logo Sign In

Info: Superman II Donner, and III & IV extended edits — Page 3

Author
Time
There's other options no one seems to be considering.

If you want to make Superman, Superman II and Superman Returns, you could always re-edit Superman so that the movie ends how they originally planned it--he catches the nuke, throws it into space, and ta-da. Then Superman II can end with the world turning back, and Superman Returns can continue.

OR: You can just leave the world turning back in Superman II. Superman Returns still follows perfectly, check this out: Just because time has turned back doesn't mean Lois is no longer pregnant. In the silly version of "turning back time" that happens in this film universe--everything goes backwards, but Superman. Otherwise, when he was done, there'd be an additional Superman there on earth. So since Super-sperm can't jump out of Lois and back into Superman--the kid is STILL IN THERE after he reverses time all the way back to the end of Superman I. He leaves, she gets pissy, hooks up with Richard, and the kid that was already inside her, she just ASSUMES it's his.

OR: You can just leave Lois on the balcony, and Superman trusts her. And then he leaves, she feels betrayed, and finds a man rather quickly, and convinces herself that he's the father, not Superman. That makes interpreting Lois' actions part of the scheme, though, because then her "act" that she doesn't remember Clark is an act, indeed, for the public. That might be too much of a stretch though.

But I don't understand why you NEED the magic kiss if you're going to try and link Superman II to Superman Returns. Since Donner has moved Lois and Clark's sex scene to before he depowers, and then runs the world backwards, reversing everything BUT the fact he has his stuff in her, due to the rules of time travel in the film, she's still pregnant and doesn't know he's Superman. That sets up Superman Returns pretty perfectly. AND, Donner even hints in his cut that Lois MIGHT get an inkling, later. Which she does--and it all might come flooding back to her in the sequence where she leans over and whispers to him what's up. She remembers it all, finally, even if it didn't happen anymore after he turned the world back.

The Donner Cut ending to Superman II seems to fit in the continuity of Superman II better than the magic kiss does, if you look at it that way.
The Best Show You've Never Heard
Author
Time
There's other options no one seems to be considering.
I really don't see how any of these other options would improve the films and resolve plot holes. Let me explain.

If you want to make Superman, Superman II and Superman Returns, you could always re-edit Superman so that the movie ends how they originally planned it--he catches the nuke, throws it into space, and ta-da. Then Superman II can end with the world turning back, and Superman Returns can continue.
This negatively affects S:TM in that it removes its climax. Without the emotional climax of Lois' death and Superman's actions to reverse it, the film would fall flat. Superman just stopping the missles is not a satisfying conclusion. The original creative team understood this, which is why they decided to steal SII's planned ending. Sure S:TM can be edited so instead of Lois dying, Superman just lands by her trying to start her car, but it would be a very dull way to end the film. The suggestion of leaving the timer reversal in SII brings me to your next point...

OR: You can just leave the world turning back in Superman II. Superman Returns still follows perfectly, check this out: Just because time has turned back doesn't mean Lois is no longer pregnant. In the silly version of "turning back time" that happens in this film universe--everything goes backwards, but Superman. Otherwise, when he was done, there'd be an additional Superman there on earth. So since Super-sperm can't jump out of Lois and back into Superman--the kid is STILL IN THERE after he reverses time all the way back to the end of Superman I. He leaves, she gets pissy, hooks up with Richard, and the kid that was already inside her, she just ASSUMES it's his.

Superman reversing time at the end of SII would negate all the actions of the film. True, the "science" of the time travel in these films is flawed, but we just have to accept that when Superman reverses time, it resets events to whatever point he travels back to. This is the ONLY "advantage" to Superman reversing time at the end of SII is erasing Lois' knowledge of the secret. However, replacing this with the SuperKiss takes care of this plot point, and avoids creating the following issues:

-Lois and Clark's conception of Jason: It doesn't matter if Superman's sperm was still in Lois before he reversed time. The time reversal negated that, just as the time reversal in S:TM negated Lois being dead. There was no other opportunity for Jason's conception to happen, regardless of Singer's apparent suggestion of it happening he night of Lois' first interview with Superman.

-Luthor's knowledge of the Fortress: In SR he knows where the FoS is, and how to use its controls. Without his actions in SII, there is no precedent for this.

