Talk:Superman III/Archive 1

Archive 1

What in the name of Red Kryptonite Is Going On Here?

WTF? Data for the recent Superman Returns film is mixed in w/data for Superman III! Anyone know what's going on?

KConWiki 03:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you tell us what you are referring to.--Iamstillhiro1112 18:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at the revert I made today, and look at the version of the page immediately before that. It had a whole section of plot summary from Superman Returns, not Superman III.

KConWiki 01:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad Sentence

"Despite Christopher Reeve's best efforts to portray an intense and violently unstable Man of Steel, "Evil Superman's" acts of assorted mischief (staying near Lana in a suggestive manner and arriving late at a rescue, straightening the Leaning Tower of Pisa, blowing out the Olympic torch, getting drunk and flicking peanuts) gave the movie an even more camp touch though it has failed to become better received in the same way the Adam West Batman film is looked on favorably."

I don't understand what this sentence is trying to say. Also, I cannot correct it for that reason. But someone should.

It's too long a sentence too, why not just delete whats in the () and let people watch the movie to find out what they are. Besides, I know the Leaning tower thing is mentioned somewhere else.--Iamstillhiro1112 12:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

POV:

Audiences also saw Robert Vaughn's villainous Ross Webster as an uninspired fill-in for Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor, who sat out Superman III due to his problems with the Salkinds. Hackman along with Margot Kidder (Lois Lane) were upset with the way the Salkinds treated Superman: The Movie director Richard Donner. The Salkinds retaliated against Kidder by severely reducing her role in Superman III.

Fans also placed most of the blame on director Richard Lester, who unlike with Superman II (when he was brought in by the Salkinds after they fired Richard Donner midway through the production), made Superman III from start to finish.

This article gives no voice to alternative opinions of Superman III; many regard it as a cult classic and the best in the series.

It's been several months and no one's disagreed. Fix the article already, please. — 12.201.72.68 22:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Why the TV vs. movie analysis?

Why do we need a scen by scene analysis of the differences between the movie and the television version? Seems irrelevant for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Dyslexic agnostic 04:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Protected

Over edit war on whether sequence of films listed should be on basis of continuity or production order. The conversation is at Talk:Superman Returns#Protected. -- Samir धर्म 06:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Somehow?

Just a note on 217.207.32.194's addition of "somehow" in the plot section. I think the film makes it clear how Gus makes Superman evil. Seems unnecessary. Colonial One 04:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The ONE WITH RICHARD PRYOR

Citation needed?, but of course!:

• [1]- do-over of the first Superman III (the one with Richard Pryor and all the computer crime)? (forum)
• [2] "This was the one with Richard Pryor" (Homegame Page)
• [3] "(...)well OK, except the one with Richard Pryor)" (DVD Review)
• [4] "It was either the one with Richard pryor" (Yahoo Forums)
• [5] "I always felt the one with Richard Pryor was the lowest point(...)" (Forum)
• [6] "(...)was Superman III, more widely known as "the one with Richard Pryor in it,"" (Opinnion)
• [7] "better than the one with Richard Pryor! " (movie review)
• [8] "Was that the one with Richard Pryor?" (Forum)
• [9] "Oh. I think I’ve only seen the one with Richard Pryor" (Blog)
• [10] "ignore Supes III (the one with Richard Pryor) " (Review)
• [11]"Actually, SUPERMAN III is more often remembered as "the one with Richard Pryor in it," (Moviepoopshoot Review)
• [12] "you know, the one with Richard Pryor" (IGN Review)
• [13] "9. SUPERMAN 3 (The one with Richard Pryor)" (a ranking)

Will that do?, this movie is known mainly by as "the one with Richard Pryor" to differentiate it from the other 4 (now 5).

