Batman-Online.com

Starting this to keep track of a new, six-issue comics series by Robert Venditti and Wilfredo Torres, based on the cinematic world of Richard Donner and Christopher Reeve's Man of Steel.(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ExaR49cW8AI1VSV?format=jpg&name=large)

Okay this is interesting. It seems Superman' 78 will have (possibly as an background Easter egg) its own version of Batman. Looks kinda like Keaton, but note the 70s duds and doo.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Exvcy1NXMAItELQ?format=jpg&name=large)

I hope it's Easter egg type stuff rather than a build-up to some sort of crossover. I can accept many things. But a Donner Superman crossing over with a Burton Batman has never been high on my list of priorities.

That's definitely Keaton.

Turns out it is a fusion between West and Keaton. It is Easter egg stuff I think. Just an acknowledgement it seems that the Earth-78 has a Batman.

I would be interested in a prequel for Keaton's Wayne. How he amassed all the gear in his arsenal, visiting Japan and the like. The synopsis of the hardcover book states it "collects the first 12 chapters of the Batman '89 digital comics series." Interpret that however you want.

(https://13thdimension.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/SM78_Cv1-580x892.jpg)

Nice to see Hackman's Luthor. Not having him would seem wrong IMO. Hope he keeps his hair. Brainiac is to be the new villain. Release schedule has shuffled accordingly.

Okay, I'm in.

That looks pretty cool.

I'm actually still kind of ecstatic that there is no mistaking Luthor as Hackman.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E2em95GWQAAQNTS?format=jpg&name=large)

I'm getting a sneaking suspicion that they're going to try and make Luthor more 'comic accurate' which I'm not too keen on. As much as I enjoy Post Crisis Luthor. Hackman really is his own beast, and needs to be that. He also needs wigs. It is a part of the gimmick of this version of the character, not merely a throw away costume design.

Quote from: Gotham Knight on Fri, 28 May  2021, 13:55
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E2em95GWQAAQNTS?format=jpg&name=large)

I'm getting a sneaking suspicion that they're going to try and make Luthor more 'comic accurate' which I'm not too keen on. As much as I enjoy Post Crisis Luthor. Hackman really is his own beast, and needs to be that. He also needs wigs. It is a part of the gimmick of this version of the character, not merely a throw away costume design.

I agree. This version of the character is all about trickery and confounding expectations. The wigs are the best example of that.

Strangely enough, I find I'm less concerned about this Superman comic than I am the B89 comic. I wouldn't have predicted that. But here we are. If they go with a more comics-faithful Luthor, well, those are the breaks.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 28 May  2021, 16:43
Strangely enough, I find I'm less concerned about this Superman comic than I am the B89 comic.

I was rather indifferent about the upcoming S78 comics, but Brainiac has my curiosity. I'm be eager to see how a Donnerverse take on that villain will play out.

As for the B89 comics, I'm excited because it will be a fun, yet bittersweet experience on what might've been had Keaton and Burton stayed on. In contrast, we've already seen a lot of Reeve's Superman. Not just in appearances, he has had a strong influence on so much media over the years to the point I'm burned out.

But adding characters like Brainiac in the mix is a welcome change. A lot of Superman villains would've been difficult to near impossible to pull off in live action during the Reeve era, so it will be nice to see such characters appearing in comic form.

Quote from: Gotham Knight on Wed, 26 May  2021, 16:14
(https://13thdimension.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/SM78_Cv1-580x892.jpg)

Nice to see Hackman's Luthor. Not having him would seem wrong IMO. Hope he keeps his hair. Brainiac is to be the new villain. Release schedule has shuffled accordingly.

I'm curious to see if any of the other villains will be modelled on real actors. For example, I always thought Christopher Walken would have been a good pick for the Donnerverse Brainiac had he appeared in Superman III. Walken had already appeared in Annie Hal and The Deer Hunter by 1983, which would have been the same year that he made The Dead Zone.


A while ago I posted something about Molasar (Michael Carter) from Michael Mann's The Keep (1983) offering a good visual template for what an eighties Darkseid might have looked like.


As far as casting goes, how about Jack Palance in the role? Kirby based Darkseid's appearance on Palance anyway, so why not use his likeness for the Superman '78 comic as well?


Since Robin Williams and Chris Reeve were such close friends in real life, it might be appropriate to use the former's likeness for the Donnerverse Mister Mxyzptlk.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 29 May  2021, 20:24

Quote from: Gotham Knight on Wed, 26 May  2021, 16:14
(https://13thdimension.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/SM78_Cv1-580x892.jpg)

Nice to see Hackman's Luthor. Not having him would seem wrong IMO. Hope he keeps his hair. Brainiac is to be the new villain. Release schedule has shuffled accordingly.

I'm curious to see if any of the other villains will be modelled on real actors. For example, I always thought Christopher Walken would have been a good pick for the Donnerverse Brainiac had he appeared in Superman III. Walken had already appeared in Annie Hal and The Deer Hunter by 1983, which would have been the same year that he made The Dead Zone.

(https://i.postimg.cc/4yxY88Kg/walken.png)

A while ago I posted something about Molasar (Michael Carter) from Michael Mann's The Keep (1983) offering a good visual template for what an eighties Darkseid might have looked like.

(https://diaboliquemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/keep4-620x269.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CWMN5IZUAAAY_82.jpg:large)

As far as casting goes, how about Jack Palance in the role? Kirby based Darkseid's appearance on Palance anyway, so why not use his likeness for the Superman '78 comic as well?

(https://i.postimg.cc/Tw9yJ830/palance.png)

Since Robin Williams and Chris Reeve were such close friends in real life, it might be appropriate to use the former's likeness for the Donnerverse Mister Mxyzptlk.

(https://i.postimg.cc/6qbyFdRG/williams.png)

I always thought Molasar looked like an 80's version of Apocalypse from X-Men.

Quote from: Gotham Knight on Fri, 28 May  2021, 13:55
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E2em95GWQAAQNTS?format=jpg&name=large)

I'm getting a sneaking suspicion that they're going to try and make Luthor more 'comic accurate' which I'm not too keen on. As much as I enjoy Post Crisis Luthor. Hackman really is his own beast, and needs to be that. He also needs wigs. It is a part of the gimmick of this version of the character, not merely a throw away costume design.

This is coming across like the "Superman '78" comic is taking the place of Superman 2, rather than taking place before Superman 2. Especially so if there is some sort of move to make Hackman's Luthor more like his Post-Crisis counterpart. As Hackman's Luthor, whether it be the Donner cut of Superman 2, or the theatrical Lester cut, was still decidedly the same Luthor we saw in the 1978 original. This appears to be possibly taking a noticeable departure from Hackman's distinguished incarnation.

"If" that's the case, I can roll with it. Hackman's Luthor was very much introduced as already a "Wanted" man in the 1978 film. In-universe, the wigs usage comes across as a ploy to have Lex appear as less recognizable (especially when out and about in public), along with an element of deceitfulness (to the point of insistently wearing them in his underground lair with only Miss Tessmacher, and Otis being present). However, when Superman delivers Lex and Otis to the prison, with the Warden asking, "who is it?", Luthor dramatically unveils the wig in, from what I discern, a declaration of his standing due to his own ego. Literally demanding instant respect from the Warden and prison guards, despite just being put into a compromised position by being personally delivered to prison by Superman, due to his own perceived superiority and inflated ego.

No doubt, Hackman's Lex is a character that insatiably craves validation as the "Greatest Criminal Mind of our Time". If by some chance this Lex was able to gain some form of actual legitimacy following Superman: The Movie (making him more like what the Post-Crisis Lex Luthor enjoyed), then under than lens, I can see Hackman's Lex moving on from the wigs. As, in this stage of the game, he would want everyone to know just exactly who he is, and how much smarter he is than you.

An egotist like Lex wouldn't have it any other way.

Quote from: The Joker on Tue,  8 Jun  2021, 06:30
This is coming across like the "Superman '78" comic is taking the place of Superman 2, rather than taking place before Superman 2.

They'll surely find some way to segue '78 into Superman II, but that's what I'm also feeling. I'm not sure if a heavy hitter villain like Brainiac appearing so soon after the original seems right, but I hope to be proven wrong. Luthor's imprisonment raises questions too - is the escape in Superman II going to be retconned to be a second escape following the events of this comic? After being ambivalent about this comic series I'm suddenly intrigued by how they handle things.

#2 "After a battle with a rampaging robot, Superman enlists an unlikely ally to crack the code behind who sent it. He needs an intelligent technological genius, and that can only mean one person: Lex Luthor!"

(https://13thdimension.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/superman78-580x879.jpg)

Quote from: The Joker on Tue,  8 Jun  2021, 06:30This is coming across like the "Superman '78" comic is taking the place of Superman 2, rather than taking place before Superman 2.

As can be controversial to say out loud in our Cosa Nostra, I am not a fan of Superman II. So, I can live with that getting excised from the canon.

Still, I doubt that's how things will go. Some conception of Superman II is part of the Donner canon and (for better or for worse) that's more or less where he intended to go. Deleting it will probably never happen on Geoff Johns's watch.

Admittedly, I was a being a bit hyperbolic, but given the case that Superman II's place in Reeve/Donner continuity is not likely to be replaced, I really don't see any other way of viewing this series as lessening (to some degree) the impact of the events that transpired in Superman II.

In terms of it's place in the Donnerverse, the reason it was a big deal that Zod and crew arrived on earth, was because it was a big deal. This was the first time Reeve's Superman had to square off with super powered beings of any sort. Literally speaking, while the time frame couldn't have come at a worst time, due to the inner conflict Reeve's Superman was experiencing (and subsequent choosing to depower himself), the ramifications of three separate Kryptonians arriving on earth, only this time with ill intent, was quickly felt throughout the world. Not only by the U.S., but also other countries who were no doubt witnessing the sudden chaos, but left pondering what sudden changes to their own would be coming down the pike sooner or later with Zod running roughshod over the world.

When you have a villain like Brainiac being inserted inbetween STM and SMII, I can't help but feel the overall magnitude of what transpired in Superman II (Lester or Donner cut) is ultimately being rather diminished in the grand scope of things. It's a odd placement to have Brainiac making a Donnerverse debut (never mind Darkseid, and Bizarro being included as well), rather than just, you know, after Superman II and move on.

Nuclear Man will be appearing, it seems.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E5E1JKbXoAAUZ9Z?format=jpg&name=large)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E4cnIaVX0AE5yNi?format=jpg&name=large)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E4QByvjWQAAQ3p7?format=jpg&name=large)

Quote from: Gotham Knight on Mon,  5 Jul  2021, 13:29
Nuclear Man will be appearing, it seems.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E5E1JKbXoAAUZ9Z?format=jpg&name=large)

Now we're talking! I like to think that Nuclear Man being trapped inside the reactor was the cause of the power surplus that Bruce Wayne alluded to in Batman Returns. If Brainiac's the one who releases him in the new comic, then hopefully he'll also cure him of his crippling dependency on direct sunlight.

Wilfredo Torres shared some Bizarro art a while ago. Could there be a connection between Nuclear Man and the Donnerverse Bizarro?

I always thought Nuclear Man had untapped potential. Good to see him possibly getting some attention.

As to Bizarro, I would argue that there are two near-misses with him in the movies. Superman's evil (or at least superdickish) alter-ego in Superman III and Nuclear Man himself in S4. Both of those are different enough to leave plenty of room for the actual Bizarro to appear.

All in all, I'm pretty jazzed for this comic.

I'm jazzed too, especially with how it all links up and enriches the universe. It's probably the only Superman related comic I'm interested in at the moment.

Reading up on Superman IV, there's a deleted scene with a prototype Nuclear Man, who was made in Lex's lab, and was quickly defeated after Superman kicked him into a power transformer. Genetic material from his remains was to build the version we see in IV. Perhaps in this comic all material is destroyed and Lex temporarily shelves the idea.

If the gap between Superman: The Movie and Superman II is two years I guess that's enough time to play with. Events happened but things went back to 'normal' for a long enough period before Zod and his gang arrived.

Quote from: Gotham Knight on Mon,  5 Jul  2021, 13:29
Nuclear Man will be appearing, it seems.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E5E1JKbXoAAUZ9Z?format=jpg&name=large)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E4cnIaVX0AE5yNi?format=jpg&name=large)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E4QByvjWQAAQ3p7?format=jpg&name=large)

Plot must involve Brainiac pulling a Convergence or something.

Oh well. I'll just go with it. *shrugs*

Not a fan of Nuclear Man. Disappointing.

Oh well, here's hoping they retcon him into a worthy villain.

Quote from: The Joker on Tue,  6 Jul  2021, 01:51
Plot must involve Brainiac pulling a Convergence or something.

Oh well. I'll just go with it. *shrugs*

Or attempts it, at least.

I'm not a big fan of Superman III or IV, but I dig Nuclear Man's presence here. One of my initial concerns was the comic leaning too heavily on STM given the timeframe it's taking place in. Bringing in elements from the other films makes this feel like a celebration of the whole Reevesverse. III and IV are canon, whether I like that or not. Yes, I'm ignoring Superman Returns.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E5n_um3WQAohhBO?format=jpg&name=large)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E5lmbXFXwAQ0iAl?format=jpg&name=900x900)

Getting something from inside the Phantom Zone would set up Superman II nicely, and build up the resentment of the three prisoners. Although I'm not sure how the Donner version of the location exactly works. Richard referred to it as a "zone of silence", which if taken literally could mean discourse is impossible.

"He knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you're awake. He knows when you've been bad or good but he also knows that good and evil are artificial constructs and he is beyond the primitive moralities of lesser beings."
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E5qVvCuXEAAkLSh?format=jpg&name=large)

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon,  5 Jul  2021, 19:08
I always thought Nuclear Man had untapped potential.

Same here. Especially after discussing the subject in the Furie Cut thread. Nuclear Man's costume might be a bit lame, but Mark Pillow was a 6'4 beast with an imposing bodybuilder physique. Visually, he was ripped straight out of a comic.


The following video show how with a little FX work and sound editing he could have been a far more intimidating villain.


You and I already covered how Nuclear Man's storyline mixed elements from the Sand Superman saga that started in Superman Vol 1 #233 (January 1971) with John Byrne's Post-Crisis Bizarro storyline, way back in the Superman IV comic influences thread, so I won't bother recapping the specifics of those comparisons now. But it might be interesting to see the creators of Superman '78 lift some additional material from those older comics when reviving the Nuclear Man character for 2021. They could also take some visual cues from his recent appearance in Superman Vol 5 #2 (October, 2018).

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed,  7 Jul  2021, 02:32
Getting something from inside the Phantom Zone would set up Superman II nicely, and build up the resentment of the three prisoners. Although I'm not sure how the Donner version of the location exactly works. Richard referred to it as a "zone of silence", which if taken literally could mean discourse is impossible.

Yeah, the precise mechanics of the Phantom Zone were never clearly explained in the Donnerverse. In the first two movies it looks as though the Phantom Zone prisoners were physically trapped inside that square shaped mirror-like object. This creepy claustrophobic visualisation of the Phantom Zone was a departure from the comics of the time, but has since become the default portrayal in most later comics and TV shows. As a kid, I always found it quite disturbing.


