SUPERMAN II..Donner Cut

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Generally I regard the Lester cut as bad comedy, but I agree, the "General, would you care to step outside?" line was a good one. It should have been in the Donner cut as well. I can think of no good reason to cut it.

As for the time reversal thingy: Perhaps this could make BOTH cuts of the film canon. Meaning: First one version of the film happens, then time is reversed, and this time it's the other one.

 

[Chrisisall]

Generally I regard the Lester cut as bad comedy, but I agree, the "General, would you care to step outside?" line was a good one. It should have been in the Donner cut as well. I can think of no good reason to cut it.

They wanted to be less confrontational.
I say, frak it. Let the line be drawn.
Zod was goin' down. Eff 'im.

 

[Maurice]

This has come up before, but the point of the Donner Cut, successful or not, was to try to get as close as possible to the film Donner intended to make. This meant dropping anything they could that was a Lester change, even if it was good. They only kept the any of the small town crap because there'd be a big hole in the film without them, as the scenes scripted for that portion for Donner's version were never shot.

As to Brando, I don't think it's true that they tried to get him back. In fact, I think they dropped his scenes so that they wouldn't have to pay him his cut on II, and there was a dispute over unpaid fees from the first film.

 

[Hermiod]

Generally I regard the Lester cut as bad comedy, but I agree, the "General, would you care to step outside?" line was a good one. It should have been in the Donner cut as well. I can think of no good reason to cut it.

They wanted to be less confrontational.
I say, frak it. Let the line be drawn.
Zod was goin' down. Eff 'im.

I would have kept it too.

 

[Newski]

The Donner Cut was a terrible atrocity. Listening to the commentary, it was him just spewing self righteious dribble.

PERHAPS the film would have been better had he done that and Superman the way he intended. Then again, the climax of the first film would have been a bit lacking. Of course, with more build up the "turn back time' stunt might have been better accepted by fans.


Actually, I'm sure Superman II would have been better. But you just don't recut a movie to your "version" when you don't have the ability to do that,it turns the film into a disgusting jumbled mess. Also, the you don't have the justification for the "Turning back time." In the original script, wasn't it because Zod destroyed the earth? Now, it's simply to Wipe Lois's mind, but the Superkiss was too far fetched? Zod hadn't come close to Destroying the Earth.....


And then, they have the bar fight at the end. Where Superman goes to a bar, picks a fight with people who, in this altered time line, have done nothing wrong, just to prove a point. To who? What's he doing that for? Is Superman just a cosmic asshole?


Richard Lester did a damn good Job with Superman II. It's superior to the first one. How dare he put humor in a Superman film! I thought it worked out quite well. We had a good balance between serious drama and campiness. Because when Luthor isn't your headline villain, you lose most of the great hilarious moments that would set up.


As I said, Donner probably would have done better. The Donner cut doesn't show that. It's a TERRIBLE cut. Just plain awful. And the commentary, as I mentioned, just makes him sound like a self righteous ass. I don't think the director of "Timeline" has any right to be Arrogant.

 

[RobertScorpio]

The Donner Cut was a terrible atrocity. Listening to the commentary, it was him just spewing self righteious dribble.

PERHAPS the film would have been better had he done that and Superman the way he intended. Then again, the climax of the first film would have been a bit lacking. Of course, with more build up the "turn back time' stunt might have been better accepted by fans.


Actually, I'm sure Superman II would have been better. But you just don't recut a movie to your "version" when you don't have the ability to do that,it turns the film into a disgusting jumbled mess. Also, the you don't have the justification for the "Turning back time." In the original script, wasn't it because Zod destroyed the earth? Now, it's simply to Wipe Lois's mind, but the Superkiss was too far fetched? Zod hadn't come close to Destroying the Earth.....


And then, they have the bar fight at the end. Where Superman goes to a bar, picks a fight with people who, in this altered time line, have done nothing wrong, just to prove a point. To who? What's he doing that for? Is Superman just a cosmic asshole?


Richard Lester did a damn good Job with Superman II. It's superior to the first one. How dare he put humor in a Superman film! I thought it worked out quite well. We had a good balance between serious drama and campiness. Because when Luthor isn't your headline villain, you lose most of the great hilarious moments that would set up.


As I said, Donner probably would have done better. The Donner cut doesn't show that. It's a TERRIBLE cut. Just plain awful. And the commentary, as I mentioned, just makes him sound like a self righteous ass. I don't think the director of "Timeline" has any right to be Arrogant.

