MovieChat Forums > Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987) Discussion > The Biggest Problem...

The Biggest Problem...

posted 8 years ago by clh-1
8 replies | jump to latest

I think the biggest problem this film faced was planning.
There are often films that come out around the same time, and have reasonably comparable budgets, and the one that looks cheaper, invariably seems to have been made on the fly, without planning what could be done.
It appears Superman IV just pushed ahead with the plot as if they still had $36 million to use, forcing effects and sets to look insanely cheap.
Had the production taken a figurative minute to replan the film when faced with a budget reduction (excise one of the Nuclear Men from the beginning for example), it wouldn't necessarily have been a "great" film, but way better than what we got.

Give Blood Today
God Bless!

[–] wallacesawyer 8 years ago

I'm surprised they didn't excise the subplot about the first Nuclear Man, and some of the other deleted scenes they obviously spent a bundle on. I guess Cannon was really hyped that they could use it to make a SUPERMAN 5.

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

[–] TMC-4 (19416) 6 years ago

It wasn't just the special effects that looked bad, it was also the cinematography, which looked really flat and rough. The camera was also often very centered in scenes. It just felt like a made for TV movie than a really polished, high quality piece of cinema like the first three Superman movies.

[–] MickyMac (2945) 2 years ago

It felt like it needed a bigger budget and more time work, the budget was too small for what the film wanted to achieve.

[–] TMC-4 (19416) 5 years ago

I wonder how culpable Sidney J. Furie was? Everybody who discusses the problems with Superman IV understandably points the blame first and foremost at the Cannon Group for how they mismanaged the budget. But you would think that a director would still have enough ingenuity (take for example, James Cameron and his lesser budgeted films, like the first Terminator) or foresight to work around things if he knows that it can't be possible with the means at his disposal.

[–] avortac4 (3458) 3 years ago

You can have 10 bucks and make a good movie, if your story is good and your performances are passable, and you edit it well enough (these days, all you would really need is a few volunteers, some cheap costumes, a camera and an editing software someone already owns and some kind of microphone.

I don't know how cheaply 'Clerks' was made, but there must be many similar 'shoestring budget' movies that are very enjoyable and good movies.

Imagine what a talented, creative director with a good team could do with millions..

[–] millsey72 (9566) 2 years ago

What good movie was there that costed 10 bucks to make?

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8292) 2 years ago

LOL that's a good question. Someone in another thread said you only need $20 to make a good short film, and I was like, no, even a GOOD short film requires a decent budget.

The cheapest GOOD feature-length film that I'm aware of is "Primer," when was made for $7000 in 2004 money.

[–] MickyMac (2945) 2 years ago

Many of the film's problems was down to it being made by Cannon Films who were already struggling and where unable to give the film the budget and the development it needed.

Imagine if the same film was made today, as seen with Returns and DCEU a Superman film would never receive such a low budget and it would be choc full of very expensive special effects, that doesn't necessarily mean a better film but it makes for a more commercial one.