MovieChat Forums > Superman III (1983) Discussion > Why the increased emphasis on comedy and...

Why the increased emphasis on comedy and goofy slapstick?

posted 8 years ago by TMC-4
6 replies | jump to latest

I would immediately suggest that it was because Richard Pryor was in it but then I remembered that Superman II under Richard Lester had a bunch of out of place slapstick moments as well. Is it because the Salkinds figured that superhero adaptations are supposed to be that way (since we had in the past, seen the Adam West Batman series), hence the tension w/ Richard Donner?

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mcdemuth 7 years ago

Nowadays also a lot of people consider humour "obligatory" element of movies, especially superhero movies. I'm not saying humour is bad, it can really elevate a movie but it is not necessary at all.

Yes.

There is a difference between... doing a Superhero movie that has comedy in it... and doing a Comedy Film.

Superman is not a comedian. He is an Action Hero that gives hope to the world. Richard Donner knew this. So he made Sure Superman I was Action Hero movie.

However, he also knew, that even in real life there are some funny situations. And if you watch the film, you will see the occasional joke thrown in there to lighten the mood. Especially with Bumbling Clark Kent.

Unfortunately, those who were left in charge after Donner was fired, forgot the subject of these movies is Superman, and what his character was all about.

Gus Gorman MEETS Superman (AKA Superman III) was a bad idea, and just wrong. Not that the character of Gus Gorman was a bad idea, it was about the amount of time in the movie that featured the Gus Gorman plot.

That opening sequence really dragged down the movie, and should never have been done.

And I would like to kick the guy, who thought it was a good idea for "Gus Gorman" to TELL the story of how Superman saved Columbia, in a movie called Superman III. Those scenes should have been done from Superman's point of view with the Superman Theme music playing in the background.

[–] aaronyovanovits 8 years ago

Because Lester and the Salkinds were incompetent and Donner was the only one with any clue as to what he was doing.

[–] Anticitizen 7 years ago

Take a look at silver age comic books and you'll see where it comes from. Comic books weren't always dark and serious like they are today. You always had really bizarre, silly storylines like Jimmy Olsen being turned into a gorilla or Superman turned into a baby, stuff like that.

Edit: check this out - http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/10/100647/3752117-superman.jpg

[–] wallacesawyer 7 years ago

Lester and the Salkinds had creative control this time around, so this really is their baby when it comes to Superman movies. Richard Donner apparently didn't like the script that became SUPERMAN and SUPERMAN II, and he brought in Tom Mankiewicz as a consultant. Both films in the long run are still rather goofy and campy, so it's like not Donner wanted something deadpan serious like MAN OF STEEL. Even he knows how to have a sense of humor. He must just have a limit to how much camp the films needed. Lester and the Salkinds were really pushing it.

SUPERMAN III isn't bad. It's honestly grown on me, but maybe had they toned down the slapstick, and rewrote the Gus Gorman character a bit, it may actually be better. "SUPERMAN II: The Richard Donner Cut" is still flawed, but in my opinion superior to the theatrical version. It may even be the best Superman movie ever made.

http://www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/

[–] TMC-4 7 years ago

The problem w/ Superman III unlike the ones under Richard Donner is that it just comes off as a cynical parody of Superman in an official Superman movie.