Sorry but most of that is fancruft. Also, there is a difference between trying to distinguish one Superman film from the next (i.e. by saying "the one with Richard Pryor") and a film becoming solely known as "The Richary Pryor one". Almost every one of those sites were either fans saying something to that effect or the actual writer saying "except the one with Richard Pryor, or, the one with Richard Pryor". Just because people tend to note that he was in the film doesn't mean that the film is known only for that. You just can't go through the others like that...what are you going to say.. "the one with Gene Hackman? Margor Kidder?" He was the only other big star to join the Superman franchise for one movie, as a main character. Of course they are going to mention him...just like they'll say for Superman Returns, "the one with that guy that played Kumar". Sorry, but there is not validation in any of those sites to support that bit of information that you have. No reputable person notes the film as being "The One With Richard Pryor". You are confusing what is actually being said. You have two sites that actually claim it is better known as "The One With Richard Pryor", and all the rest are simply trying to explain which they are talking about and by no means are claiming that it is better known as that. Bignole

Im sorry, i couldnt find the congress review of superman 3 (or Kofi Annan's review). You should lighten up a little bit, if theres someone talking about Superman 3, its mainly fans (it might be a little hard to find a review from that time with the phrase "The one with richard Pryor"). Why is this movie called "The one with Richard Pryor", because IT IS the one with richard pryor. Reeves was in Superman 1 to 4, Gene Hackman in at least 3 supermans, and Margo Kidder in at least 2, while Pryor was only in 1 Superman movie (and really, who remembers anything else from Superman 3?). in Yahoo alone i found around 84 results for the phrease "The One With Richard Pryor".

Superman 3 is remembered by only one fact and one fact alone:Richard Pryor was in it (people also remembers it as the one that sucked), even at that same time critics talked about it:

The big news about "Superman III" is, of course, the presence of Richard Pryor in the cast." (from the review by Roger Ebert, who is basiclly saying "the one with Richard Pryor"), also in all (if not all superman posters) Richard Pryor is there next to the flying superman, and back then Richard Pryor was at the top of his fame.

Most of it is not (as you say) Fancruft: IGN.com is a respectable page and Moviepoopshoot is owned by movie director Kevin Smith, and even so, its COLLOQUIALLY. Im taking out the "sources required" as i dont feel in the mood of placing 84 sources and because i think i made my point pretty clear here (maybe i have a few grammar mistakes here and there).

Only two of your sources say that it was known as "TOWRP", and one was not IGN.com. Look at what you posted, one was Moviepoopshoot.com and the other was Opinion. The rest are fans simply stating the obvious, that he was in the movie and none of them say "this movie is remembered as being 'TOWRP'". So, you are misconstruing what others are saying to support your statement. You found two sites that actually support you, but what you are listing is a fan based opinion, and nothing you have provided says that it is supported in more than just a few places, mostly with people who hated the movie with exception to Richard Pryor. Bignole

BTW, let me show you how you are purposefully misusing information to try and support what you say. You quote IGN.com as saying "you know, the one with Richard Pryor", as if that was the only thing and that they were trying to identify the movie as all about him. But, let me provide you with the actual quote: "you know, the one with Richard Pryor, Robert Vaughn and Brenda Vaccaro as the villains?"Now, when you read the whole thing it's clear that they aren't labeling the movie "TOWRP" and are simply pointing out that he is in the movie, along with other people, for that matter. I'm sure if I go through everything you listed I can find more examples of how you are twisting information to try and support your theory. Sorry, but two sources claiming that Superman III is only known as being THE ONE WITH RICHARD PRYOR is hardly enough to support your theory that it is widely known as that. Maybe try providing a source that provides other sources itself for it's theory. Simply having two places that say the same thing is hardly enough, and neither is 84, especially when GOOGLE is going to just pick up the same thing "the one with Richard Pryor", when we already know from the IGN.com quote that I reprovided for you that they could be listing everyone in the film. Bignole 05:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Even your reasoning behind your trivia contradicts your trivia statement. You said coloquially known as....

Colloquial

1.Of words, language, etc., used in oral communication and informal written communication.
2.informal expression whose usage is localised to a particular area and not in general use. i.e. "I ain't gonna go o'er dere"

You try and provide sources for something that is so "widely known" yet you use words that describe it as being known for that is some particular region, and not part of general usage among others. It isn't colloquially known as, or even vastly known as being "THE ONE WITH RICHARD PRYOR". Your statement is POV. Now, you can reword it so that it is NPOV and can actually be verified. As such:

"Superman III is often distinquished from the other Superman films as being 'the one with Richard Pryor'."

