SUPERMAN IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE - Retrospective

By: Edward Gross
Date: Friday, April 28, 2000

When Cannon Films offered Sidney J. Furie the opportunity to direct Superman IV, he considered it a no-lose situation. 'Without being catty,' says Furie, 'Superman III screwed up, and it screwed up because a brilliant director had full reign and he didn't take Superman seriously. They were trying to make it something else with Richard Pryor. The feeling I have with Superman IV is that the series already went off track once, so what did I have to lose? If the third one had been as brilliant as the first two, maybe I wouldn't have done Superman IV. But you just jump in. Courage is part of all creative people.
'When I got hired,' he continues, 'I mentioned to Warner Bros. how bad Superman III was, and their response was, 'Oh yeah, boy was it bad. $50-million in film rentals. Give us half of that and we'll be happy.''
The genesis of Superman IV began in June of 1985, when the rights to the Superman film franchise were purchased from the Salkinds by Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus' Cannon Films. At the time, Cannon was well known in the industry as the producer of low-budget actioners such as the Charles Bronson Death Wish series and just about all of Chuck Norris' films. Even such big budget ($40 million) efforts as Invaders From Mars had a small, cheesy feel to them. For this reason, hopes weren't very high for the newest entry in the Superman series. Apparently to assuage these fears, Cannon made a concentrated effort to make this an 'A' effort, first by pursuing Christopher Reeve to reprise his dual role as Clark Kent and Superman. Additionally, they hired writers Lawrence Konner and Mark Rosenthal, the team involved in such efforts as Jewel of the Nile, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country and, more recently, The Beverly Hillbillies.

'For a while, Chris wasn't interested in Superman IV, and Cannon was talking about recasting,' explains Lawrence Konner. 'Meanwhile, Mark and I were saying that we weren't interested for two reasons. One, we think Chris Reeve is the perfect Superman; and two, it seemed to us that Cannon wasn't committed to making a great movie if they weren't willing to pay his price and give Chris what he wanted.' Konner is quick to add that Reeve's 'price' was not an excessive monetary payment, but rather the promise of creative control, hence the actor's ultimate 'co-creator' title on the film's story credit.
'Everybody agrees that the three Superman films grow progressively worse,' Konner notes. 'Superman was a great movie; Superman II was okay, and III was terrible. Chris felt that it wasn't worth doing a Superman IV which was more like the third one than the original. I don't think Chris' holdout was about money at allhe was making sure that everyone involved wanted to make a good movie, not just another sequel.'
Concurs Rosenthal, 'Larry and I viewed all three films in one day, and quickly realized that the original is one of the great American movies. We believe that Chris Reeve wanted to make sure that the budget and the studio commitment from both Warner Bros. and Cannon Films was there to do it properly. Once he was convinced, we were convinced.'
'I wanted to get the old enthusiasm and Superman spirit back,' said Reeve during production, 'and to do that I needed some control. What I wanted to see was Superman brought a little closer to the real world while staying in the framework of a fantasy film. I wanted him to confront some contemporary issues as a 'naturalized citizen' rather than as a visitor from another planet.'
Offers Rosenthal, 'Superman is a fascinating character and not just for the obvious story and plot reasons, but for who he is and why. If you look at every culture since the beginning of time, you'll find that each one has some kind of a superhero in its mythology. Superman fits in with what America is and why we are what we are. Our approach was to deal with big issues in a way that will transfer the movie into mythology. The story deals with the question, 'Can Superman become involved in human destiny?' What's great about Superman, as well as all the equivalent myths, is the issue of why doesn't the 'god' step in and make everything right? That has always been one of the real core fascinations with the character.'
'The question,' Konner interjects, 'simply put, is: 'Why doesn't Superman just destroy all the nuclear missiles?''
It was Reeve who came up with the concept of Superman's involvement in nuclear disarmament, inspired as he was by a documentary he had narrated called A Message to Our Parents. Said Reeves, 'These kids had traveled to Washington and Moscow, asking officials in the State Department and Politburo about their future in the nuclear age. The idea of nuclear disarmament linked with Superman gradually came to me. For me, it's the most personal Superman of the entire series. It directly reflects what Superman should be, and what he should be doing.'
Part of the anti-nuke theme was suggested, strangely enough, by the Museum of Natural History's presentation of The Dream is Alive, the IMAX film featuring footage of Earth taken from outer space and projected on 60-foot screens. Konner, Rosenthal, a Warner Bros. executive and Reeve had met outside the museum when a rainstorm struck. They retreated from the downpour by electing to see the film.