-The three villains: How does this affect their release? The rocket Superman threw into space in S:TM is still out there and will still release the villains. Does Superman just think he'll be more prepared this time? Ironically this is only a problem in Donner's II, as in Lester's II it was the Paris bomb that released Zod and co.

-The diner bully: This is the real kicker; regardless of whether you want to acknowledge SR or not, this is a glaring plot hole that exists in the Donner Cut of SII. When Clark shows up at the diner again to teach the bully a lesson, everyone recognizes him and he explains that he's been "working out." With the time reversal, no one should know who he is, his explanation would make no sense, and of course this would be a totally unprovoked attack on Clark's part.

OR: You can just leave Lois on the balcony, and Superman trusts her. And then he leaves, she feels betrayed, and finds a man rather quickly, and convinces herself that he's the father, not Superman. That makes interpreting Lois' actions part of the scheme, though, because then her "act" that she doesn't remember Clark is an act, indeed, for the public. That might be too much of a stretch though.

This would have been an ideal way to play things if Singer had presented us with a relationship where Lois knew Clark's secret. But unfortunately he didn't; if she did that would definitely have been something the characters addressed.

But I don't understand why you NEED the magic kiss if you're going to try and link Superman II to Superman Returns. Since Donner has moved Lois and Clark's sex scene to before he depowers, and then runs the world backwards, reversing everything BUT the fact he has his stuff in her, due to the rules of time travel in the film, she's still pregnant and doesn't know he's Superman. That sets up Superman Returns pretty perfectly. AND, Donner even hints in his cut that Lois MIGHT get an inkling, later. Which she does--and it all might come flooding back to her in the sequence where she leans over and whispers to him what's up. She remembers it all, finally, even if it didn't happen anymore after he turned the world back.

We just disagree on the nature of the time reversal. All of that aside, Superman reversing time twice is just a ridiculous idea. The only reason it works for the audience in S:TM is the emotional investment. And it was only for a matter of minutes, not DAYS as it would be in SII. Don't get me wrong, I'm thankful to have finally gotten the Donner Cut, but it's just frustrating to think of what a better product we could have had if the creative forced behind it had sat down for a few minutes and thought things through. Now it's up to us fan editors to make sense of everything.
Author
Time
It doesn't matter if Superman's sperm was still in Lois before he reversed time. The time reversal negated that, just as the time reversal in S:TM negated Lois being dead.

No it doesn't. Explain how it does. The two examples you gave are very different in that when Superman goes back in time, he removes himself from the equation--he's not on the planet moving backwards, reversing all his actions. He's up in space. He's not down there. Lois died because he WASN'T there, so he reversed time to when he could be. But the pregnancy is different because he WAS there. So you can't take back the sex, because he's not on the planet humping backwards in reverse. There's nowhere for the sperm to go back into. She's still pregnant by the end of Superman II, which is essentially the end of Superman I.

The Diner Bully isn't much of a kicker, either. Superman remembers what happened with that guy, and knows he's an asshole. Superman deals with those kinds of people. It can be pretty easily explained that no one in the diner recognizes this guy, remembers him at all, any of that. And as far as the "I just got this place fixed..." That doesn't necessarily have to mean it's a reference to when Clark was last in there. And people looking at him for an explanation as to why he's strong--even if they'd never seen him get thrown around the diner before, a stranger in glasses just walked out of the snow and spun a guy in a chair so fast it almost came out of the floor, and then calmly pushed him the length of the bar into a pinball machine. They'd look at him awed and quizzically at the same time.

The rocket Superman threw into space in S:TM is still out there and will still release the villains.


Is it? I've watched the Donner Cut a couple times but I'm pretty sure he rewinds time back to before he throws the rocket out into space. I figure he either deals with it a little differently, or he rewinds to before the kryptonite is dropped on his head and just takes Luthor to jail from there. I'll re-watch, but I'm sure all you need to do , if that's not made clear, is reverse some footage from the 1st movie, and Just extend the "I'm spinning the world back" stuff to include Lex's place, and then cut to Superman dropping Lex and Otis back off at the prison.

An even easier fix is to rewind to where he throws the rocket out into space--and then cut in footage from Superman IV where the rocket flies into the Sun.

The only remaining "hole" is Luthor knowing where the Fortress is, and that's something you can assume he figured out in jail, or in the 5 years Superman was gone, just as we assumed he figured it out in Superman II with that "alpha waves" nonsense.