You almost had me until you said that Superman II was BETTER than Superman I? Ummmmm....I cant agree with that. Superman I is the better movie, IMO. SUPERMAN 2, a good film, but with out the 'epic' feel of Superman I.

Rob

 

[Newski]

The Donner Cut was a terrible atrocity. Listening to the commentary, it was him just spewing self righteious dribble.

PERHAPS the film would have been better had he done that and Superman the way he intended. Then again, the climax of the first film would have been a bit lacking. Of course, with more build up the "turn back time' stunt might have been better accepted by fans.


Actually, I'm sure Superman II would have been better. But you just don't recut a movie to your "version" when you don't have the ability to do that,it turns the film into a disgusting jumbled mess. Also, the you don't have the justification for the "Turning back time." In the original script, wasn't it because Zod destroyed the earth? Now, it's simply to Wipe Lois's mind, but the Superkiss was too far fetched? Zod hadn't come close to Destroying the Earth.....


And then, they have the bar fight at the end. Where Superman goes to a bar, picks a fight with people who, in this altered time line, have done nothing wrong, just to prove a point. To who? What's he doing that for? Is Superman just a cosmic asshole?


Richard Lester did a damn good Job with Superman II. It's superior to the first one. How dare he put humor in a Superman film! I thought it worked out quite well. We had a good balance between serious drama and campiness. Because when Luthor isn't your headline villain, you lose most of the great hilarious moments that would set up.


As I said, Donner probably would have done better. The Donner cut doesn't show that. It's a TERRIBLE cut. Just plain awful. And the commentary, as I mentioned, just makes him sound like a self righteous ass. I don't think the director of "Timeline" has any right to be Arrogant.

You almost had me until you said that Superman II was BETTER than Superman I? Ummmmm....I cant agree with that. Superman I is the better movie, IMO. SUPERMAN 2, a good film, but with out the 'epic' feel of Superman I.

Rob

I also find Superman IV to be a worthwhile movie because it ventures into "So Bad, It's Good" territory all the time. Terrible, yes, but it's not the abomination Superman III is.


I prefer Superman II because it's a challenge Worthy of Superman. Heck, even Superman Returns has a better challenge for Superman (I liked Returns, but not as much as the first two films). The first film was also riddled with pacing problems, and Luthor's "discovering" of Kryptonite was too much to suspend my disbelief over. Mostly because even in a fantasy film, you need some sort of fake logic to explain things. We didn't have that. he just sort of "Decided' it would work.

 

[RobertScorpio]

The Donner Cut was a terrible atrocity. Listening to the commentary, it was him just spewing self righteious dribble.

PERHAPS the film would have been better had he done that and Superman the way he intended. Then again, the climax of the first film would have been a bit lacking. Of course, with more build up the "turn back time' stunt might have been better accepted by fans.


Actually, I'm sure Superman II would have been better. But you just don't recut a movie to your "version" when you don't have the ability to do that,it turns the film into a disgusting jumbled mess. Also, the you don't have the justification for the "Turning back time." In the original script, wasn't it because Zod destroyed the earth? Now, it's simply to Wipe Lois's mind, but the Superkiss was too far fetched? Zod hadn't come close to Destroying the Earth.....


And then, they have the bar fight at the end. Where Superman goes to a bar, picks a fight with people who, in this altered time line, have done nothing wrong, just to prove a point. To who? What's he doing that for? Is Superman just a cosmic asshole?


Richard Lester did a damn good Job with Superman II. It's superior to the first one. How dare he put humor in a Superman film! I thought it worked out quite well. We had a good balance between serious drama and campiness. Because when Luthor isn't your headline villain, you lose most of the great hilarious moments that would set up.


As I said, Donner probably would have done better. The Donner cut doesn't show that. It's a TERRIBLE cut. Just plain awful. And the commentary, as I mentioned, just makes him sound like a self righteous ass. I don't think the director of "Timeline" has any right to be Arrogant.

You almost had me until you said that Superman II was BETTER than Superman I? Ummmmm....I cant agree with that. Superman I is the better movie, IMO. SUPERMAN 2, a good film, but with out the 'epic' feel of Superman I.

Rob

I also find Superman IV to be a worthwhile movie because it ventures into "So Bad, It's Good" territory all the time. Terrible, yes, but it's not the abomination Superman III is.


