watching this on tv, and can't believe all the corny, stupid humor he put into the movie, he clearly didn't have any respect for the source material
Why the creators of Superman didn't hire somebody else?
Richard Donner grew up reading the comics. Clearly Lester was the wrong man for the job. Had Donner and Tom Manckiewicz been around for III, it would have been a much better movie.
The Salkinds brought back Richard Lester because they wanted more creative control over the film. Richard Donner and the Salkinds never got along.
I enjoy this film all things considered, but the humor was a bit overdone.
http://www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/
what I don't understand is people talk like those were the only 2 directors in the entire world
sharewhat I don't understand is people talk like those were the only 2 directors in the entire world
I think also, the Salkinds still owed Lester money over his Three Musketeers films (in which the Salkinds split it into two movies w/o Lester's consent or prior knowledge).
shareThe Salkinds also felt that Richard Lester was a very economical director, meaning that unlike with what they felt with Richard Donner, Lester could keep things on a budget. I think that Lester unlike Donner employed a very workman like approach to making the Superman movies. He had a certain shot-list of things that he needed to get done but there was little passion or genuine love or feeling for the source material that Donner gave it.
sharesource material
Or perhaps they could just re-watch the first two instead which are easily superior. The studio and director should've put in more effort if they expected anyone to take it seriously.
share[deleted]
I think that the scenes Richard Lester changed in Superman II, for the most part, were for the best, and made the movie even better.
However, Superman III does show what happens when Richard Donner has no involvement.
No they weren't, Lester ruined it, he had no respect or liking for Superman and it made number 2 so disjointed. He completely lost the meaning of Supermans origin and story from number 1 and all his aditions were meaningless. He refilmed parts just to get a credit but they were worse for the most part. No real effort or responsibility went into the parts he directed and it looked like they were filmed with out any passion. Clark crossing the road and denting the cab for example was so badly done and made no sense. It should have been a deleted scene.
Kidder and Hackman hated Donner being sacked so Kidders part was reduced to a cameo for three and Hackman refused to come back for 2. All the Hackman scenes in the theatrical cut of 2 were filmed by Donner. He didn't trust in Lester and was spot on. If Donner had no involvement in number 2 it would have been even worse and would have been as pathetic as number 3.
If Donner and Mankiewicz had been left in charge of number 2 and 3, the Superman franchise/film legacy would have been much better off as they had a better understanding and presentation of the character and the material!
bump
The stupid have one thing in common.They alter the facts to fit their views not the other way
David and Leslie Newman deserve as much blame as Richard Lester and the Salkinds:
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/monsterkidclassichorrorforum/superman-iii-1983-t65720.html
Though WB turned down the treatment, Salkind obviously gave a copy to David and Leslie Newman, the two credited writers of SUPERMAN III. Possibly they too were under an injunction to keep things more down-to-earth and thus less expensive, and I don't excoriate them for that. But I grade this film as poor because all the Newmans did was to recycle their one big contribution to the previous SUPERMAN films-- the conception of Superman's villains as a bunch of maladroit cornballs, like the ones from their stage musical (and later telefilm) of the superhero's career. Given the acrimonious separation of the Salkinds from Richard Donner, I'm not surprised that the producers couldn't get any help on the script from Donner's script consultant Tom Mankiewicz-- but did they really think that they just had to use the Newmans again, or that the writing-duo had contributed anything that had made the first two films successful? Then again, from what I've read, the Salkinds were highly susceptible to "star power." That's probably why they accepted the Newmans' script, and why they were so enthused when big movie-star Richard Pryor announced his desire to do a Superman film on the Johnny Carson show.
I'm not a big fan of Richard Pryor, so I won't dwell on my opinion that his humorous persona didn't work in the context of a big-budget Superman film. If I'm right about my "recycling" theory, then Pryor's Gus Norman is basically a retread of Otis from the other films: the innocent-seeming stooge who doesn't quite know what he's gotten into. Similarly, Robert Vaughan's billionaire-villain Ross Webster is another quirky mastermind like the Newmans' Luthor. The third member of the original trio, the sultry Miss Teschmacher, is split into two opposed characters in SUPERMAN III: Ross's sultry "psychic instructor" Lorelei and his sister Vera, who is an unattractive virago who doesn't like sex in any form. The biggest difference here is that Gus actually has some talent-- that of being an innate computer-wizard-- that Ross can use in his mad plans, which reference both the 1970s "oil crisis" and the growing power of computers in civilized life. Both of these "hot topics" of the period badly date the film today, while the first two in the series remain fresh and universal in their appeal. I will note that the Newmans finally provide a reasonably logical method for the villains to get ahold of kryptonite, but maybe this was an idea that just got left out of the 1978 film, when Luthor had to do the exact same thing.
In many respects the Newmans' script matches the talents of Richard Lester, who did his best work with zany comedies like HELP! and THE KNACK-- AND HOW TO GET IT. But the focus on comic bits-- even when Pryor's not around-- undermines any sense of drama in the proceedings. This includes the romance-scenes, in which Clark Kent re-connects with the girl he loved in Smallville, Lana Lang. I don't mind the script putting Lois Lane to one side (whatever the behind-the-scenes motivations). Lois' character-arc, after all, had been given a pretty strong conclusion in Number Two. But the script is heavy-handed about establishing that Lana likes Clark more than Superman, putting forth an over-obvious reversal of the Lois/Clark/Superman triangle. The romantic scenes are slow and ponderous, which surprised me given that the 1976 ROBIN AND MARIAN showed that Lester could direct romance ably.