World Why in the hell did Richard Pryor want to be in Superman???

[Super78]

We've all heard the story.

Pryor was on a late night talk show and expressed his desire to be in a Superman movie.

And of course, that's what we got -- 1983's Superman III.

I mean, Pryor was an actor who was successful as a stand up comedian and that did comedic feature films -- so why in the hell did he want to do a Superman movie????

Was he a Superman fan?? A fan of the first two flicks?? What was his motive?? Did he want this next Superman movie to be a goofball comedy???

It just boggles my mind. You don't see Will Ferral or the Wayans Bros. say they want to be in a Spider-Man movie and make it a comedy!!

Pryor was a big draw back in the early 80s, as far as a comedies go, just before Eddie Murphy took that mantle from him. That I can understand.

But why, why oh why, did he want to be in a Superman movie.

--The first big mistake the Salkinds made was to remove Donner
---The second big mistake was to include Richard Pryor in Superman III and "try to" make it funny.

 

[Billy Batson]

Richard Pryor could have work, if done correctly.
Remember the follow up films suck because of the studio cashing in on .
Pryor was a big fan, much like Jerry Seinfeld.

 

[Jochimus]

This stuff happens because the suits who run the studios hear these big box-office draws blabbing about how they'd love to be in the hot movie franchise of the day and can see double the $$$$$ dancing in their heads - it's what I call Reese's Peanut Butter Cup Syndrome: two great tastes that someone higher up seems to think should naturally taste great together.

This isn't always a bad thing, even when the result still isn't that great: before work on Episode I started Sam Jackson said how much he loved Star Wars and would love to be in the new ones, and lo and behold, we get Mace Windu...who sits through one big scene in the first movie, makes his one major impact at the end of the second one, and gets iced in his big moment in the third.

 

[Catman]

We've all heard the story.

Pryor was on a late night talk show and expressed his desire to be in a Superman movie.

And of course, that's what we got -- 1983's Superman III.

I mean, Pryor was an actor who was successful as a stand up comedian and that did comedic feature films -- so why in the hell did he want to do a Superman movie????

Was he a Superman fan?? A fan of the first two flicks?? What was his motive?? Did he want this next Superman movie to be a goofball comedy???

It just boggles my mind. You don't see Will Ferral or the Wayans Bros. say they want to be in a Spider-Man movie and make it a comedy!!

Pryor was a big draw back in the early 80s, as far as a comedies go, just before Eddie Murphy took that mantle from him. That I can understand.

But why, why oh why, did he want to be in a Superman movie.

--The first big mistake the Salkinds made was to remove Donner
---The second big mistake was to include Richard Pryor in Superman III and "try to" make it funny.

Relax, buddy! Geez! It wasn't Pryor's fault. He could have done a good job had it not been for the "brilliant" ideas of Mr. Lester and Mr. Salkind.

 

[lordofthenerds]

What really sucks about it is they had Prior replace Braniac. Now we all know that Braniac would have been a much better villain than Richard Prior.

 

[MargotFan]

It is a crying shame Donner could not have directed every Superman. There is no way he would have incorporated Richard Pryor. He messed up that movie. Well, it was lame anyway -- no Margot Kidder!!!! (FROWN) And she was dating Richard Pryor around this time.

 

[Super78]

Relax, buddy! Geez! It wasn't Pryor's fault. He could have done a good job had it not been for the "brilliant" ideas of Mr. Lester and Mr. Salkind.

I didn't say it was Pryor's fault.

He does have his moments in the film.

I'm just questioning why he so wanted to be in a Superman movie.

The Salkinds screwed the franchise by dumping Donner -- everyone knows that.

 

[Catman]

I'm just questioning why he so wanted to be in a Superman movie.

Cause he likes Superman. Is that an obvious answer? It's like asking, "why was Jim Carrey in Batman Forever?"

 

[captain_jimbo]

It is a crying shame Donner could not have directed every Superman. There is no way he would have incorporated Richard Pryor. He messed up that movie. Well, it was lame anyway -- no Margot Kidder!!!! (FROWN) And she was dating Richard Pryor around this time.

I couldn't agree with you more. I wish I could go back in time and change things so Donner wasn't fired. Or travel to a parallel Universe where Donner and Mankiewicz made all four Superman films.

 

[The Kid]

Despite pryor goofing around, Reeve makes the film watchable and so does Annete O'toole. Heck I'd never want to see the movie ever again if it was just some nobody trying to act like reeve's superman in Superman III.