However, in the Supergirl (1984) movie – which as far as I'm aware is still canonical to the Donnerverse – the villainess Selena sends Supergirl herself into the Phantom Zone. This was the most thorough depiction of the incarceration process in any Donnerverse movie. It shows that the square mirror-like object is merely a vessel for transporting the prisoner to their place of confinement, and that the Phantom Zone proper is actually a dark and desolate planet resembling the underworld from Greek mythology.This is actually pretty close to how the Phantom Zone is depicted in many of the Post-Crisis comics.


The Donner Cut of Superman II later showed that there was a shadowy netherworld inside the square object itself, suggesting that this device is merely a gateway or window into another dimension. This is also pretty close to the modern depiction in the comics.


The Superman '78 comic provides a good opportunity to reconcile these different portrayals and clarify exactly how the Phantom Zone functions.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed,  7 Jul  2021, 02:32Richard referred to it as a "zone of silence", which if taken literally could mean discourse is impossible.

Heard the same thing in those audio commentaries for STM and S2. But I put that down to him and Mankeywhatsis misspeaking.

Quote from: Gotham Knight on Wed,  7 Jul  2021, 14:21
"He knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you're awake. He knows when you've been bad or good but he also knows that good and evil are artificial constructs and he is beyond the primitive moralities of lesser beings."

The establishment, for example, are not necessarily left or right. They just are. They will go against anyone who threatens their power and control. HG Wells, as per The War of the Worlds, knew that an alien invasion would equal total dominance via superior technology. What I like about Brainiac is that he's an emotionless calculator of probability and logic. Problems can be solved if people are willing to cross the Rubicon, but many aren't willing to do it. Brainiac is. Superman is so much better when it embraces science fiction.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed,  7 Jul  2021, 18:07

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed,  7 Jul  2021, 02:32Richard referred to it as a "zone of silence", which if taken literally could mean discourse is impossible.

Heard the same thing in those audio commentaries for STM and S2. But I put that down to him and Mankeywhatsis misspeaking.

It does give the impression the prisoners become two dimensional figures when placed inside, but I'm thinking it's possible the technology is similar to a TARDIS: bigger on the inside. Zod and company could be screaming their lungs out close to the brim, but noise does not escape the glass, and even if it could, they're spinning through the dark void of space.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu,  8 Jul  2021, 10:27
It does give the impression the prisoners become two dimensional figures when placed inside, but I'm thinking it's possible the technology is similar to a TARDIS: bigger on the inside. Zod and company could be screaming their lungs out close to the brim, but noise does not escape the glass, and even if it could, they're spinning through the dark void of space.

Speaking of Doctor Who, the 20th anniversary special The Five Doctors (1983) features a device known as the Time Scoop that was clearly influenced by the Phantom Zone from Superman: The Movie. The villain uses it to kidnap the first five incarnations of the Doctor and transport them to the Death Zone on Gallifrey where they're pitted against a variety of monsters from the show's history. The Time Scoop effect in the original 1983 version looks like a spinning two-dimensional trapezium, clearly inspired by the spinning square from Superman. When the object traps its prey, his or her image appears in its surface like Zod's does in the movie. This effect was later replaced with a swirling CG cone in the 1995 special edition VHS release, but the original effect was clearly inspired by Superman.


The Time Scoop in Doctor Who was merely a means of transportation to the Death Zone, similar to the Supergirl version of the Phantom Zone. However, the idea of the glass square itself being a dimensionally-transcendental prison is far more disturbing.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed,  7 Jul  2021, 15:17
Yeah, the precise mechanics of the Phantom Zone were never clearly explained in the Donnerverse. In the first two movies it looks as though the Phantom Zone prisoners were physically trapped inside that square shaped mirror-like object. This creepy claustrophobic visualisation of the Phantom Zone was a departure from the comics of the time, but has since become the default portrayal in most later comics and TV shows. As a kid, I always found it quite disturbing.

(https://i.postimg.cc/tTzV8rR9/zone.png)

That's how I took it. There was also a Teen Titans "Infinite Crisis" tie-in comic which conveyed this as well. Although Superboy-Prime punched his way out of it. Naturally.

(https://trickarrow.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/spdy-phantomzonearrow2.jpg)(https://ifanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Teen-Titans-Vol.-3-33-2006.jpg)

QuoteHowever, in the Supergirl (1984) movie – which as far as I'm aware is still canonical to the Donnerverse – the villainess Selena sends Supergirl herself into the Phantom Zone. This was the most thorough depiction of the incarceration process in any Donnerverse movie. It shows that the square mirror-like object is merely a vessel for transporting the prisoner to their place of confinement, and that the Phantom Zone proper is actually a dark and desolate planet resembling the underworld from Greek mythology.This is actually pretty close to how the Phantom Zone is depicted in many of the Post-Crisis comics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMKD4L6Peto

The Donner Cut of Superman II later showed that there was a shadowy netherworld inside the square object itself, suggesting that this device is merely a gateway or window into another dimension. This is also pretty close to the modern depiction in the comics.

(https://i.postimg.cc/T2k2y8pr/pz.gif)

The Superman '78 comic provides a good opportunity to reconcile these different portrayals and clarify exactly how the Phantom Zone functions.

I always tend to forget about the Supergirl movie, but I think the Donner Cut of Superman II is a stronger argument in that is how the PZ is probably going to be depicted going forward. I've also noticed that the Donner Cut of Superman II appears to be the version the more recent editions/collections these days you'll find in stores of the Reeve films go with. Oftentimes omitting the Lester cut entirely.

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81-ydTsFAoL._SX425_.jpg)

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 28 May  2021, 16:43
This version of the character is all about trickery and confounding expectations. The wigs are the best example of that.

I gave a few Superman (1978) scenes a look on YouTube recently. Anyone who says Lex Luthor has not received adequate treatment in live action doesn't know what they're talking about. Hackman and Eisenberg may not be traditional businessmen ala STAS, but they're scene stealing and effective. Hackman's Lex is clearly a genius. Having him surrounded by doubting and dumb accomplices was a smart move as it allowed his anger, arrogance and wit to shine. Hackman is one of the best examples of a sociopath, tricking people into thinking he's a harmless uncle. Very well done. Here's hoping the comic does him justice.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 10 Jul  2021, 23:30I gave a few Superman (1978) scenes a look on YouTube recently. Anyone who says Lex Luthor has not received adequate treatment in live action doesn't know what they're talking about. Hackman and Eisenberg may not be traditional businessmen ala STAS, but they're scene stealing and effective. Hackman's Lex is clearly a genius. Having him surrounded by doubting and dumb accomplices was a smart move as it allowed his anger, arrogance and wit to shine. Hackman is one of the best examples of a sociopath, tricking people into thinking he's a harmless uncle. Very well done. Here's hoping the comic does him justice.

One thing that works for me about Hackman's Lex Luthor is his twist in bringing out the kryptonite against Superman. In that moment, the smiling, wisecracking ineffectual scoundrel we thought we'd been watching is totally gone. He's a dangerous killer now.

Thing is, the signs were always there. We watched him kill Harry the cop near the middle of the movie. But eh, all he did was push a button. Perry White says that someone (i.e., Lex) broke into a museum, killed two guards and stole a "worthless" piece of meteorite (i.e., kryptonite). But eh, we didn't actually see him do that. Superman asked earlier if that's how a warped brain like his gets its kicks; Lex almost growls "No; by causing the deaths of innocent people". But eh, he hadn't actually done that just yet.

But when that kryptonite comes out, no more games, no more jokes, no more traumatic anecdotes from his childhood. In that moment, he's a murderer without pity or remorse.

I like that Lex Luthor exploited Superman's confidence in that scene. Superman was new but still had a lot of confidence in himself and his powers. He didn't take Lex down immediately once it became clear that there was no gas pellet menacing the city. And that's because he didn't perceive any danger to himself or anybody else. He figured he could take his time and let Lex monologue his entire plan before shutting him down. And he was very wrong about that.

Great moment in that film. Nothing in S2 or S4 even comes close to Hackman's level of menace and malevolence in STM's kryptonite scene.

Pretty variant cover for #3. Has me missing them.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E6bNUHxUcAAZLRJ?format=jpg&name=large)

(https://13thdimension.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/SM78_Cv3_00311_NOTRADEDRESS-580x880.jpg)

(https://13thdimension.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Superman78_Hitch-VAR-CVR_NO-TRADE-DRESS-580x858.jpg)

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 11 Jul  2021, 02:11
Great moment in that film. Nothing in S2 or S4 even comes close to Hackman's level of menace and malevolence in STM's kryptonite scene.

I have Lex tied with the Joker as the best comic villain of all time. Hackman knocked it out of the park in STM. But I don't think his appearance in the sequel can be dismissed. He's a mortal man with villainous intent having to carefully navigate killer invaders. Having a friendly vibe works best in this scenario. Check out the scene in the White House. He starts out with his back up against the wall trying to convince his worth to three physical betters, but at the end he's sitting in the President's chair smoking a cigar - with his feet on the desk, outlining what he wants. The power of leverage quickly elevates him over them, and he manages to maintain it. And survive.

full preview. Spoilers galore!!!

https://www.dccomics.com/blog/2021/07/29/step-onto-the-streets-of-metropolis-with-lois-clark-in-superman-78

Huh. They seem to be using the Daily Planet globe from Superman Returns. Maybe the whole building. But definitely the globe.

Interesting. I don't usually encourage ANY reference to Superman Returns. But if I'm being honest, the Daily Planet set, building and globe are one of the few creative issues in that movie that I do rather enjoy.

Initially I suspected the Supeman/Superman II era was the focus to avoid commenting on Superman Returns, which ignores III and IV. But Superman IV content isn't being shied away from in this series, as evidenced with Nuclear Man. Unless I'm mistaken, it seems the events of Routh's film didn't happen here, which I support. This globe may be a homage and nothing more. Which begs the question "what is pure Reeveverse canon? and "what is Routh's place in it?" Especially after his recent appearance on the Supergirl crossover event.

Big spoilers ahead.

"SUPERMAN '78 #4
Written by ROBERT VENDITTI
Art by WILFREDO TORRES
Cover by BRAD WALKER
Variant cover by CHRIS SAMNEE

Superman tries to assimilate into his new life in the bottled city of Kandor, but his heart lies elsewhere. Can Superman put his old life behind and find joy in what would've been his home, or can Lois Lane and Lex Luthor make contact with the Man of Steel and give him hope to return to his adoptive world?"

(https://13thdimension.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/SM78_Cv4-1-580x880.jpg)

(https://13thdimension.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/SM78_Cv4_var-1-580x892.jpg)

I can hear Hackman now. "Lois and Lex? Lex and Lois? How about Luthor and Lane? The problem of the century naturally requires the partnership of the century. Granted, you're only here to document the triumph, but we all have our lot. Are you writing your Pulitzer speech yet, Ms. Lane?"

While I'm sure that there will be twists and turns as the story goes on I must say that I was little let down reading how religiously this title follows the 2008 Geoff Johns "Brainiac" story line. You will have also seen this story adapted as 2013's Superman: Unbound animated feature.

The artwork was great and the story and characters were written authentically, but I expected a little more in this first outing. Batman '89's approach is, so far, more interesting because even the reincorporation of Hamm's unused ideas is giving us something that was fresh and new as a take. Add in Harvey Dent and B. Gordon and you have more anticipation because even the unused Hamm ideas have to find new details and purpose, so even if you're familiar with those ideas you're still off balance trying to figure out what comes next.

Anyway, the inclusion of Luthor should bear fruit, but it seems they'll be sticking to the script pretty close.

I enjoyed the first issue, and while elements feel like a retread I think they captured the tone of the Reeve universe. One of the frustrating things is how short the issues feel, especially when most of the content gets teased online, as with Batman '89.

I enjoyed the first issue. It's difficult to compare with the Batman '89 comic at this stage, since both series have only just begun. But based on the first issues, I'd say the Superman '78 comic is doing a better job of capturing the look and feel of the movies that inspired it, while the Batman '89 comic is doing a better job of advancing the plot into new areas and putting a fresh spin on familiar characters. But I'm enjoying both series so far and I'm looking forward to reading the second issues.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 29 May  2021, 20:24I'm curious to see if any of the other villains will be modelled on real actors. For example, I always thought Christopher Walken would have been a good pick for the Donnerverse Brainiac had he appeared in Superman III. Walken had already appeared in Annie Hal and The Deer Hunter by 1983, which would have been the same year that he made The Dead Zone.

(https://i.postimg.cc/4yxY88Kg/walken.png)

Coming back to this, I saw someone on another site suggesting Leonard Nimoy for the Donnerverse Brainiac. He would've been an even better pick than Walken.


The original Donnerverse era (1978-1987) coincided with a resurgence in Nimoy's career, during which time he acted in and/or directed several successful films: Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), Star Trek I-IV (1979-1986), Transformers: The Movie (1986) and 3 Men and a Baby (1987) being the most notable. Had Brainiac appeared in Superman III, Nimoy would have been the perfect actor to play the part.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 25 Aug  2021, 12:31Coming back to this, I saw someone on another site suggesting Leonard Nimoy for the Donnerverse Brainiac. He would've been an even better pick than Walken.

(https://i.postimg.cc/BbjznwYf/nimoy.webp)

The original Donnerverse era (1978-1987) coincided with a resurgence in Nimoy's career, during which time he acted in and/or directed several successful films: Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), Star Trek I-IV (1979-1986), Transformers: The Movie (1986) and 3 Men and a Baby (1987) being the most notable. Had Brainiac appeared in Superman III, Nimoy would have been the perfect actor to play the part.

This is a very interesting thought. And it's fairly plausible that he would've accepted the role had it been offered. Actors thrive on variety and how many villains had Nimoy played? Plus, the Superman series had some prestige to them from the standpoint that Terrence Stamp, Marlon Brando and Gene Hackman had played roles of considerable importance in those movies as villains. I think the Brando fanboy in Nimoy might've been sold just on the (tangential by that point) Brando connection. At the very least, I think he would've entertained the idea of playing Brainiac.

Of all the fan-casting ideas I've ever seen, this is probably the most believable.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 25 Aug  2021, 12:31

(https://i.postimg.cc/BbjznwYf/nimoy.webp)

The original Donnerverse era (1978-1987) coincided with a resurgence in Nimoy's career, during which time he acted in and/or directed several successful films: Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), Star Trek I-IV (1979-1986), Transformers: The Movie (1986) and 3 Men and a Baby (1987) being the most notable. Had Brainiac appeared in Superman III, Nimoy would have been the perfect actor to play the part.

Nimoy would have been a good choice. Absolutely. In addition, Nimoy would have provided a box office draw from sci fi and/or Trek side of fans who might not have interest in Superman, but would have been curious to see Nimoy as a antagonist. Certainly so in that stage of his career.

Being that I am not a Trekkie/Trekker, '80's Nimoy is always Galvatron, and his appearance in the Bangles "Going down to Liverpool" music video for me.  ;D

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 25 Aug  2021, 12:31
I enjoyed the first issue. It's difficult to compare with the Batman '89 comic at this stage, since both series have only just begun. But based on the first issues, I'd say the Superman '78 comic is doing a better job of capturing the look and feel of the movies that inspired it, while the Batman '89 comic is doing a better job of advancing the plot into new areas and putting a fresh spin on familiar characters. But I'm enjoying both series so far and I'm looking forward to reading the second issues.

