AHC: Save Superman film series

[Emperor Norton I]

By which I mean the Christopher Reeve series. The film series started out quite well with the first film, but the series began to suffer noticeably as time went on. Richard Donner was taken off the series somewhere in the filming of Superman II, and replaced with Richard Lester. Superman II was a good film itself, but compared to Donner's original intent, it is quite lesser, and the film seems to be saved from that anchor of having been Donner's project originally.

Starting with Superman III, things fell off noticeably, with Lester bringing in his slapstick comedic sensibilities which had no place in the series and fit awkwardly, and the film being of lesser quality and, to paraphrase Roger Ebert, it undid what the first film did and it felt like a dumb comic book rather than a true but fantastical world. Despite any criticisms, though, Superman III was an ok film. Certainly the series could have been saved from there. But then came Superman IV, with a severely cut budget (noticeable in the special effects) and a poor script. Superman IV would put a nail in the series, and would make making a "Superman V" a reality very daunting. Christopher Reeve's paralysis put an end to any chance of that.

On the whole, the Salkind brothers (who oversaw the Superman films) ran the series rather badly. They fired Richard Donner and brought on Lester, the problems of which have already been noted, and set the series on a downward spiral. And they oversaw a terrible Supergirl film, the failure of which led them to sell the film rights to Cannon films (which led to Superman IV).

This is why so many people aren't even aware there was a Superman III or IV, let alone a Supergirl film.

The challenge here is to save the Superman film series. The series may not have been able to endure forever, or endure at a level of quality forever, but it could have certainly done so for more than just two (or one and a half) films. And it could have had better spin offs than a terrible Supergirl film.

 

[The Admiral Hook]

Well, in the TL in my sig, Guy Hamilton replaces Donner rather than Lester for films one and two.

Meanwhile, Coppola makes BATMAN starring Harrison Ford in the titular role (with concept art by Giger and McQuarrie, a script by Puzo and Miller, a score by Carmine Coppola, and a soundtrack by Tom Waits...) with the understanding that following two Superman and two Batman films, the ending to both trilogies would be a crossover featuring Superman as the temporary villain.

While more films in this franchise are eventually made, Superman stays serious and this does wonders for the genre throughout the eighties and into the nineties.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

One thing the series desperately needed to fight was the ever expanding list of ridiculous Superman powers -- ghost crest, memory wiping kiss, rebuilding walls by, um, looking at them -- all which unfortunately began with the "turning back time" ending of the first film. If we have to start after the first film, a good place to start in the second would be cutting those parts. In the case of the kiss, if we also forbid turning the time travel into a running gag, we'll likely end up with Lois remembering Clark's identity -- which could actually be a great set-up for Superman 3.

 

[Pokemon Master]

Just have Christopher Reeve not fall of that horse in Virginia back in 1995.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Just have Christopher Reeve not fall of that horse in Virginia back in 1995.

That is one way to do it, by trying to save it at Superman V. But Superman III and IV would have still been bad films.

 

[drcynic]

Would not have fired Richard Donner. But if he was going to be gone, I'd have gotten a better hand than Lester, whose tonal choices were all wrong for the movie. Maybe would have gone with Spielberg and found a way to absorb the extra cost.

Would not have cast Richard Pryor in part III. Robert Vaughn played a very interesting villain though, so if Hackman couldn't be brought back because of his loyalty to Donner, just continue there as is.

 

[tiggerfan]

I think part of the issue is how to define "save".

By save do you mean keeping it to a purity level that satisfies a small group of hard core fans (in which case it flops because only they watch) or do you mean just cut back some on the broader appeal aspects and thus keep an audience ?

 

[Emperor Norton I]

I think part of the issue is how to define "save".

By save do you mean keeping it to a purity level that satisfies a small group of hard core fans (in which case it flops because only they watch) or do you mean just cut back some on the broader appeal aspects and thus keep an audience ?

Make it not sink into sucking.

 

[JVM]

Donner's kept around for Superman II and Superman reshoots if they still occur, leaving the original two films purely him and probably resulting in a more financially successful Superman 2. As a result, Donner is pushed to come back for 3 as Lester was, and is seen as an asset rather than a hindrance. He sticks to the realistic (for the era) movies with the original comic book characters. That's the easiest route anyway.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

One of the good things about Superman III, which the series really needed was that Lex Luthor wasn't the villain. It was a step in the right direction which was subsequently stepped back from immediately with the fourth film, maybe out of the lukewarm reception III received. In Superman II, it was fine as the first and second films were really one long film and were originally written as such. There wasn't a reason for it with IV, though. The problem with all Superman films and assorted media has always been they fall back on Lex Luthor and don't go forward.

Superman IV should have featured a different villain, and Superman certainly has a rogues gallery for it. It isn't as rounded as Batman's, but then again, Superman's is not ever given a chance to shine as it always falls back onto Lex Luthor. Superman has Brainiac, Bizarro, Parasite, Darkseid and his legions, Mongul, and Metallo. And he can always go up against other adversaries made up for a film.