Because, if you actually read your sources, they are not claiming that Superman III is only known as that, or even best known as that, they are simply distinguishing it from the others by saying 'the one with Richard Pryor', just as the fourth one is distinguished from the first three by saying "the one with Nuclear Man". And yes, if you do a Google search on that you'll find just the same amount of sites where they say that. You are confusing when people distinguish different films and when they claim that there is only one thing to remember it for (which in that case the thing to remember it for is that ridiculous Super Computer that turned a person into a cyborg, or the scheme that Pryor's character came up with to rip off the company...which would make the movie be known as "the one that made all the big business install safety programs to make sure their employees couldn't steal half a penny each transaction). So, there is nothing that proves that it is either as "wide claimed" or "localised in a particular area" as you claim it to be, when it comes to only be known as such. So, as I said, if you want it there then it needs to be reworded to support what it is able to support, which is only that it is distinguished from the others as being the one that had Richard Pryor. Bignole

how could i possibly "manipulate" anything here, this is Superman 3 we are talking about, not the 2001 election, and even so, the first villain on that list is none other than who?: Richard Pryor, im not exatly looking for the exact phrase here (as you might had realised that only very few of the examples i quoted have the exact phrase). Second, where does WIDELY appear in the phrase: "The film is often coloquially known just as The one with Richard Pryor."???, that seems to be the problem you have with the phrase, and now that i realize it i must say that: i have never sayd that every person on this earth recognizes Superman 3 as "the one with Richard Pryor", and its not my theory, the first time i read was on Moviepoopshoot.com and found it to be true with time, i did not wrote 84 pages and placed them all on Yahoo and also those were real people who remembered Superman 3 to be the one with Richard Pryor. For that reasson, its colloquially, and not by any means mandatory.

Why is this film known colloquially as the one with Richard Pryor:

• Who had second billing on the movie?:Richard Pryor.
• Everyone knows that in the 4 supermans Christopher Reeves starred as Superman, yet no one seems to remember the name of the character that Richard Pryor played, people remember that Richard Pryor played Richard Pryor himself: the famous comedian.
• Who appeared in every poster next to Christopher Reeve: Richard Pryor (and i mean each and every last poster of the movie, and not as a simple photo, im talking about Richard Pryor painted on the thing)
• In none of the other 4 Superman Movie posters does another character appears other than superman (in superman 1 its just the superman Emblem), but in superman II, Superman IV and Superman Returns we can only see Supes. Superman 3 is the only Superman that seems to star someone else other than Superman: Richard Pryor.
• As Roger Ebert recalls:"The big news about "Superman III" is, of course, the presence of Richard Pryor in the cast". Wich basicly means that Richard Pryor was included on the movie to atract more people to see the movie.
• All of this Richard Pryor hype (back then the number 1 comedian at the time) basicly set up a common culture around this particular Superman movie, wich i could compare to the infamous nipple suits in Batman 4 (wich is what is usually mocked from that movie, not that Pryor is mocked for this matter).

In all cases, i did not intended to mean that it was WIDELY known as that, if its of anything, english is simply not my native language, and i would not object if the phrase was re-written.

I did looked for the phrase "The one with Nuclear man", and the result: 12 searches. With Gene Hackman: 140, but mostly for any other movie rather than Superman (the first result is for The Quick and The Dead). With Margo Kidder:3. With Christopher Reeve:81, but its too vague, many say "The one with Christopher Reeve" refering to the SmallVille Episode. When you type "The one with Richard Pryor" 84 results come out, all of them are about Superman 3 (theres probably some that arent about Superman 3, but i cant reall finding many).

Your quote, after you provided your results initially: "Will that do?, this movie is known mainly by as "the one with Richard Pryor" to differentiate it from the other 4 (now 5)."

Sorry, but saying something is "known mainly by" is hardly colloquial. Also, it appearing 84 times is hardly colloquial because you can't find where each location is. The definition is something that is apart of a specific culture, hence the example that was given with it. There are over 200 countries in the world and I'm sure that the 84 sites that you found were not all located in one area. I'm not denying that people associate the Richard Pryor with the movie, but that isn't the first thing that comes out of their thoughts. Anyone that knows the movie knows what's going on it, and if you can only remember Richard Pryor then you probably didn't watch the movie to begin with. There were plenty of other things that stand out in the mind. The point is, it's written as suggesting that it's known only as "TOWRP" and that it's known only as that in some specific cultures of the world. Bignole 14:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Two Plots Disconnected

As in the movie, I think the plots should be separate from one another. A Richard Pryor movie where he embezzles from his corporate boss would've been a great movie. A Superman movie where he encounters kryptonite that splits him in two would also make a great movie. But then you see, the two movies put together make one heck of a really lousy movie.