I prefer Superman II because it's a challenge Worthy of Superman. Heck, even Superman Returns has a better challenge for Superman (I liked Returns, but not as much as the first two films). The first film was also riddled with pacing problems, and Luthor's "discovering" of Kryptonite was too much to suspend my disbelief over. Mostly because even in a fantasy film, you need some sort of fake logic to explain things. We didn't have that. he just sort of "Decided' it would work.

I can see your point. But superman 2 also gave Superman/Zod some new powers we had never seen (shooting beams for example). And the scene where Zod and his friends take over that small town is, well, laughable.

And I think replacing Jorel with Lara in that scene where he goes back to get his powers back was a mistake.

SUPERMAN 2 is a good movie...I'm not saying isn't...but I'll take Superman 1, even with its bad pacing and luthor's magic kryptonite trick...

Rob

 

[Newski]

I can see your point. But superman 2 also gave Superman/Zod some new powers we had never seen (shooting beams for example). And the scene where Zod and his friends take over that small town is, well, laughable.

And I think replacing Jorel with Lara in that scene where he goes back to get his powers back was a mistake.

SUPERMAN 2 is a good movie...I'm not saying isn't...but I'll take Superman 1, even with its bad pacing and luthor's magic kryptonite trick...

Rob

Replacing Jor El was something they had to do, for Legal reasons. I can't remember the specifics. But I don't mind the new powers, mostly because Superman has "Hat Trick" written into his character. Sort of like how the writers can always claim "Batman planned for that" they can say "Superman can now do this, he just didn't know it yet."

 

[RobertScorpio]

I can see your point. But superman 2 also gave Superman/Zod some new powers we had never seen (shooting beams for example). And the scene where Zod and his friends take over that small town is, well, laughable.

And I think replacing Jorel with Lara in that scene where he goes back to get his powers back was a mistake.

SUPERMAN 2 is a good movie...I'm not saying isn't...but I'll take Superman 1, even with its bad pacing and luthor's magic kryptonite trick...

Rob

Replacing Jor El was something they had to do, for Legal reasons. I can't remember the specifics. But I don't mind the new powers, mostly because Superman has "Hat Trick" written into his character. Sort of like how the writers can always claim "Batman planned for that" they can say "Superman can now do this, he just didn't know it yet."

True...we will just have to agree to disagree. But at least we agree on SUPERMAN III!!!

And I actually liked SUPERMAN RETURNS as well. Just not as much as I and II. Its a good movie, but so much time had passed from Superman II, which I think happened in this new time line. But then it appeared as if only five years or so passed. So Superman 2 takes place in 1980 or so and now its 2004 or whatever and yet only five years passed? Huh?

If they do a new movie, I hope it isn't another origion version. We all know, the entire world, the basic premise. Just give us some kick ass villain like BRAINIAC or DARKSEID and some killer ass Transformer like effects!!!

Rob

 

[Hermiod]

But I don't mind the new powers, mostly because Superman has "Hat Trick" written into his character. Sort of like how the writers can always claim "Batman planned for that" they can say "Superman can now do this, he just didn't know it yet."

Given the "normal" powers Superman has, he doesn't need any extra ones. It's absolutely unnecessary to invent new powers for a man who has superhuman strength (on a level with anyone else in the DC Universe), speed, virtual invulnerability, heat vision, x-ray vision and freezing breath.

I don't think it's any coincidence that some of the lowest points in the Superman film series come when they start playing around like this - I'm thinking about the memory wiping kiss and the part where he rebuilds the Great Wall of China by staring at it here.

 

[Newski]

But I don't mind the new powers, mostly because Superman has "Hat Trick" written into his character. Sort of like how the writers can always claim "Batman planned for that" they can say "Superman can now do this, he just didn't know it yet."

Given the "normal" powers Superman has, he doesn't need any extra ones. It's absolutely unnecessary to invent new powers for a man who has superhuman strength (on a level with anyone else in the DC Universe), speed, virtual invulnerability, heat vision, x-ray vision and freezing breath.

I don't think it's any coincidence that some of the lowest points in the Superman film series come when they start playing around like this - I'm thinking about the memory wiping kiss and the part where he rebuilds the Great Wall of China by staring at it here.

My point was, though, that it's already written into the character.

