Superman II--Dick Donner Cut

[tju1973]

I bought it Wednesday and finally watched it today---


FN AWESOME... It is nice to see how the series ties in to Superman:Returns-- if you trash out 3 and 4--- Richard Prior in 3 and the crapfest of 4 really screwed the franchise...

The series to me now consists of 1,2(Donner Cut) and 5 (Returns) only--so far

BTW Chris Reeves was an awesome Superman--- he is missed...

[bassman]

I agree with you, man. The only bad part about "Superman II Donner Cut" is that we didn't get the chance to see the ORIGINAL way that Donner wanted it(with the "unknown" ending that would've been created and such).

Donner's cut is much better than Lester's film, no matter what. He carried the darker, moral aspect of the first film into the second.

For more of my thoughts, see the other thread that I started on the same subject.:confused:

[coma]

I agree with you, man. The only bad part about "Superman II Donner Cut" is that we didn't get the chance to see the ORIGINAL way that Donner wanted it(with the "unknown" ending that would've been created and such).

Donner's cut is much better than Lester's film, no matter what. He carried the darker, moral aspect of the first film into the second.

For more of my thoughts, see the other thread that I started on the same subject.:confused:
I have been sitting on it, afraid to watch it, cause I love the theatrical version. MAybe I should just watch the damn thing:)

[tju1973]

I have been sitting on it, afraid to watch it, cause I love the theatrical version. MAybe I should just watch the damn thing:)

makes "Returns" make more sense--- Like I said, ditch 3 and 4, and watch 1, 2(DC), and Returns--- this cut has a "darker" feel to it--IMHO...

:)

[bassman]

I have been sitting on it, afraid to watch it, cause I love the theatrical version. MAybe I should just watch the damn thing:)

One thing to remember as you begin to watch the Donner Cut is that it gives an IDEA as to what his film would have been like if he were able to finish it. Alot of people think it's HIS DEFINITIVE VERSION, when it's really not. It just gives the fans an idea of what he would've tried.

One thing that i've heard alot of people complaining about is that it has an ending similar to the first film. The thing with that is that the "turning back time" ending was originally created for the second film but then they used it for the first film because if the first was a bomb, they would have used the better ending. When Donner was fired by the Salkinds(producers), he wasn't able to come up with a new ending for "Superman II".

If Donner had the chance, it would have been much better than Lester's "kiss of amnesia", anyway.:rolleyes:

[coma]

One thing to remember as you begin to watch the Donner Cut is that it gives an IDEA as to what his film would have been like if he were able to finish it. Alot of people think it's HIS DEFINITIVE VERSION, when it's really not. It just gives the fans an idea of what he would've tried.

One thing that i've heard alot of people complaining about is that it has an ending similar to the first film. The thing with that is that the "turning back time" ending was originally created for the second film but then they used it for the first film because if the first was a bomb, they would have used the better ending. When Donner was fired by the Salkinds(producers), he wasn't able to come up with a new ending for "Superman II".

If Donner had the chance, it would have been much better than Lester's "kiss of amnesia", anyway.:rolleyes:
I am def gonna watch this later tonight.
What I loved about the 1st one is the mixture of Inspiration and elation and lonliness. Reall subtle and perfectly blended

[Neil]

Surely the "turning back time" thing was better placed in the first film than the second? I mean the anger was obvious in the first? (ie: his reason for doing it)

In the second, is it implied he would turn back time just to make Lois forget?

[bassman]

Well according to Donner, the ending of the first was always intended to be the second film's ending. When the project started running over budget and time, the Producer's told him to quit work on the second film, finish the first, and use the ending to the second film.

The reason being if the first film was a flop, at least they used the bigger ending. Actually, the beginning of 'Superman II: The Donner Cut" is what the end of the first film was supposed to be.

[Neil]

Well according to Donner, the ending of the first was always intended to be the second film's ending. When the project started running over budget and time, the Producer's told him to quit work on the second film, finish the first, and use the ending to the second film.

The reason being if the first film was a flop, at least they used the bigger ending. Actually, the beginning of 'Superman II: The Donner Cut" is what the end of the first film was supposed to be.

Yeh, I understand that, but if things had gone the way he'd wanted:-
a) What ending would we of had in the first film... Lois surely wasn't dead?
b) He would have turned by time just to make Lois forget?

[bassman]

Lois would have originally died in the second film. The first was originally going to end with Superman throwing the bomb into space, it breaks the phantom zone, Zod screams "FREEEE", and something along the lines of "Don't miss Superman II--coming soon" was going to be on screen.

So in a nut shell, the bit about Lois' death was also brought over from the second film.

[coma]

Lois would have originally died in the second film. The first was originally going to end with Superman throwing the bomb into space, it breaks the phantom zone, Zod screams "FREEEE", and something along the lines of "Don't miss Superman II--coming soon" was going to be on screen.

So in a nut shell, the bit about Lois' death was also brought over from the second film.
I saw it last night and I loved it. You were right, its great. I couldnt remember the details of the orignal II, but I kept thinking it was almost completely new. After I Saw it with the commentary I realized pretty much everything with clark and Lois was new.