An accurate summation, and for that reason I see both of these comics being successful if they continue this trend. I think both feel like they could exist as respective continuations, but think it's harder to replicate the world and atmosphere of Burton in comic form. Superman 78's artwork is spot on, and even though I'm usually not keen about film panels being recreated verbatim, I'll give it a pass here. It lent a degree of authenticity and nostalgic emotion, the latter of which the Reeveverse leans on. Of the two I ultimately prefer the approach of '89, but '78 seems like it'll be an entertaining and leisurely read.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 25 Aug  2021, 13:38This is a very interesting thought. And it's fairly plausible that he would've accepted the role had it been offered. Actors thrive on variety and how many villains had Nimoy played? Plus, the Superman series had some prestige to them from the standpoint that Terrence Stamp, Marlon Brando and Gene Hackman had played roles of considerable importance in those movies as villains. I think the Brando fanboy in Nimoy might've been sold just on the (tangential by that point) Brando connection. At the very least, I think he would've entertained the idea of playing Brainiac.

Of all the fan-casting ideas I've ever seen, this is probably the most believable.

I like to think he'd have been up for it. If the filmmakers had gone with the supercomputer approach, like what we saw in the finished film, then Nimoy might only have been required to voice Brainiac. If he was willing to voice Galvatron in the Transformers film, then I reckon he'd have been up for voicing Brainiac too. He was a master at conveying the mechanical logic of an intellect unclouded by emotion, and that cold intelligence is precisely what a good Brainiac performance requires.


Would they have gone for the classic green skin look, or the silver 'Rebirth' design? Presumably the former, since the 'Rebirth' storyline didn't begin publication until Action Comics Vol 1 #544 (June 1983). Then again, DC might have granted the filmmakers early access to that story so they could synergise the movie's depiction of Brainiac with what was happening in the comics. His Bronze Age redesign was probably better suited to eighties cinema than his more traditional look.


Here's my idea for how you could adapt Superman III to include Brainiac. Firstly, the film would require a new prologue. Superman I and II both had prologues taking place on Krypton, so I'd have included a similar sequence for Superman III. During this scene, we'd be introduced to Brainiac; possibly as a computer voiced by Nimoy, or else by having Nimoy appear in the flesh in the character's green skinned Coluan form. In the Rebirth storyline Brainiac was able to convert his essence into incorporeal energy and travel through space propelled by solar winds.


This is how I would explain him surviving Krypton's destruction in Superman III. His body is destroyed, but his intellect survives as pure energy drifting through space. Then when Gus Gorman uses the appropriately named Vulcan satellite to probe Krypton's solar system...


...the scan detects Brainiac lurking in the vicinity. Brainiac travels along the satellite's laser beam in the form of pure energy to reach Earth. He hides inside the Vulcan computer system while telepathically influencing Gorman, similar to how the Post-Crisis Brainiac influenced Milton Fine in 'The Amazing Brainiac' (Adventures of Superman Vol 1 #438, March 1988). There's no real explanation in the finished film for why Gus suddenly wants to build a supercomputer, but in this version it would be explained that Brainiac tricks him into doing it in order to construct a new physical form for himself. A form that will grant him dominion over the Earth's computer networks.


In this version of the film, the finished supercomputer would speak with Nimoy's voice. It initially obeys Webster's commands and pretends to be his servant, but eventually kills him before seizing control of all global computer systems. It would then be Brainiac, not Webster, that launches all the missiles and Kryptonite lasers at Superman. Gus realises he's been manipulated and tries reasoning with Brainiac, but to no avail. Eventually he tries escaping from inside the supercomputer, whereupon Brainiac takes possession of his body. This would basically be the same as the robot scene from the finished film, only it would be Gus that gets possessed instead of Vera.


The robot/cyborg would now have Brainiac's glowing red disks on his forehead and would speak with Nimoy's voice, and it would be in this form that he fights Superman during the finale. Superman defeats him using the acid, saves Gus, and hurls the remnants of the supercomputer (containing Brainiac's consciousness) into deep space. The end.

I think this approach would have improved the film without altering it too drastically, and it would have delivered a decent big screen depiction of Brainiac courtesy of Nimoy. All the other subplots, such as the return to Smallville, the romance with Lana, and the splitting of Superman by the synthetic Kryptonite, could remain intact.

Quote from: The Joker on Wed, 25 Aug  2021, 19:35Nimoy would have been a good choice. Absolutely. In addition, Nimoy would have provided a box office draw from sci fi and/or Trek side of fans who might not have interest in Superman, but would have been curious to see Nimoy as a antagonist. Certainly so in that stage of his career.

Right. There were few actors at the time more synonymous with the sci-fi genre, or more respected by fans, than Nimoy. The first two Superman films featured several veteran actors in supporting roles, and Superman III really needed someone with Nimoy's gravitas to offset the silliness of the villains.

Quote from: The Joker on Wed, 25 Aug  2021, 19:35Being that I am not a Trekkie/Trekker, '80's Nimoy is always Galvatron, and his appearance in the Bangles "Going down to Liverpool" music video for me.  ;D

Ah, Transformers: The Movie. I don't care for the modern Transformers films, but I'll always love the original G1 series and 1986 movie. Some of my earliest memories from the late eighties are of playing with Transformers toys, watching the cartoon show and looking at the artwork in my big brother's Transformers comics. Revisiting it now, the 1986 movie is so much better than any of the modern Transformers flicks. It's got one of the best soundtracks ever, wall to wall action and an amazing voice cast that includes Leonard Nimoy, Orson Welles, Robert Stack, Judd Nelson, Scatman Crothers and Eric Idle. Nimoy's vocal performance imbued Galvatron with a gravelly ruthlessness that perfectly matched his awesome character design. For me, Galvatron>Megatron.


Apparently Nimoy also performed some of Unicron's lines, since Orson Welles passed away before he could finish recording all of his dialogue. I can't tell which lines are Welles and which Nimoy in the finished film, which is a testament to what a great job Nimoy did.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 25 Aug  2021, 20:42An accurate summation, and for that reason I see both of these comics being successful if they continue this trend. I think both feel like they could exist as respective continuations, but think it's harder to replicate the world and atmosphere of Burton in comic form. Superman 78's artwork is spot on, and even though I'm usually not keen about film panels being recreated verbatim, I'll give it a pass here. It lent a degree of authenticity and nostalgic emotion, the latter of which the Reeveverse leans on. Of the two I ultimately prefer the approach of '89, but '78 seems like it'll be an entertaining and leisurely read.

So far, I'd say the Superman '78 comic feels like a truer addition to the Donnerverse canon than anything from the Singerverse timeline (Superman Returns, Crisis on Infinite Earths). It'll be interesting to see if this and the Batman '89 series get extended if they sell well. Based on the reviews and comments I've seen online, the reaction to both comics seems very positive.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 27 Aug  2021, 15:56Would they have gone for the classic green skin look, or the silver 'Rebirth' design? Presumably the former, since the 'Rebirth' storyline didn't begin publication until Action Comics Vol 1 #544 (June 1983). Then again, DC might have granted the filmmakers early access to that story so they could synergise the movie's depiction of Brainiac with what was happening in the comics. His Bronze Age redesign was probably better suited to eighties cinema than his more traditional look.

Yes, let's talk about that. The people in the know have good reasons for not telling the whole story.

Even so, I've been nursing a conspiracy theory for a while now that basically says the redesigned Brainiac had a lot to do with Superman III. DC and the Salkinds had many interactions during the production of those movies. It's no stretch to think that Ilya Salkind would've shared his vision of a movie featuring (among other things) Brainiac... which was the original plan at the time, as you know.

So, in an effort to create something a bit more grounded and credible for film, I wouldn't be too shocked if DC didn't cook up the redesigned Brainiac as a response/synergy with Superman III. At a minimum, I think DC's agenda would've been to warm fans up to the idea of a redesigned Brainiac. But it might actually be that the new Brainiac design is more or less what would've been seen in the movie.

Either way, I've long assumed that the Brainiac redesign was due to Salkind's original plan of including him in Superman III.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 27 Aug  2021, 15:56
Here's my idea for how you could adapt Superman III to include Brainiac. Firstly, the film would require a new prologue. Superman I and II both had prologues taking place on Krypton, so I'd have included a similar sequence for Superman III. During this scene, we'd be introduced to Brainiac; possibly as a computer voiced by Nimoy, or else by having Nimoy appear in the flesh in the character's green skinned Coluan form. In the Rebirth storyline Brainiac was able to convert his essence into incorporeal energy and travel through space propelled by solar winds.

(https://i.postimg.cc/rwZfTKZd/brainiac2.png)

This is how I would explain him surviving Krypton's destruction in Superman III. His body is destroyed, but his intellect survives as pure energy drifting through space. Then when Gus Gorman uses the appropriately named Vulcan satellite to probe Krypton's solar system...

(https://i.postimg.cc/rwwf7SjX/vulcan.png)

...the scan detects Brainiac lurking in the vicinity. Brainiac travels along the satellite's laser beam in the form of pure energy to reach Earth. He hides inside the Vulcan computer system while telepathically influencing Gorman, similar to how the Post-Crisis Brainiac influenced Milton Fine in 'The Amazing Brainiac' (Adventures of Superman Vol 1 #438, March 1988). There's no real explanation in the finished film for why Gus suddenly wants to build a supercomputer, but in this version it would be explained that Brainiac tricks him into doing it in order to construct a new physical form for himself. A form that will grant him dominion over the Earth's computer networks.

(https://i.postimg.cc/02ftttp0/supercomputer.png)

In this version of the film, the finished supercomputer would speak with Nimoy's voice. It initially obeys Webster's commands and pretends to be his servant, but eventually kills him before seizing control of all global computer systems. It would then be Brainiac, not Webster, that launches all the missiles and Kryptonite lasers at Superman. Gus realises he's been manipulated and tries reasoning with Brainiac, but to no avail. Eventually he tries escaping from inside the supercomputer, whereupon Brainiac takes possession of his body. This would basically be the same as the robot scene from the finished film, only it would be Gus that gets possessed instead of Vera.

(https://i.postimg.cc/TYtPR6VL/superman-3.gif)

The robot/cyborg would now have Brainiac's glowing red disks on his forehead and would speak with Nimoy's voice, and it would be in this form that he fights Superman during the finale. Superman defeats him using the acid, saves Gus, and hurls the remnants of the supercomputer (containing Brainiac's consciousness) into deep space. The end.

I think this approach would have improved the film without altering it too drastically, and it would have delivered a decent big screen depiction of Brainiac courtesy of Nimoy. All the other subplots, such as the return to Smallville, the romance with Lana, and the splitting of Superman by the synthetic Kryptonite, could remain intact.

Now that's one hell of a improved version of Superman III! Kudos to you, Silver. Very well done. Your approach of it not being what you can get rid of, but what you can keep, works for me.

The Bronze Age redesign of Brainiac is something I have a lot of fondness for. Mainly due to this particular version of Brainiac being the very first incarnation of any Brainiac I was aware of as a kid, and I also distinctly remember having the Brainiac action figure that was apart of the Kenner Super Powers toy line.

(https://64.media.tumblr.com/536a997e5a639d4dda9af305dd7d0abb/tumblr_p2vvs15o2O1wcw51yo1_1280.jpg)

In addition, and I've probably mentioned this before, but as a kid, I remember initially thinking the "Super Computer" featured in Superman III, and it's later take over of the female assistant, actually was a cinematic version of Brainiac. Just never outright verbally stated in the film. As even as a young kid, I was all too aware that the cinematic adaptations of comic book characters would often times differentiate from their comic book counterparts depictions. Course, this wasn't the case, but I guess you can say first impressions can be lasting impressions, cause it's something that I never forgot about.

Speaking of the comics, even during the Post-Crisis era, Brainiac's skull ship was always a nice little call back to the Bronze Age design. As I always felt there was a underlining recognition/call back there. For the most part, the green skinned alien Coluan Brainiac typically takes precedence in comic book depictions of Brainiac, but whenever a unreservedly appearance of the Bronze Age redesigned Brainiac happens (Convergence sticks out in my mind), it's like, "There's my boy."

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 27 Aug  2021, 19:07Yes, let's talk about that. The people in the know have good reasons for not telling the whole story.

Even so, I've been nursing a conspiracy theory for a while now that basically says the redesigned Brainiac had a lot to do with Superman III. DC and the Salkinds had many interactions during the production of those movies. It's no stretch to think that Ilya Salkind would've shared his vision of a movie featuring (among other things) Brainiac... which was the original plan at the time, as you know.

So, in an effort to create something a bit more grounded and credible for film, I wouldn't be too shocked if DC didn't cook up the redesigned Brainiac as a response/synergy with Superman III. At a minimum, I think DC's agenda would've been to warm fans up to the idea of a redesigned Brainiac. But it might actually be that the new Brainiac design is more or less what would've been seen in the movie.

Either way, I've long assumed that the Brainiac redesign was due to Salkind's original plan of including him in Superman III.

I think you're on to something with this theory, colors. Brainiac's 1983 look was clearly informed by the contemporaneous robot and armour designs appearing in the sci-fi films and TV shows of that era. It's easy to imagine someone like Stan Winston or Phil Tippett translating it into live action. Further evidence of collaboration between the publisher and studio can be seen in the way Clark and Lana's relationship evolved in 1983. In the following scene from 'Within These Hands--Power!' (Action Comics V1 #543, May 1983) – which we cited in the comic influences thread – Clark realises that Lana is more interested in his mild civilian alter ego than his super-powered persona.


This was a departure from how their relationship had been depicted in earlier comics, where Lana was strongly attracted to Superboy, but it was exactly how their relationship was portrayed in Superman III. Either this is one hell of a coincidence, or the writers of the movie and the comic had been swapping notes.

This prompts the question of whether Lex Luthor's Warsuit, which debuted in the same issue as Brainiac's 'Rebirth' design, might also have been created with the movies in mind. It would have been interesting to see Hackman don similar armour to trade punches with Reeve.

Quote from: The Joker on Fri, 27 Aug  2021, 23:50The Bronze Age redesign of Brainiac is something I have a lot of fondness for. Mainly due to this particular version of Brainiac being the very first incarnation of any Brainiac I was aware of as a kid, and I also distinctly remember having the Brainiac action figure that was apart of the Kenner Super Powers toy line.

(https://64.media.tumblr.com/536a997e5a639d4dda9af305dd7d0abb/tumblr_p2vvs15o2O1wcw51yo1_1280.jpg)

This is a good example of how DC was pushing the redesigned Brainiac in other media. This toy is based on the version of the character from the SuperFriends: The Legendary Super Powers Show (1984), which was in turn based on the Bronze Age 'Rebirth' design, complete with silver robotic body and skull-shaped spaceship.


If a Donnerverse Brainiac had appeared after 1983, then he almost certainly would have sported this Bronze Age look. I can't believe they'd have had him look like this in the comics, TV shows and toys, only to then not use this design in the movies as well.