 

[redlightning]

Do an alternate history take as Watchmen does by having the Man of Steel land in Nazi Germany during the 1930s and become Overman and help the Greater German Reich become successful and a world power. Then on the American side it can have Batman which will be his arch nemesis during the Cold War and serve as a unique version of a Superman v. Batman movie.

 

[Garrison]

One of the good things about Superman III, which the series really needed was that Lex Luthor wasn't the villain.

Honestly the problem with LL in the movies is that he's played as a rather OTT and obvious villain. Smallville did a far better job and while obviously it comes much later the way it makes LL a much more complex character would have made for much stronger movie plots. For example:

In the first movie Lex has some group of terrorist stooges carry out the missile plan so he can make a fortune in the reconstruction and make himself a public hero to pave the way for his political ambitions. Superman thwarts the plan but can't expose Lex because he's covered his tracks too well but they both know in the end one of them has to fall.

In Superman II superman has to actually work with Lex to fight Zod; with Lex of course planning to steal all the credit. Paves the way for a third film with Lex partly succeeding and his path to the White House opening up.

 

[Garrison]

One thing the series desperately needed to fight was the ever expanding list of ridiculous Superman powers -- ghost crest, memory wiping kiss, rebuilding walls by, um, looking at them -- all which unfortunately began with the "turning back time" ending of the first film. If we have to start after the first film, a good place to start in the second would be cutting those parts. In the case of the kiss, if we also forbid turning the time travel into a running gag, we'll likely end up with Lois remembering Clark's identity -- which could actually be a great set-up for Superman 3.

I totally agree about the powers; the last thing you need with Superman is to keep ramping up his abilities.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

I totally agree about the powers; the last thing you need with Superman is to keep ramping up his abilities.

Yeah, and that whole "making the Earth spin backward to reverse time" thing in the first film was really pushing that as is.

 

[TheImagineer]

I think part of the issue is how to define "save".

By save do you mean keeping it to a purity level that satisfies a small group of hard core fans (in which case it flops because only they watch) or do you mean just cut back some on the broader appeal aspects and thus keep an audience ?

I think that it would have been possible to balance those two aspects fairly well, as Superman I and II showed. On that note, let's also keep in mind that Superman turning the Earth back in time--much as I groaned at it when I first saw the scene--would NOT have been out of place in the comics of that era. The first two movies emulated that tone quite well, even if superhero comics have changed dramatically since their release.

[...] Superman IV should have featured a different villain, and Superman certainly has a rogues gallery for it [...] Superman has Brainiac, Bizarro, Parasite, Darkseid and his legions, Mongul, and Metallo.

Brainiac and Mxyztplk would've been the original villains in Superman III. There's a lot that happens in the script, including Supergirl's introduction and tons of time travel, but I think it would have been much better than OTL's result.

Do an alternate history take as Watchmen does by having the Man of Steel land in Nazi Germany during the 1930s and become Overman and help the Greater German Reich become successful and a world power. Then on the American side it can have Batman which will be his arch nemesis during the Cold War and serve as a unique version of a Superman v. Batman movie.

As interesting as this is, I don't think that Christopher Reeve would have signed up for this concept. It would probably work better as a full TV series or an episode in an Elseworlds-like anthology show (basically a modern Twilight Zone or Outer Limits).

 

[xxmagex]

This is why so many people aren't even aware there was a Superman III or IV, let alone a Supergirl film.

This is a good thing. Repressed Memory syndrome protects us from the memory of bad Superman movies.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

On that note, let's also keep in mind that Superman turning the Earth back in time--much as I groaned at it when I first saw the scene--would NOT have been out of place in the comics of that era. The first two movies emulated that tone quite well, even if superhero comics have changed dramatically since their release.

Fair enough, but I stand by that having Superman reverse time in two consecutive movies (as was Donner's original intent) would be a bridge too far.

 

[JVM]

Fair enough, but I stand by that having Superman reverse time in two consecutive movies (as was Donner's original intent) would be a bridge too far.

I thought I'd heard Donner's intent wasn't even to include the time travel scene in 1, just at the end of 2, and the studio made him change it?

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

I thought I'd heard Donner's intent wasn't even to include the time travel scene in 1, just at the end of 2, and the studio made him change it?

Well there's a likely improvement right there.

 

[Jcoggins]

One thing the series desperately needed to fight was the ever expanding list of ridiculous Superman powers -- ghost crest, memory wiping kiss, rebuilding walls by, um, looking at them -- all which unfortunately began with the "turning back time" ending of the first film. If we have to start after the first film, a good place to start in the second would be cutting those parts. In the case of the kiss, if we also forbid turning the time travel into a running gag, we'll likely end up with Lois remembering Clark's identity -- which could actually be a great set-up for Superman 3.

actually, great wall of china vision was an established power