MovieChat Forums > Supergirl (1984) Discussion > The Salkinds just don't get it

The Salkinds just don't get it


Here is a treatment of Superman III by Ilya Salkind that featured Supergirl.

[EDIT: Original link died, so here is a recap] http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/UltimateSuperman/news/?a=39421

This showcases just how much they didn't understand the world of Superman, up to and including Supergirl. Supergirl is a movie that has it's moments, but like Superman III fails to garner any real respect. Why is that? Because it is so obvious that they just didn't understand the material to begin with. After you read the link, you'll see that Salkind finally got his evil castle on screen! Is it a wonder that Donner clashed with the Salkinds so much? He wanted to make a real Superman movie. These guys just wanted to make something that was the equivalent of an episode of the Super Friends. Their only saving grace was in assembling teams who delivered the goods. I like Supergirl alright, but I will admit that it could have been a lot more without the Salkinds.

- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?

reply

At least the Salkinds delivered two great Superman movies. The folks that gave us 'Superman Returns' couldn't even deliver one.

reply

[deleted]

Well, I think the Salkinds were much LESS responsible for the two good movies. Richard Donner is the one who ended up making them work. It would seem that his vision was much different than their vision for Superman, but their own egos got in the way. I mean, what Donner did led to great success. Superman II is as good as it is because it is half Donner footage. I think Superman III and Supergirl are far more indicative of what the Salkinds wanted all along.

- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?

reply

I would have to agree with that 100%. Donner's passion for the material is what made the first two Superman movies what they were.

I often wonder what Superman The Movie would have turned out like had Guy Hamilton been able to stay on board.

reply

[deleted]

Exactly. The Salkinds can be credited with working to get Superman brought to the screen, but they didn't have a firm grasp on what actually made the character tick with audiences. Donner did, and Donner fought them to make a good film (a critically acclaimed classic that viewers still enjoy today). They were obstacles the entire way. Some may critique Donner for not respecting their wishes, and at the time I can understand how one could feel that way. Still, when looking back in retrospect, it is absolutely clear that the Salkinds just didn't get it. It is clear that Donner is the only one who made the movie great. You'd think the Salkinds could look at the awesome success of the first film and realize that maybe Donner was right. Instead, they fired him and Superman II suffered after being compromised, but still retained Donner's touch and still managed to be good. Lester wanted to make a joke out of Superman, and Superman III was his and the Salkinds first pure effort. We all see what happened there. Supergirl has a bit of charm, but it falls WAY short of what it could have been under the controlling hands of the clueless Salkinds. And the less said about that terrible Superboy series, the better!

- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?

reply

I'll be the first to admit that Donner has had his share of clunkers over the years, but he was definately the right man for the job with Superman.
I was very grateful for the Donner Cut of SII. I've seen it bashed to no end as cheesy or incoherent or they say it looks too "cut and pasted"....people not being able to get it through their heads that it is a mere approximation. Certainly not exactly what the film would have been had Donner finished his work.
As is I admit I do prefer the theatrical release, however the Donner Cut has flashes of what may have been had the Salkinds not pulled the plug on him.


Unfortunately there is no better version of SIII or Supergirl (the 138 minute version is no better in my opinion) waiting to be made, what you see is what you get.
As for the Salkindless SIV, the deleted scenes on the DVD release put to rest any idea in my head that the original 134 minute cut was any better than the 89 minutes we got. That footage was AWFUL.

reply

The Superman franchise could have soared had it not been for the Salkinds. Who knows what a Donner-directed Superman III could have been like. Somehow I doubt that he'd have ever visited a Supergirl movie, but who knows. It is always possible that she could have turned up in one of his sequels.

Yes, folks who bash the Donner Cut are ignorant. It even tells you on the DVD that it is a pieced together vision of existing material to give us an idea of what it would have been like, so it says more about the viewer than anything when they can't understand what they are watching BEFORE they mouth off. It was never intended to replace the original Superman II as released, but just to provide a glimpse of what could have been had they stayed with the original plan.