Quote from: The Joker on Fri, 27 Aug  2021, 23:50In addition, and I've probably mentioned this before, but as a kid, I remember initially thinking the "Super Computer" featured in Superman III, and it's later take over of the female assistant, actually was a cinematic version of Brainiac. Just never outright verbally stated in the film. As even as a young kid, I was all too aware that the cinematic adaptations of comic book characters would often times differentiate from their comic book counterparts depictions. Course, this wasn't the case, but I guess you can say first impressions can be lasting impressions, cause it's something that I never forgot about.

I always regarded the supercomputer as an ersatz Brainiac too. And I thought of the evil Superman as being the Donnerverse Bizarro, though Nuclear Man is arguably better suited to that description.

Quote from: The Joker on Fri, 27 Aug  2021, 23:50Speaking of the comics, even during the Post-Crisis era, Brainiac's skull ship was always a nice little call back to the Bronze Age design. As I always felt there was a underlining recognition/call back there. For the most part, the green skinned alien Coluan Brainiac typically takes precedence in comic book depictions of Brainiac, but whenever a unreservedly appearance of the Bronze Age redesigned Brainiac happens (Convergence sticks out in my mind), it's like, "There's my boy."

For me, the highlight of the first issue of Superman '78 was seeing Reeve fight that version of the character, even though in this context it's merely a scout controlled by the real Brainiac.


Did anyone else think the panel showing Superman attacking Brainiac with his heat vision was similar to the Superman III poster, where he's shown attacking the supercomputer in a similar way?


Conversations like this bring home how frustrating Superman III is. I have a nostalgic affection for the film as it exists, but it could so easily have been a much better film. It's not like Superman IV, where the depleted budget crippled the entire project. Superman III had a sizeable budget of $39 million (to put that into context, Return of the Jedi's budget is reported to have been somewhere between $32 million and $42 million), and this is reflected in the high quality production values. Unlike Superman IV, the sets and special effects in Superman III are all top notch. It was poor creative decisions that stopped the film from reaching its potential, not lack of money.

Imagine how good Superman III might have been if the filmmakers had simply:

•   Connected the supercomputer storyline to Brainiac, as originally intended
•   Toned down the slapstick
•   Replaced Ross Webster with Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor (this would obviously entail the Salkinds winning back Hackman's trust)

That's all they needed to do. Everything else could remain the same. Keep the return to Smallville storyline, the romance between Clark and O'Toole's Lana, the chemical plant fire sequence, the synthetic Kryptonite subplot, the evil Superman subplot, the junk yard fight, and the finale with the canyon and the missiles. If they'd just toned down the humour and added Brainiac and Hackman's Luthor, then Superman III might have been one of the greatest CBMs ever.

Ilya Salkind has said that Superman III has two great weaknesses.

The first is Ross Webster as portrayed by Robert Vaughn. I have no particular criticism of Webster as a character or of Vaughn's portrayal of him. But Salkind has plenty to say about Vaughn. Specifically, he never liked Vaugh in the role. He wanted Frank Langella. But Lester insisted on Vaugh and Salkind says he got overruled. I tend to take him at his word here since he is literally the only person I've ever seen criticize Vaugh in the movie.

The second is Richard Pryor, full-stop. Salkind says he wasn't necessarily opposed to getting a big star for the movie (as Pryor was in those glory days). But he says the movie's narrative depends on Pryor far too much. Pryor understandably wanted a certain amount of screen time as a condition for doing the movie. The amount of screen time Pryor wanted necessitated eliminating Mxy and Brainiac from the movie. WB ultimately nixed the Supergirl component because they wanted her for a solo movie.

In particular, WB's collective balls shriveled up when they saw how bonkers Salkind's Superman III treatment was: Brainiac, Supergirl, Mxy, Lana Lang, Jimmy Olsen, time travel, etc. I can understand them wanting to scale things back a little bit so they didn't go broke.

Still, removing Brainiac from the movie rubbed Salkind the wrong way. He says that Superman's turn to the dark side dimly lit side probably wasn't very obvious to younger viewers. Salkind wanted Brainiac to be able to push a button or something that turns Superman evil into a complete jerk. As it stands, it's not clear enough (for Salkind's taste) that Superman was poisoned by defective synthetic Kryptonite rather than being controlled by Brainiac's machinations.

So, basically what it comes down to is that Lester, Pryor and WB all flexing their influence rly hampered what Salkind wanted Superman III to be. After all that, I can understand why Salkind wanted to sell off the Superman movie rights. He'd gotten steamrolled by three different parties and had probably had his fill of drama after all that.

(But I maintain that the Superboy TV show is the ultimate proof that Ilya truly does understand everything that makes this character work)

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 28 Aug  2021, 22:28
Conversations like this bring home how frustrating Superman III is. I have a nostalgic affection for the film as it exists, but it could so easily have been a much better film. It's not like Superman IV, where the depleted budget crippled the entire project. Superman III had a sizeable budget of $39 million (to put that into context, Return of the Jedi's budget is reported to have been somewhere between $32 million and $42 million), and this is reflected in the high quality production values. Unlike Superman IV, the sets and special effects in Superman III are all top notch. It was poor creative decisions that stopped the film from reaching its potential, not lack of money.

Imagine how good Superman III might have been if the filmmakers had simply:

•   Connected the supercomputer storyline to Brainiac, as originally intended
•   Toned down the slapstick
•   Replaced Ross Webster with Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor (this would obviously entail the Salkinds winning back Hackman's trust)

That's all they needed to do. Everything else could remain the same. Keep the return to Smallville storyline, the romance between Clark and O'Toole's Lana, the chemical plant fire sequence, the synthetic Kryptonite subplot, the evil Superman subplot, the junk yard fight, and the finale with the canyon and the missiles. If they'd just toned down the humour and added Brainiac and Hackman's Luthor, then Superman III might have been one of the greatest CBMs ever.

This is all true. The makings of a good movie are all there, and instead it was bungled into a frustrating mess of wasted potential that I just cannot bring myself to enjoy. Even just removing Pryor would've made a big difference. I like STM and also SII, which is an unpopular thing to say around here. But that's the end of the road for me. I can't label the Reeveverse definitive because of where it led. Superman 78 is depicting what I think Superman 3 should've been, which goes to show how important the scripting process is.

QuoteConversations like this bring home how frustrating Superman III is. I have a nostalgic affection for the film as it exists, but it could so easily have been a much better film. It's not like Superman IV, where the depleted budget crippled the entire project. Superman III had a sizeable budget of $39 million (to put that into context, Return of the Jedi's budget is reported to have been somewhere between $32 million and $42 million), and this is reflected in the high quality production values.

The fallacy in comparing Superman III's budget to Return of the Jedi is all in the details.

The Salkinds weren't George Lucas who created his own special effects company's to handle the extensive amount of visual effects. The Salkinds had to hire veteran special effects technicians to pull off very difficult and complicated effects work. This was a detail Cannon grossly overlooked when they decided to slash the budget of IV to pay for Masters of the Universe after they used up the half of the budget Mattel put up for the movie.

Lucas didn't have to deal with multimillion dollar salaries for the actors either. Reeve got paid $1 million after at first being reluctant to return after finding out that Pryor was getting 5 times that amount! There was serious talk that Tony Danza was set to play Superman until the Salkinds finally relented and was paid somewhat comparable to his co-star. The highest actor's salary on Jedi was Harrison Ford at $500,000, mainly because he didn't sign a contract for three movies like Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher did. Solo was placed in carbonite in The Empire Strikes Back sorely for that reason in case they couldn't get Ford to reprise his role.

The biggest issue is that Superman I & II had a combined budget of over $100 million, which was SUBSTANTIAL at the time. They couldn't continue to make movies at that price and still obtain a profit. The Salkinds were independent producers that bought an option to make Superman films from Warners, who at first only were distributing the first two films in North America. Once they saw how good Richard Donner was handling the material, which they initially saw as a gigantic flop with their frivolous spending of multimillion dollar salaries for Marlon Brando and Gene Hackman, they put more into the project and apparently tried to buy out the Salkinds' interest in the series, which made Donner cocky enough to say to the press after the first film's release "if they're on it, I'm not on it." Of course, the Salkinds knew they had another hit film on their hands and they fired Donner for that behavior. Tom Mankiewicz was convinced that Donner would have been forced to finish the sequel to help recuperate their initial investment.

The tremendous success of the first film led them to confidently state that Superman III was coming soon at the end of II. While the initial Ilya Salkind treatment was more broader in scope to the final film, that did not accommodate with their attempt at making a film half the budget of the first two. It was difficult enough to convincing make a man fly and it would have been more challenging to make a character like Mxyzptlk believable (and tolerable).

It's too easy for us fans to say that everything would have been better if Superman III followed the comics more closely and used characters like Brainiac, but the time period which it was made in has to be taken into consideration. Of course the Ross Webster character makes more sense if it was Lex Luthor, but that's only because we all know how well that conglomerate interpretation of the character works now or how Brainiaic was responsible for Krypton's destruction. These were all characteristics that came after the release of the movie and definitely out of grasp of the writers of the films that had to consult with DC just to know who all existed in the Superman universe.

Quote from: Kamdan on Sun, 29 Aug  2021, 12:53
This was a detail Cannon grossly overlooked when they decided to slash the budget of IV to pay for Masters of the Universe after they used up the half of the budget Mattel put up for the movie.

This is actually one of those urban legends. Cannon didn't give half the S4 budget to MotU.

QuoteThis is actually one of those urban legends. Cannon didn't give half the S4 budget to MotU.

Do you know who said this was not the case? The details of this "urban legend" appeared to make sense as everyone who signed back onto Superman IV was under the impression that this was going to have a budget comparable to the previous films. I know Reeve only did it so Street Smart could get made but I seriously doubt he thought a micro-sized budget for a Superman could be pulled off. He knew what happened when corners were cut.

The detail about Mattel and Cannon agreeing to split the budget for the movie and Cannon trying to stiff them with paying for the rest of it creates the situation of them economizing their biggest production at the time to fulfill their agreement. Whatever they put in apparently wasn't enough due to the director of Masters having to pay for the final battle between He-Man and Skeletor himself. I believe one of the heads of Cannon admitted regret that they didn't use all of their resources and money on one film and instead were trying to maximize profits by making several movies that suffered from their lack of funds.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 28 Aug  2021, 22:47
Ilya Salkind has said that Superman III has two great weaknesses.

The first is Ross Webster as portrayed by Robert Vaughn. I have no particular criticism of Webster as a character or of Vaughn's portrayal of him. But Salkind has plenty to say about Vaughn. Specifically, he never liked Vaugh in the role. He wanted Frank Langella. But Lester insisted on Vaugh and Salkind says he got overruled. I tend to take him at his word here since he is literally the only person I've ever seen criticize Vaugh in the movie.

The second is Richard Pryor, full-stop. Salkind says he wasn't necessarily opposed to getting a big star for the movie (as Pryor was in those glory days). But he says the movie's narrative depends on Pryor far too much. Pryor understandably wanted a certain amount of screen time as a condition for doing the movie. The amount of screen time Pryor wanted necessitated eliminating Mxy and Brainiac from the movie. WB ultimately nixed the Supergirl component because they wanted her for a solo movie.

In particular, WB's collective balls shriveled up when they saw how bonkers Salkind's Superman III treatment was: Brainiac, Supergirl, Mxy, Lana Lang, Jimmy Olsen, time travel, etc. I can understand them wanting to scale things back a little bit so they didn't go broke.

Still, removing Brainiac from the movie rubbed Salkind the wrong way. He says that Superman's turn to the dark side dimly lit side probably wasn't very obvious to younger viewers. Salkind wanted Brainiac to be able to push a button or something that turns Superman evil into a complete jerk. As it stands, it's not clear enough (for Salkind's taste) that Superman was poisoned by defective synthetic Kryptonite rather than being controlled by Brainiac's machinations.

So, basically what it comes down to is that Lester, Pryor and WB all flexing their influence rly hampered what Salkind wanted Superman III to be. After all that, I can understand why Salkind wanted to sell off the Superman movie rights. He'd gotten steamrolled by three different parties and had probably had his fill of drama after all that.

(But I maintain that the Superboy TV show is the ultimate proof that Ilya truly does understand everything that makes this character work)

I've modified my opinion of Ilya in light of some of your posts. I've noticed that when I see him interviewed about the Superman movies, he often has some of the trade paperback collections displayed in the background. One of the books I've spotted in his collection is Showcase Presents Superman Vol 1, which includes, among many other classic comics, Brainiac's debut story: 'The Super-Duel in Space' (Action Comics Vol 1 #242, July 1958). I wouldn't be surprised to hear that he purchased a copy of this new Superman '78 series once it's complete. It does sound as though his idea for Superman III was a bit overstuffed, but at least he was using the comics as a starting point.

I wonder, would Ilya's concept for Superman III have worked better if it was divided across two films like Superman I and II? Superman III could have introduced Brainiac, but refrained from using him as the main villain in favour of focusing on Supergirl and Mister Mxyzptlk. Then Superman IV could have focused on Supergirl and Superman joining forces to defeat Brainiac and liberate Kandor.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 29 Aug  2021, 02:06This is all true. The makings of a good movie are all there, and instead it was bungled into a frustrating mess of wasted potential that I just cannot bring myself to enjoy. Even just removing Pryor would've made a big difference. I like STM and also SII, which is an unpopular thing to say around here. But that's the end of the road for me. I can't label the Reeveverse definitive because of where it led. Superman 78 is depicting what I think Superman 3 should've been, which goes to show how important the scripting process is.

I love Superman II. I've heard all the criticisms, but I still think it's a terrific sequel. It established the superhero sequel trope of having the hero quit to pursue a normal life, only to then realise his mistake and return in time to redeem it – a trope whereby the hero's values and willpower are tested more than his physical prowess. You can see the influence of this in Raimi's Spider-Man 2 and Nolan's TDK trilogy. Superman II also influenced Geoff Johns and Richard Donner's 'Last Son' storyline in the comics, as well as Zack Snyder's Man of Steel, the Lord Nor storyline in Lois & Clark, and several episodes of Smallville. If it wasn't for Superman II General Zod would not have been elevated to the A-list villain status he now occupies, but would instead be just another Phantom Zone criminal interchangeable with Jax-Ur, Nam-Ek and the rest (at least far as the general public perceives them).

The Metropolis fight still impresses me, if only because of its technical ingenuity. The production team utilised a variety of different techniques ranging from miniatures, to wirework, to pyrotechnics, to rear projection and other optical effects, so that each shot feels like its own individual magic trick. This was back when special effects were still special, and the effects in Superman II, while dated and occasionally unconvincing, are still more entertaining to me than any of the glossy CG effects you'd find in a modern MCU film.


I get why others might not like Superman II, but for me it's the third best superhero movie of the eighties (after RoboCop and Batman 89).

Quote from: Kamdan on Sun, 29 Aug  2021, 12:53The fallacy in comparing Superman III's budget to Return of the Jedi is all in the details.

The Salkinds weren't George Lucas who created his own special effects company's to handle the extensive amount of visual effects. The Salkinds had to hire veteran special effects technicians to pull off very difficult and complicated effects work. This was a detail Cannon grossly overlooked when they decided to slash the budget of IV to pay for Masters of the Universe after they used up the half of the budget Mattel put up for the movie.