I thought the lowest points in the series came when the decided Superman needs more "Richard Pryor" in it. I think it's Ironic that Immediately after Superman 2, both Donner and Lester give us atrocities staring Richard Pryor. Richard Pryor, being a brilliant comedian and a real talent, should have also known better.

I'm forgiving to Superman's new powers because I never saw any reason they shouldn't be able to. As I mentioned, "Hat Trick" is pretty much written into his character and I believe it's come into play in the comics. Usually, however, for making his known powers usuable in a new way. Still, once you give a hero the ability to "Hat Trick" I'll go with it.


Even still, the Great Wall scene was a stretch even for me. But rebuilding the Great wall was a scene that made me laugh uncontrollably. So, I guess it wasn't a waste. That's why Superman IV is a terrible, but very enjoyable film. It's full of all these great super feats, some which are thrilling, some which are hilarious in a so-bad-its-good sort of way.

The worst scenes in the Superman series I thought were the boring ones. The weather Machine in Superman III was idiotic, as was Superman saving a country "as described by Richard Pryor".... The idiotic assumptions of what computers can and can't do..... Basically, the entirety of Superman III was one mistake. Except for the chemical plant fire, I did enjoy that, and Annette O'Toole's performance as Lana.

 

[Hermiod]

My point was, though, that it's already written into the character.

By the time these movies came out the whole random power of the week idea was done and dusted. It's almost reverse Peter Petrelli Syndrome - Heroes' writers can't write stories about people with superpowers so they take them away every five seconds. Superman II, III and IV's writers can't write stories about people with superpowers so they give them new ones every five seconds instead. Problem is, Heroes can make things up as they go along. Superman, however, is a very well established character.

I honestly cannot believe that when they were writing the final fight in the Fortress between Superman and Zod, Ursa and Non that they couldn't have come up with some way for Superman to fight Zod without throwing a magical glowing S symbol at him.

I thought the lowest points in the series came when the decided Superman needs more "Richard Pryor" in it. I think it's Ironic that Immediately after Superman 2, both Donner and Lester give us atrocities staring Richard Pryor. Richard Pryor, being a brilliant comedian and a real talent, should have also known better.

I won't disagree that Pryor's talent was wasted.

I'm forgiving to Superman's new powers because I never saw any reason they shouldn't be able to. As I mentioned, "Hat Trick" is pretty much written into his character and I believe it's come into play in the comics. Usually, however, for making his known powers usuable in a new way. Still, once you give a hero the ability to "Hat Trick" I'll go with it.

Superman used to pull out ridiculous new abilities in virtually every issue. However, by the 70's this had virtually stopped. He had the abilities I listed. I don't see why he needed others.

Even still, the Great Wall scene was a stretch even for me. But rebuilding the Great wall was a scene that made me laugh uncontrollably. So, I guess it wasn't a waste. That's why Superman IV is a terrible, but very enjoyable film. It's full of all these great super feats, some which are thrilling, some which are hilarious in a so-bad-its-good sort of way.

You should watch Superman IV with writer Mark Rosenthal's DVD commentary on. In an effort to cut costs Golan and Globus ruined every single idea the writers had.

The world famous UN building in New York becomes an industrial park in Milton Keynes. The same shots of Superman and Nuclear Man flying towards the camera are used over and over again. Superman flies both Lois and Lacy in to space regardless of the fact that they shouldn't be able to breathe.

 

[Newski]

Think I'll watch that right now. I have time before work.

 

[Hermiod]

Think I'll watch that right now. I have time before work.

Basically, Cannon Pictures (Superman IV quite literally being a Cannon Violation) got Warner Brothers to pay them somewhere between $40-60m to make a Superman movie and then used the money to fund their other failing projects. Not much more than $17m made it in the film's actual budget.

 

[Chrisisall]

The Donner Cut was a terrible atrocity.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that this was an established "fact.'

Richard Lester did a damn good Job with Superman II.

We can agree here.

It's superior to the first one.

Whoa whoa whoa, has Newski been into the brewski? The first one was a work of art, in the second one, Lester just pieced together a good flick.

How dare he put humor in a Superman film! I thought it worked out quite well.

Oh, like Clark nearly DESTROYING a taxicab by jaywalking? Ha ha ha- what a laff riot.

We had a good balance between serious drama and campiness.

Yes, I suppose The Big Celophane S was that.

Man, Lester, if allowed, would have done to Superman II what he did to III- lucky for us he had a finished script & time restraints.
White finger-y beams, multiple Supermen that turn to ice when tackled, The Big Celophane S, Non's oh-so-hi-larious attempts at using heat vision... these were all Lester. If I were Donner, I would feel JUST EXACTLY like he did & does, they turned a potentially EPIC story into a simplistic saturday morning cartoon, with a few excellent parts in it.

"Wow. Home run."

 

[USS Kongo]

Man, Lester, if allowed, would have done to Superman II what he did to III- lucky for us he had a finished script & time restraints.
White finger-y beams, multiple Supermen that turn to ice when tackled, The Big Celophane S, Non's oh-so-hi-larious attempts at using heat vision... these were all Lester. If I were Donner, I would feel JUST EXACTLY like he did & does, they turned a potentially EPIC story into a simplistic saturday morning cartoon, with a few excellent parts in it.

"Wow. Home run."

QFT.

I always hated Superman II. Compared to the first Superman, it's just a Saturday morning cartoon with flashes of brillance.

I think Donner has a right to be pissed, and while his recut film isn't perfect--it's not supposed to be, because there's no way they could completely restore it to his vision. Instead, it's just supposed to give us a feel of what might have been.

Sean

 

[Chrisisall]

his recut film isn't perfect--it's not supposed to be, because there's no way they could completely restore it to his vision. Instead, it's just supposed to give us a feel of what might have been.

That cut was my Holy Grail. Between Brando's stuff & Lois repeating Ma Kent's final words in Superman 1, I was thrilled.

 

[Nowhere Man]

I loved the Donner cut especially when Lois shoots Clark. I havent seen the Lester cut in a long time though. I would like to see them side by side to compare, but it would be nice to see Superman 1&2 cut together with good elements of both Lester and Donner cuts mixed together

 

[Newski]

The Donner Cut was a terrible atrocity.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that this was an established "fact.'

Well, considering you are cutting a movie together without the footage to cut the film together, you won't get anything good. Heck, we are lucky it's watchable.

Whoa whoa whoa, has Newski been into the brewski? The first one was a work of art, in the second one, Lester just pieced together a good flick.

I've made my reasoning very clear. One thing that drives me up the wall in movies is, well, erratic pacing. And Superman is FULL of Pacing issues. Hell, the movie is two hours and twenty minutes, yet it STILL rushes a climax.

The final conflict is not worthy of Superman. Maybe something more than a Kryptonite Necklace and two missiles. Besides, if he can fly around the world so fast that he turns back time himself, he can't catch two friggin' missiles?

How dare he put humor in a Superman film! I thought it worked out quite well.

Oh, like Clark nearly DESTROYING a taxicab by jaywalking? Ha ha ha- what a laff riot.

I'm just saying, a little bit of camp doesn't hurt Superhero flicks. Check out Hellboy or Iron Man. It worked well in this.

Man, Lester, if allowed, would have done to Superman II what he did to III- lucky for us he had a finished script & time restraints.
White finger-y beams, multiple Supermen that turn to ice when tackled, The Big Celophane S, Non's oh-so-hi-larious attempts at using heat vision... these were all Lester. If I were Donner, I would feel JUST EXACTLY like he did & does, they turned a potentially EPIC story into a simplistic saturday morning cartoon, with a few excellent parts in it.

"Wow. Home run."

Well, yeah. I'm glad he didn't have complete control over this. I'm glad he had to work with what Donner set up. I fully acknowledge Richard Lester would have destroyed this film beyond believe had he been working on it from the start. My criticism is not of the film as Donner intended it, but of the special restored cut.


I give both films four stars. And while I'm a fan boy, I rarely praise Superhero flicks so highly.

Basically, Cannon Pictures (Superman IV quite literally being a Cannon Violation) got Warner Brothers to pay them somewhere between $40-60m to make a Superman movie and then used the money to fund their other failing projects. Not much more than $17m made it in the film's actual budget.

I had read about the trouble before.... But watching the movie with the commentary made me realize that there were things from the beginning that were going to be an issue, at least for me. Things that were poorly done, but were bad ideas on the conceptual level. In particular, Clark revealing his identity to Lois, taking her out flying, then wiping her memory. That's more of Superman being a cosmic dick (time to go to superdickery.com).

I don't think Superman IV could have been as good as the first two films. But I think it could have been a film with several terrible moments that I could just as easily forgive.


I find it interesting that Cannon Spent 4 million on development of Spider-Man, but couldn't give a large franchise a break.....