And Superman IV...well, I'd still be interested in seeing a complete cut, for curiosity's sake. We all knew the film would be bad regardless, but it would still be of interest to me.

- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?

reply

[deleted]

Yes, folks who bash the Donner Cut are ignorant.

You can call me ignorant if you want (I've been called worse), but the Donner Cut, at the very least, could have used some editing. What's with all the crude humor? I'm glad Lester cut most of it out. Jor-El was so condescending. Lois jumping from the window? Lame (not to mention, that doesn't even remotely sound like Christopher Reeve). And her trick to get Clark to admit he's Superman? Ugh.

reply

What crude humor? The only thing crude was the toilet flush in the fortress, and that wasn't in the original footage but rather was added by the dumb dumb editor who did a pretty bad job of splicing the footage together for the Donner Cut.

- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?

reply

I'll be the first to admit that Donner has had his share of clunkers over the years, but he was definately the right man for the job with Superman.
I was very grateful for the Donner Cut of SII. I've seen it bashed to no end as cheesy or incoherent or they say it looks too "cut and pasted"....people not being able to get it through their heads that it is a mere approximation. Certainly not exactly what the film would have been had Donner finished his work.
As is I admit I do prefer the theatrical release, however the Donner Cut has flashes of what may have been had the Salkinds not pulled the plug on him.


Unfortunately there is no better version of SIII or Supergirl (the 138 minute version is no better in my opinion) waiting to be made, what you see is what you get.
As for the Salkindless SIV, the deleted scenes on the DVD release put to rest any idea in my head that the original 134 minute cut was any better than the 89 minutes we got. That footage was AWFUL.


^True this!

But at least the deleted Superman 4 footage eventually saw the time and light of day mostly (some of it is still missing). As much as the cut scenes didn't improve much about the film outright, the producers were wrong to cut out 30 minutes of scenes from the movie simply because one minor test audience obviously moaned about it comepletely wrongly themselves anyhow.

Superman 4 required rewrites and a larger budget to work. Not much less budget and removing what was needed storyline wise for it to work onscreen.

Bad as Superman 4 was, it needed as much footage from it in order to make the storylines work anyhow even if said story wasn't much good to begin with. And please take it from somebody who saw it way back then. Its 90 minute running time "IS" what truly killed it! as it made no sense in its 90 minute form. I have a fanedit now where the deleted scenes are restored along with pictures from the comic book adaptation. And continuity wise, it works far better at maintaining the story than what the 90 minute theatrical version ever did, that i myself once paid to see on the big screen as a kid.

Superman 3 was a bad idea executed with a bigger budget, while Superman 4 was a noble effort to make a decent Superman film, that was simply executed very badly because of its poorer budget all round!


ST4


When Gotham is ashes, you have my permission to die!

reply

alot of that supergirl footage that was added to the special limited edition set was already in the UK version of the film

there were only odd little bits that wasnt BUT being a fan of the movie i can say the added footage did not make the movie any better at all.

Each version as a few words that are different in scenes too that were dubbed, like when nigel visited selena and in 1 version she says whos at the door, it better not be the jova witness again

where in the other version she says something like it better not be someone selling something.

Also in the hockey scene Lane calles the girls retarded but in the other they dub it as something less offencive lol


There are said to be another 20-30 mins of lost supergirl footage though in vaults somewhere, id love to see what it is. apparently its where the extra footage from superman too was

reply

I often wonder what Superman The Movie would have turned out like had Guy Hamilton been able to stay on board.

Lex Luthor would have killed a bunch of gangsters after revealing his plan?

reply

Can't deny that...

reply

haha as if they made supergirl and superman lovers, their always been cousins :S

reply

When the Salkinds left Superman to someone else, we got Superman IV. Need I say more?

reply

Your lame apologetics grow tiresome as you constantly feel the need to try to attack the better material in order to make the bad material seem more good. Superman got dumped into the lap of a cheap studio in 1987. Had WB kept it and hired some talented writers and directors, it would have been just fine without the Salkinds. With that said, Superman IV was better than the crapola script ideas that Ilya came up with for Superman III in available to read in my OP.

- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?

reply

It's hard for me to figure where things went right and where they went wrong. The Salkinds had one idea for Superman and Donner had another. Somehow the friction produced Superman The Movie which was outstanding. And somehow the cut & paste job between Donner and Lester for the theatrical Superman II was great as well. Looking at the Donner Cut, I can't see how Donner's ideas would have produced a better II, in fact it would have been worse. And while Donner has directed some good movies, he's directed some stinkers, so it's not like everything he touches is gold. People like to blame Lester for III but he has turned out some decent movies, II being just one example, so it's not like he's incapable of doing a good job. More likely he agreed to direct traffic and let the Salkinds handle the creative. As for the train wreck of IV, as much as we like to blame the Salkinds again, a large share of blame has to be handed to Cannon Films and their history of producing cut-rate stinkers.

As for the longer cuts of Supergirl and Superman IV, I agree that when a movie is mediocre, making it longer does not make it better. I'm reminded of Highlander II. The director's cut makes a heck of lot more sense than the theatrical, and a lot of beauty shots are restored, but it's still a terrible sequel and pretty mediocre movie on its own.

The idea of Supergirl, that of Superman's cousin coming to Earth to stop a threat, and have that threat be magic, is okay. The movie is mostly hampered by mediocre writing and acting. The acting is poor across the board except for Dunaway and Cook, even O'Toole seems to be lost here. Slater is beautiful and fairly well cast as a naive kid, but obviously an amateur. The special effects are a definite step down from the first 3 Superman films. Altogether it's an example of diminishing returns in the franchise.

reply

The Salkinds did well with the first two but Donner added a lot to the table.



Its that man again!!

reply

In my opinion, your whole premise is flawed. It's a purist premise. You are expecting to see something like works your already familiar with. You shouldn't expect that. As a different artist or sets of artists tackle something, they can hypothetically do anything they'd like with it--anything they can imagine, anything they desire. It becomes their character in their work. They get to play God.

So the idea that they're not understanding something is flawed in my view. You have to functionally look at it as their invention. It's THEIR work, and you either understand what they're doing or you do not.



http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

reply

And by that same logic, not everything they do is correct or good when all is said and done. It has nothing to do with "understanding" their vision and everything to do with whether they had a grasp of what would make the movie good and something that would resonate with audiences. Besides, when one turns their nose up at established facts from prior films and starts pulling things out of their nether regions because they think it is an on the spot neat idea, it compromises the integrity of the continuity which is indeed important to sustaining a series. When you participate in a series, it is your job to sustain it, not to go your own route to the point of stretching credibility. This happened when Lester added scenes of crazy powers that made no sense in the world of Superman, or when Szwarc thought a more fantasy oriented film with love potions and magic was a good idea for a Supergirl film. Uwe Boll could take on a franchise and play god with it, but that doesn't mean the final result will be worth a damned.

- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?

reply

Again, you're simply arguing for purism. If you're a purist, sure, you won't like things that venture away from that, especially for franchises that you're a fan of. I'm not a purist though, and the problem with it in this case is that you seem to be assuming that purism is somehow right, that it should be expected, and that everything should be judged in those terms without as if it's just common sense or something.

Rather, it's just a disposition or preference that someone can have. It's important to realize that not everyone has to play by purists' preferences, and some folks rather strongly dislike those preferences.


http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

reply

Link's dead. Can we get a working one?

Anyhow, I think you are probably right, though listening to the commentaries, Salkind and Spengler convinced me of their genuine interest and passion for Superman. I think Donner and Mackewitz (sp?) brought the vision (can't discount Puzo, esp. after hearing the commentary) and afterward they didn't have much else to bring, so they made it more light hearted. It's very telling that the producers had good commentaries on the 1st 2 films but didn't have much to say on 3 and sounded defensive and bit bored (talking about how much it made and Pryor a genius, etc.) They aren't very creative is the thing, they are bean-counters 1st and foremost. They did get the ball rolling though and without them no Donner Superman films and maybe no Superman or comic book craze later on either or certainly much later.

