|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2022 11:28:52 GMT -5
Superman IV: The Quest for Peace is an extremely problematic movie. I feel it has some good points, such as Reeve as Superman (always a pleasure), the touching scene where Lois Lane implies she knows Superman and Clark are one and the same, a decent - on paper - plot about ridding the world of nuclear weapons, etc. Yet there’s a LOT that is wrong. The film is riddled with plot holes. Lex Luthor is a bit of a clown thoughout the movie. The special effects are inferior to the first film despite the movie taking place nine years after the 1978 original. I could write a “shopping list” of what is wrong with the film (and don’t get me started on the deleted prototype Nuclear Man scenes). It’s frustrating because I think there’s a good film buried in there somewhere. And I mean buried. Like the smallest needle in the world’s biggest haystack. But, Nuclear Man…  I honestly think that the concept of Nuclear Man is a sound one. They say there’s no bad characters, only bad writers. For better or worse, “nuclear” can be a dirty word. It seems to be my country (UK) can’t even have a debate about whether to have more nuclear power stations because “nuclear” can be a dirty word. The word is probably used pejoratively more often than not. If the fourth movie had had been written, directed and produced better, and the negative elements hadn’t been a factor, I am certain Nuclear Man could have become something special. I can’t prove that. I’m simply expressing a view. But on paper - and that’s the key thing for me - a Luthor-created, nuclear-powered supervillain, who can go toe-to-toe with Superman, is a good thing. I’m almost certain of that. I guess the execution of the fourth movie tainted things. Hell, we didn’t get a Superman movie for 19 years after the fourth film, although there are many reasons for that (I’m not laying the blame at Nuclear Man’s door). What comic editor/writer would have wanted to touch Nuclear Man after the fiasco of the fourth film? I just stand by what I said: I think the concept of Nuclear Man could work. I think his origin is a good one, although a comic story could tweak it (how did Luthor cut Superman’s lock of hair in the film?). I don’t know if there has ever been a demand for Nuclear Man. I’ve seen a lot of customised Nuclear Man figures on FB groups devoted to Kenner’s Super Powers line. A UK Superman comic did publish a letter asking whether Nuclear Man would show up. Apart from that, I can’t say I’ve seen any mass lobbying for the character. Do you think he could have worked in a comic, if we put the tainted nature of the fourth film behind us?
|
|
|
|
Post by majestic on Apr 12, 2022 12:34:36 GMT -5
Charlton did a "Nuclear Man" much better with their excellent E-Man series by Cuti & Staton. One of my favorite series.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2022 12:35:20 GMT -5
Charlton did a "Nuclear Man" much better with their excellent E-Man series by Cuti & Staton. One of my favorite series. Haven’t read that one, I’m afraid, but I’ll look it up, thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by majestic on Apr 12, 2022 12:36:41 GMT -5
I also feel Dr Solar (Gold Key/Valiant) and Capt Atom (Charlton/DC) are similar characters having energy powers derived from a Nuclear explosion.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Apr 12, 2022 12:36:51 GMT -5
I say Nuclear Man would not work in comic form becaause one, a villain born of an experiment and/or accident related to a main or "A" plot is not new at all, and is one of the most overused villain tropes in superhero comics, and two, if you're basing it on ANY part of that horrid movie, then you're starting at the bottom with no creative footholds to step up from said bottom.
Ewww. Just thinking about the idea of Superman getting rid of all nuclear weapons is just so absurd on its face, and immediately posed the question: "why didn't he do this in the first Superman film--if he was so conscientious at that time, he would have collected the weapons at that time...and Luthor's missile-induced land grab scheme would not have been possible at all." So, all IV achieved was making Superman's earlier self sort of clueless about an issue which was certainly as much of a concern in 1978 (when Superman the Movie takes place) as it was at the time of IV's release.
|
|
|
|
Post by majestic on Apr 12, 2022 12:37:51 GMT -5
So yes the Nuclear Man concept is a good one done right. The Legion's Wildfire is another similar example.
