Superman II, III, IV: Where Are the BD's?

I can see them releasing the theatrical versions of Superman and Superman II at some point, but I wouldn't necessarily hold my breath for Superman III and IV.

WB could be waiting for whenever the next Theatrical Superman film is near release. Perhaps at that time, they'll do a boxed set or something (hopefully with a version of S:TM that is like the one that is currently on DVD)

I have to disagree re: Superman vs. Batman.  I think the first two Reeve* films are terrific, as are both Keaton Batman films.  (Neither of which can be called "campy" by any stretch of the immagination.  If that's how you remember them, you need to go back and watch them again.)  And I think the rest of the films in both series sucked.  (Although it is a real close call as to whether Batman and Robin or The Quest for Peace was bigger embarassment to its cast and franchise.)   So while I agree it is a crime that the 3rd and 4th Batman films from that series are being released on BD, I won't be surprised or disappointed if Superman III and IV are left as standard def DVDs.  It isn't like being able to see the image more clearly is going to bring the acting, directing or scripts into better focus. 

Regards,

Joe

*  Chris Reeve.  George Reeves.  (1950s TV series.)

I don't have time to search for it now, but I'm sure it was asked about in the last WB theatrical dvd chat.  Are the rest of the Superman films coming to Blu-Ray?  The answer was kind of short and to the point "Been there, done that"  meaning don't hold your breath.

dont remember how long ago but i remember watching Superman III in 1080i via cable broadcast (also don't remember which channel) and it was superb master =P. just add lossless and maybe we'll have somn =).

The biggest difference between Batman Forever/Batman & Robin and Superman III/Superman IV is that the Batman films seem to sell fairly well on home video, while the Superman films do not.

And that, more than anything, is what determines which films get a Blu-Ray release and which don't.  The installed base of BD players is still a fraction of the DVD base, so they aren't going to spend money releasing films that didn't do well in the mass market of DVD. 

Regards,

Joe

Or the sales gap between the DVDs of the Superman boxes vs, the individual releases of the first two films when they were released was significantly wide enough to give WB pause to releasing the 3rd and 4th films on BD.

I actually kind of remember that, but I think the question was either more related to S:TM which had already been released on Blu-Ray or further plans for regular DVD. It wouldn't make much sense for them to say "Been There, Done That" in regards to the Reeve films when there have been only 2 BD releases (and one of them isn't even a "real" film). I'm sure the rest of the films will eventually be released, but as I said, They're probably holding off until the next Superman movie is about to hit theaters.

Batman Forever is a terrible film, but at least it had real production values and doesn't come off as if a chainsaw was taken to the original negative (there are parts of Supe IV that literally make no sense). And Schwartzenegger, Clooney and Thruman obviously came out ok. Also Batman and Robin actually did do pretty well at the box office unlike Supe IV.

As for Superman III, I don't dislike it. There were obviously some big mistakes regarding the tone of the film, but every so often there is some legitimately good material in the movie.

 I'd like to see the extended cut of IV released on Blu-ray someday. Wasn't it only released on a Japanese LD?

You're confusing cause and effect here.  The Batman films don't sell well because they're available, they're available because they sell well.  That is, retailers continue to stock them because at the end of the month they see the copies they bought that month have mostly sold out.  Conversely the Superman films vanished because they weren't selling.  When you get to the end of the month and you still have the same 10 copies of Superman IV that you started with (that is, you didn't sell them all and have to reorder), then you don't order any more copies.  You either return the unsold copies to Warner Bros.or you mark them down to get them out the door. Retailers don't arbitrarily decide to stop stocking a product that is selling well because they "don't like it".  Nor do studios arbitrarily stop producing such titles.  Everybody is in business to make money.  You do that by producing and stocking the products that people want, and not wasting money producing and stocking the ones they don't.  It really is that simple. 

Regards,

Joe

From the WB chat March 2009

[JoeCampos] Hi! I'm happy you're doing digital work on the MGM/Turner titles, and look forward to OZ and GONE WITH THE WIND on blu ray. Anyway, any chance you will revisit SUPERMAN: The Movie and SUPERMAN II in definitive editions on Blu Ray/DVD with the added TV footage and other new stuff? I was disappointed that no 30th Anniversary Edition of SUPERMAN was released.

[warnerbros] Thanks for your kind words. We do appreciate them. As to SUPERMAN....Been there.. Done that..to great success two years ago.

The 4 Superman movies have been available together on standard DVD for a while for around $10- if they don't announce a Blu-Ray of any of these soon I might break down and get that.  I've got the first 3 Warner Batmans on laserdisc and aren't in a hurry to upgrade those- don't have Batman and Robin on any format, but didn't think it was that bad.  Superman IV's problem was its budget, or lack thereof.

Well, the Richard Donner cut of Superman II has been released on Blu-Ray.  $17.49 at Amazon.com. 

Personally I've never had much use for "extended cuts" or "TV cuts".  They are generally padded out with material that was cut for very good reason and only shoe-horned back in to make up for footage that couldn't be used on TV (e.g., Blazing Saddles) or to make the film run in a given time slot with commercials.  In almost every case the "restored" footage was cut for very good reason and putting it back in adds little or nothing to the narrative, while absolutely killing the pace of the films.  The Donner cuts are a different matter since they were alternate artistic visions of the films, not commercial products churned out to fit the requirements of a different medium and patched together from the film equivalent of meat trimmings and gristle. 