It was a lot funnier but in a different way, not broad. Luthor and otis were way better, there was less goofy stuff and almost every joke with the villians was gone except for "Oh God" "No...Zod"
A classic joke.

Its pretty much seemless with I and I never realized to the extent of which the tone of I and II were different.
This was the Clark and Lois show more than I remember the Lester version being.

I am really glad I watched it. Its like seeing a whole new Chris Reeve Superman movie.

I didnt like the time turnback, no matter who did it. Its just not true to the comic and, contrary to what Donner says, more cartoony.

I hated Marlon Brando is the original. Really Pompous, but a lot better in this one. Maybe because he gets to the point.

[Neil]

Lois would have originally died in the second film. The first was originally going to end with Superman throwing the bomb into space, it breaks the phantom zone, Zod screams "FREEEE", and something along the lines of "Don't miss Superman II--coming soon" was going to be on screen.

So in a nut shell, the bit about Lois' death was also brought over from the second film.

Ohhh! Never realised the two films were made so back-to-back!

In the original second story how was she going to die?

[bassman]

I'm not sure how she was going to die in the second film being that it was never filmed. I imagine you can find Mario Puzo's original script for both films somewhere on the net.

But yeah, the first and second film were actually shot at the same time with Richard Donner as director. They would literally be filming scenes for one movie at one minute, and then be filming scenes for the sequel the next minute. After production began running over time and the budget got higher and higher(not to mention that the producers and director were constantly at each other's throats), the Producers ordered that the first film be finished and released before anymore filming of the second film was to continue(this is also when the "turn back time" ending was transfered to the first film). Donner knew that he could come up with another ending for "Superman II" when he returned to finish filming. At this point, Donner had filmed roughly 70% of "Superman II" and didn't know that he would never return to finish the rest.

The first film was a huge hit and the producers immidiately started getting ready to finish production on the second. They brought back most of the original crew except Gene Hackman, Marlon Brando, and Director Richard Donner. Donner was replaced by Richard Lester who had the the task of finishing the film and also adding in some of his own stuff(the opening Paris thing, the stupid honeymoon sweet, and the "kiss of Amnesia":rolleyes: ).

Richard Lester was essentially the one that ruined the franchise. The theatrical release of "Superman II" was good, but only because of Donner's left over scenes. Lester then went on to direct "Superman III" AKA: Richard Pryor's Comedy.:confused:

Now over twenty years later, Richard Donner was asked by Warner Brothers to create an edit of "Superman II" that was as close to his original vision as possible. After going through several tons of film, having to use a few shots from screen tests, a few small shots newly filmed, and completely re-edit the entire film.....we have something CLOSE to the film that he may have created.

[Neil]

Richard Lester was essentially the one that ruined the franchise. The theatrical release of "Superman II" was good, but only because of Donner's left over scenes. Lester then went on to direct "Superman III" AKA: Richard Pryor's Comedy.:confused:

That sounds a bit harsh! I really like S2! How much of the film (roughly) then did Lester have to film?

Superman 3 was somewhat average...

[bassman]

That sounds a bit harsh! I really like S2! How much of the film (roughly) then did Lester have to film?

Superman 3 was somewhat average...

Well as I said before, Donner had filmed roughly 70% of "Superman II" before he was replaced. When Lester was brought on board, the film had to at least be 50% of things he himself had shot. This was due to Director's Guild regulations that in order to get credit for a film, you must have directed half of it. So the finished theatrical cut of "Superman II" is roughly half Donner and half Lester. When Donner made his director's cut, he was able to use alot of his footage that Lester had omitted. There is some of Lester's film in the new cut, but that's only because it wouldn't be a whole film without it and Donner had to fill in some blanks.

True, "Superman III" was on OKAY film in it's own right.....but it really wasn't a Superman movie. It is a bit better than "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace".:hurl:

[coma]

I really liked the theatrical superman II, however the Donner cut is seamless to I as far as mood. The Donner cut is great because it is like watching awhole new movie. I hadnt seen II in years but when I watched the Donner cut I kept thinking I dont remember that.
Then I watched it with the commentary and I was right, tons was new or just differernt, probably from editing.
Donner says, and I remeber things like this, where Reviewers said they liked Lester better as a Supes Director bacsue of the jokes and Clark/Lois stuff. Turns out all the scenes they refered to were actually scenes DONNER shot.

Donner has ideas for III and IV that he was taking right from the comics. Chris reeve approached him for IV but he declined becasue he thought the concept was lame and innapropriate. Donner thinks that if he was able to keep making them similar to I he couldve made them for many years, 4,6, more, but Lester and the studio killed it trying to save a couple dollars.
Imagine 6,7, 8 Supermans as good as I and II? That wouldve been great, I have never seen IV. Just looked really bad. I think I may have seen some but it was unmemorable

[capncnut]

I have never seen IV. Just looked really bad. I think I may have seen some but it was unmemorable
I know a guy who rates The Quest for Peace as the best of the four. Jeez, there's always one. :lol: