When I was a kid, I thought that Superman III was a horrendous mess. While Superman III is still a film that fails to blend many disparate elements together, it had a pastiche of numerous elements that reemerged in later films: Fight Club and Terminator (black inventor accidentally creates machines that become transcendent). It was particularly daring to not have a clear cut villain from beginning to end, but show a parallel moral ambiguity to Superman and his foil, Gus, who is played by Richard Pryor: what they want versus what they are willing to do and not do to accomplish it. Both get really close to permanently crossing the spectrum from good to evil, but pull back when the consequences become apparent. Because of Pryor’s strong personality, he sometimes outshines Superman’s plot so it is understandable why that would outrage people who came to the movie for the titular hero. Also Pryor in a tablecloth cape (every kid has donned a superhero cape fashioned by some quotidian object) accidentally flies off a tall building in a single bound and survives, which outraged many viewers as ridiculous and unrealistic and stupid, which it is, but isn’t the whole concept of Superman, especially as illustrated in the first two movies, just as absurd. I think that Richard Lester, the director of Superman III, created a space for the viewer to question the concept of superheroes and ordinary people and how they can both succeed and fail. Lester erased a barrier by making the heroic and villainous equally accessible as an option for the viewer in Superman III so the viewer could perhaps address those questions to his or herself. Superman III may be my favorite so far, but still need to (re)watch Superman IV.