A Look Back at “Superman III” and “Superman IV: The Quest for Peace” - Where the Series Went South
- Matt Palmer
- Jul 13, 2025
- 4 min read
For the last edition, I revisited the first two “Superman” movies, which are still loads of fun to watch. With the “Superman” reboot going to be in theaters by the time this review will be in this edition, it’s time to continue on with my “Superman” franchise revisit with “Superman III” and “Superman IV: The Quest for Peace” - the weakest of the Christopher Reeve series.
In the 1983 sequel “Superman III,” computer programmer Gus Gorman is hired by financial tycoon Ross Webster to seize control of a weather satellite and annihilate Colombia's coffee crop. When Superman manages to thwart the plan, Webster commands Gorman to use the satellite to locate kryptonite, the Man of Steel’s mortal weakness.
But a missing unknown element in the kryptonite - replaced by Gorman with tar - causes an unintended side effect when presented to Superman.
While “Superman III” does have a few fun moments throughout the movie, the third movie in the original series was the start of the hero’s cinematic downfall. There’s a part
of the movie’s plot that features an “evil Superman” that is actually interesting and entertaining. There’s also a scene that takes place in a junkyard where the “evil Superman” finds a way to fight Kent that’s a lot of fun to watch.
The third movie is a bit too reliant on humor (which includes some slapstick humor especially in the opening credits). Richard Pryor’s character in the movie can actually bring a few decent laughs, yet it can be a bit much at some parts of the movie. Even the ending, which involves a supercomputer and one of the villains becoming a cyborg somehow, was a little confusing and not quite exciting.
In the other not so good sequel, “Superman IV: The Quest for Peace,” seeing the US and the Soviet Union engaged in a nuclear arms race that could lead to Earth’s destruction, Superman decides that he must take action. He collects all the nuclear warheads from the world and throws them into space.
Meanwhile, Superman’s nemesis, Lex Luthor, has broken out of prison with a new scheme. He clones Superman with radioactive material to create Nuclear Man, a being just as powerful as the Man of Steel.
While “Superman III” didn’t perform nearly as well as the first two movies and had a big dip in quality, “Superman IV: The Quest for Peace” is the movie that put a nail in the
coffin for the Christopher Reeve franchise.
The nuclear arms subplot is an alright addition to the sequel and sort of serves as a serious commentary about the topic. And, even Gene Hackman and Christopher Reeve do what they can with what they have to work with.
The visual effects in the fourth movie were incredibly bad, which is partially due to the budget being cut in half. There are also numerous times where you can easily tell they used the same special effect again (especially during the Superman flying sequences). Even the new villain (Nuclear Man) just wasn’t interesting.
Next week for the 7/24 edition, I will be wrapping up my “Superman” franchise revisit with “Man of Steel” and “Superman Returns” (the latter title I haven’t seen yet)!
Christopher Reeve was not happy with the film, and often expressed in interviews that he was mostly disappointed in how it turned out. He initially swore never to play the role again, saying he was aging out of the role. He was persuaded to make Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987) in exchange for more input on the script.
After Margot Kidder expressed her disgust about the firing of Richard Donner to producers Alexander Salkind and Ilya Salkind, her role was cut to 12 lines and less than five minutes of screen time. In the film's 2006 DVD commentary, Ilya Salkind says there was little need for Lois Lane in this movie because her relationship with Superman ended at the end of Superman II (1980).
The writers of the film Office Space (1999) utilized the storyline of taking a fraction of a penny from employees for their own gain stating that they saw it work in the movie Superman III.
Richard Donner originally planned for Tom Mankiewicz to direct the film, as he had written outlines for two more "Superman" films. After Donner was fired from Superman II (1980), Mankiewicz would no longer be involved with the franchise.
One of the main disappointments for Richard Pryor with the finished film was that it was too comedic. He had hoped that the film would help him transition into more serious roles.
According to the producers' commentary on the Deluxe Edition DVD, this film was not a flop. Critics and fans generally expressed disappointment with it, and its $60-million gross fell short of the previous two movies' $100-million+ gross. It still made an impressive profit, despite competition from Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983), which opened three weeks earlier, and Octopussy (1983), which opened ten days earlier.
Christopher Reeve publicly regretted his involvement in the film. He wrote in his memoir, "Superman IV was a catastrophe from start to finish. That failure was a huge blow to my career."
When Nuclear Man was being developed, Christopher Reeve was approached to play that part as Superman's polar opposite, or a darker version of Bizarro.
The failure of this film at the box office prompted "The Cannon Group Inc." to cancel a planned production of "Spider-Man".
Christopher Reeve agreed to play Superman for the fourth time if the studio financed his project, Street Smart (1987).
The movie's original budget was $36 million. Just before filming was to begin, The Cannon Group, Inc., which was experiencing financial problems, slashed the budget to $17 million, less than a third of the budget of Superman (1978), which was $55 million. The filmmakers cut corners by re-using special effects.
The Cannon Group, Inc., thinking that they had a potential blockbuster on their hands, cut the two-hour-plus film down to a lean ninety minutes, so that theater owners could have more screenings per day, and potentially make more money that would eventually filter back to the studio.
The film was both a critical and commercial failure, with many reviewers criticizing the cheap visual effects, inconsistencies, lack of originality, and plot holes.
Comments