43 replies to this topic

[SecretAgent007]

Well, I finally got around to watching the Dick Donner cut of Superman II, then re watched it with the commentary. I found it interesting that if he would have been allowed to complete both films at the same time, the ending to Superman (I) would have been different, a cliffhanger non the less, with "Superman will Return" at the end. Hummm, sounds familiar doesn't it. For those that don't know, Superman the movie was to end with Superman tossing one of the Luthor's missiles into space, which in turn, shatters the Phantom Zone, and not have Superman spinning the world backwards to reverse time. That was to be at the end of II.

I thought the cut was OK, considering they had to use footage that Donner didn't shoot, and would have shot differently. Also, there are some holes in the story (my take is that scenes were not shot by him or his replacement so they couldn't be filled in, in this cut) but I found it interesting and could get an idea of what it might have been like if Donner would have been around to finish II. I also thought it interesting that he wanted to stay on and make a few more. Seems like they would have been more in the vein of the first film and not so outlandish as III and IV were.

I liked the idea of the original ending of I, but the turning back time at the end of II makes less sence to me. I guess it means the the Fortress of Solitude would not be destroyed. I prefer the way Donner's version would have opened, with Lois jumping out the window of the planet, instead of at Niagra Falls. And having her shoot Clark instead of him falling into the fireplace to confirm he was Superman.

Anyone else watch it with the commentary. What are your opinions?

Edited by SecretAgent007, 05 January 2007 - 03:03 AM.

[DLibrasnow]

I disagree with your assessment. I did not like the whole Lois falls out of a window thing though the "shooting Clark" gag was interesting (wierd to see how different Reeve looks in that scene).

Donner said that when he was asked if he wanted a credit he got as far as the Eiffel Tower part and said no thanks. I am kinda fond of that Paris sequence so c'est la vie!

[SecretAgent007]

I found that scene with Lois to keep more with the tone of the first film, althought the Paris scene in good and the only Lester scene that I like. Also, the Brando scenes and the way Sup looses and re-gains his powers were better in the Donner cut. Most of the "smaller" Lester scenes were too dumbed down for me. Basically, Donner's direction with the actors and his take on Superman is more appealing to me. Superman is one of those films that has to be directed by an American. The character is such a part of Americana that I don't see how a foreign director can understand what should be done.

As for Clark looking different, yes. That scene was made up of Kidder and Reeves screen tests (2). If you look at him in her shots, he has the glasses on that he used in the film, but in his test, they are different.

My feeling is that the Lester version is on the edge of campy and quite dumb in parts (Niagara Falls, Fortress of Solitude scenes, villains in small town) and the Donner version would have had a better balance and is more intelligent. As well as having a better continuity between the films.

Also makes you wonder what might have been, if he and Tom stayed to make more. I can't even watch III and IV.

It also got me thinking about what it would have been like if Eon would have made them instead of the Salkinds, although I don't think Cubby could have raised that much cash to do it and then pay for Moonraker.

Edited by SecretAgent007, 05 January 2007 - 09:32 PM.

[Professor Dent]

I haven't listened to the commentary yet but I did watch the movie & the Restoring the Vision featurette. Overall, I enjoyed it -- a glimpse of what could have been if Donner was able to complete it back in the day. Some of the scenes in the Lester cut are on the campy side like when he flies the flag back to the White House at the end. It always struck me as being a little cheezy. I also never really liked how Lois discovers Clark's identity with him tripping & falling into the fireplace. Shooting him with the blank in the gun worked much better even if half the scene did have screen test footage in it.

Also, if you have seen Superman Returns, you can see where some of the footage they used came from especially with Jor-El being reintegrated back into the Donner cut. I never really got that line "the son becomes the father & the father becomes the son" until I saw the Donner cut -- it makes sense to me now.

[Athena007]

I have yet to watch it, but am certainly planning on it. I saw a pre-view of it at Comic-Con last year. I'm a bit excited about it.

[Safari Suit]

Why did the spend all this time/effort on trying to "improve" an already great (for what it is) film, instead of restoring footage and improving effects for Part IV? I know what you're going to say, it could never possibly be any good. Maybe not, but it probably could have improved it substantially, plus the film was the one closest to Reeve's heart, so it would have been nice from that point of view.