Lucas didn't have to deal with multimillion dollar salaries for the actors either. Reeve got paid $1 million after at first being reluctant to return after finding out that Pryor was getting 5 times that amount! There was serious talk that Tony Danza was set to play Superman until the Salkinds finally relented and was paid somewhat comparable to his co-star. The highest actor's salary on Jedi was Harrison Ford at $500,000, mainly because he didn't sign a contract for three movies like Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher did. Solo was placed in carbonite in The Empire Strikes Back sorely for that reason in case they couldn't get Ford to reprise his role.

The biggest issue is that Superman I & II had a combined budget of over $100 million, which was SUBSTANTIAL at the time. They couldn't continue to make movies at that price and still obtain a profit. The Salkinds were independent producers that bought an option to make Superman films from Warners, who at first only were distributing the first two films in North America. Once they saw how good Richard Donner was handling the material, which they initially saw as a gigantic flop with their frivolous spending of multimillion dollar salaries for Marlon Brando and Gene Hackman, they put more into the project and apparently tried to buy out the Salkinds' interest in the series, which made Donner cocky enough to say to the press after the first film's release "if they're on it, I'm not on it." Of course, the Salkinds knew they had another hit film on their hands and they fired Donner for that behavior. Tom Mankiewicz was convinced that Donner would have been forced to finish the sequel to help recuperate their initial investment.

The tremendous success of the first film led them to confidently state that Superman III was coming soon at the end of II. While the initial Ilya Salkind treatment was more broader in scope to the final film, that did not accommodate with their attempt at making a film half the budget of the first two.

In citing Return of the Jedi I was attempting to contextualise Superman III's budget in relation to those of other blockbuster films released that same year. For further context, Krull had a production budget of $27-30 million; Never Say Never Again had a production budget of $37 million; Octopussy had a production budget of $27.5 million; The Right Stuff had a production budget of $27 million; and most sources seem to agree that ROTJ's production budget was $32.5 million. Those were all regarded as big budget effects-heavy movies in 1983, and yet Superman III's budget was larger than any of them. Whether that money was efficiently used or not doesn't change the fact that it was a substantial budget for the time. In fact it was the most expensive movie of 1983 (unless the claims of ROTJ having a $42.7 million budget are accurate).

Granted, Superman III's budget wasn't as big as the previous two films. But it didn't need to be. Superman: The Movie's budget was exceptionally large, in part due to all the new special effects techniques that had to be experimented with and developed (e.g. the Zoptic process). Superman: The Movie is still one of the top hundred most expensive movies ever made when adjusted for inflation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films#Most_expensive_films_(adjusted_for_inflation)). Not every Superman film needs to cost that much.

And in the case of Superman II, the budget includes the costs of the 1979 reshoots, where Lester had to remake large portions of the movie in order to satisfy DGA regulations and qualify for his screen credit. Even utilising pre-existing sets and costumes, those reshoots would still have required a substantial additional investment on top of the film's initial costs (see the inflated budget of Solo for a more recent example of something similar). The makers of Superman III didn't need to invent new effects techniques like they did on the first film, and they didn't need to reshoot big chunks of the movie like they did on the second. Nor did they need to pay Brando's exorbitant salary. I maintain that the $39 million budget was perfectly adequate for the time.

By contrast, Superman IV's paltry $17 million budget resulted in poor quality production values that are distractingly bad. I've never thought the production values in Superman III were bad. In fact I think the wirework, models and optical effects are probably the most polished of the four Reeve movies, though others may disagree with me on that. With Superman III it's the script and bad ideas that detract from my enjoyment, not the production values. And if Ilya Salkind's initial concept is anything to go by, then many of those pitfalls could easily have been avoided had wiser minds prevailed during the development stage. That's the point I was attempting to make when I referenced their budgets.

Quote from: Kamdan on Sun, 29 Aug  2021, 12:53It was difficult enough to convincing make a man fly and it would have been more challenging to make a character like Mxyzptlk believable (and tolerable).

I imagine the Donnerverse Mxyzptlk as a more mischievous version of Dudley Moore's character from Santa Claus: The Movie (1985). I don't think he would have been too difficult to adapt from a technical or budgetary standpoint. Making him tolerable would have been tricky, since the character is meant to be annoying. But I think it could have been done.

Quote from: Kamdan on Sun, 29 Aug  2021, 12:53It's too easy for us fans to say that everything would have been better if Superman III followed the comics more closely and used characters like Brainiac, but the time period which it was made in has to be taken into consideration. Of course the Ross Webster character makes more sense if it was Lex Luthor, but that's only because we all know how well that conglomerate interpretation of the character works now or how Brainiaic was responsible for Krypton's destruction. These were all characteristics that came after the release of the movie and definitely out of grasp of the writers of the films that had to consult with DC just to know who all existed in the Superman universe.

Provided the filmmakers had access to the 'Rebirth' storyline that was being developed concurrent with their movie – and as discussed elsewhere in this thread, it seems highly likely that they did (just five years later DC would grant Tim Burton and Sam Hamm early access to The Killing Joke before it was published) – then all of my suggestions to improve the plot were based on ideas that were readily available in 1983. My suggestion of connecting Brainiac's metamorphosis into an incorporeal data stream (based on the 'Rebirth' storyline) with the destruction of Krypton (Brainiac's connection to Krypton, via his theft of Kandor, dates back to his debut story in 1958) is just a fan fiction idea to explain how his arrival on Earth could be connected with the Vulcan satellite subplot from the movie as it already exists. I wasn't suggesting that Brainiac should be the cause of Krypton's destruction. The concept of Brainiac influencing Gus to build the supercomputer follows similar storylines from the Pre-Crisis comics, such as 'The Computer-Man of Steel!' (Superman's Pal, Jimmy Olsen Vol 1 #130, July 1970), in which Brainiac does the exact same thing to Jimmy Olsen.


As for Luthor replacing Webster, it's just common sense that fans back in 1983 would have preferred the hero's iconic arch enemy over a new character they've never heard of. I'm sure the producers were aware of this and would have preferred Hackman, had that particular bridge not already been burnt during the making of Superman II. Superman I and II were, in my opinion, very good adaptations of the comics, and the best parts of Superman III – such as the romance between Clark and Lana, the splitting of Superman, and the junk yard fight – were all adapted directly from the comics too. The worst aspects of Superman III, such as the Ross Webster and Richard Pryor scenes, had no basis in the comics whatsoever. Superman III could have easily been a better film had the studio fully committed to it being a Superman adaptation and not tried subverting it into a star vehicle for Richard Pryor. This should have been obvious to everyone involved, even back in 1983.

Again, it was bad decision making, not lack of money, that prevented Superman III from reaching its potential.

QuoteGranted, Superman III's budget wasn't as big as the previous two films. But it didn't need to be. Superman: The Movie's budget was exceptionally large, in part due to all the new special effects techniques that had to be experimented with and developed (e.g. the Zoptic process). Superman: The Movie is still one of the top hundred most expensive movies ever made when adjusted for inflation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films#Most_expensive_films_(adjusted_for_inflation)). Not every Superman film needs to cost that much.

You are conveniently leaving out details that justify the almost $100 million budget for the first two films that's beyond just special effects. The first two not only had gigantic set pieces to construct based in England (like the Fortress of Solitude, Lex Luthor's hideout and the entire Daily Planet newsroom), but they filmed on location in New York, New Mexico and Canada. That eats up a large portion of the budget, especially when Donner would scrap whole days of shooting simply because the sky didn't look right. When Richard Lester shot the Paris sequence for II, it was raining and he kept going because he knew that he could not be frivolous as Donner was. The ends do justify the means in Donner's case but it was still looked at as insubordination from the producers' standpoint.

Superman III saved a significant amount of money not filming in New York by using the Canada not only as Smallville but as Metropolis as well. Sequences like the chemical plant rescue had to be scaled down from the initial idea of Superman saving half of Alaska from burning. That could've been achieved with the budget they had with the first two but since they were working from half of that, they had to significantly scale down. To draw comparisons with the James Bond series, they have the advantage of being able to showcase locations all over the globe while Superman's adventures typically are confined to his home base of Metropolis. This was something that Christopher Nolan also got around by going outside of Gotham City in each of The Dark Knight Trilogy films.

QuoteNor did they need to pay Brando's exorbitant salary.

Once again, I state that Pryor was paid $5 million, which was 5 times the amount Reeve was getting. The issue with Brando was that he was guaranteed a percentage of the gross which he had to sue the producers to get. If they did that for Superman II as well they would've had to of pay a percentage as well. This time around, they were being more savvy by offering a large upfront salary, which shows how much space they put into this idea of having Richard Pryor be a costar.

QuoteI don't think he would have been too difficult to adapt from a technical or budgetary standpoint. Making him tolerable would have been tricky, since the character is meant to be annoying. But I think it could have been done.

Mxy's depiction in the Superboy series made me question whether or not his comic book counterpart could be convincing. Aside from his out word appearance, there would have to be a significant effort to make his character small and be able to easily float about as he did in the comics. The problem with achieving that is that you may not be able to have both of the actors in the same space playing off each other. This was a problem with Julia Roberts when she played Tinker Bell.

Even if you did have a talent like Dudley Moore (or my personal preference of Robin Williams) in the role, you take a big risk of the actor completely blowing Reeve off the screen every time he's on. Just look at how Williams was when he played Mork in the first episode he appeared in on Happy Days. All eyes are on him and his antics which is what led to him being given his own show. Same deal with Moore playing Arthur Bach. That is suitable when you are the star of the show/movie, but not so much when you are playing a supporting character.

QuoteProvided the filmmakers had access to the 'Rebirth' storyline that was being developed concurrent with their movie – and as discussed elsewhere in this thread, it seems highly likely that they did (just five years later DC would grant Tim Burton and Sam Hamm early access to The Killing Joke before it was published) – then all of my suggestions to improve the plot were based on ideas that were readily available in 1983.

The Killing Joke was only available to the filmmakers after it was published. Tim Burton liked it because it helped him define a singular visual look and tone of the film, not for the content at all as Sam Hamm drew upon the original origin story depicting their The Joker as a narcissistic gangster before he fell into the chemicals instead of the whole "one bad day" storyline Alan Moore wrote.

You have to face the reality of the situation that the writers of Superman III did want to adapt something established in the comics, but wanted to bring their own unique plot to the film. I've spoken to one of the writers of the Dick Tracy film and he explained to me that they didn't care at all how much this matched the source material. What they wanted to make was a movie for mass audiences and not something that would only appeal to the fans with every detail correct. This was the same emphasis for these films and the only thing that kept them on track was that DC had that "integrity of character" clause in their contract. Back when Mario Puzo wrote his first draft, he described Jor-El having blonde hair and DC criticize that Jorell has never been to pick to with blond hair in the comics and therefore should not in the movie. I'm sure they had similar concerns when they read Salkind's treatment with Superman and Supergirl being romantically involved even though they are cousins in the comics and making Lana Lang more of a Lois Lane clone instead of her comic counterpart.

QuoteAnd if Ilya Salkind's initial concept is anything to go by, then many of those pitfalls could easily have been avoided had wiser minds prevailed during the development stage.

Again, it was bad decision making, not lack of money, that prevented Superman III from reaching its potential.

We must remember that hindsight is always 20/20 and nobody sets out to do a terrible movie. The Salkinds were trying to emulate the most successful independent producer at the time, Albert R. "Cubby" Broccoli, who was raking in millions of dollars off of the highly successful James Bond series. The Salkinds from the onset wanted their first Superman production to be a two-part movie that would be the start of a lucrative franchise like the Bond films.

The then current Roger Moore films were nowhere near the tone of the initial series of Sean Connery films and the comedic tone of them was emulated in the Superman films. They certainly were believing their own press when critics actually said II was better than I. That made them think the comedic tone Richard Lester emphasized ensured further success and the opportunity for a big comedic star like Richard Pryor to participate was going to ensure that. We now all now see the hiring of Pryor as a detriment, but in their eyes at the time, it was something new that didn't feel like they would be repeating the same material as the first two.

I know it's difficult to separate the fan part of yourself when it comes to observations like this, but it does help you get more into the mindset of what decisions were ultimately made. It's a lot different now that we have filmmakers who are more familiar with the source and want to see faithful adaptations of the comics, but this was out of reach at the time. I would have liked to have seen Telly Savalas play Lex Luthor, but he wasn't as big of a star as Gene Hackman who was what got the Salkinds' backers to write them checks that paid for their extravagant budget. And as I emphasized earlier, Warner Bros. had absolutely no interest in making a Superman feature film and saw themselves profiting more from the Salkinds paying them to option the characters than the movie(s) themselves.

Quote from: Kamdan on Tue, 31 Aug  2021, 19:45You are conveniently leaving out details that justify the almost $100 million budget for the first two films that's beyond just special effects.

I fear we're talking at cross-purposes here. At no point in this thread have I attempted to undertake a comprehensive breakdown of how the budgets of any of the movies mentioned here were spent, nor have I offered a detailed subjective evaluation of how cost efficient each filmmaker was in their allocation of those budgets. I offered a couple of examples of why Superman I and II were so over-budgeted, but I never claimed those were only reasons. Nor have I disputed that some filmmakers are better at making their budgets go further than others, or that certain actors got paid more, or that certain locations are more expensive, or that Lucas having ILM at his disposal saved him from have to outsource his special effects to other companies, or any of the other details you've highlighted concerning Hollywood expenditure. I'm not disagreeing with you on any of these things.

I simply cited the comparative budgets as an objective point of reference to show that Superman III had a generous and IMO sufficient sum of money invested in it relative to the year it was released. It was the most expensive movie of 1983, and its $39 million budget was substantial for that time. It wasn't as large as the budgets of the previous two films, but that doesn't mean it was underfinanced. Not when Superman I and II represented the single most expensive Hollywood enterprise of the seventies. https://www.looper.com/254469/the-most-expensive-movie-made-in-every-decade/

I don't think the budget for Superman III was the reason the film was bad, and I don't think having an extra $15 million sunk into it would have redeemed it. Not when the problems, as I see them, stemmed from the script. If you disagree with this, and think that lack of money was the problem, then I'd be interested to know where you think the shortfall is evident in the finished film. Which parts of the finished movie do you think suffered from lack of money? How much more money do you think it would have taken to improve its quality, and how would you have spent it?

Quote from: Kamdan on Tue, 31 Aug  2021, 19:45Even if you did have a talent like Dudley Moore (or my personal preference of Robin Williams) in the role, you take a big risk of the actor completely blowing Reeve off the screen every time he's on. Just look at how Williams was when he played Mork in the first episode he appeared in on Happy Days. All eyes are on him and his antics which is what led to him being given his own show. Same deal with Moore playing Arthur Bach. That is suitable when you are the star of the show/movie, but not so much when you are playing a supporting character.

I agree about Williams. He would have been my first pick too. But I've got a feeling the Salkinds might have favoured the casting of Moore, simply because they seemed to be fans of his double act with Peter Cook (they cast Moore in Santa Claus and Cook in Supergirl). I think the best live action Mxyzptlk to date was the Howie Mandel version in Lois & Clark. He retained the powers, humour and provocative impish qualities of the comic version, while also displaying darker lethal characteristics that made him more sinister.


