Superman (1978) - Footage I'd not seen before...

[Neil]

Well well well... Caught a bit of this over xmas on TV, and as Superman went down (drilled) into Luthor's underground base, he was then met by a tunnel filled with machine guns, a tunnel filled with flame throwers and a tunnel filled with an ice machine...

I'd never seen any of this before and it transpires it was the director cut and all that was not in the cinema version.

It was kinda of cool footage, but I can understand why it was left out.

[shootemindehead]

Mmmmm. I may be wrong but I do seem to remember seeing that in the cinema. Especially the flame throwers bit.

[EvilNed]

Mmmmm. I may be wrong but I do seem to remember seeing that in the cinema. Especially the flame throwers bit.

I've always wondered, what were people's first reactions to the railroad coming to town?

[shootemindehead]

I'm not sure what you mean.

[bassman]

Yeah, that's all part of Donner's director cut. The two largest additions in this cut are the lair "defenses" against Supes thst you mentioned, and also more of Jor-El(Brando) explaining the powers to Superman in the Fortress of Solitude. The other things altered are really just scene extensions and alternate angles.

If you haven't already, check out Donner's cut of the second film! Of course he was famously fired before it was finished, but about ten years ago he went back and tried to edit it to match as closely as possible to his original vision. It's amazing how different it feels to the theatrical/Lester edit!

[Neil]

If you haven't already, check out Donner's cut of the second film! Of course he was famously fired before it was finished, but about ten years ago he went back and tried to edit it to match as closely as possible to his original vision. It's amazing how different it feels to the theatrical/Lester edit!

How does his version stack up? Does it feel like it was a lesser/better version? Or too hard to tell?

[shootemindehead]

How does his version stack up? Does it feel like it was a lesser/better version? Or too hard to tell?

Not trying to speak for Bassy there, but I have to say I prefer Lester's theatrical version. The reason being it is a more complete version. Donner's cut is more of an interesting curio. But the problem is he uses scenes from 'Superman' to fill out the missing parts in 'Superman II', such as the fly around the earth backwards thing IIRC. That kind of destroys the buzz in my opinion.

[Neil]

This was an interesting read - http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/superman-inside-story-director-richard-879894

And it was also interesting finding out Gene Hackman refused to work with Lester!

[bassman]

Not trying to speak for Bassy there, but I have to say I prefer Lester's theatrical version. The reason being it is a more complete version. Donner's cut is more of an interesting curio. But the problem is he uses scenes from 'Superman' to fill out the missing parts in 'Superman II', such as the fly around the earth backwards thing IIRC. That kind of destroys the buzz in my opinion.

Yes, he was forced to reuse the "turn back time" thing again because it was originally intended for the second film. Donner was filming scenes from both films simultaneously, but when the producers ordered that the first film be completed, they decided the "turn back time" was the bigger ending of the two and added it to the first film with the intention of inventing a new ending for the sequel when they returned to finish it. Of course Donner was never given that chance...

So yeah, I suppose the theatrical/Lester cut is indeed the most complete feeling film, as Lester came in and filled in the blanks left behind from Donner. As the disclaimer says at the start, the newer Donner edit is more of a "what if" experiment to show how the two films could have worked together as originally intended.

To me, the difference between the scenes shot by Donner and the ones shot by Lester are like night and day. Had Donner been allowed to complete wat he'd started, Superman II(and further sequels) could be held in the same high regard as the original.

[Neil]

Yes, he was forced to reuse the "turn back time" thing again because it was originally intended for the second film. Donner was filming scenes from both films simultaneously, but when the producers ordered that the first film be completed, they decided the "turn back time" was the bigger ending of the two and added it to the first film with the intention of inventing a new ending for the sequel when they returned to finish it. Of course Donner was never given that chance...

So yeah, I suppose the theatrical/Lester cut is indeed the most complete feeling film, as Lester came in and filled in the blanks left behind from Donner. As the disclaimer says at the start, the newer Donner edit is more of a "what if" experiment to show how the two films could have worked together as originally intended.

To me, the difference between the scenes shot by Donner and the ones shot by Lester are like night and day. Had Donner been allowed to complete wat he'd started, Superman II(and further sequels) could be held in the same high regard as the original.

When watching Superman 2 then, what sort of %age was shot by Donner then? Surely must have been a majority?

[EvilNed]

This was an interesting read - http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/superman-inside-story-director-richard-879894

And it was also interesting finding out Gene Hackman refused to work with Lester!

Great read. And I've never even seen the films.

[Neil]

Great read. And I've never even seen the films.

Not as visually impressive as the new ones... But more engaging I'd argue!

[EvilNed]

Not as visually impressive as the new ones... But more engaging I'd argue!

The new ones suck balls.

[Neil]

The new ones suck balls.

You should give Superman 1&2 a watch then. Try and ignore the 1970s cheese mind...

[JDP]

Try and ignore the 1970s cheese mind...

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! That's one of the things that gives them their unique charm, impossible to reproduce by any modern remake/version. It's like saying "watch Romero's Trilogy and try to ignore their 1960s-1980s quaint environments..." NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! BLASPHEMYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!! They are an integral part of the films, without them they would just not be the same.

BTW, does anyone know if all the missing footage from Superman IV still exists? The way that movie was hacked to pieces and re-edited by the producers is the main reason why it was the worst installment of the original Superman film franchise. Had they gone the way the movie was originally intended to be it would have been a better film.

[bassman]

When watching Superman 2 then, what sort of %age was shot by Donner then? Surely must have been a majority?

IIRC, Donner had shot roughly 75% of the second film before he was told to focus on the first and subsequently fired altogether. When Lester was brought in to finish the second film, he had to shoot at least 50% of the film in order to get credit from the directors guild, so there was a good bit of Donner footage dropped.

Lester's scenes stand out as more goofy and not as artistically conceived, IMO. The "super kiss", Lois constantly smoking because of Marlboro sponsorship, the Niagra falls scenes, etc.

[Neil]

IIRC, Donner had shot roughly 75% of the second film before he was told to focus on the first and subsequently fired altogether. When Lester was brought in to finish the second film, he had to shoot at least 50% of the film in order to get credit from the directors guild, so there was a good bit of Donner footage dropped.

Lester's scenes stand out as more goofy and not as artistically conceived, IMO. The "super kiss", Lois constantly smoking because of Marlboro sponsorship, the Niagra falls scenes, etc.

Be interesting to watch it with "Lester" or "Donner" displayed on the screen appropriately :)