supes & NM1 was lost. The Nuclear Man we see in the film is the second attempt by Luthor to create a threat for Superman.

In the end the film simply suffers from NO money and a studio who did not believe enough in the project to treat it with any respect.

It is not a bad film, it is certainly not a great film. Knowing what was removed, could it have made it a much better film? Possibly. In fact Golem-Globus after SIV was finished they had so much footage left over that they were considering doing a 5th film using all un-used footage… they quickly came to their senses and shelved that idea.

I doubt we will ever get to see the Sidney J. Fury Director’s cut of Superman IV: The Quest For Peace, there doesn’t seem to be any of that footage still around and they never shot enough to fill in the holes they were making during production what with large chunks of the film being cut during filming!

Personally, I would watch Supes IV any day over Superman III.

Check out this cool rare behind-the-scenes feature posted at CapedWonder.com by my pal Jim Bowers with Nuclear Man I vs. Superman.
Note that Reeve is very enthusiastic about Superman IV and is open the the idea of doing more films (if they can come up with a great idea) - it's a long load so be patient it's worth it!
 
that's just fine with me... honestly, I'm looking forward to the original anding that they had for the movie. After reading the Comic book version, I feel it was the best ending of all the Superman movies.
 
Superman IV was the best plans of all the movies to tell the truth. But with a low budget it be came a bad movie. Well, I mean it was good but not the best either. If they would of had a bigger budget it would of been a great movie. It had the great plans but it back fire. But I still like it better than Superman III.
 
I think tha SUperman IV had some really great parts and some really bad parts.

Jon Cryer- bad
Nuclear Man- the worst part of the film

Superman taking on world peace- Awesome. That is the kind of threat that in the real world Superman would probably try and take on. The performances are good and their is definite chemistry with the actors.

Really not bad overall, just some of the parts. Much bette than III, though I wouldn't mind seeing the Lana bits from that movie again.
 
kakarot069 said:
that's just fine with me... honestly, I'm looking forward to the original anding that they had for the movie. After reading the Comic book version, I feel it was the best ending of all the Superman movies.
Definitely. The comic book and the shooting script are the big clinchers for me as to how much potential I see in the film. It would need a massive FX-overhaul, but the movie has the nuts and bolts to be great. Reeve and Jon Cryer once remarked around the release of the film that it's unfinished and I tend to agree with them. Reeve's ideas and the original scope and scale of the film were set to bring Superman back to the top of his game and lift the franchise out of the Superman III-induced slump.
 
I always felt if Superman IV was re-cut and cleaned up using digital technology and today's special effects, and silly parts, like Lacy surviving in space were removed, it could be terrific!

...It's certainly not as bad as Superman III. :super:
 
I just watched for the first time in a long time and it wasn't as bad as I was expecting. I watched Superman III for the first time in a while over the summer, but with the exception of some decent material, that experience was dreadful.

Anyway, I seem to remember some moments that weren't in the version I saw earlier. One of them, I believe, features Nuclear Man throwing a civilian in space and Superman saving him/her. Another involves Clark during his sick time. He realizes he's better and secretly bends the metal rod on one of those IV stands in a hospital. Maybe I'm remembering wrong though. Hell, maybe this was another movie altogether. Sound familiar, anyone?
 
lets see superman 4 sucked alright, superman 3 was also not good. a nuclear man, who only works when hes exposed to sunlight? the worst special effects for a superman movie, a dreadful plot, which seemingly had no real direction. Lex Luthor suddenly has a nephew? humans can now breathe in space, well according to superman 4 anyway. The scene with superman moving the moon was worse then him reversing time. Margot kidder looked like she was drugged up most of the time. 4 superman movies, and the main characters are still exactly where they were in superman 1. Superman 4 is alittle worse then superman 3. Im glad they wiped this movie from existence.
 
Superman IV is clearly worse than Superman III, for atleast two reasons; Special effects and Supes vs Clark fight scene.
 
I don't really think about special effects the way I used to anymore. As long as it's able to convey what's supposed to happen, I try to let it slide.

Superman IV seemed more like a consistent movie. Is it good? Eh. Are there plot holes? Hell, yes. The best part of the movie is the nuclear disarmament story, which I think is rather inspirational. Everything else feels generic and by-the-numbers. We get Lex back. Hackman phones in a performance. The villain? He didn't work all too well, but it was interesting seeing another superpowered foe. All that stuff about breathing in space, etc. Doesn't make sense, but for the suspension of disbelief, I'm willing to let it slide.

Superman III failed to balance a terrible Richard Pryor slapstick movie with a barely decent Superman story. Superman's dark side may have been interesting, but it was played all too broadly. Personally, I felt the Superman vs. Clark scene in Superman III was badly done. It just failed to excite. It was just two guys pushing one another around in a junk yard. The villains? Pretty lame. I pretty much regard any scene with Pryor as pretty bad.
 
I wish they would gather all footage from part 3 and 4 and edit together 1 movie. Digitally replace all Nuclear Man scenes with Bizarro and there could be a good movie in there.
 
captain_jimbo said:
In fact, I'm gonna go see it now! :super: *runs to get tape*

Well after seeing it the other day, it's actually worse than I remember, and not just special effects wise. It was actually quite shocking in parts.

Thank God for Superman: The Movie and Superman II.

...And now Richard Donner's Superman II.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"