The Superkiss is one of the Lester Powers that I can't stand. Spinning the world back twice is still preferable than the ridiculousness of "The Super Kiss" to me. Restoring that, you might as well restore the cellophane S and the finger beams. Sure, Turning the world back is a little iffy, but it WAS the original ending, and it's not like anyone re-edits Return of the Jedi to take out the 2nd Death Star

The trick with these movies is trying to balance all the differing tones and base conceptions of what Superman IS. Donner's ideas aren't exactly cohesive with each other, Lester's aren't cohesive with Donner's, and Singer's are a weird blend of Donner's and his own, and all of them have Superman doing things that comics history wouldn't really have Superman doing, although Superman in the comics has broken his own "rules" a couple of time.

But there is a throughline and inner logic to the behavior and the feeling of these Superman movies that they all share, and the trick is to adhere to that throughline as best as possible, even if that throughline might interfere with the personal conception of what Superman is based on any number of influences.

And for me, while I like that the Donner cut is out--If someone new to the cinematic world of Superman was asking my advice, I'd tell em to watch Donner's first movie, and then skip Superman II altogether and go straight to Superman Returns. Even if Donner had his way back in 78/79, Superman II was going to end up pretty flawed and corny.
The Best Show You've Never Heard
Author
Time
I dunno, I pretty much agree with Commander Courage. Thing is, I believe he's right about the time-reversal thing - the Lester kiss would only erase Lois' memory of her being with Superman. And who Superman is, of course.

A whole fuss is made about not making certain choices that will allow STM, SII and SR to sit better with themselves. I believe that leaving the Lester kiss scene in, no matter how corny it might be, is the only way to allow SR happen as it did. The time travel might be a good device, but its TOO DAMN CONFUSING at that. And its a repeat from I, so...
My life is really... Complex!

Batman Returns
Author
Time
Bizzle, are you serious about advising newcomers to skip Superman II in favor of Bryan Singer's ultimate fanfic? Heck, why have them watch any of the Christopher Reeve films at all? Oh, that's right-- because we want them to LIKE Superman.

Back to the topic of the original films: I've been re-watching the RIC, and I have to say I respect Lester's contributions a little more now. I prefer the Honeymoon Suite reveal to Lois-with-a-gun; and say what you will about the Amnesia Kiss, Kidder and Reeve's acting is superb there. A lot of the restored Donner footage reveals a discomfort about women (all those lines about punching Eve in the mouth!)-- not so much misogyny as gynophobia (if that's a word) that Lester's doesn't. And I agree that it just makes sense for Lara to advise Superman on matters of the heart.

What I'm coming around to is that there's probably no way to reconstruct the 'original vision' since that would be the 600-page script that was never completely shot. Scholars, weigh in here: if the time-reversal gag was the original ending, would Lois still have died at half-time? At the end? At all? It's fairly unworkable.

Sticking with II as a separate film, I say use the Lester cut as a guide because it has superior pacing and continuity, and because Ken Thorne's score actually fits the action. Cut back the comedy bits and the fake Lex, and re-introduce Donner footage where appropriate.
Author
Time
when Superman goes back in time, he removes himself from the equation--he's not on the planet moving backwards, reversing all his actions. He's up in space. He's not down there. Lois died because he WASN'T there, so he reversed time to when he could be. But the pregnancy is different because he WAS there. So you can't take back the sex, because he's not on the planet humping backwards in reverse. There's nowhere for the sperm to go back into. She's still pregnant by the end of Superman II, which is essentially the end of Superman I.

Dude, haven't you ever seen a time travel movie? When time is reversed, EVERYTHING is reversed. It doesn't matter where anyone physically is at the time of the reversal-- that's just goofy. Time doesn't know where you are when it's being rewound. And if you use Back to the Future's time travel "rules" as a guide, as soon as you create another timeline via time travel, a second time traveller is also created, hence Marty seeing himself at the end of BTTF I. He went back in time and came back, creating another, alternate timeline, and another Marty. While the time-reversing Superman is spinning the earth around, the Superman that was in the first, Lois-dies/Lois sex timeline is also being reversed. After time is rewound, Lois is alive, and Superman did not bang Lois-- that's the result of reversing time, chief. Plus, Lois is not pregnant by the end of Superman II, is she? (no one knows if Clark brought his Trojans or what)-- the pregancy was a sloppy Singer device/assumption that just because they had sex, Lois is automatically pregnant so the kid character could be added. HOWEVER, all of this is meaningless when considering that fact that if you reversed the rotation of the earth, time would NOT rewind, but continue forward, with the earth just spinning in the opposite direction. Sort of how in Ferris Bueller's Day Off, the miles on the car continued to go up, even though the car was in reverse. And if the earth's rotation was suddenly changed, everything on earth would shift and fly around. But the effect looks really cool in the movie, and it's a movie, and it's Superman, so whatever. And for the record, I thought SR would've been a more interesting movie if the kid turned out to NOT be Supes'. Superman just doesn't go around having kids, even with Lois Lane. [And why the fuck is Superman's child asthmatic?]