'We were cynically wondering how good it could be,' Rosenthal recalls. 'We had seen footage of the planets and the stars, but never anything like this. The film shows the Earth in daylight, and you cannot only actually see the boot of Italy's exact location, but you can also pick out the towns. The Dream is Alive is proof that reality is more moving than science fiction.
'That same week, the lead story in The New Yorker just happened to be about a writer who wandered into the theatre the same way, and he wrote about how you're brought to tears with the sense that the entire planet is your home as opposed to the nationalistic way we're brought up. You begin to see Earth as this small, vulnerable but tender place with no boundaries. We [wanted] to investigate the Superman mythology as the story of an orphan and his new home, and to endow it with certain humanistic concepts which are part of SF movie tradition. In The Day the Earth Stood Still, the visitor helps us understand who we are and how we should live. That's the same kind of feeling we wanted to achieve in Superman IV.'
The trio came up with the idea that Superman would use his powers to save humanity from possible nuclear Armageddon by destroy all atomic weapons. Great concept, but what element do you add to provide some danger to the Man of Steel? Why, Lex Luthor of course.
'If you look at the comic books, which we both did,' says Rosenthal, 'no other villain captures the true adversarial depth that Lex does. The Lex Luthor stories were the special issues, and Gene's performance is special, too. He can make Luthor humorous without being silly.'
Konner notes that both 'Lex and Gene have the size to give Superman a strong adversary. In number three, Robert Vaughn was playing a James Bond kind of villain, a silly, evil mastermind you didn't quite believe posed a very serious problem for Superman. But Lex Luthor brings with him the resonance that he can really harm Superman.'
'Superman had the advantage and necessity of restating the essential story for everyone,' Rosenthal comments, 'and we figure that the fun of elaborating the origin is seeing how Superman's life continues. We really haven't seen how Lex has grown. Superman II made him a secondary character, but we brought him back because the relationship between Superman and Luthor in the original comic-book stories is just wonderful. And having Gene return gives it the proper scope and scale. Besides Lex, there is a truly terrifying and exhilarating physical adversary for Superman. Luthor creates something that does combat with Superman on a worldly scale.'
That 'something' is Nuclear Man, cloned from a strand of Superman's hair and baked within the sun before returning to Earth, full-grown, as Luthor's slave. So, besides trying to stop Lex, who is attempting to sell nuclear arms on the black market, Superman must battle his creation as well.
While all of this was developed, Cannon began their search for a director to take command of the film. Richard Lester was, in his words, approached 'indirectly,' but he wasn't interested, while Richard Donner declined, wishing Cannon the best of luck.
'I had already done it, and it's hard to go back,' explains Donner. 'There were so many challenges in the first one and, hopefully, we accomplished what we set out to do. But it's like trying to flow blood into paper. After that, there was no more challenge in that area.'
Approached next was Sidney J. Furie, whose credits included The Boys in Company C, Lady Sings the Blues and Purple Hearts. Actually, Furie had gone into Menahem Golan's office to pitch a film idea. While the mogul didn't like that particular project, he offered Furie Superman IV, which he happily accepted.
'They were looking for a director, and I had never done anything like it,' Furie explains. 'I was like someone who doesn't know computers, but wants to learn computers. Having been a director for 29 years, I said, 'I've got to learn all this because it's something I don't know. It won't be boring.' Not that a movie is ever boring, but usually you know how to make it. This was an opportunity to learn about effects and to run a very big picture. It's like being a general and having a little army or squad behind you.'
Furie had some experience planning for special effects while preparing Marvel of the Haunted Castle, a 20th Century Fox film that never got made. His preparation for that movie began with a detailed storyboarding of the entire production, which is what he also did on Superman IV.
'From the storyboards,' he explains, 'everyone can determine how a particular effect will be achieved. It's different questions and different answers, but it's the same process. It's still a scene in a movie that must be achieved and it's exciting. Working on Superman IV was the most exciting year of my life.'
Furie's imagination was captured by the disarmament theme of the film, particularly the ending in which the Man of Steel realizes the choice is not his to makemankind must control its own destiny. But to encourage the global village concept, Superman, in an earlier draft of the screenplay, takes a young boy into orbit so he can tell the world what Earth really looks like.
'You can't tell where one country begins and another ends,' reports young Jeremy. 'It's just one world.'