Supergirl is pretty good IMO. I enjoy it as camp. The director was more interested in making a Wizard of Oz inspired fairytale than following the comics much. Up to then, the comics weren't very interesting IMO anyhow, still no excuse.

As for Donner's SM2, my main beef is not test footage or even editing as so many say, but the end. I know this is the original Superman 2, meaning before they used the turn back time in 1, but that version of 1 was never done! Thank God Puzo suggested using that ending in 1 anyway, bc it has no real emotional impact in 2 except to negate the events and imply Supes will just turn back time anytime something goes wrong. In 1 they demonstrated that he had to go against his Father to do that and it is not just some casual thing for him. They event actually challenged his character and he grew from it.

2 should just end with Lois knowing his secret. Atleast that advances things (albeit, the sequel never comes, but a better end IMO.) As is in Donner's 2, things are turned back and left stagnant, nothing changes from beginning to end. Lame.

Back to the Salkinds, most of season 1 aside, I really like the Superboy tv show. That had many characters that still have not shown up in live-action anywhere and is more comics based. Even his costume is spot on for once.

Am I unreal? Am I a character who can’t possibly exist? – Alissa Rosenbaum

reply

[deleted]

I like the ideas of Superman IV much better than III, but it was poorly produced unfortunately.

The 1st 13 episodes of Superboy are pretty cheesey, like Saved by the Bell with Superman. Afterward it gets better, they had DC writers and editors on the show and with Season 2 the show got a make over making it one of the best DC shows IMO. Still a bit cheesey, but seriously, has anyone read a Superboy comic from back then? It's really spot on is what's great about it. You can find seasons 2 - 4 online.

Am I unreal? Am I a character who can’t possibly exist? – Alissa Rosenbaum

reply

To be fair, "Superfriends" was at one time was an accurate depiction of Superman and other heroes.

reply

nop, super friends debuted in 1973. nothing like its comics of the time.

Am I unreal? Am I a character who can’t possibly exist? – Alissa Rosenbaum

reply

So it came a few years after the start of the bronze age, the silver age still existed.

reply

I never read any silver age comics that were quite as retarded as Superfriends, esp. 1973 season. Silver age type comics are still made to this day. The Brave and the Bold is a much better representation. Batman 1966 tv series was parody, Superfriends kiddiefied and intentionally campy like the Adam West stuff.

Am I unreal? Am I a character who can’t possibly exist? – Alissa Rosenbaum

reply

They never got it. Anyone that is familiar with the original conceit of Superman the Movie knows they simply wanted to make a Superman movie with a famous cast. They had no intention of taking great care of the script or the legend of the character. They viewed it as an easy way to cash in on the popularity of the character. Richard Donner came on board after guy Hamilton left the project and demanded rewrites bringing on board his friend and James Bond screenwriter Tom Mankiewicz. Tom received a Creative consultant credit in the movie as opposed to full writing credit which according to Donner he deserved. They toned down and eliminated all the goofy and cheesy nonsense that was in the script and essentially started from scratch making Superman feel more real and seeing to it the Superman/Lois relationship was central. Superman 3 was our first horrible look at what Superman the Movie would have been like minus Donner and Mank. Superman 3 had Goofy humor with a star studded cast and a thinly constructed plot. After it failed Chris Reeve said he was done with Superman and that included an appearance in Supergirl which the plot was going to originally be written around his appearance in the movie. Jeannot Szwarc is a competent director who did some good work on movies like Somewhere in Time but the Salkinds brought in some guy named David Odell to write the movie whose other credits include Masters of the Universe... YIKES!! So to make an already long story short, no they do not get it. Supergirl never really had a chance to be any good.

reply