Most film pages aren't done in very good fashion, just thrown together by fans. Superman Returns had/has a lot of fanboy information that needs to be cut, especially in the Synopsis, but it looks better than this page. I implore you check that out and see if that is what you are refering to, when you mention separating them. Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith is also a good example of an article pieced together well, and it did become a Wikipedia: Featured Article. Bignole 15:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Inline Citations

Why are all the citations in total blue at the end. It's hard on the eyes. LuciferMorgan 20:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Too negative

It is not bemusing that Richard Pryor was looked on more in the tralier than Christopher Reeve. This article is far too one sided towards Reeve and against Pryor. This was the third movie in the series, I guess what fans of Superman wanted was another one the same as the other too. Yes, Pryor was the real star of this one. However, anyone who thinks this is bemusing is not looking outside the bubble. At the time this movie was made Pryor was one of the worlds biggest stars (bigger than Reeve infact) and this movie was made as a vechile for Pryor with Reeve as his co-star. I am a Superman fan and I like all 4 of the movies with Reeve, I am also a Richard Pryor fan and think he is a comedy genius. As a result this is my favorite movie of the series because it does what it is set out to do, blend both talents together. Frank e buck 14:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Take a second look at one of your comments:

"...this movie was made as a vechile (sic) for Pryor with Reeve as his co-star."