I doubt they would have gone as dark as this in the eighties, but they might have taken a vaguely similar approach to adapting the character.

Quote from: Kamdan on Tue, 31 Aug  2021, 19:45The Killing Joke was only available to the filmmakers after it was published.

DC supplied Sam Hamm with an advanced copy of Alan Moore's script back in 1986.

QuoteJEFF: Did you incorporate any of the background of THE KILLING JOKE into the character?
SAM: No, THE KILLING JOKE was not around when we started doing this. I did get a copy of Alan Moore's enormously dense manuscript for THE KILLING JOKE about a month or two months into the writing.

http://www.1989batman.com/2013/05/vintage-magazine-article-comics.html?m=1

Uslan and Burton were almost certainly given access to it as well. Hamm and Burton were also sent advanced b & w issues of The Dark Knight Returns before they were published.

QuoteHamm: Dark Knight was, I think, two issues in (or halfway through) when we started work, but [DC Comics' then-publisher] Jenette Kahn and the nice folks at DC sent us B&W Xeroxes of the upcoming issues.

https://13thdimension.com/sam-hamm-the-comic-books-that-inspired-batman-89/

It's fairly common practice for comic publishers to supply filmmakers with advanced previews of their major upcoming titles. It allows them to align their creative trajectories and ensure that the characterisations will accurately reflect those in the comics at the time of the film's release.

Quote from: Kamdan on Tue, 31 Aug  2021, 19:45We must remember that hindsight is always 20/20 and nobody sets out to do a terrible movie. The Salkinds were trying to emulate the most successful independent producer at the time, Albert R. "Cubby" Broccoli, who was raking in millions of dollars off of the highly successful James Bond series. The Salkinds from the onset wanted their first Superman production to be a two-part movie that would be the start of a lucrative franchise like the Bond films.

The then current Roger Moore films were nowhere near the tone of the initial series of Sean Connery films and the comedic tone of them was emulated in the Superman films. They certainly were believing their own press when critics actually said II was better than I. That made them think the comedic tone Richard Lester emphasized ensured further success and the opportunity for a big comedic star like Richard Pryor to participate was going to ensure that. We now all now see the hiring of Pryor as a detriment, but in their eyes at the time, it was something new that didn't feel like they would be repeating the same material as the first two.

I know it's difficult to separate the fan part of yourself when it comes to observations like this, but it does help you get more into the mindset of what decisions were ultimately made. It's a lot different now that we have filmmakers who are more familiar with the source and want to see faithful adaptations of the comics, but this was out of reach at the time. I would have liked to have seen Telly Savalas play Lex Luthor, but he wasn't as big of a star as Gene Hackman who was what got the Salkinds' backers to write them checks that paid for their extravagant budget. And as I emphasized earlier, Warner Bros. had absolutely no interest in making a Superman feature film and saw themselves profiting more from the Salkinds paying them to option the characters than the movie(s) themselves.

I can empathise with the reasoning behind a decision and still think the decision itself was misguided. I'm capable of objectively acknowledging an historical attitude or mindset, but that doesn't mean I'm obligated to subjectively approve of the outcomes resulting thereof. The fact those attitudes might have been commonplace in the film industry at the time does not vindicate them, but rather highlights precisely why it took that industry so long to get to grips with the superhero genre in the first place. This is the same executive-level mentality that resulted in Batman & Robin (1997) being so rushed and toyetic, and that prompted WB to hire a marketing company to reedit the theatrical cut of Suicide Squad (2016) because the trailer was well received.

There's always a profit-driven logic behind Hollywood decision making, but that logic isn't always sound. A modern example of something similar to the Pryor situation would be Barbara Broccoli and Kathleen Kennedy hiring Phoebe Waller-Bridge to work on James Bond and Indiana Jones respectively. I understand their reasoning – Waller-Bridge has won awards, critics love her, and she's popular with feminists. But I can also see that she's generally reviled by heterosexual men, action movie enthusiasts and conservative viewers, who constitute a substantial portion of the target demographic for James Bond and Indiana Jones. So while I can see the industry logic behind hiring Waller-Bridge, I can also see how inappropriate she is for these particular franchises. And if these films end up underperforming, as I expect they will (especially Indiana Jones 5), then her involvement will likely be one of the main reasons. It doesn't necessarily take the benefit of hindsight to see a disaster playing out in front of you, and I'm sure there were many people connected to the production of Superman III who could see that Pryor's involvement was ill judged.

QuoteAt no point in this thread have I attempted to undertake a comprehensive breakdown of how the budgets of any of the movies mentioned here were spent, nor have I offered a detailed subjective evaluation of how cost efficient each filmmaker was in their allocation of those budgets.

You have been implying by comparing the budgets of Superman III and Return of the Jedi that the Salkinds should have had no problem at making a broader cosmic film closer to the comics with using characters like Brainiac and Mxyzptlk. I've stated the reason why George Lucas could handle such extravagant special effects and don't care to repeat them again. All of those factors come into play why we got a Superman film costarring Richard Pryor. I'm sure they would have been happy to give us something comparable with Return of the Jedi if they could have had another $60 million to throw into it but it wasn't finically feasible at the time.

QuoteI think the best live action Mxyzptlk to date was the Howie Mandel version in Lois & Clark. He retained the powers, humour and provocative impish qualities of the comic version, while also displaying darker lethal characteristics that made him more sinister.

This is a good case of the show runners downplaying aspects of a character to make them suit their needs. Mandel would have been wild if they had him go full Maurice in Little Monsters as Mxy, but that was only suitable for that film where you need that manic energy to complement Fred Savage's more nuanced performance. I really liked how Mxy was handled in the Animated Series because that character works best as cartoon character and how radical of a departure it is from a typical Superman story. It could be done in live action, as evident with Jack Nicholson's performance of The Joker. Again, they were conscious with that decision and wanted to hire someone that could convincingly take him down, which Keaton succeeded at.

QuoteDC supplied Sam Hamm with an advanced copy of Alan Moore's script back in 1986.

Read his response more carefully. Hamm received the MANUSCRIPT, not the actual comic book. That's just words on a page. And as he said, nothing from the comic was utilized other than the already established chemical plant setup for the origin of The Joker.

Burton, on the other hand, praised the highly visual aspects of Brian Bolland's artwork and wanted to emulate that for his version of Batman. So, again, they didn't get the actual comic until it was released.

QuoteIt doesn't necessarily take the benefit of hindsight to see a disaster playing out in front of you, and I'm sure there were many people connected to the production of Superman III who could see that Pryor's involvement was ill judged.

It's difficult to be unique with these franchises because radical ideas like these will always be criticized by those who want it to be the same as the previous. And it's hard to judge was is valid. I love The Temple of Doom because it is nothing like Raiders of the Lost Ark and I wish every film in the series was different from the last. I won't ever criticize Superman III for giving us something new that didn't repeat what we saw in the first two. Ilya Salkind considered it an episode and not a major event movie that the first two were. It is a shame that sequels have to carry the burden of being compared to the previous. I love how innovative and interesting the sequel to American Graffiti is, but it is instantly dismissed because it is simply not on the same level as the first. I feel the same applied to Superman III.

Quote from: Kamdan on Wed,  1 Sep  2021, 19:36
It's difficult to be unique with these franchises because radical ideas like these will always be criticized by those who want it to be the same as the previous. And it's hard to judge was is valid. I love The Temple of Doom because it is nothing like Raiders of the Lost Ark and I wish every film in the series was different from the last. I won't ever criticize Superman III for giving us something new that didn't repeat what we saw in the first two. Ilya Salkind considered it an episode and not a major event movie that the first two were. It is a shame that sequels have to carry the burden of being compared to the previous. I love how innovative and interesting the sequel to American Graffiti is, but it is instantly dismissed because it is simply not on the same level as the first. I feel the same applied to Superman III.

I pretty much agree. And I have been ready and willing to defend Superman III for a long time. It is very similar in tone to the Superman comics being published in the early Eighties. My experience has been that there's considerable overlap between the Superman fans who bash on S3 the loudest and the Superman fans who have no awareness of what the late Bronze Age Superman stories were like.

Even Pryor taking somewhat centerstage has considerable precedent in Superman comics, where a guest star propels a story and Superman mostly reacts to whatever the guest is doing.

Quote from: Kamdan on Wed,  1 Sep  2021, 19:36You have been implying by comparing the budgets of Superman III and Return of the Jedi that the Salkinds should have had no problem at making a broader cosmic film closer to the comics with using characters like Brainiac and Mxyzptlk. I've stated the reason why George Lucas could handle such extravagant special effects and don't care to repeat them again. All of those factors come into play why we got a Superman film costarring Richard Pryor. I'm sure they would have been happy to give us something comparable with Return of the Jedi if they could have had another $60 million to throw into it but it wasn't finically feasible at the time.

It wasn't my intention to imply that all. If I gave you that impression then I must have misarticulated. The reason I cited Return of the Jedi's budget was simply because it was another big effects-heavy blockbuster movie released in the same year, and because it's the other film that is sometimes cited as being the most expensive of 1983. I also cited the budgets of Krull, Never Say Never Again and several other 1983 movies to give further context to the point I was trying to make.

My suggestion for how Brainiac could be inserted into Superman III was intended to utilise as much of the pre-existing film and effects sequences as possible while making minimal changes. Here's what I wrote earlier in the thread.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 27 Aug  2021, 15:56Here's my idea for how you could adapt Superman III to include Brainiac. Firstly, the film would require a new prologue. Superman I and II both had prologues taking place on Krypton, so I'd have included a similar sequence for Superman III. During this scene, we'd be introduced to Brainiac; possibly as a computer voiced by Nimoy, or else by having Nimoy appear in the flesh in the character's green skinned Coluan form. In the Rebirth storyline Brainiac was able to convert his essence into incorporeal energy and travel through space propelled by solar winds.

(https://i.postimg.cc/rwZfTKZd/brainiac2.png)

This is how I would explain him surviving Krypton's destruction in Superman III. His body is destroyed, but his intellect survives as pure energy drifting through space. Then when Gus Gorman uses the appropriately named Vulcan satellite to probe Krypton's solar system...

(https://i.postimg.cc/rwwf7SjX/vulcan.png)

...the scan detects Brainiac lurking in the vicinity. Brainiac travels along the satellite's laser beam in the form of pure energy to reach Earth. He hides inside the Vulcan computer system while telepathically influencing Gorman, similar to how the Post-Crisis Brainiac influenced Milton Fine in 'The Amazing Brainiac' (Adventures of Superman Vol 1 #438, March 1988). There's no real explanation in the finished film for why Gus suddenly wants to build a supercomputer, but in this version it would be explained that Brainiac tricks him into doing it in order to construct a new physical form for himself. A form that will grant him dominion over the Earth's computer networks.

(https://i.postimg.cc/02ftttp0/supercomputer.png)

In this version of the film, the finished supercomputer would speak with Nimoy's voice. It initially obeys Webster's commands and pretends to be his servant, but eventually kills him before seizing control of all global computer systems. It would then be Brainiac, not Webster, that launches all the missiles and Kryptonite lasers at Superman. Gus realises he's been manipulated and tries reasoning with Brainiac, but to no avail. Eventually he tries escaping from inside the supercomputer, whereupon Brainiac takes possession of his body. This would basically be the same as the robot scene from the finished film, only it would be Gus that gets possessed instead of Vera.

(https://i.postimg.cc/TYtPR6VL/superman-3.gif)

The robot/cyborg would now have Brainiac's glowing red disks on his forehead and would speak with Nimoy's voice, and it would be in this form that he fights Superman during the finale. Superman defeats him using the acid, saves Gus, and hurls the remnants of the supercomputer (containing Brainiac's consciousness) into deep space. The end.

The only significant addition that would need to be made in terms of special effects would be the prologue introducing Brainiac, and that would be far less elaborate than the prologues to Superman I and II. You'd just need a model shot of Brainiac's ship accompanied by a voice over from Nimoy as he analyses what's happening on Krypton, then some stock footage from Superman: The Movie of Krypton's destruction, followed by a miniature shot of Brainiac's ship exploding. It wouldn't have cost much. All the other effects sequences in my outline would have remained the same as in the finished film, except that the robot at the end would have had Brainiac's red disks on its head.

I never suggested using Mxyzptlk or Supergirl in the same film as Brainiac. Those were ideas from Ilya Salkind's initial concept for the film, and earlier in the thread I opined that his version would have been too overstuffed and would have needed to be split into two separate films. But do I think Ilya was on the right track with using Brainiac, as were the writers of the subsequent treatments in which Gorman was to be revealed as Brainiac. I wish they'd stuck with that idea.

Quote from: Kamdan on Wed,  1 Sep  2021, 19:36Read his response more carefully. Hamm received the MANUSCRIPT, not the actual comic book. That's just words on a page. And as he said, nothing from the comic was utilized other than the already established chemical plant setup for the origin of The Joker.

Burton, on the other hand, praised the highly visual aspects of Brian Bolland's artwork and wanted to emulate that for his version of Batman. So, again, they didn't get the actual comic until it was released.

I never claimed they had the finished comic before it was published. I wrote that they were given "early access" to the story before it was published, and that's true. They were given Alan Moore's complete script.

Quote from: Kamdan on Wed,  1 Sep  2021, 19:36
It's difficult to be unique with these franchises because radical ideas like these will always be criticized by those who want it to be the same as the previous. And it's hard to judge was is valid. I love The Temple of Doom because it is nothing like Raiders of the Lost Ark and I wish every film in the series was different from the last. I won't ever criticize Superman III for giving us something new that didn't repeat what we saw in the first two. Ilya Salkind considered it an episode and not a major event movie that the first two were. It is a shame that sequels have to carry the burden of being compared to the previous. I love how innovative and interesting the sequel to American Graffiti is, but it is instantly dismissed because it is simply not on the same level as the first. I feel the same applied to Superman III.

I've lately rewatched a number of underrated sequels to films that are widely acknowledged as being great: Jaws II, Psycho II, 2010: The Year We Make Contact, Poltergeist II. In each case the original big name director was not involved in the sequel, and because of this many critics dismissed the second film as an insult to its predecessor. I don't think any of those sequels are as good as the films they're following, and they are all flawed. But I don't consider any of them to be bad per se. They're all decent when judged on their own merits, and I enjoy them all.

Superman III doesn't quite fall into that category for me. I don't think it's a terrible film by any stretch. Just average. I actually enjoy all of the Superman content in it. For me it's one of those half good, half bad films. I like the half of the film that focuses on Superman, Clark and Lana, but it's the villain half that lets it down for me.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed,  1 Sep  2021, 21:22Even Pryor taking somewhat centerstage has considerable precedent in Superman comics, where a guest star propels a story and Superman mostly reacts to whatever the guest is doing.

One thing we should have cited back when we wrote the comics influence thread was Don Rickles guest starring in Superman's Pal, Jimmy Olsen Vol 1 #139 & #141.