The kiss has been there for YEARS now, one fourth of a century


That is the lamest argument I've ever heard. Superman II itself has been there for 25 years, too, but that didn't stop the Donner cut from being released, or any of the countless alternate cuts of movies from all eras for that matter. The kiss will remain in Richard Lester's Superman II for all eternity. We're talking about a NEW edit here.

The bottom line is, Superman Returns is IRRELEVANT to making a new, ideal Superman II. Bending over backwards to link them (when Singer's links are more homage/rehash than continuation) is akin to Lucas altering the OT to fit the PT. It's all about making the best Superman II story. A bigger question is: should Superman II.0 be assembled with regard to making the best sequel to Superman: The Movie, or just the best version of Supes II? What everyone is forgetting is that Superman Returns is ALREADY connected enough to the pre-existing I and II, so again, for the purposes of making a better Superman II, it can be left alone on its own merits (or lack thereof).
We don't have enough road to get up to 88.
Author
Time
For me, the ideal SII is the Donner cut without the time reversal and with the amnesia kiss in. That way I can enjoy it for what it is and still watch SR afterwards, knowing that it continues SII's story. Which is ideal, as it allows me to believe that these entries still count.

On the other hand, that is a good question: Should it follow Donner Cut's "previously on STM" thing, with the bad guys being released by Luthor's missile, or should the Eiffel Tower scene be restored alltogether? I'm curious...
My life is really... Complex!

Batman Returns
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Batman Beyond
For me, the ideal SII is the Donner cut without the time reversal and with the amnesia kiss in. That way I can enjoy it for what it is and still watch SR afterwards, knowing that it continues SII's story. Which is ideal, as it allows me to believe that these entries still count.


But SR DOES continue it enough AS IS, if you already see it that way and like it. Again, this is talk of a NEW EDIT of Superman II. The 2 *pre-existing* Superman II movies will always be there, and SR will always be there. The new edit is a whole new monster, inspired by Lester/Donner, and not Singer.
We don't have enough road to get up to 88.
Author
Time
I just don't think it'd be too bad to leave it in. Besides, I think we're talking about a definitive Superman II, are we not?

Just the kiss allows for SR to happen. Just that. No other change is needed. Its not like you said with the prequel/OT trilogy analogy at all. One scene allows for SR to happen with no real probs, and the rest is the new monster, derived from Donner/Lester.

I still think that the new edit should Donner's Cut, enhanced with the better Lester scenes. I really want to hear which movie should the basis for the re-edit, Lester or Donner's?

Commander Courage's and mine are Lester. I suppose booah says so too (BTW, I kind of agree with the Lara idea of yours, but will need more convicing).

MORE importantly... IF anything is decided, do we have editors lined up for something like that? I'm curious...
My life is really... Complex!

Batman Returns
Author
Time
And one other thing.

Originally posted by: booah

The kiss has been there for YEARS now, one fourth of a century

That is the lamest argument I've ever heard.


Thank you for that. Now, let me explain very simply: The amnesia kiss scene has been SII's ending for 25 years, and Singer admitedly and figuretively followed from there. The spinning-the-world-around, time travel ending, has been STM's ending for more than that. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, while not that great a resolution (satisfying to a certain degree, but not too much), is far more validated than using the same ending from STM all over again. I mean, I understand the decision behind the choice - Donner didn't even get for the re-edit, why should he consider a new ending for the film. That decision might've led him to other decisions, which as he admited, could've resulted to an entirely differently edited SII. Thats why Michael Thau was most of the time in charge and Donner was the YES or OK man. I understand that if Donner had some sort of chance to really create a better ending for his SII, he'd had done it. But he didn't, and the reasons we know led him to do the time-reversal thing. Which absolutely restricts it from being SR's prequel.

OK?
My life is really... Complex!

