For years, many fans wondered about what has become known as the "hybrid version" of Superman II, which was half directed by Richard Donner and half directed by Richard Lester after Donner was unceremoniously dumped from the project.<br /><br />Superman II was a very strong sequel despite all the production woes, but has not held up nearly as well as the first film, and now plays more like camp in many spots. Was this Lester's influence, or was the plan always to lighten the tone of the sequel to create more of a popcorn film? Well, we all got our answer in 1983, when Superman III debuted, this completely under the guiding hand of Richard Lester.<br /><br />From the film's opening credit sequence, a completely farcical series of events, you get that sinking feeling and realize that anything resembling cheese and slapstick in the second film was directly the influence of Lester. The first Superman was grounded in a sense of reality, even if it was a comic book one, which is noticeably absent from much of Superman II. In the first film, Metropolis always seemed like a real city with real people inhabiting it. The second recalled a city on a sound stage with only the vaguest sense of a distorted reality. Well, the filmmakers decided to distort reality further in Superman III by ignoring what made the franchise great and going with a hipper, more today approach. They accomplished this by centering the film around the casting of Richard Pryor. The problem with this approach is that there is absolutely no reason for Richard Pryor to appear in Superman III other than the fact that he's Richard Pryor.<br /><br />The idea behind Superman III is actually a fairly intriguing one, where a computer genius constructs a super-computer, which in a unique turn of events alters the mental stability of Superman, turning him away from his All-American persona. Suddenly, Superman is no longer the hope for all mankind, but the "anti Superman" intent on destroying us. It also contains one of the best moments in the series, as Clark Kent and the evil Superman actually battle each other. It's one of the highpoints of the entire series, yet still can't avoid being disappointing by the overall poor quality of the production.<br /><br />I Thank the heavens that a good 20 minutes of this movie was cut for theatrical release because it just made the pacing even worse!, most of the footage cut was more pointless forced comedy moments and the only high point of the footage being reinserted for the Extended TV Version shown numerous times in the late eighties were the newly created opening credits in space, rather then the credits appearing during the opening montage in the theatrical cut.<br /><br />So what went wrong? I would put the blame squarely at the feet of Lester and the Salkinds, who seemed to want to make a "Richard Pryor" Superman movie rather than a film that was true to the spirit of the characters and the original film. Pryor is given far too much screen time despite the fact that he's not even the main villain. The producers obviously figured that, if they're paying Richard Pryor, they may as well use him, whether it benefits the film or not. So what would I have done differently? Well, the plot about a super computer and an altered Superman is a fantastic direction for the film to go, but that's where they left it. I would have eliminated the character of Ross Webster, the ultimate corporate bad guy, and everyone around him in favor of Gus Gorman, the computer genius trying to dominate the world on his own. The Webster character is totally unnecessary and a more maniacal Gorman working in solitude would have been far more menacing But the catch is that with Pryor in the role of Gorman, the producers obviously felt a need to allow him to redeem himself in the end, so I say they should have removed Pryor, too. This could also have cut out much of the unnecessary comic drivel that ruins Superman III.<br /><br />Ultimately, Superman III is not the worst entry in the series, but not for a lack of trying. Richard Lester proved once and for all that he really didn't understand what a Superman movie should be, seemingly relying on British slapstick comedy that is taken right out of an episode of Monty Python's Flying Circus "where it belongs!" and a pathetic, poor script that he and probably only ten other people found amusing. He must have forgotten that Superman is aimed towards an American audience. The movie does actually start to get good from the moment supes becomes "anti-supes", Watching the dual between Clark and Superman really lets you see how the whole movie could have been made "dark and serious" and kept out of the silly comedy path "even with Pryor and other factors etc" If Superman III had been made this way it probably would have been better then II!. The Superman vs. Clark scene proves this, In Superman II where Zod and Superman battle it out, the end result is disappointing and nothing really happens other then Superman throwing Zod into a Coca-Cola sign, the confrontation in III is far far better!. With all the great characters and history that Superman has encountered, there were really limitless possibilities for this sequel. Unfortunately for fans, we happened to get stuck with filmmakers who obviously were limited in their abilities, talents and taste!. The last 35 minutes of this movie on a whole deserves a 6/10 rating. Why could the other 85 minutes of this movie not of been the same!, The rest of the movie deserves nothing more then a poor...<br /><br />3/10