Think about it. You're admitting that Reeve, who was playing the title character of the film and the franchise, was intended as the co-star of Superman III, and Pryor was intended as the star. And you're wondering why this article seems to be biased against Pryor. I'm quite a fan of Pryor's work as a comedian, but the fact that he was basically hijacking the film away from the actor/character who was supposed to be the star of the film is a major black mark on the film, not to mention on the reputations of Richard Lester and the Salkinds for letting it happen. If Pryor had been playing a character that had some iconic status within the Superman mythos, it might have been perceived differently, such as, say, Jack Nicholson as the Joker; but an essentially throwaway character (as in appeared once, only once, and will likely never appear again), and a joke of a character at that, stealing the spotlight from the film's hero isn't going to go over well with the core audience, which will then color the overall perception of the film. Pryor's performance was notable as the story of how an everyman can become a villain by association, simply through failing to stand up for himself against a true villain, but an everyman shouldn't get more attention than a Superman, especially when it's Superman's name on the title. -- Pennyforth 22:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well there are several things wrong with this article. You're right when you say it doesn't follow Wikipedia's NPOV policy, but it also has a lot of "fan reaction" type things, which cannot be accurately measured and are supposed to be avoided. When it comes to "reception" Wikipedia wants places like Rotten Tomatoes (which has it's own user rating) or Ebert and Roeper (Siskel and Ebert when this film came out), and other respectable, reliable critics. There should be no "interpretation" of reception, it should be straight facts. You cannot say "some fans thought..." but you cannot prove what "some fans did" or what "some fans didn't". First, I'll put up a neutrality tag, since you are disputing it's neutrality in general anyway, but know that "fan reaction" should be avoided in favor of reliable, measurable reaction from critics. Even if it is panned by critics, you are right in the fact that there must be some positive feedback in the article for the film. Bignole 14:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks bignole. Doing some quick reasertch myself, I found out that Pryor signed a 40 million dollar deal with Columbia soon after this movie was released and that the claim this movie was less successful comerically than the first two superman movies is false. Frank e buck 15:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I left a message on your page, it is the least successful out of the first 3 films. IMDb can be wrong, it has many times before. I couldn't find where IMDb listed this films box office take, but two other sites agreed it was only 59 million domestically. Bignole 15:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The IMDB "might" be wrong, possibly, but unless you can provide solid proof to show they are (not a crufty superman/reeve fan site) then the IMDB is the most reliable source for this information. 74.65.39.59 17:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but BoxOfficeMojo is noted a reliable source when it comes to box office grosses. IMDb named Aunt May as Carnage for Spider-Man 3, so how is that reliable? IMDb is not more reliable than BOM.com. BOM.com is not a fansite either, it's a site devoted to all films' statistical numbers, unlike IMDb which surrounds itself with original research and fancruft about movies, with no sources actually backing it up. Bignole 18:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Point take, but to say $59 million plus (not to mention how much money they have made from it since) is a dissapointment is POV so I have made the text less POV. 74.65.39.59 18:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I can agree on that. I think sometimes people forget the NPOV policy when it comes to grosses. I think if you mention the budget compared to what it took it, that could help say if it was a commercial success or failure. Bignole 18:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, i see you point but also take into account the "success" of the movie goes far beyond it's box office run. What about Video Rentals that followed, the Video and DVD sales over the last two decades, how much money was made from TV showings (and how many have seen it). It would probably be less than the first two, but the same could be said for many third installments of a franchise. You would also have to take into account how well it did compared to other movies which titles end with the roman numeral III. 74.65.39.59 16:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you take into consideration IMDb's info (which you and Frank like to use), the movie has made roughly 107 mill (that's worldwide grosses and rentals). Now, I'd be willing to give atleast 10 mill more for DVD buys, considering it isn't the original film, and we know for a fact that it isn't THE most liked of the series. So we can round to 120 million. Now, no one knows the budget, but the first two films were about 55 million, and it's safe to assume this would be close maybe a touch more since it had Richard Pryor in it. We'll leave it at 55 mill, which would make the profit shrink to about 65 million. Now you have to take out what it cost to copy and distribute that film to theaters, and the cut the theaters get from it (which we don't have because those costs are not covered in "production" budgets). We'll say the studio took 75% of the take from the theaters, which would bring an estimated net profit of about 48 million. Now, work the same numbers in the same fashion with the data on IMDb for Superman II and you get a finalized (est of course, just like Superman III) of 108 mill. The net profit for Superman II is closer to the actual gross of Superman III worldwide. That number is even higher for Superman (1978). That makes it clear that Superman III is the least successful of the first 3 Superman films, by a pretty wide margin of 50 million dollars (and that was a lot of guess work, that was evenly given mind you, over certain figures that we will never know). Now, as you said "compared to other third installments", well most sequels do poorly anyway. You don't negates a films poor commercial success just because "second sequels" do poorly. Bignole 17:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes you do. It's all relatvive and debateable based on one's opinion. There is nothing set in stone, no bible of cinema. If there was there wouldn't be this disscusion right now. And world-wide rental figures are a LOT of guess work, unless someone has collected a copy of every receipt from a rental store for every movie someone has ever rented. 74.65.39.59 01:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to point you to Wikipedia:Verifiability. Note that it's a policy. Bignole 01:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes and it's easy to find verifabvle information that shows most films that make it as far as a third installment do not do as well at the box office as Superman 3, thus this movie was a huge success compared to much other cinema that made it to a third movie. I don't really know where you're going with this. 74.65.39.59 11:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No it wasn't. We don't know the budget, but we do know that it made far less that it's predecessors, making it the least successful. The page didn't say the movie bombed, it says it was the least successful of the previous films. Bignole 12:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I never said I had a problem with thr article in it's CURRENT FORMAT (since it was changed) this disscusion was about it's previous format. Also the point is since success goes far beyond it'd initial box office and rental takings, Superman 3 has long caught up with the first two movies. Indeed, more people who saw the first two at the time of release but didn't see the third have long since seen it on TV or Video. 74.65.39.59 01:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeing it does not mean it's a success. I own it, but I didn't specifically buy it. I bought the box set that had all of them. I don't like the third one anymore now that I own it. Having seen it on TV does not make it a success. A "commercial" success is something that makes substantial increases in profit, compared to it's budget and other misc. costs. When compared to the original two Superman films, it is less of a success than those two. Sorry, but you are using imaginary assumptions to say that it isn't less of a success, when there are more reliable sources that contradict you. Bignole 01:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Also the point is since success goes far beyond it'd initial box office and rental takings, Superman 3 has long caught up with the first two movies."

If you're going to make-up figures to inflate the gross, you have to (as the guy above did) do so consistently across the whole series; you can't say that DVD, TV, etc. mean that III has caught up to I and II, because I and II have also shown on DVD, TV, etc. The DVDs for 'Superman: The Movie' probably grossed significantly more, since the movie has always been more expensive than the other three. For that matter, the first two 'Superman' movies had expanded television broadcasts stretched out over two nights, which the third one did not have; 'Superman II' also has two completely different cuts currently available on DVD selling for $20 each. I think it would be safe to say that TV and DVD would only deepen the chasm between the first two and the third.