Batman Returns
Author
Time
I've actually just spent the last two nights creating my own cut of II. Which is now completed and authored. I did it purely for my own pleasure to create a cut that I could consider to be canonical. Which means the Paris scene back in, and the magic kiss at the end. Most of the middle of the film is the Donner cut, Brando back in and York out. all the extra Luthor stuff included. But with the addition of extra Niagra scenes, including the original clark to superman reveal. All the action sequences are Donner cut, which means stupid lester humour is gone. So what I have now is a more serious, but hopefully more complete viewing experience of the film. It's got the Donner opening titles and the Lester End titles, just to balnce it out. PAL running time is 2 hours and 6 minutes.


Author
Time


Dude, haven't you ever seen a time travel movie?

No. I'm a moron.

Yes, I've seen time travel movies. They all have their own internal logic/paradoxes mostly, from Primer to Terminator to Back to the Future to Timecop any myriad number of other movies. Like for instance, Superman, where SPINNING THE WORLD BACKWARDS (lol) rewinds everything that happens on the planet BUT SUPERMAN, since he's the one doing the spinning.

When time is reversed, EVERYTHING is reversed.

What? No it's not. Because HE'S not reversed. He's doing the reversing. Later on in this argument you use "Back to the Future" and When time is reversed, MARTY isn't reversed. It's not like he becomes a zygote and zips back into his fathers dick, right? That's sorta the same argument I'm making about Jason, since Superman isn't going back in time with Lois at the fortress. It very MUCH matters where someone is physically at the time of the reversal in the SUPERMAN movies. At least it matters where SUPERMAN is.

And if you use Back to the Future's time travel "rules" as a guide, as soon as you create another timeline via time travel, a second time traveller is also created, hence Marty seeing himself at the end of BTTF I. He went back in time and came


But--why would I? I'm watching Superman. I'm using SUPERMAN'S rules of time travel as a guide. When he goes back in time, he doesn't create another alternate timeline and another alternate Superman. So at that point, it's pretty obvious I can't use "Back to the Future's" rules because they, at that point, have NOTHING TO DO with Superman.

HOWEVER, all of this is meaningless when considering that fact that if you reversed the rotation of the earth, time would NOT rewind, but continue forward,


Sure--in real life. But in the cinematic universe of the Superman movies, apparently spinning the earth's rotation backwards reverses time. That's what we have to work with, that's what you have to keep in mind, and there ARE rules to it, and your reasoning doesn't match up.

What your argument sounds like is a mix-n-match of cinematic tropes to explain to yourself by any means necessary that Superman never impregnated Lois so as to ensure that no one tries to tie "Superman Returns" into any sort of continuity since you don't like it.

Which is fine.

I like it, but I don't NEED to have Returns tied into continuity. But since people here are talking about making fan edits to do just that, I figured I might as well explain exactly HOW that can work without having to re-introduce one of the hokiest, crappiest, poorly implemented and poorly thought out "powers" in the entire Superman lexicon, almost worse than a Cellophane S and Eye-Beams that can move the bricks back into the great wall. So far, the only halfway explained reasoning as to why the Super-Kiss belongs there is from the guy who says "It's been there 25 years." and no one else can come up with a reason why the kiss works any better than spinning the world backwards again.

If you're talking about making the best Superman II without any sort of connection to returns, then simply cut out all the world spinning nonsense AND the super-kiss and have Clark trusting Lois on that Balcony to stay quiet about the secret and then have him fly straight to the North Pole. That's the simplest, and probably best choice if all you're concerned with is making Superman II itself the best Superman II it can be, everything else be damned. Re-introducing the Super-Kiss means you either have to a) excise the balcony scene or b) have Clark ruin it (like he ruined it by spinning the world back) the next morning with Crackhead Lois getting kissed on her skeletal face to forget.

Bizzle, are you serious about advising newcomers to skip Superman II in favor of Bryan Singer's ultimate fanfic?


Sure. Superman II, even if Donner had gotten his way, was going to be flawed and corny. It wasn't going to stand up, and while it would have stood up better than Lester's, I think, it'd have slowly slid in quality much like Donner's Lethal Weapon flicks did. Calling it "Bryan Singer's Ultimate Fanfic" is cute, but it comes down to personal preference. Superman Returns breaks just as many "Superman Rules" as Superman II does, but does it in a more emotionally honest fashion. They both (Donner and Singer) start to run roughshod over the mythology in their sequels, so it comes down to a choice of HOW they did it, and I think, even though I really DO like the Donner Cut, I prefer the way Singer fleshed out those same concerns.