|
|
|
|
Post by majestic on Apr 12, 2022 12:43:07 GMT -5
Charlton did a "Nuclear Man" much better with their excellent E-Man series by Cuti & Staton. One of my favorite series. Haven’t read that one, I’m afraid, but I’ll look it up, thanks. it may be hard to find. First Comics picked up the title after Charlton went out of business. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2022 12:43:57 GMT -5
I came across some Atlas titles at a jumble sale years ago, so anything is possible if something is out of print.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2022 12:50:19 GMT -5
DC Comics already has Firestorm the Nuclear Man....this guy from the Superman movie was just plain awful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2022 12:54:22 GMT -5
DC Comics already has Firestorm the Nuclear Man....this guy from the Superman movie was just plain awful. Yes, but imagine a 4–issue mini series: Firestorm the Nuclear Man VS Nuclear Man in a story titled “Nuclear Apocalypse”. Would be as big as Hulk Hogan VS Andre the Giant, right? |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,042 
|
Post by Confessor on Apr 12, 2022 13:11:53 GMT -5
I agree that there was indeed the potential for a good movie in there somewhere, but there were a LOT of problems with the film that prevented us getting it. I mean, the script really wasn't very good, 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...more or less like she had been in Superman III. Also, the lack of a serious budget (due to the production company's financial problems) meant that the special effects looked really poor for the times. I think that the film might've been improved a little by leaving in the sub-plot about the first failed Nuclear Man -- who was essentially the movie version of Bizarro -- but I don't think that alone would've been enough to have saved it. As I'm sure you know driver1980, the DC comic adaptation still had those cut scenes left in and, while reading the adaptation is a superior experience to watching the film, it's still no great shakes as a comic. Re-adding the cut scenes wouldn't, in my opinion, suddenly save the film so that it ranks up there with the first two Christopher Reeve films. It's flaws go much deeper than that. As for Nuclear Man himself, he wasn't a terrible character in and of himself, I suppose, but he also wasn't an overly memorable one (did he even have any lines???). And his costume looked utterly terrible: like some reject from Masters of the Universe! They'd have been better off just taking Neutron from the comics, rather than coming up with a new character. Neutron also had a waaaaay cooler costume! Would Nuclear Man work in a comic? Sure, I guess. There are plenty of sillier villains in comics. Still, as bad as Superman IV is, there are some enjoyable moments. Superman addressing the UN and telling them that he is gonna rid the world of nukes because he cannot allow his adoptive home to continue its journey down the path of self-destruction is a nice feel good moment. I also enjoy the bittersweet nostalgia of the return to Smallville scenes. Also, seeing the Superman museum is pretty cool. Finally, the proposed buy out of the Daily Planet and it being gutted and turned into just another sleazy tabloid, along with the staff's disgust at this plan (especially Perry White), was an interesting and then-topical sub-plot. But the fact is that none of these nice little moments are enough to save the film. First and foremost, the script was dire, the narrative was littered with plot holes, and the central cast --even dear old Chris Reeve -- look like they're just dialling it in. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2022 13:18:36 GMT -5
I’m glad, Confessor, that you highlighted even more good moments from the film. There are many, as you show. I liked the bittersweet Smallville scenes, and Clark insisting to the potential buyer that he will only sell to someone who wishes to be a farmer. The UN scene is another good one, and I did like the sub-plot of that sleazy editor taking over the Planet. But, as you show in your final sentence, none of these are enough to save the film. For every great moment like the bittersweet Smallville scene, one can name 2-3 poor scenes/plot holes. It’s tragic. There is actually a Twitter account asking that a Director’s Cut be produced, but I doubt that would improve a thing, not one iota. In the multiverse somewhere, there is a GREAT Superman IV, but sadly not here. I do agree that Neutron would have been great. As for Nuclear Man’s lines, nothing memorable, just a few (dubbed by Gene Hackman, I believe). I smiled when I read the sentence “reject from Masters of the Universe”.  |
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Apr 12, 2022 16:16:13 GMT -5
Superman IV was my favourite entry in a series as a kid, precisely due to Nucular Man. Like most everything Donnerverse, I've come to see the movie as crap, but I still retain a soft spot for the guy. This line of dialogue speaks volumes on Nuclear Man's untapped potential: LUTHOR: You have my voice. NUCLEAR MAN: No. You have my voice. A dark reflection of Superman, supplanting his creator. What could've been with a good script. Also, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out Nuclear Man did make it into the comics, 31 years after his film debut: dc.fandom.com/wiki/Nuclear_Man_(Prime_Earth)Bleech. This is not the reimagining you're looking for.
|
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Apr 12, 2022 16:19:58 GMT -5
I never did see this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2022 16:24:55 GMT -5
Wow. Why the hell wasn’t I notified about this? |
|