 

[Super78]

Despite pryor goofing around, Reeve makes the film watchable and so does Annete O'toole. Heck I'd never want to see the movie ever again if it was just some nobody trying to act like reeve's superman in Superman III.

Agreed.

Reeve was great as always in III and Annette was the perfect Lana Lang.

 

[Superman]

$$$$$

 

[KalMart]

After just recently getting off drugs, and the loss of substantial assets from the failure and dissolution of his production company Indigo Productions with Jim Brown, Pryor needed money and avenues to get back into the showbiz limelight. Enter the Salkinds and Superman III.

 

[MST3KPIMP]

Frankly who 'would'nt" have wanted to be in a Superman movie back then? The question is how could have Pryor refused?

 

[matthooper]

Cause he likes Superman. Is that an obvious answer? It's like asking, "why was Jim Carrey in Batman Forever?"

Didn't Carrey get $10 million for the role. He might hate Batman but he wasn't going to turn down $10 million. Batman Forever was before his $20 million for The Cable Guy.

The question isn't why Pryor would want to be in it, the question should be why would the Salkinds want him.

I think they deliberately ruined Superman 3. Since they didn't do part 4, I assume their licence was running out, or they had just had enough. They had screwed over Donner and had taken criticism for making Superman 2 too corny. They decided, if we are really going to ruin a franchise let's really ruin it. They had had enough of Superman so they wanted to end it.

It's like what Bob Rafelson did with the Monkees when he made their movie "Head". He created the Monkees, he had had enough so he "killed" them with a bad movie.

 

[Yodaman]

We've all heard the story.

Pryor was on a late night talk show and expressed his desire to be in a Superman movie.

And of course, that's what we got -- 1983's Superman III.

I mean, Pryor was an actor who was successful as a stand up comedian and that did comedic feature films -- so why in the hell did he want to do a Superman movie????

Was he a Superman fan?? A fan of the first two flicks?? What was his motive?? Did he want this next Superman movie to be a goofball comedy???

It just boggles my mind. You don't see Will Ferral or the Wayans Bros. say they want to be in a Spider-Man movie and make it a comedy!!

Pryor was a big draw back in the early 80s, as far as a comedies go, just before Eddie Murphy took that mantle from him. That I can understand.

But why, why oh why, did he want to be in a Superman movie.

--The first big mistake the Salkinds made was to remove Donner
---The second big mistake was to include Richard Pryor in Superman III and "try to" make it funny.

Maybe Pryor just wanted a small cameo or something, not a co-starring role with Reeve. I bet half the people in the world would do anything to be in the next Superman movie. Pryor just was one of those people. I agree with your post, though.

 

[captain_jimbo]

I can see why Pryor wanted to be in Superman, but why would the people making Superman want him?

 

[KnightBat]

It might interested you guys to know that Eddie Murphy was almost added to the Star Trek Franchise for "The Voyage Home".


The film was originally supposed to have 'Murphy, Eddie' instead of Catherine Hicks. Murphy was supposed to be a professor concerned with UFO's who spots the de-cloaking Klingon ship at the Super Bowl. Apparently, all others are convinced the ship is a half-time special effect while Murphy believes it is real. Paramount declined this script for two reasons: Paramount didn't want to combine their two most profitable franchises (Star Trek and Beverly Hills Cop), and Murphy had signed on to do The Golden Child (1986) instead.

 

[Yodaman]

Paramount didn't want to combine their two most profitable franchises (Star Trek and Beverly Hills Cop), and Murphy had signed on to do The Golden Child (1986) instead.

Thank GOD

 

[captain_jimbo]

It might interested you guys to know that Eddie Murphy was almost added to the Star Trek Franchise for "The Voyage Home".


The film was originally supposed to have 'Murphy, Eddie' instead of Catherine Hicks. Murphy was supposed to be a professor concerned with UFO's who spots the de-cloaking Klingon ship at the Super Bowl. Apparently, all others are convinced the ship is a half-time special effect while Murphy believes it is real. Paramount declined this script for two reasons: Paramount didn't want to combine their two most profitable franchises (Star Trek and Beverly Hills Cop), and Murphy had signed on to do The Golden Child (1986) instead.

Yeah, I heard about that years ago, thank Christ it didn't happen, otherwise my favourite Star Trek film with the original cast would have probably been my least favourite.