Regards,

Joe

The film was a mess in many other ways that was unrelated to its budget.

Quote:
Not at the expense of other, more deserving films, which according to consumers and the studio, is pretty much anything else.


Oh, please.  Not even Reeve agreed with this kind of mopey nonsense, and playing on his injury in such a crass fashion would have pissed him off.  In any event, Reeve said multiple times (including in his autobiography) that he thought Superman III was an insult to Pryor, himself, the fans, the character, and the mythology.  He also said that even with his input, he knew Superman IV was going to be terrible and that he pretty much signed on entirely because of his anti-nuke stance. It's highly doubtful he cared for the release of either or both on any home video format.

Edited by Jesse Blacklow - 3/9/10 at 10:56am

If one wants to honor the film work of Christopher Reeve (there's no "s"), I can think of several more deserving (and probably more popular films) to release on Blu-ray. Off the top of my head:

Somewhere in Time
Noises Off
Deathtrap
The Remains of the Day

Add Supergirl (and Superboy, that Warner didn't released the remaining seasons arguing on the HTF chat the sales didn't meet expectations, while I strongly believe the reason for this was all those legal battles) to that list...

And considering the lousy job they did with Superman: The Movie (a really poor image quality), I would like very much if they restore the first while bringing the rest in a single boxset...

Edited by John Stuart - 3/9/10 at 3:48pm

Like the cliched, preachy and dull script, to name just one? 

Even the comic book writers realized early on that there were certain things they just couldn't involve Superman in, because the actual implications of the powers they gave him would make for a bad fit for the real world.  Take WWII, for example.  The comic book covers often featured patriotic images of Supes tearing up German tanks or attacking Japanese submarines (one memorable cover showed the terrified captain of a Japanese sub staring at the image of a vengeful Superman swimming towards him in the viewfinder of his periscope.) 

But the stories inside almost never put him into the war, because the fact is that if Superman actually existed he could have ended WWII all by himself in under a week.  But since he's supposed to live in our world - and the kids who read him would know perfectly well that the war was still going - he went off to fight Lex Luthor and giant robots and save Lois from whatever jam she had gotten herself into that month. 

Captain America could fight the Nazis precisely because he didn't have any real super powers.  He was just a  superbly conditioned and trained athlete.  The Super Soldier formula turned a scrawny weakling into an early version of Ah-Nuld, but it didn't make him invulnerable to allow him to fly or give him super speed.  You could have dropped Batman into Berlin to steal military secrets, but you couldn't have Superman fly in without explaining why he didn't peel Hitler's bunker open like a tin can and fly Herr Shickelgruber to London for trial. 

Similarly inserting Superman into the nuclear arms debate was just asking for trouble.  It was an idea that should have died at the pitch meeting, and probably would have except that the whole "No Nukes" vibe hot again (and the studios remembered the profitable concert and film from a few years earlier) this convinced some idiot that anything with that theme would make money. 

Regards,

Joe

     Quote:
As has been said before, Warner disagrees with this sentiment. Sales tells a very different story, and that story is that those Superman movies just don't sell that well. So there's no present incentive to release them.

However, that doesn't mean they will NEVER come out. With word of a new Superman movie in the next few years, expect that they may hit the format to coincide with that film's release since that's the trend for releasing catalog titles. However, that means they won't be out until 2013 or later.

 What a statement!!

Please don't lump "Batman" and "Batman Returns" in with "Batman Forever" and "Batman and Robin"!!!!   

BTW, I *love* Superman the Movie and Superman II --  can't stand the other two.  But I do agree with you that they deserve an appearance on the format due to the participation of Chrstopher Reeve.

 

Supposedly, the only way Reeve would agree to to the film was contingent upon involvement in the story and it was the Nukes issue that he wanted to do. I actually thought it could have been an interesting idea. After 3 films (not to mention comics, TV shows etc.) one might have wondered why Superman didn't attempt to use his power to solve greater World issues. There was the maxim that he was forbidden to interfere in Human history to somewhat explain this, but he broke that at the end of the first film anyway (and arguably any time he saves someone). The problem was that the film took a utterly naive stance on the nukes issue. It came off as if it was written by a 5 year old ("Daddy says that nukes could hurt us"). One of the more egretious offenses: where Superman addresses the "UN" and declares he will rid the world of nukes and was met by rousing applause.....Sorry! The nations of the world could have decommissioned their nukes at any time if they really wanted to. I'm sure smaller nations that are often subject to potential aggression would have been thrilled to lose their only realistic method of defense. It could easily be argued that the existance of nuclear weapons has prevented many all out wars and aggression. These are points that a more intelligent film should not have ignored. I get that there was a politcal angle that Reeve was trying to convey, but the way it's presented is insulting to the viewer's intelligence. Plus, why would these nations that were so pro getting rid of their nukes just immediately willing to buy them back from Luthor?

Of course, that is just the tip of the iceberg, I haven't even mentioned the myriad of just the general story and logic problems.

Superman III and IV will probably end up on one of those double feature Blu-rays that Warner has begun rolling out, which is sort of an unfortunate trend when it concerns longer movies like the upcoming Where Eagles Dare. Some movies deserve their own standalone release