Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Superman IV:The Quest for Peace (1986)

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    By the way the movie was released in 1987, not 86. The movie wasn't that bad, it was just the editing and the FX that made the movie so horrible. On paper the movie worked, but you have to remember that Warner Brothers did not produce the movie, it was Cannon. If you read interviews with Reeve before the movies release, he has nothing but good things to say, he gave it his all. Cannon made a deal with Reeve, you make one more Superman and we'll give you Street Smart. Street Smart was a project that Reeve had been wanting to do for a while but no studio was interested. The problem was that after they paid Christopher Reeve and Gene Hackman, the company had little money to work on the FX. The poor FX caused more 45 minutes of the movie to be deleted and thus we got what we got. Rubbish. Still, I like the movie, it's a guilty pleasure. The bad part about the cut is the Nuclear Man 1 vs. Superman Scene. It apparently cost $3 million dollars to make and it ended on the cutting room floor.

    Comment


    • #32
      I don't suppose there is ever any way that we will get to see any of the stuff they cut out?

      Comment


      • #33
        We might with the 14 Disc Special Edition. It won't get the same treatment Donner's Supes II is getting, but we might see the deleted scenes as part or the bonus DVD. They're actually reshooting some of Donner's scenes!

        Comment


        • #34
          14 Disks!?!?!?!?!?!?!
          Are you sure?
          That is a heck of a lot of Superman!

          Comment


          • #35
            You kids surprise me!



            Superman 14-Disc Ultimate Collector's Edition: This set will include all of the films released in the Superman series, including Superman, Superman II, Superman III, Superman IV: The Quest For Peace, Supergirl and Superman Returns. Richard Donner's cut of Superman II will be available for the first time ever, featuring between 20 and 40% new footage and tons of never-before-seen material. This set will be available on day and date in both SD (standard definition) and HD (high defintion) versions.

            Get your favorite current and classic WB show & movie merchandise from our Official Warner Bros. Shop.

            You have to search around a little.

            To be released in November of 2006

            Comment


            • #36
              I think that what most people dislike about the movie is the scene in which Lacy Warfield is kidnapped by Nuclear Man and then he took her into space.In the scene,Nuclear Man shuts off because he is far away from the sun,however Lacy has breathing problems but it is not believable because she is dressed casual without no protection.Superman arrives,rescue her and then that s the last time we see her.

              I think that the main problem here is that the scene wasnt handled seriously,and Lacy floating in space was so lame and campy....also other bad things of the movie were Superman s new powers,and the fact that the Fortress of Solitude appears after,supposedly,it was destroyed at end of the expanded edition of Superman II.

              In the screenplay it is Jor El who appears to Clark not Laut then again Marlon Brando wasnt available for this film.

              Too bad that it was Cannon Films who made the movie,and that ot was not produced by the Salkinds.

              Comment


              • #37
                bizzarro woulda been so much better than nuclear man

                Comment


                • #38
                  Maybe they had in mind Bizarro,but for some reason they opted to do the atrocity that Nuclear Man was.I understand that
                  the late Christopher Reeve wasnt even happy with the film.

                  The comic book adaptation of the film is the expanded edition
                  and it even has an alternate ending which is better than the original.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Still the funniest super power EVER:

                    "Repair the Great Wall of China Vision"

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Shinzon2004
                      Maybe they had in mind Bizarro,but for some reason they opted to do the atrocity that Nuclear Man was.
                      I've heard, that they wanted to use Bizarro, but were prohibited because of copyright or something.

                      Originally posted by 1.21 gigawatts
                      I guess I'm in the silent majority that liked the movie.
                      I liked certin elements. But the negative sides, out weight the positive sides.

                      Budget cuts, which greatly effected the special effects and location shooting (you know, it costs money to shut down a street). Meaning, they had to cut corners. And then you also have elements like Superman's telekinetic vision (though, a similar ability had been displayed (by Zod, Ursa and Non) in Superman II, so should the blame really fall on the writers, of this movie?), Lacy Warfield being able to survive in the cold, vacuum of space, the obviously fake United Nations building (which was of course, caused by the budget cuts), Nuclear Man losing his powers and falling into a coma, whenever he's not in direct sunlight and so forth.