With regard to your point about the third parts of series, I'd like to point out this link: http://boxofficemojo.com/franchises/

According to that link, 'Austin Powers 3', 'Final Destination 3', 'Return of the King', 'Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome', 'Christmas Vacation', and 'X-Men 3' were all the highest grossing films of their respective series ['Army of Darkness' and 'Once Upon A Time in Mexico' also, but those were wider releases than their predeccessors, so I'm excluding them; 'Hannibal' too, but that probably shouldn't count]. Additionally, 'American Wedding', 'Batman Forever', 'Die Hard With A Vegeance', 'The Enforcer' (Dirty Harry 3), 'Friday After Next', 'Friday the 13th, Part III', 'The Godfather, Part III', 'Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth', 'Highlander 3', 'Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade', 'Goldfinger' (and 'The Spy Who Loved Me', and 'The World Is Not Enough'), 'A Nightmare on Elm Street 3', 'Rambo III', 'Rocky III', 'Scary Movie III', 'Spy Kids 3-D', 'Star Wars' -- both 'Return of the Jedi' and 'Revenge of the Sith' -- and 'Terminator 3: The Rise of the Machines' all out-grossed at least one predeccessor. (In the cases of 'Dirty Harry', 'Elm St', 'Rocky', they were the highest grossing to-date upon release, but beaten by the 4th entry in the series.) [Sidebar: For a laugh, check out the Law of Diminishing Returns as applied to 'Police Academy' or 'Poltergeist' or 'Smokey and the Bandit'... then compare that trend to the declining 'Superman' grosses.] ThatGuamGuy 20:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)sean

rm a bunch of NPOV, non-encyclopedia refs, that are linkspam for good measure

There was just an edit today that refers to the references are link spam. Is it really better to have less references instead of having references? I would think it would be better to have a alternative link if your gonna delete all of them.--Iamstillhiro1112 18:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why he deleted them, but you shouldn't delete references and leave the information they were citing behind.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the person who deleted the references should have provided alternative sources. But, I can see that 6 of the references cited in the critical reaction section all point to the same source (http://www.supermansupersite.com/movie3.html). I'm not sure this is a valid source (the user who deleted them must not think so), but even if it is, I think the section could probably use some more alternative sources if we can find them. Jmartinsson 20:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I haven't looked at the sources, but if they aren't reliable, or they don't provide the information that is being used, then all of it should be removed until we can find the right source. Generally, we'd just move it to the talk page until we find a source for it. This way it's readily available without being original research on the main page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Trivia removed from the article

[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|thumb|200px|2006 DVD rerelease.]]

• 20 years after playing Lana Lang in Superman III, Annette O'Toole went on to play Martha Kent (Superman's adoptive mother) on the television series Smallville.

• The program Gus creates in the beginning that is supposedly impossible is just a series of PRINT statements when Gus lists it.

• The scenes in which Superman straightens the Leaning Tower of Pisa and then leans it back in the end were originally planned to be shot for Superman II, as it was in Tom Mankiewicz's original script for the first sequel.

• When Vera, Lorelei, and Ross ride hovercraft down the Grand Canyon to the supercomputer, Gus refuses, riding on a pack mule. Gus then says to himself "I just don't believe a man can fly!" This is reference to Superman and its tagline "You will believe a man can fly."

• For the stunt of Gus falling off the building, a real man actually jumped off the building and performed the stunt for Pryor.

• The 'little boy' who appears waiting by the photo-booth while 'Clark Kent' changes into Superman -- during the introduction of the film -- was actually the same little boy who played baby Kal-El (Superman) in Superman (Aaron Smolinski).

• Series producer Ilya Salkind claims that he originally wrote a treatment for this film that included Brainiac, Mister Mxyzptlk, and Supergirl, but Warner Bros. did not like it.

• The color scheme of Evil Superman's costume is nearly identical to the redesigned outfit from Superman Returns, as well as the Superman's color scheme from the Fleischer Superman cartoons.

• The first song playing at Clark's high school reunion is "Roll Over Beethoven", specifically The Beatles' version. This is possibly a homage to Richard Lester's having directed The Beatles in A Hard Day's Night.

