Talk:Superman III/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  What in the name of Red Kryptonite Is Going On Here? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Bad Sentence 

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV: 

message: 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)
thread_title: Why the TV vs. movie analysis?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: 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)
thread_title: Somehow?

message: 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)
thread_title: Two Plots Disconnected

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: [[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. Ilya Salkind commentary, Superman III DVD, 2006 version
*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)
replies: text: I find some of those interesting, theres no reason the article has to be bland.--Iamstillhiro1112 20:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia removed from the article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Richard Pryor left off cover of delux addition 

message: 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)
thread_title: PRINT statements

message: 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)
thread_title:  Yet again fanboys ruin Wikipedia... 

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