                      However, on paper level, I kinda like the idea of Nuclear Man. Because, he's a superpowered villain. He doesn't have to use Kryptonite against the Man of Steel (which was done in Superman the Movie, Superman III and Superman Returns) and technically, he's not from Krypton (like General Zod, Ursa and Non in Superman II). Sure, he was partially created from Kal-El's DNA (combined with Lex Luthor's DNA and nuclear energy), but his powers weren't Kryptonian, nor did he come from Krypton. And that's really what all the other Superman movies lacks; He villain, who doesn't require Kryptonite to take down Superman, nor is of Kryptonian origin. A villain, that can give Superman a real fight.
                      Now, the negative sides are (like I've said before) that he loses his powers and falls into a coma, whenever he's not in direct sunlight. He's not really a "Nuclear Man", he doesn't get his powers from Nuclear energy, but from solar energy. The actor's performance was bad (mixed with an unconvincing dubbing of Hackman's voice), half the time, Nuclear Man acts like a Zombie. I liked the metallic nails, that could cut through Superman's skin (it means, that if he'd be able to do them long enough, he'd be able to pull out Superman's heart).. But the negative side of them, were that the cut of them in Superman's neck, made him sick (honestly, I was asking for a villain, who could match Superman and wasn't from Krypton.. But a guy, who can make you sick, just by scratching you, that's just lame).

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by jon-el87
                        Lacy Warfield being able to survive in the cold, vacuum of space

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          After the lackluster success of Superman III and the flop of Supergirl, the Salkinds chose to sell the rights to Superman to Cannon. Christopher Reeve agreed to return for a fourth movie. Reeve was also given creative input and he wanted to discuss the matter of nuclear weapons. Tom Mankiewicz adviced Reeve against it, but he went ahead with the anti-nuclear plot.

                          The production also ran into problems, when Cannon cut the film's budget in half. Which affected the quality of both special effects and sets. The final product was an unfinished film. I've never read it, but I understand the comic book adaptation was better.

                          According to co-writer Mark Rosenthal, the film was trying to adress "why doesn't Superman help us?" In that regard the film failed. Superman announces his intent to rid the world of nuclear weapons, then the governments of the world happily surrenders their nukes to him (because they would totally be willing to do that). At the end Superman announces that he's failed, with no indication on how he failed. He said he'd get rid of nuclear weapons and he threw them all into the sun.

                          The problem is that the movie doesn't dive into the issues with Superman trying to fix the problems with the world. For one thing, it means we won't have to do anything. This one guy is going to fix all of the world's problems. If we spill some milk, that's okay, he'll clean it up for us. We won't have to take responsibility for out actions. And what exactly are the problems of the world? Some world problems are too complicated for one person to just solve in five minutes. Others are subjective. You regard something as an important issue, while someone else doesn't.

                          This film came out in 1987. Around that time, there was a controversy about VCRs in my country (and probably other countries as well). There was a panic about these new VCRs, which meant that kids could now watch slasher films like The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (something they couldn't in movie theatres). If Superman is going to fix the world. Should he then get rid of VCRs. How about getting rid of tobacco, to prevent people from having lungcancer? Should he get rid of video games, which some insist encourages violence? At what point does all of this turn Superman into a dictator? You're only allowed to do what he approves off.

                          Nuclear Man had potential, but was ruined by a lame weakness. In the comic book adaptation, he could apparently get bigger. That would've been a good idea. Have him absorb so much energy, that his body is forced to grow to handle all of the energy. Eventually, perhaps, his cells wouldn't be able to handle it anymore. Meaning that, if Superman can't get rid of him, Nuclear Man will explode. A powerful nuclear explosion, that could wipe out the whole planet.

                          I liked the DP plotline, with them being bought by a company, that is only interested in sales. Which is certainly the case today, when ratings and sales are more important to newsprograms and magazines, than simply keeping the public informed.
                          Last edited by jon-el87; 08-23-2021, 11:20 AM.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X
                          😀
                          🥰
                          🤢
                          😎
                          😡
                          👍
                          👎