Many comics had celebrity guest stars like this back in the day. For example, Johnny Carson and Uri Geller both appeared in Silver Age Daredevil comics, while Dante and Randall from the Clerks movies made cameos in David Mack's Parts of a Hole. You can get away with celebrity guest stars in a comic, or even in a TV show, but I don't think they work as the central focus of feature films.

Then again, it depends on how their talents are used. Richard Pryor was a capable dramatic actor, as demonstrated by his performances in films like Lady Sings the Blues (1972), Blue Collar (1978) and Lost Highway (1997). Margot Kidder expressed frustration that the makers of Superman III didn't utilise the full range of his dramatic talents in a more meaningful way. But obviously that's not why they hired him. They wanted the comedic movie star Richard Pryor to headline their picture, and that's what they got.

Quote from: Kamdan on Wed,  1 Sep  2021, 19:36
You have been implying by comparing the budgets of Superman III and Return of the Jedi that the Salkinds should have had no problem at making a broader cosmic film closer to the comics with using characters like Brainiac and Mxyzptlk. I've stated the reason why George Lucas could handle such extravagant special effects and don't care to repeat them again. All of those factors come into play why we got a Superman film costarring Richard Pryor. I'm sure they would have been happy to give us something comparable with Return of the Jedi if they could have had another $60 million to throw into it but it wasn't finically feasible at the time.

I think it pretty much boils down to just "how" the Salkinds would have adapted Brainiac and Mxy for Superman III that would ultimately determine the overall production budget. If we're talking about wanting to be absolutely faithful to how the both of them were typically depicted in the comics, then yeah, we're talking a pretty extensive budget for sure. However, being that cinematic adaptions of characters can deviate from their comic book counterparts, due to various reasons; plot convenience, adhering to what was possible for that time, to just deciding to "ground" the character(s) to some extent so that audiences might be more accepting in what the movie is trying to sell, I think there are cinematic workarounds that could have been implemented that wouldn't absolutely necessitate a staggering increase in production budget. As the best example of this, would probably be how Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor in the Superman The Movie was cinematically depicted. By 1978, comic book Lex was firmly established in typically wearing a purple and green uniform that was outfitted with various types of weaponry to combat Superman. This was introduced in, what? 1974-ish? However, Donner was absolutely correct in deviating from the what was then-current in the comics, and scaling back Lex's capabilities as an antagonist for cinematic purposes. It's a fine line. Especially so for general audiences tastes back then.

I think the inclusion of Brainiac in Superman III probably would have been the "easiest" fit. With Mr. Mxyzptlk, whether it would have been Moore or Williams in the role, the idea of faithfully adapting Mxy to where he's floating around Superman, akin to the comic book version, would have been a tall order. Especially so in making something like that really look good in 1983. A workaround, possibly could have incorporated a change in color timing (to visually announce Mxy's presence), in addition to intentionally filming Mxy's scene's with a surreal undertone that gives the audience visual cues/sight gags that something isn't quite right. In my mind, this would be akin to how Wes Craven shot the nightmare sequences in the original 1984 NOES, though admittedly it wouldn't be as dark/mature. As this is Mr. Mr. Mxyzptlk, and you want it to be more comedic in nature, but those are just some ideas for workarounds to the limitations of that era. 

Silver's treatment was more focused on what could be retained from the finalized Superman III, rather than a dramatically overhauled rewrite that bears little resemblance to the actual realized product. Thus bringing the conceptualized extra budget to a minimum. Which I appreciated.

Superman III being essentially "episodic" in the Reeve quadrilogy of films is both a positive and negative overall. Positive in that one can enjoy it entirely on it's own. Negative in that the film was always going to be compared to the first two. Which are typically perceived as being much more in relation to one another than III ever will be.

QuoteBut do I think Ilya was on the right track with using Brainiac, as were the writers of the subsequent treatments in which Gorman was to be revealed as Brainiac. I wish they'd stuck with that idea.

It's a decent fix, but I would have preferred if Brainiac possessed Gus Gorman much earlier in the film when we he's just a bum that's being manipulated into becoming a computer genius instead of it just being a random skill he has. It would also make him more sympathetic to all of the antics he causes and would explain plot holes like manipulating of weather satellite that can project the weather, not cause it.

I've always questioned the validity of Gus Gorman originally conceived as the human guise of Brainiac due to the writer's assuming that Richard Pryor's role in this was comedic. Pryor wanted to take on more serious roles and was reportedly upset that this wasn't the case but he let the money talk him into accepting the role and apparently was a let down for director Richard Lester who only wanted to direct III for the opportunity to work with Pryor and hoped that he would punch up the humor with his improvisations, but Pryor wasn't motivated enough to do so.

Perhaps something like that was planned but due to Pryor's freebasing cocaine incident, he had to be restrictive on elaborate make-ups. It was a small feat enough just to have him fly was Superman due to his fear of heights. I'm sure all of these changes would've been implemented, but other circumstances got in the way of them being achieved.

QuoteI never claimed they had the finished comic before it was published. I wrote that they were given "early access" to the story before it was published, and that's true. They were given Alan Moore's complete script.

Burton is not a words on paper kind of guy. He once explained that he had dyslexia over which word balloons he was supposed to read to follow the comics and has often stated that he doesn't have the best judgment in screenplays. You have to give him full visual representation and I don't see what he could've done with Alan Moore's complete script for The Killing Joke.

As for this relating to Superman III, the Newmans never struck me as people interested enough for this to fit the mold of the comics as Hamm clearly was. I wish that there would have been more interviews detailing their involvement with the franchise other than their Telly Savalas joke from the first film that gets repeated far too often. Scripts have several terrible jokes in them but that doesn't mean they'll end up in the final film. They deserve a lot of credit for laying out the groundwork for the two films working from Puzo's original script. For III, this was their own work and they succeeded in parts but obviously floundered on the humor, which was a criticism that stemmed back when Donner was in charge with the Luthor material. Critics thought Lester made the Luthor material funnier when it was really Donner directing. That's thanks to the more humorous nature of Luthor being subservient to the humorless General Zod.

Coming back to the point about Ilya Salkind's original idea for Superman III being split into two different films... Now that I think about it, isn't that more or less what happened? The Brainiac part of his idea morphed into the supercomputer plot in Superman III, while other elements – such as the introduction of Kara and a magic-wielding villain with godlike abilities (Selena instead of Mxyzptlk) – ended up in the Supergirl movie the following year. Selena wasn't on the same multiversal threat level as Mxyzptlk, but she was still a powerful magical adversary who could effectively do anything she wanted. She's the closest thing the Donnerverse had to a character like Mxyzptlk.


Selena has since been adapted into the Supergirl comics, in which she was also portrayed as a powerful magic user.


I've read that Reeve's cameo in Supergirl would have involved Selena transforming Superman into a sick old man, and then him being turned back to normal again after Kara defeats her. Transforming Superman in this manner is the sort of thing I can imagine Mxyzptlk might have done. But of course Reeve decided not to go ahead with the cameo, and instead fans had to make do with this scene.


Imagine if Superman III and Supergirl had been merged into a single movie. That would have been interesting. Disastrous perhaps, but interesting all the same.

Quote from: The Joker on Thu,  2 Sep  2021, 22:58I think it pretty much boils down to just "how" the Salkinds would have adapted Brainiac and Mxy for Superman III that would ultimately determine the overall production budget. If we're talking about wanting to be absolutely faithful to how the both of them were typically depicted in the comics, then yeah, we're talking a pretty extensive budget for sure. However, being that cinematic adaptions of characters can deviate from their comic book counterparts, due to various reasons; plot convenience, adhering to what was possible for that time, to just deciding to "ground" the character(s) to some extent so that audiences might be more accepting in what the movie is trying to sell, I think there are cinematic workarounds that could have been implemented that wouldn't absolutely necessitate a staggering increase in production budget. As the best example of this, would probably be how Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor in the Superman The Movie was cinematically depicted. By 1978, comic book Lex was firmly established in typically wearing a purple and green uniform that was outfitted with various types of weaponry to combat Superman. This was introduced in, what? 1974-ish? However, Donner was absolutely correct in deviating from the what was then-current in the comics, and scaling back Lex's capabilities as an antagonist for cinematic purposes. It's a fine line. Especially so for general audiences tastes back then.

They did this with Zod too. Before Superman: The Movie, Zod was always portrayed as bald, clean shaven and wearing a military uniform (usually either green or purple) with a peaked cap. In his earliest Silver Age appearances he wore trunks that left his upper legs bare. The dominant image of Zod we have today, with the dark hair, beard and black costume, was created for the film. I imagine they would have adapted Mxyzptlk in a similar way.

Quote from: The Joker on Thu,  2 Sep  2021, 22:58I think the inclusion of Brainiac in Superman III probably would have been the "easiest" fit. With Mr. Mxyzptlk, whether it would have been Moore or Williams in the role, the idea of faithfully adapting Mxy to where he's floating around Superman, akin to the comic book version, would have been a tall order. Especially so in making something like that really look good in 1983. A workaround, possibly could have incorporated a change in color timing (to visually announce Mxy's presence), in addition to intentionally filming Mxy's scene's with a surreal undertone that gives the audience visual cues/sight gags that something isn't quite right. In my mind, this would be akin to how Wes Craven shot the nightmare sequences in the original 1984 NOES, though admittedly it wouldn't be as dark/mature. As this is Mr. Mr. Mxyzptlk, and you want it to be more comedic in nature, but those are just some ideas for workarounds to the limitations of that era. 

It's funny that you should bring up A Nightmare on Elm Street, as that's one of the films that popped into my head when I was trying to imagine what a live action Mxyzptlk might have been like in the eighties. Obvious Freddy is a much darker and nastier villain, but there is some overlap in terms of them both being reality-warping antagonists who are somewhat like cartoon characters in their ability to basically do anything their imagination can come up with. They can change their own appearance, environments, or even the laws of physics (only in dreams, in Freddy's case) for the purpose of tormenting their enemies. The other eighties movie character I thought of, who is also like a live action cartoon character with reality-warping abilities, was Beetlejuice.


Another eighties movie that depicts a reality-warping antagonist with godlike powers is Joe Dante's remake of 'It's a Good Life' from Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983). The kid in that story is able will anything he wants into existence and change reality on a whim.


Xtro (1982) attempted something similar on a much smaller budget.


These examples are all a lot darker than anything we would have expected from an eighties Superman movie, but they offer us a glimpse of how characters with reality-warping powers similar to those of Mxyzptlk were depicted during that era.

Alternatively, a way of doing a more grounded and less effects-heavy version of Mxyzptlk would be to portray him as a sort of malevolent version of Clarence from It's a Wonderful Life (1946) – an odd little eccentric who keeps following Superman around and making his life harder by imposing random handicaps: "From now on, you're no longer invulnerable/no one remembers who you are/everything you touch turns to stone, etc." That way Brainiac could still be the main antagonist, while Mxyzptlk serves as a secondary villain.

Quote from: Kamdan on Fri,  3 Sep  2021, 13:11It's a decent fix, but I would have preferred if Brainiac possessed Gus Gorman much earlier in the film when we he's just a bum that's being manipulated into becoming a computer genius instead of it just being a random skill he has. It would also make him more sympathetic to all of the antics he causes and would explain plot holes like manipulating of weather satellite that can project the weather, not cause it.

That would certainly have explained his sudden aptitude for computer programming. The filmmakers would need to add a scene early in the movie where we see Brainiac first make contact with Gorman. Perhaps Gus gets struck by lightning after he leaves the unemployment bureau, and as he dusts himself down and questions what just happened we could briefly see Brainiac's red disks superimposed over his forehead before promptly vanishing. That would signal to the viewer that the alien presence has latched on to him. The audience could fill in the rest for themselves. And as you say, that would also make Gus more sympathetic by shifting the responsibility for his actions onto Brainiac.

Quote from: Kamdan on Fri,  3 Sep  2021, 13:11I wish that there would have been more interviews detailing their involvement with the franchise other than their Telly Savalas joke from the first film that gets repeated far too often. Scripts have several terrible jokes in them but that doesn't mean they'll end up in the final film. They deserve a lot of credit for laying out the groundwork for the two films working from Puzo's original script. For III, this was their own work and they succeeded in parts but obviously floundered on the humor, which was a criticism that stemmed back when Donner was in charge with the Luthor material. Critics thought Lester made the Luthor material funnier when it was really Donner directing. That's thanks to the more humorous nature of Luthor being subservient to the humorless General Zod.

I'd like to know more about the Newmans' contribution as well. I enjoyed reading the earlier drafts of the Batman '89 and Batman Returns scripts and seeing which elements were introduced in which treatment, and it would be equally interesting to see the evolution of the Superman movie scripts.

I read the first issue of Superman 78 today.

It's a decent start. It feels like your typical Superman vs Brainiac story but in the style of the Reeve era, and it captures the tone pretty well. I can definitely imagine the actors in their heyday reciting the lines in this comic, so they definitely got the characterisations down, and it's little things such as Clark using his heat vision to set a mugger's foot on fire before the cops get him would certainly fit in that era. My only complaint so far is I'm not the biggest fan of Torres' art. It's not as detailed as Quinones, and there are some moments where it does look traced, but it's a style I will have to get used to, I guess. If you wish Reeve's Superman was more a brawler in the movies then you'll be happy with this issue.

Let's see what the second issue has in store.

Issue #2 is a fine addition and very authentic, but I can't help thinking these issues needed to be longer. I think the material thus far should have been covered in a double length first issue. Having said that, I was very pleased with Luthor's first appearance, and I'm glad that the humor hasn't been done away with. So far so good.

Quote from: Gotham Knight on Tue, 28 Sep  2021, 13:59
Issue #2 is a fine addition and very authentic, but I can't help thinking these issues needed to be longer. I think the material thus far should have been covered in a double length first issue. Having said that, I was very pleased with Luthor's first appearance, and I'm glad that the humor hasn't been done away with. So far so good.

I'm really liking this. A lot. Feels like this could be giving more explanation to Superman's decision to depower himself and attempt to settle down with Lois, as Brainaic argues a Kryptonian shouldn't be allowed to remain on Earth and breed. Perhaps after this ordeal he feels like he should contradict this assertion rather than being a lone survivor who could be wiped from existence. Made me smile to see the cellophane S  make a comeback. Good on the writers for embracing these things, and making the Theatrical cut (the better version) canon.

Hackman's Luthor steals the show in the second issue. I like the glimpse we're given of his secret lab and the Easter eggs teasing Bizarro and Lex's battle armour. Since Billy Dee Williams posted a picture of the Batman '89 comic on social media, I'm hopeful that Hackman has been sent a copy of this as well.

The central storyline is shaping up to be a solid retelling of the familiar Brainiac plot, rendered in a way that's visually and tonally consistent with the films. The scene where the people of Metropolis side with Superman against Brainiac reminded me of the scene in Superman II where the mob tries to confront the Phantom Zone criminals after they think Superman's been killed. The return of the cellophane S-shield was a nice touch.

Bring on issue 3.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 28 Sep  2021, 19:21
The return of the cellophane S-shield was a nice touch.

The sucked me right out of it. Thought the whole point of this comic was to give us a Donner vision of what Superman III could have been. Lifting this Lester nonsense goes against that claim.