• This film is the only Superman film where the Fortress of Solitude does not appear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Pro (talk • contribs) 21:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

I find some of those interesting, theres no reason the article has to be bland.--Iamstillhiro1112 20:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Richard Pryor left off cover of delux addition

Why isn't Richard Pryor on the delux addition. Are they admitting he was a miss cast. --Wayne Neptune 03:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they decided to focus on the heroes and villians of the film. Richard Pryer didn't fit either really. Besides, he isn't the draw that he used to be.--Iamstillhiro1112 18:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Pryor wasn't a hero or villain in the film? When were the two ladies in the film EVER a draw? Can you even name their names (movie or real) right now? I do find it odd they kept off Pryor- who was a bit of a distraction in the movie (good/bad is your opinion), yet also kept off Annette 'O Toole, who I have yet to see someone compalin about in the movie.. Probably, to avoid the Smallville confusion.. 04:38, 8 May 2007

Maybe not a draw, but they were the main villians right hand servants. Anyhow, why is this conversation being held here? This seems like something you should be discussing on Internet Movie Database.--Iamstillhiro1112 18:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

PRINT statements

Removed from the Trivia section (which is too big anyhow, but that's a different story):

• The program Gus creates in the beginning that is supposedly impossible is just a series of PRINT statements when Gus lists it.

This is not true, as freeze-framing the DVD will show. The actual program goes something like this (with gobbledygook characters where screen glare prevented me from seeing parts of it). Lines 41–46 were partly obscured by glare, but one could infer their exact semantics if one could see what keys Pryor presses on the keyboard (offscreen), since it appears he was running an actual BASIC session. (The INKEY$ stuff effectively pauses until a particular key is pressed.)

5 CLS
10 PRINT "PLOT BILATERAL CO-ORDINATES"
15 PRINT : PRINT
20 GOSUB 5000
25 PRINT "INPUT CO-ORDINATE X"
31 PRINT "1"
33 PRINT "2"
35 PRINT "X" : PRINT
40 PRINT "INPUT CO-ORDINATE Y"
41 IF INKEY$.."X" THEN 41
42 PRINT "2";
43 IF INKEY$ = "" THEN 43
44 PRINT "4";
45 IF INKEY$ ...
46 PRINT "#";
47 GOSUB X000
50 CLS
60 PRINT "0010 H = RNDX(500)"
70 PRINT "0020 Z = 1 TO H"
80 PRINT "0030 X = 1 TO 31"
90 PRINT "0040 Y = 1 TO 15"
100 PRINT "0050 SET(31-X, 16-Y,Z)** "
110 PRINT "0060 SET(31-X,Y,Z)TO(31-X,16-Y)
120 PRINT "0070 SET(X,16-Y,Z-Y)TO(X,Y,Z)
130 PRINT "0080 SET(X,16-Y,Z+Y)TO(31-X,Y**
140 PRINT "0090 GOTO 500"
150 PRINT "0100 NEXT X:NEXT Y:NEXT Z"
160 PRINT "0110 CLS"
170 PRINT "0120 DATA X:13.x.xx.x
180 PRINT "0130 DATA)1#.##.##...##.##..."
190 PRINT "0140 DATA 3(#/#(##/##.*<..#..#.##
200 PRINT "0150 DIM #(#)
210 PRINT "0160 ##[*\####.#(##)
220 PRINT "0170 FOR X = ..... PRINT X
230 PRINT "0180 FOR Y = ..... PRINT Y
240 PRINT "0190 END"
.....

Lines 60 and up (to where the program listing starts blurring from the fast scrolling) are indeed PRINT statements, but they're actually printing the listing for a second BASIC program! This second program is what flashes on the screen after Pryor enters the "bilateral co-ordinates" in front of the instructor. (And I think it flashes because lines 250 and up are indeed blank PRINT lines, so they effectively clear the screen.)

Now, I'm not saying that this is an interesting program, or anything more than moviecomputeritis, but it's marginally more interesting than "just a series of PRINT statements". It does make me wonder whether the geek consultant behind this scene had anything in mind with these "bilateral co-ordinates", and whether the program did anything interesting before it was hacked up for the scene. Now that would be trivia worth knowing! :) --Quuxplusone 08:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet again fanboys ruin Wikipedia...

An article dominated by comic fanboy weaseling. Maybe I should set up a personal website just to refute the claims of the other and use it as a reference? Bit pathetic isn't it? I've said it before, but fanboys destroy any credibility that Wikipedia might ever have, disgrace really. Please, grow up. 195.92.168.165 21:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section is very annoying and too long

I think that this section should be removed, according to WP:AVTRIV. David Pro 22:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove it or integrate it into the text 129.31.71.161

Trivia

I am going to integrate the trivia into he text. Limetolime 16:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1