Now, don't get me wrong--the movie is too long, and Singer made the wrong choices in his cutting, excising a lot of the SOUL of the movie in favor of focusing on Lois, which stretches the movie's feelings very thin and makes the movie feel, as some have put it, "Stalker-ish" but some of those shots attain a DIFFERENT meaning when viewed after seeing some of the Smallville Deleted Scenes that show Clark's real dilemma wasn't "I need Lois back for more lovin" but "Should I even BE a Superman again?"

Which is, of course, the same sort of topic Donner was exploring in II. Donner explored it with Disco Villains and Product Placement getting slammed into, with Superman killing people, boning in a giant mylar bed and taking revenge on bullies. Singer explored it by visiting Krypton, pining over Lois, Learning that he has a kid and throwing a chunk of his planet back into space.

But I do believe "Returns," is a better made movie than II. Either version. Or even whatever hybrid version the fan-editors here will come up with. And when someone (ADM, I'm lookin at you) chops together a fan-edit version of Returns, then it'll be even better.

and III and IV shouldn't even be introduced into the equasion here, as far as comparison to Returns. There's no way anyone's going to convince me they have any appreciation of the craft of filmmaking and then go on to say Superman Returns isn't as good as III or IV. That's either nostalgia taking over, or a gross misunderstanding of what makes a decent film.
The Best Show You've Never Heard
Author
Time
Originally posted by: The Bizzle


and III and IV shouldn't even be introduced into the equasion here, as far as comparison to Returns. There's no way anyone's going to convince me they have any appreciation of the craft of filmmaking and then go on to say Superman Returns isn't as good as III or IV. That's either nostalgia taking over, or a gross misunderstanding of what makes a decent film.


No, III and IV weren't good movies, but the issue I have with this is that they DO exist. Singer deciding that he is going to do a 'pseudo' sequel to II, and pretend that III and IV don't exist is silly. They may suck, but instead of just ignoring them, start their own continuity.
Author
Time
I don't think it's all that silly. It's happened before in film. And considering most Superman fans (and even a fair amount of people who worked on the films themselves) don't really remember Superman III or Superman IV, nor do Supermans III and IV seem to have any continuity with I or II--why not ignore them?

Personally, though ,I would have preferred that Singer have adapted "Secret Identity" if he wanted to keep Superman grounded and attack many of the same themes he attacked in the movie. That graphic novel is one of the purest, most inspirational and heartfelt studies on Superman I've read.
The Best Show You've Never Heard
Author
Time
I've been re-watching the RIC, and I have to say I respect Lester's contributions a little more now. I prefer the Honeymoon Suite reveal to Lois-with-a-gun; and say what you will about the Amnesia Kiss, Kidder and Reeve's acting is superb there.
I feel exactly the same way. The acting and content in both those scene really carries the romance in a way the Donner scenes just don't do.

What I'm coming around to is that there's probably no way to reconstruct the 'original vision' since that would be the 600-page script that was never completely shot. Scholars, weigh in here: if the time-reversal gag was the original ending, would Lois still have died at half-time? At the end? At all? It's fairly unworkable.
You're absolutely right. There were so many alterations to that original script and then so much that was not shot, it's impossible to recreate it with the materials available. And to answer your question, Lois was originally to have died at the end of Superman II, at the hands of the villains. This was to enrage Superman enough for him to reverse time, saving Lois and putting the villains back into the Phantom Zone. In this context everything would have fell into place quite nicely.

If you're talking about making the best Superman II without any sort of connection to returns, then simply cut out all the world spinning nonsense AND the super-kiss and have Clark trusting Lois on that Balcony to stay quiet about the secret and then have him fly straight to the North Pole. That's the simplest, and probably best choice if all you're concerned with is making Superman II itself the best Superman II it can be, everything else be damned.

I agree, and I'm sure out of the inevitably high number of fan edits that will come from Superman II, one version will end in this way. For those of us who want to acknowledge Superman Returns in continuity, there will be other versions.

Personally, though ,I would have preferred that Singer have adapted "Secret Identity" if he wanted to keep Superman grounded and attack many of the same themes he attacked in the movie. That graphic novel is one of the purest, most inspirational and heartfelt studies on Superman I've read.

