Originally posted by: Number20Originally posted by: Han Solo VS Indiana JonesTo quote Sidney J. Furie, who had the misfortune of directing Superman IV: The Quest For Peace - "The truth is, whether your film is about the great mythological character you have to do right, or it's a little movie that nobody ever heard of, you still approach it like it's the most important thing in the world. But failing goes with the territory. Filmmakers are like gunslingers, and you don't win every duel."
On the same note, which do you think was worse - Superman III or Superman IV? For me it's a bit of a draw as they are both pretty poor and both waste ideas that could have made for fascinating films - #3 wasted the idea of what would happen if Superman turned evil and #4 wasted the idea of what would happen if Superman decided to tackle a political issue as global as the nuclear warfare issue. #3 had the lovely Annette O'Toole, good special effects and a crappy plot, #4 had the lovely Mariel Hemmingway, a slightly better story and crappy special effects. What say you all?
I personally liked 3 better than 4, but only because I'm probably the only person in the world who thought that Ross Webster was an interesting villian. Sort of like the comic's current version of Lex Luthor as a cold-hearted, ruthless businessman. But it did have a very long, dull, and overly drawn out plot and not much of any importance happens for most of the film. I can forgive the special effects of 4, but just the overall production values of the film seem cheap. I didn't really think Nuclear Man was that good of a villian. Hackman did a good job as Luthor, as usual, but his nephew, who's name I can't remember right now, was just irritating and too over the top stupid. Overall, Superman 4 seemed to be too much of a rehash of the earlier films for me to really think it was that good. But choosing between the two isn't as much which one is better, but which one is not as bad as the other one.