Edited by Safari Suit, 06 January 2007 - 05:16 PM.

[Harmsway]

Why did the spend all this time/effort on trying to "improve" an already great (for what it is) film, instead of restoring footage and improving effects for Part IV?

#1. Firstly, because SUPERMAN II isn't a good film. At best, it's mediocre.

#2. Second, the "Donner Cut" of SUPERMAN II is one of the most legendary lost cuts of all time. For that reason alone, bringing it to DVD is worth it.

#3. Third, because there is a demand for seeing Donner's SUPERMAN II, while there is no demand for a restored/improved SUPERMAN IV.

#4. Fourth, the Donner Cut isn't there to improve or replace. It's there to give a picture of what might have been. It's essentially one giant special feature.

[Safari Suit]

I am aware of all that. But what was so bad* about "Superman II".

*I mean genuine flaws, not just the stuff Lester changed.

[Zorin Industries]

Why did the spend all this time/effort on trying to "improve" an already great (for what it is) film, instead of restoring footage and improving effects for Part IV?

#1. Firstly, because SUPERMAN II isn't a good film. At best, it's mediocre.

#2. Second, the "Donner Cut" of SUPERMAN II is one of the most legendary lost cuts of all time. For that reason alone, bringing it to DVD is worth it.

#3. Third, because there is a demand for seeing Donner's SUPERMAN II, while there is no demand for a restored/improved SUPERMAN IV.

#4. Fourth, the Donner Cut isn't there to improve or replace. It's there to give a picture of what might have been. It's essentially one giant special feature.

I agree with Safari Suit here. I am a big lover of SUPERMAN II and couldn't wait to sit down and watch the Donner cut before Christmas with a mate who'd just bought it.

It was actually quite comforting to not have our memories of the original tarnished. I feared they would be. Donner's cut is fan-boy desperation.

[Harmsway]

*I mean genuine flaws, not just the stuff Lester changed.

What, the "cellophane 'S'" or "amnesia kiss" don't qualify as obvious flaws?

In addition, it's full of clumsy humor, awkward plotting, and muted characterization. Then there's the dumb dialogue and poor special effects. There's an interesting theme to be played out here (the desire of Superman to lead a normal life), but it's not really developed much and gets drowned out in the midst of everything else.

Admittedly, a number of the flaws of SUPERMAN II aren't fixed by the Donner cut (which is hardly definitive - even Donner admits that the Donner cut only gives an outline of what SUPERMAN II would have eventually become under his control), but they're intensified in the Lester cut.

[Loomis]

#4. Fourth, the Donner Cut isn't there to improve or replace. It's there to give a picture of what might have been. It's essentially one giant special feature.

Would you mind expanding on this, Harmsmeister? Are you saying it doesn't work as a film?

[Harmsway]

#4. Fourth, the Donner Cut isn't there to improve or replace. It's there to give a picture of what might have been. It's essentially one giant special feature.

Would you mind expanding on this, Harmsmeister? Are you saying it doesn't work as a film?

It works as a film, but just not as a great film. It's not what Donner would have really wanted, just the closest possible thing. There's too much inconsistency because of the necessity to use Lester-shot footage, as well as some jumps in plot (though it's significantly less than in the first film). Ultimately, the Donner cut is a glimpse at what Donner would have done with the film, using what footage he did shoot, but it's limited. We don't know what reshoots he would have done or what changes would have been made under his supervision - all we can rest on is what footage was available.

And the ending, which is ending from SUPERMAN, causes issues. The time travel was originally intended to be used to end SUPERMAN II when they were both being shot back-to-back (SUPERMAN was going to end with Superman just sending the nuclear weapon into space and saving Lois, no time travel necessary), but they attached the ending to SUPERMAN instead and figured they'd come up with an alternate ending later. They never did, the time travel ending causes some issues in this cut.

I will say Donner's SUPERMAN II is better than Lester's in many aspects, but it's still not the masterpiece fans were looking for. Ultimately, the definitive SUPERMAN II will never exist.

[SecretAgent007]

I think had Donner been able to stay on, II could have been better than I. He said that he would probably have reshot some of the stuff with Brando, and a lot of the holes in the Donner cut are due to the fact that neither he, or Lester shot several scenes from the script due to the change of direction with Lester, and Donner having to drop shooting scenes from II and finishing I.