To me it's a question of canonicity. The Burtonverse comic is being sold as pure continuity, taking place after Batman Returns. So what is pure Reeveverse continuity? I see the Donner cut on shelves, but not the Theatrical. Does that make it the one and only? For sales purposes, yes. But otherwise I'm not convinced it replaces Lester. Nor would I want it to.

The way I understood this project was to envision a continuity past Donner's version of Superman I and II. It has now become a popular opinion that Donner was fired after the first movie and we were deprived of his vision of the series when Lester took over and made it too campy. That's largely an overstatement but it seems to be everyone's belief in n this manner. This comic already had enough problems with the blatant tracing of screen captures and stills, but lifting an often criticized Lester moment in what's supposed to be a Donner influenced product seems rather peculiar to me.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 30 Sep  2021, 01:00
To me it's a question of canonicity. The Burtonverse comic is being sold as pure continuity, taking place after Batman Returns. So what is pure Reeveverse continuity? I see the Donner cut on shelves, but not the Theatrical. Does that make it the one and only? For sales purposes, yes. But otherwise I'm not convinced it replaces Lester. Nor would I want it to.

My take on it is this:

I'm a Donner guy, but as much as I prefer the Donner Cut, as a piece of canon it doesn't work. The reality is that it is a glorified assembly that unfortunately ends up being a slave to the circumstances IE the turn the world back ending which was rendered not canon when they lifted the already shot ending and used the gimmick for the first movie. To make it work, you would have to prep the audience by focusing heavily on making selective parts of the Donner Cut canon. The Donner Cut is the lore right up until...when? The balcony? Seems logical, but then you have to deal with Lois' knowledge of Clark's identity. Do you start your story there the next day? Do you make your story the courtship of Lois? How far out of the box for this heavily nostalgic property do you go? Batman 89 pulled the trigger on that, but it is clear that this team is much more concerned with fitting in. Do you say the Donner Cut is canon, but the Lester ending happens? It's too much confusion. You'd need an entire issue to act as a primer.

The fact is that the theatrical version of II is a very popular entry (considered the best by some) and while the cellophane S does bug me, if used sparingly, some of Lester's sensibilities are okay for specific fan service nods so long as Donner's verisimilitude dominates, which thus far it has. It is simply easier to say that the release versions of Superman I and II happened (or maybe will happen in II's case). Now here comes the next story. Direct and simple. Superman II is not as a big a point of conjecture everywhere. Typically it is liked very much. It's III and IV when audiences start to really grumble.

Some thoughts on issue three.

The revelation that Lara and Jor-El are still alive is going to take some time to digest. My initial gut reaction is that it's too big a revision, but for now I'm willing to wait and see how it plays out. I wonder if they really are Superman's parents, or if they're just clone/robot simulations. Without his super powers, Clark wouldn't necessarily be able to tell the difference. I'll have to read the rest of the series before passing judgement on this particular plot point.

Lex continues to be the MVP, and it's not hard to imagine his vainglorious dialogue being spoken in Hackman's voice. It makes sense for him to pit his mind against Brainiac, whom he likely perceives as a greater and more immediate extraterrestrial threat than Superman. It's going to be fun seeing how he helps Superman escape from Kandor, though I'm sure he'll eventually try to double-cross him.

Issue three expands on the Donnervsere mythology in a number of ways. Firstly, we see Thanagarians inside one of Brainiac's bottled cities. Later there's a panel of a newspaper stand displaying a magazine with a Keaton-esque Bruce Wayne on the cover. The adjacent panel is a close-up of a newspaper on which a 'Mysterious Bat-Man Terrorizes Gotham' headline can be seen. There was a similar headline in the Batman '89 comic teasing Superman's existence. This makes me wonder if they're building up to a World's Finest comic starring Reeve and Keaton. That would be interesting.

Overall, another solid issue. Nothing groundbreaking, but entertaining enough not to disappoint.

I feel the same way about the twist. I won't give my final opinion until it becomes clear what actually happened. It really depends on how they handle the landing, but nonetheless, I'm impressed with the way they've remained true to the Reeve spirit while also blowing up the balloon. And how they've shown that despite all the threats Superman faces, Lex remains his true nemesis.

I caught up with the last couple of issues lately. I appreciate how the series so far continues to capture the tone and dialogue of the Reeve era, but that twist of *** spoilers***Jor-El, Lara and the entire city of Kandor being kept prisoner by Brainiac, *** end spoilers*** is a bold move. I can understand why the writers did this, because this Superman '78 limited series would've been otherwise predictable, but now this twist needs to pay off. They better have a good idea to conclude the story to justify this twist.

[SPOILERS]
Unless there is another twist to Jor-El and Lara being alive, it will be very interesting to see how Clark will adapt to becoming the new leader of whatever is left of Krypton. It wouldn't surprise me if he has a dilemma in figuring out whether he should return to Earth as its guardian once the Brainiac crisis ends, or if he should rebuild what's left of his birth world. Of course, Superman will eventually return to Earth, but I can imagine this dramatic turn of events coming later in this story. But then again, we'll see what Lex has in mind now that he is tracking Brainiac's activity in outer space.
[/END SPOILERS]

I do agree with the criticism of Superman reusing the cellophane S shield in issue two. It reminds me of how muddled the continuity of this entire run is. Do the events of Superman '78 take place after S78, SII, or in between? I can't call it Donnerverse, because while Donner may have had his own quirks, the cellophane S shield is not his style.

I read issue four today. Spoilers below.


I like how Lex's ego comes at the expense of Metropolis' safety while it gives Superman the hope to free himself from the bottled city of Kandor. It's a double-edge sword, to say the least. If these comics end with Superman defeating Brainiac without any assistance from Lex, I can see his madness growing and dislike of Superman turn into pure hatred, should he get "robbed" of the chance to challenge Brainiac as the superior intellect in the universe. Should Jor-El encounter Lex and admit not even he could've found a way to bypass Brainiac's technology and imprisonment, Lex's self-importance will be amusingly inflated, much to Superman's chagrin.

I thought Superman's desire to return to Earth and recognising as it his home was spot on, even more so showing Jor-El and Lara's understanding. Despite being in the company of his parents and what's left of his birthplace, this issue shows Superman's frustration and homesickness quite well.


It's a solid issue. So far, I reckon this six-part Superman '78 comic run is better than Batman '89. Although its artwork isn't as good as Joe Quinones, Superman '78 has a much better plot structure. Now I hope the last remaining issues pay off.

Issue five came out a few days ago, and I read it just now. Once again, spoilers in white below.

It's an entertaining to read, although predictable. Superman's freedom from the bottle city of Kandor and battle with Brainiac will continue into the sixth and last issue, while Lex appears to attempt to enter Brainiac's ship via a hot air balloon. Quite fitting for this universe's Lex.

I noticed a number of Easter eggs in this issue:

-Lex appears in a purple jumper as he wore in the Pre-Crisis comics while travelling in the hot air balloon.
-The robot Kelex from John Byrne's MOS mini-series appears, and it observes Jor-El preparing the scientific calculations to resize and free his son from Kandor.
-Gus Gorman from Superman III looks on with terror, as the entire city of Metropolis is getting extracted by Brainiac.
-A man who looks like Shaggy from Scooby-Doo appears in a crowd looking as Metropolis is under attack. Don't know if this was intentional, but the similarity to that character is definitely there.
-Superman screaming in pain as his body is getting resized back to normal size and escaping captivity is very identical to his grief over Lois' death in the Donner movie. I suspect these images must've been traced from the movie scene.
-Superman steps into the portal with the Spinning Rings as we saw in S78 and Superman II to undergo his escape from Kandor.

Superman's fight with the Brainiac bots is pretty decent, and the scene where he uses super speed to catch all the prison bottles, including Kandor, is a nice touch.

So now we're up to the last issue, it should be action-packed. But we still haven't seen anything about Nuclear Man or the Phantom Zone villains as of yet. We should see these characters make their cameos next, though how they will fit in remains to be seen.

I just read the final issue. SPOILERS ahoy.

The quality of Superman '78 has been consistent throughout, and this last chapter didn't disappoint me. Most of the action concerns the final battle between Superman and Brainiac, but there's also a tense sequence where Superman saves Metropolis that visually evokes a scene from Superman Returns. There's a nice final exchange between Clark and his parents in which Kal-El's status as a symbol of hope is touchingly emphasised, and several promising plot strands are left open ended for a possible sequel. I'd actually really like to see a continuation of this series to find out where some of those strands lead. Will Superman restore his parents and the other occupants of the bottled cities to their original state, and how will he track down and apprehend the fugitive Lex? Did Brainiac's consciousness survive the destruction of his ship? There are also some amusing Easter egg references to the movies, such as Lex's hot air balloon from Superman II and the Jingo machine in Perry's office from Superman III. The Goonies cameo was a bit weird, but I guess it was intended as a tribute to Donner. All in all, a satisfying denouement.

On the whole, I view the Superman '78 series as a success. There's nothing groundbreaking about it, and certain aspects are incongruous with the continuity of the Donnerverse sequels (or the Singerverse timeline for that matter), but I enjoyed it. It told an engaging and straightforward story that balanced humour, action and drama, maintained a strong sense of pacing and ended each issue with a hook that made me want to read the next one. The art work captured the look of the films and the likenesses of the actors, and the general feel was one of nostalgic familiarity mixed with an exciting expansion of the mythology. There were some twists I didn't see coming (especially the reveal that Lara and Jor-El are still alive), and the whole thing ended on an upbeat note that left me wanting more.

Again, nothing groundbreaking. But a fun and satisfying addition to the Donnerverse.

I was a bit let down by this final chapter, if this series is one and done and will not continue. Some questions were left unanswered, and the other Donnerverse villains that were teased on social media didn't appear at all. With that all said, I still think Superman 78 was entertaining to read, and I enjoyed it better than Batman 89.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 26 Jan  2022, 13:29
There were some twists I didn't see coming (especially the reveal that Lara and Jor-El are still alive), and the whole thing ended on an upbeat note that left me wanting more.

Gotta be honest and say I'm disappointed that Jor-El and Lara are the real deal and alive at the end of the story. Unless there's a continuation of this comic I'd prefer to have seen that plot point closed. It's a huge development to introduce into this continuity with zero reference to it in subsequent films. I personally don't think they have any place existing this far into the story and should meet their demise with Krypton. But that aside, this comic was a success. Especially for Lex.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 26 Jan  2022, 13:29There were some twists I didn't see coming (especially the reveal that Lara and Jor-El are still alive), and the whole thing ended on an upbeat note that left me wanting more.

There are certain character deaths that rly should be inviolable. Apparently, I've lost the argument when it comes to Jason Todd and Bucky. So be it.

But Thomas and Martha Wayne, Uncle Ben, Jor-El and Lara ought to stay dead.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 29 Jan  2022, 11:46
Gotta be honest and say I'm disappointed that Jor-El and Lara are the real deal and alive at the end of the story. Unless there's a continuation of this comic I'd prefer to have seen that plot point closed. It's a huge development to introduce into this continuity with zero reference to it in subsequent films. I personally don't think they have any place existing this far into the story and should meet their demise with Krypton. But that aside, this comic was a success. Especially for Lex.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 29 Jan  2022, 14:04
There are certain character deaths that rly should be inviolable. Apparently, I've lost the argument when it comes to Jason Todd and Bucky. So be it.

But Thomas and Martha Wayne, Uncle Ben, Jor-El and Lara ought to stay dead.

The survival of Lara and Jor-El is certainly the single biggest discrepency between the comic and the movies. I'm assuming that Venditti has something planned for this particular subplot should the series be extended – that he'll reveal Lara and Jor-El are actually clones or doppelgangers from another universe, or that he'll kill them off in such a way that restores the earlier status quo. If not, and if these six issues represent the entirety of the series, then I don't see how the comic can be reconciled with Superman II-IV. Not unless it erases the events of those movies and begins a new timeline. But dubious canonicity notwithstanding, I still enjoyed Superman '78 for what it is.

Regarding Jason Todd, I've always felt that he should have remained dead and his heroic status been left untarnished. There's a modern perception of Jason as the rebellious 'failed' Robin who flaunted a bad attitude and was always talking back to Batman, but he only really behaved like that during the Death in the Family arc. Earlier comics, and especially those of the Pre-Crisis era, had portrayed Jason as a funny and dependable ally for Batman, much like his predecessor Dick Grayson had been. The Post-Crisis Jason was also depicted positively in The Cult, which ranks alongside A Death in the Family as the best Modern Age Todd-Robin story. It was just that final arc that made him out to be a bad tempered liability, and unfortunately that's coloured how posterity has regarded him ever since. His villainous resurrection only cemented that negative reputation further.

I do like some of the stories that take place after his resurrection – especially Hush, Under the Hood and Battle for the Cowl – but I would have preferred it if the villainous Jason had been a clone. That way the real Jason could have been left to rest in peace.

Characters that provide the hero with foundational angst need to stay dead. They're the bedrock of their crusade and provide constant grounding. They are a story and an idea that remains at the back of their mind every day. Resurrecting them changes the dynamic way too much. I don't have a problem with resurrecting certain characters during the course of a career, though. But it's a rare exception. And Jason Todd is that exception for me. I fell in love with Under The Red Hood as a piece of epic drama. I like the theme of Batman having to confront a past failure head on, clinging on to the memory of the boy he once knew, rather than the bitter and twisted man he now sees in front of him.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 29 Jan  2022, 14:04
There are certain character deaths that rly should be inviolable. Apparently, I've lost the argument when it comes to Jason Todd and Bucky. So be it.

But Thomas and Martha Wayne, Uncle Ben, Jor-El and Lara ought to stay dead.

As much as I enjoyed the Superman 78 comics, l did find them to be derivative. The story had to do something different to be somewhat memorable, so I didn't mind that Jor-El and Lara were alive and imprisoned by Brainiac. I do think Superman's relationship with his parents could've been much deeper, but as far as glorified fan fiction is concerned, I can accept it. Look on the bright side, at least they didn't copy JJ Abrams' Superman Reborn idea of making Lex Luthor a Kryptonian.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 29 Jan  2022, 11:46Unless there's a continuation of this comic

There's going to be, and I'm happy about that. With this and the potential Cavill appearance at Comic Con, things might be looking up. In an ideal world that black Superman project has been scrapped and reworked into a Cavill project. Which would be an insane head trip given I've long thought his era to be dead and buried.

Following the news the Batman '89 comics is getting another volume, Superman '78 is getting a sequel too, subtitled The Metal Curtain.

First issue is coming out on November 7th. It appears Reeve's Superman will endure another Cold War story.

QuoteWhen the planet Krypton exploded, its last son was rocketed across the cosmos and came to settle in a small town in Kansas. But what else came with him, and what if a piece of his home landed somewhere we never knew about? As Superman has become a symbol of strength and pride for America, the Soviet Union looks to crush that image with a creation of their own, built by their own might and forged by their own power! Robert Venditti returns to the Man of Steel with new artist Gavin Guidry!

(https://bigtimecollectibles.com/cdn/shop/products/0923DC032_fd9a18a7-6a6b-47c0-94d0-6266349badd8.jpg)

https://bigtimecollectibles.com/products/0923dc032

(https://i.ibb.co/xmjN0fr/Image.png)