|
|
Post by driver1980 on Jan 4, 2024 8:53:37 GMT -5
Okay, I tried an AI and got this (what the hell?): Erm, tell me how Luthor’s plan was foiled by Lois in the first movie? And exactly when did Luthor appear in Superman III?  |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Jan 4, 2024 9:16:58 GMT -5
Okay, I tried an AI and got this (what the hell?): Erm, tell me how Luthor’s plan was foiled by Lois in the first movie? And exactly when did Luthor appear in Superman III? I used ChatGPT for some brainstorming for work and to give me some ideas for making party games and I was happy with it. But if you ask him to tell you specific facts it's a disaster. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jan 4, 2024 10:42:44 GMT -5
Yeah, well at least all that stuff from Chat GPT is beautifully written.
|
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Jan 4, 2024 14:52:10 GMT -5
Okay, in Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, Nuclear Man is powered by the sun. You’ve all seen the film, you know how Superman depowers him at the end.
I never totally understood the link between nuclear power and the sun in that film. I understand the idea behind fusion. I know how solar power harnesses the sun’s energy in order to convert it into energy. I understand how nuclear power involves the splitting of nuclei within atoms.
But it seemed a little tenuous at the time. I can’t help but think - and I know superhero films shouldn’t spend too much time on science - that calling the villain Solar Man would have been less counter-intuitive.
Did the film really make sense on that level (I realise I am over-thinking it)?
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jan 4, 2024 14:53:49 GMT -5
You’ve all seen the film, This is false. |
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Jan 4, 2024 15:11:00 GMT -5
There’s still time, Slam_Bradley, I’ll even buy you the DVD… |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jan 4, 2024 16:31:21 GMT -5
I saw it. Once. Never again.
Cei-U!
I summon the lesson learned!
|
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Jan 4, 2024 16:40:36 GMT -5
I saw it. Once. Never again. Cei-U! I summon the lesson learned! I struggle to remember another example of such abysmal quality between a sequel and the progenitor. Perhaps Jaws IV? |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jan 4, 2024 16:44:50 GMT -5
Okay, in Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, Nuclear Man Did the film really make sense on that level (I realise I am over-thinking it)? Any film with a villain called "Nuclear Man" already shares the Eternal Stupidity Award with the collected works of Ed Wood.
The film did not make sense, because those responsible for the "story" were prisoners of the moment with the fear and discussion about nuclear weapons, so they--writing like something you'd expect from a dumbassed Hanna-Barbera cartoon--created Nuclear Man as if that would play as some ultimate terror / threat to Superman (and the world). Instead, Superman IV, while in the hands of The Cannon Group, continued the faster-than-light decline of the Superman films which was evident as far back as Warner Bros' Superman II under the control of the Salkinds (and a great deal of footage shot by Donner before his booting).
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,220 
Member is Online
|
Post by Confessor on Jan 4, 2024 21:44:46 GMT -5
Yeah, Superman IV: The Quest for Peace is pretty terrible from just about every angle. I tend to think that there was a potentially good film in there somewhere, but there were a LOT of problems with it that prevented us getting that good film.
The script was dire, Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor was at best redundant and at worst an overly silly annoyance (and don't get me started on his nephew!), and Margot Kidder's Lois Lane -- who was one of the franchise's best characters -- is largely sidelined and underused. Nuclear Man is dire and his costume looked utterly terrible: like some reject from Masters of the Universe! They'd have been better off just using Neutron from the comics, who had a much cooler costume! And, of course, the lack of a serious budget (due to the production company's financial problems) meant that the special effects looked awful for the times.
The comic adaptation (with art by Curt Swan and Don Heck) is actually way more enjoyable than the film. For one thing, it doesn't suffer from terrible looking special effects, but like many film adaptations, it's actually based on an early shooting script and so includes several scenes that were removed from the finished film that in a number of cases actually improve the story. For example, there is a deleted sub-plot about the first failed Nuclear Man -- who was essentially the movie version of Bizarro.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Jan 4, 2024 21:50:14 GMT -5
According to Wolfman, he and Byrne were invited in to write the first draft of Superman IV. Then one day, Chris Reeves walked in with a whole different idea, and the rest is history.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jan 4, 2024 21:59:58 GMT -5
I liked watching Mariel Hemingway, in the film....  I didn't really notice that much else. |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Jan 5, 2024 4:34:54 GMT -5
Ok this was fun 😅
|
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Jan 5, 2024 8:16:59 GMT -5
They make a great point in the video. Okay, you don't have a budget for believable FX. Okay. It can happen. Then don't put so many FX scenes into the story! There was even a subplot cut with a flawed first Nuclear Man. Use that money for less but better FX! |
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Jan 5, 2024 9:18:26 GMT -5
Instead of going to Wikipedia (I prefer meaningful conversation and anecdotes), could somebody please tell me what was happening in the main X-Men book when X-Factor debuted in 1986? X-Factor featured the original X-Men masquerading as “mutant hunters” away from Professor X, right? So, from, say, 1986 to 1988, or even just the first year, what was happening in the main X-title, who was leading the X-Men, was Xavier active, etc?
|
|