The time travel in the Donner cut, makes a lot less sence than it does in Superman I. Why is he doing it? So Lois doesn't remember him? Seems to fall flat and lacks the emotional drive that doing it in the first one had. I'm sure there are other plot points for doing this that were not filmed. It would have been nice for them to explain more clearly what was to happen at the end of "part2". Seems like a plot device cheat to me. Would be kind of cool to re-make Superman II and have Donner direct or be a executive producer.

So, I guess this (end of Donner cut) means that the Fortress of Solitude is not destroyed, and his father can still mentor him? It would also leave the posibility of Zod returning? Seems he turned time back before Luthor launched the missles as well. Am I correct on that one?

I can't see them "fixing" IV. The film is a POS. The Salkinds and Warner had nothing to do with the film. It was made by Canon.

Edited by SecretAgent007, 06 January 2007 - 10:14 PM.

[Harmsway]

I think had Donner been able to stay on, II could have been better than I. He said that he would probably have reshot some of the stuff with Brando, and a lot of the holes in the Donner cut are due to the fact that neither he, or Lester shot several scenes from the script due to the change of direction with Lester, and Donner having to drop shooting scenes from II and finishing I.

Yup. If Donner had finished SUPERMAN II, it might have been a masterpiece. But we'll never know.

So, I guess this (end of Donner cut) means that the Fortress of Solitude is not destroyed, and his father can still mentor him? It would also leave the posibility of Zod returning? Seems he turned time back before Luthor launched the missles as well. Am I correct on that one?

Maybe. I don't know... there are a bunch of holes and questions there. Too many, honestly. The whole time travel device pretty much nullifies everything we watched in the film.

[SecretAgent007]

It's just they didn't show the FOS being "un-destroyed", which they could have by reversing the footage of him destroying it. They did show the phantom zone having that done.

[Safari Suit]

Well, I respect your opinion, but most of that stuff doesn't bother me personally. I suppose it depends on how you like your man in tights .

But the "Kiss of forgetfullness" or whatever, is no worse then turning the earth around backwards, now is it?

I think Lester get way too much &%$* for doing this film, though. His filmography suggests him to be at LEAST as good a director as Donner, if not the right man for the job.

Thinking about PartIV makes me sad though because, as bad as it is, there was potential there that went to waste when Cannon decided they absolutely had to fund a live action He-Man movie.

[Harmsway]

But the "Kiss of forgetfullness" or whatever, is no worse then turning the earth around backwards, now is it?

It's somewhat plausible, considering it's done with powers that we know Superman has. The "amnesia kiss" comes out of nowhere and is *not* a legitimate Superman power.

[Safari Suit]

I see. I must admit I'm a bit out of my depth here.

[hcmv007]

I loved it! I was glad the cellophane S-shield and the amnesia kiss were "man of Steel'd" out of there. The Paris scene was missed, but not the fireplace scene. The Lester version was good, but had some weaknesses, and plot holes, even Superman 1 did, but the Donner version cleared that up,

Spoiler

and also explains Jason from Superman Returns.

But this gives fans what they wanted, how would Donner's version had been? Look, I enjoy both version of Superman 2, but the Donner version may stick with me a little better, that's all.

[SecretAgent007]

The Donner film and scenes in II had funny moments, but never got silly or campy. Whereas the Lester scenes in II and all of III went too far. The animated shorts in the 40's were not silly. They were the first serious "cartoons" to be shown at movie houses if I remember correctly. And from what I remember of the comics when I was a kid, they weren't silly either. I blame David and Leslie Newman as much as Lester. They wrote the third drafts of both films, and Tom Mankiewicz went in the cut all of the silly stuff they put in. So when they came back to re-write II again with Lester, they put all of that back in. I guess they didn't do there homework.


Seems like Brian Singer's movie goes better with the Donner cut than with the Lester one. Singer's film would have been so much better if Lois was more like Kidder's version. There was no chemistry between Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth. I thought she was miscast. Whereas Routh was perfectly cast. He and Craig are to of the best casting choices I seen in years.

Edited by SecretAgent007, 07 January 2007 - 07:17 PM.