'And maybe one day everyone will see it,' Superman responds.
'I'm proud of that idea,' Furie proclaims. 'If that's corny, then to hell with it. That's what I want to be: corny. It's not that it's a message. It's just a good feeling. To me, the thrill of it all is that Superman IV is a family picture. A family can sit there, have a good time, and be moved a little bit.'
To aid in capturing the Superman spirit, Furie wanted to ensure that the necessary ingredients be included in the mix, including Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor and Margot Kidder as Lois Lane. 'I wouldn't have done this film if Gene Hackman wasn't in it,' Furie states pointedly. 'The selling point for me was Gene Hackman with Christopher Reeve. That was very important, because that's the Yin and Yang, and what a wonderful Yang, because Lex Luthor is a comedic villain. He has a humor about him, and it's just the right soufflé for this piece. And if Margot hadn't joined, I don't know if I would have.
'I fought for Margot Kidder,' he continues. 'Margot asked for a large amount of money, and it wasn't her fault. A man would have gotten that money, but because she wasn't a man, they wouldn't pay that much. It took five months to get her. It was a huge negotiation and, finally, she realized they were going to go without her. She still made a very good deal, and she's very happy with it, but I would like to think that I was the influence, saying, 'Gentlemen, without Margot there ain't no picture, because she's the shorthand to the romanticism of Superman and Superman II.
'Even if we couldn't feature the romanticism because our script went in other directions, having Margot would give the opportunity for those few wonderful moments. I am a romantic, and the thing that I loved about the first two films was the Lois-Superman romance. If you're going to make a sequel to two of the best films ever madeand I consider the first two Superman movies the best in their genreyou at least want to have the same foundation to hold up your house. The whole idea of a sequel is to relive the best things of the movie again in a fresh way, but not too fresh. If you really want those same thrills, kicks and things, we had to have those characters.'
Superman IV, like its predecessors, ran into budget problems, but this time the results were disastrous. There simply was not any additional money to pump into the production, and there were results up on the screen for all to seeand some which no one saw. As is fairly obvious, the matte work is sloppy, the miniatures obvious, and the flying sequenceswhich should have been perfected in the intervening years between the first film and the fourthwere among the weakest. Worse was an entire subplot lost from the film due to subpar effects. Before confronting Nuclear Man, Superman went up against a brainless, Frankenstein's Monster-like predecessor of the creature, who terrorizes patrons of a nightclub.
Co-writer Mark Rosenthal details what went wrong, beginning about a month before production was to commence. 'It was literally a month before production when Cannon slashed the budget in half, because they were going into bankruptcy,' he explains. 'They fired the entire crew that had done all of the Superman movies and replaced them with a much cheaper effects crew. From there it was a downhill ride. Superman IV went from a $36-million budget down to $17-million. Menahem Golan was essentially saying, 'If I put something out with the Superman name on it, who cares what it looks like?' And Warner Bros., for various reasons, made a huge mistake and didn't pick up the slack. From then on in, everyone knew that the effects were going into the toilet and everything was done with a, 'What the hell, let's try it attitude.' It's not like they shot it and said, 'Oh God, this didn't turn out right.' It was like everybody knew. This disaster happened before the ship left the port.'
Whether or not it's because of the shoddy effects, no one can be sure, but one fact is certain: audiences stayed away from Superman IV in droves. Sidney Furie doesn't have an explanation for this, but does muse over the possibility that some people may have been turned off to the disarmament theme.
'Maybe it was too real for an audience,' he concedes. 'Maybe they can buy whales having to make a sound to save the 23rd century [as in Star Trek IV] because it's not real, but they can't accept a disarmament theme. I don't know. The only thing that makes it work for me is Superman trying to disarm the world and Lex Luthor trying to sell the other side missiles. Every time you have a 'message' scene, in comes Lex who just beats up on it. It's that quality that keeps it a comedy. Superman IV doesn't get that serious, but it's interesting to see if mixed in with the shredded wheat the audience wants some fresh fruit. If the picture [didn't] work, it's because the audience didn't buy it. But I never felt the theme was a problem.
'Having courage and guts is part of the insanity of this business,' Furie notes. 'The truth is that whether your film is about the great mythological character you have to do right by, or it's a little movie that nobody has heard of, you still approach it like it's the most important thing in the world. And failing is still the worst thing in the world. But you fail; you go on; you succeed once in a while, and you don't think about it too often. It goes with the territory.... We're gunslingers, and you don't win every duel.'