[Loomis]

I was just thinking how odd it was to have a sequel almost 20 years after SUPERMAN IV that's actually a prequel to the second sequel (I refer, of course, to SUPERMAN RETURNS) and thus, continuity-wise, fits squarely into the middle of the series, when it occurred to me: doesn't RETURNS contradict IV by

Spoiler

having Luthor released from prison

?* (I haven't seen IV since its original theatrical run in 1987.) In which case, should the Superman franchises be regarded as two separate serieses: I, II and RETURNS, and III and IV?

*Mind you, I guess it would be possible to fanwank IV into the retcon established by RETURNS by assuming that, in IV,

Spoiler

Luther is serving a different sentence

.

Singer's film would have been so much better if Lois was more like Kidder's version.

I liked Bosworth, but I definitely take your point. I wonder who could have been a good choice for a Kidderesque Lois.

[SecretAgent007]

I think Singer chose to ignore III and IV, they never existed in his mind. Which is fine with me. The only thing I liked in III was the duality aspect, but it wasn't played up for enough in the film.

As for Lois; my take on I and II is that it is basically a love story and the relationship between Sup and his father (using the Donner cut as my Superman II). So, if that Kidder/Lois characterization was used in Returns, I feel that she would have buckled at the knees for him by the end of the movie. Instead, the relationship is left in ambiguity. She's too serious (plays it like a soap opera characterization) and contemptuous toward Sup. Bosworth never looks gaga at him. Silly I know, but if Routh is playing Sup/Kent in the Reeves mold, then it stands to reason that Bosworth should have used Kidder's characterization as a starting point to develop her interpretation. She should have played it a little lighter. She also lacks the raw energy that Kidder brought to the character. They needed someone more quirky.

As for who could have played the role better, I have no idea. I'll have to think that one over. Loomis adn Harmsway, anyone come to mind?

Edited by SecretAgent007, 07 January 2007 - 07:44 PM.

[DLibrasnow]

I think Singer chose to ignore III and IV, they never existed in his mind. Which is fine with me.

Singer said this prior to the release of SUPERMAN RETURNS (i.e. that the movie takes place after SUPERMAN II and that III and IV never existed).

[Loomis]

As for who could have played the role better, I have no idea. I'll have to think that one over. Loomis adn Harmsway, anyone come to mind?

Well, just off the top of my head - Winona Ryder. But - in case y'all wanna shoot that one down in flames - I freely admit that I'm not a Superman fan (I like Donner's original and really like RETURNS, and would be interested in seeing both cuts of II, but that's about it) and don't really know what I'm on about, so I may be coming across as a Bond layman suggesting Ricky Gervais for M. Lucy Liu maybe. Probably not, though, but then again LUCKY NUMBER SLEVIN shows she can do comedy, and Kidder's Lane was witty, was she not? I also think Lois should be - or at least seem - a few years older than Kent. That said, perhaps Eva Green could have done it. A tricky one to cast, though - which actresses are there who could put a good dollop of Kidder into the role? Heck, I'll go out on a limb and make Lucy Liu my fantasy Kidderesque Lois. Rene Russo might have worked, or Sigourney Weaver, but both are too long in the tooth now.

[SecretAgent007]

How about Amanda Peet. She's quirky.

[Harmsway]

Silly I know, but if Routh is playing Sup/Kent in the Reeves mold, then it stands to reason that Bosworth should have used Kidder's characterization as a starting point to develop her interpretation. She should have played it a little lighter. She also lacks the raw energy that Kidder brought to the character. They needed someone more quirky.

The thing is, SUPERMAN RETURNS isn't a perfect sequel to SUPERMAN I and II. Singer confessed this - he only intended to use SUPERMAN I and II as a sort of vague history, so he could build off of that interpretation. He wasn't intending on really recreating the same characterizations. Singer recognized that the vast break in time simultaneously allowed him to rely on the previous films as well as to bring a new vision to the world and characters.

And saying that Routh's Superman is Reeve's Superman is a gross exaggeration. In fact, their personalities are pretty different. Reeve's Clark Kent is entirely an act - Routh's Clark Kent actually feels pretty genuine, as if he's not so much putting on a show. And their Superman portrayals are also very different - Reeve's Superman is bold and speech-loving, Routh's keeps to himself and feels alienated (after recovering in the hospital, Reeve's Superman would have emerged and spoke to the masses of the USA; Routh's vanishes without a word).

I suppose the best way to describe SUPERMAN RETURNS is that it's an evolution of the cinematic Superman in the way that the Moore era was an evolution of Bond. In many ways, it's part of the same series as the Connery flicks, references Bond's wife's death in 1969 and all that, has the same M and stuff, but in the end it's different. The tone changed and Bond himself changed. Superman has changed, too.

As for who could have played the role better, I have no idea. I'll have to think that one over. Loomis adn Harmsway, anyone come to mind?

I love Bosworth (and HATE Kidder), so I'll keep her. And I daresay, for Routh's quieter, introspective Superman, a feisty Lois just wouldn't play well.

Well, just off the top of my head - Winona Ryder. But - in case y'alll wanna shoot that one down in flames - I freely admit that I'm not a Superman fan (I like Donner's original and really like RETURNS, and would be interested in seeing both cuts of II, but that's about it) and don't really know what I'm on about, so I may be coming across as a Bond layman suggesting Ricky Gervais for M.

Well, judging by Superman's comic book legacy, Ryder's somewhat wrong for the part, but less wrong for it than Kidder was (Kidder is very little like her comic book counterpart).

[freemo]

Watched both versions a week or so ago.

Really liked the Donner cut, though I was perhaps expecting something closer to the "definitive" thing (even though I knew the thing had only been 70-80% finished and that this "cut" would a) have some bits "missing" and b) have to include some Lester footage). I agree with Harmsway that it's good but it's at best a guide to what Superman II "could have been" (e.g. the "Lois shoots Clark" scene is clearly made up from two different screen tests, things like that are rather jarring and prevent it from holding together as a "film").

The Brando scenes, particularly the one where he gives Superman his powers back, was the highlight for me (really strengthens the whole father-son story of I and II). And I'd say just about everything else that's done differently in the Donner cut is superior to it's theatrical version counterpart, from the whole scenes that everyone knows about, to little things like the villains knocking Superman into the Statue of Liberty's flame (though I do like the "Superman returning the flag to the white house" ending in the theatrical II).

The theatrical SII is okay as a fun fast paced action flick (save for the lack of Brando, the fact that they seem to be making up the powers as the go along (beams coming out of bad guys fingers, the cellophane 'S', the super kiss, geez, some of these were really bad), and those wacky Richard Lester comedy moments), but I much prefer Superman I, and Donner's SII, as the second half of a two-part epic myth in that tone, would really have been something, a fact the Donner cut reminds you of.

Also, for some reason the Donner cuts feels more timeless than the rather dated theatrical version.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

The theatrical SII is okay as a fun fast paced action flick (save for the lack of Brando, the fact that they seem to be making up the powers as the go along (beams coming out of bad guys fingers, the cellophane 'S', the super kiss, geez, some of these were really bad), and those wacky Richard Lester comedy moments), but I much prefer Superman I, and Donner's SII, as the second half of a two-part epic myth in that tone, would really have been something, a fact the Donner cut reminds you of.

Also, for some reason the Donner cuts feels more timeless than the rather dated theatrical version.

My sentiments exactly. I finally got around to watching the Donner cut recently and loved it. For the most part, I found it vastly superior to the Lester cut. It was closer in tone to I, my pick for the best comic book film ever, the Brando scenes added what was badly missing in II, the villains were darker, the Lois/Clark romance was snappier, funnier and less sappy in Donner's version, Margot Kidder looked a lot prettier in the Donner footage, it was nicer to hear John Williams' original score instead of Ken Thorne's, and we got to see more of Gene Hackman's Luthor and even better, lovely Valerie Perrine's Miss Teschmaker. I do think Lester's cut had a better ending but as originally conceived the whole "Superman turns the world back" scenario was originally always intended for II so it was good to see. If only Donner and Mankiewicz had been allowed to finish II and make III, IV, and possibly a V I think the 1980s Superman series might've become WB's answer to EON's Bond series.

[Cruiserweight]

I always thought Superman 2 was the best of the bunch.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

I always thought Superman 2 was the best of the bunch.

But do you prefer the original Lester cut version or the recently released Donner cut version?

I do wish Michael Thau would have kept Hackman's "You think with all their accumulated knowledge these dummies would learn to use a doorknob" line in the Donner cut. It was a classic line and Donner, not Lester, actually shot it.