Yes, that's a great graphic novel! A very mature and insightful exploration on what it means to be Superman, and of course a great "What If?" scenario.
Author
Time
What? No it's not. Because HE'S not reversed. He's doing the reversing. Later on in this argument you use "Back to the Future" and When time is reversed, MARTY isn't reversed. It's not like he becomes a zygote and zips back into his fathers dick, right? That's sorta the same argument I'm making about Jason, since Superman isn't going back in time with Lois at the fortress. It very MUCH matters where someone is physically at the time of the reversal in the SUPERMAN movies. At least it matters where SUPERMAN is.


Actually, Marty was about to be "zipped back into his father's dick" when his parents were in danger of not mating.

But your point that it matters where Superman is in those flicks when time is reversed is merely an assumption. [and Samuel L. Jackson said, "When you make an assumption, you make an ass out of you, and umption.")] Please point out in Superman I or II where there is evidence that Lois is pregnant or that a kid was on the way. Singer's kid plot isn't justified retroactively, and it doesn't make it any more relevant. It was one idea among a million possible ideas for anyone's 21st century "reboot"/"rehash"/"whatever" of the Superman franchise. If Singer included a Superman Brother, or Krypto the SuperPup, would that have to be tied into Supes II, just because the movie was released, even if they weren't the greatest additions?

This isn't about me "not liking" SR. It's about ignoring it FOR THE PURPOSES OF A SUPERMAN II FAN EDIT, simply because it's not a real sequel. It's not a true follow-up. It's reuses actual lines of dialogue word-for-word from the old flicks (which remakes do... sequels don't... pretty simple). The whole Superman's kid thing is fine by itself in a new work made by Singer, and no one's telling you to destroy your copy of the movie. But it didn't exist in 1981, like III and IV. My point is, everything is ALREADY tied together AS-IS. Keeping SR in mind for a Supes II edit is pointless, as it already "ties in" (no matter how half-assed). In making a movie that is the best of both worlds (those worlds being Lester and Donner), Singer is not part of those worlds, and his flick ain't either. The super-kiss should be included if it works out to the be a good story choice, based on the existing II flicks and scripts and whatnot. If it makes people feel better about SR's existence, fine. It just has no bearing on a new alternate version Superman II. I'm not trying to negate SR-- again, it was always be there, so watch it 'til your heart's content.

As far as other Superman comic stories to base a film off of, there are countless good ones that are sadly left untapped.
We don't have enough road to get up to 88.
Author
Time
Thanks to everyone for sharing your ideas about different possible cuts for Superman II. When looking at the "Super-kiss", I always thought that Superman created some sort of Kryptonian memory eraser drug that he put on his lips (like lip balm or lipstick) and then kissed Lois to make her forget. No super-kiss powers used at all, just some Kryptonian science.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Commander Courage
And to answer your question, Lois was originally to have died at the end of Superman II, at the hands of the villains. This was to enrage Superman enough for him to reverse time, saving Lois and putting the villains back into the Phantom Zone. In this context everything would have fell into place quite nicely.


Aha, thank you. Though I'm not sure I prefer her being torn apart to her being smothered in her car. Can you recommend a source for info on the original script?

P.S. Scott Kurtz just got in the last word on the Amnesia Kiss. Check out his "PVP" strip for 11-29-06.
Author
Time
But your point that it matters where Superman is in those flicks when time is reversed is merely an assumption.


No it's not, or at least no more so than your assumptions in this debate here. Film is a pretty visual medium. I'm thinking we'd SEE Superman moving backwards, reversing his actions, if we were to think his position in time being run back was the same as everyone else's. Since we don't, since we see EVERYONE ELSE moving in reverse BUT Superman, the film is telling us something. That's not assumption, that's using the filmic evidence. Just as it's not an assumption that in the movie, turning the world backwards reverses time. Which is why I'm confused as to why you're bringing up Back to the Future--because we're not talking Back to the Future, we're talking about the rules set up in Superman The Movie.

And why would I have to prove that Lois was pregnant in I or II? It seems like a weird sidetrack to get caught in. I'm not trying to justify SR's existence as a movie, the point of the discussion I jumped in was to talk about people WHO ARE trying to tie SR to Superman II via their fan edit specifically, and provide them options they're not considering. So that's where I'm coming from. You seem to not like the idea at all, so I'm unsure as to why you're even in the argument, or trying to rebut arguments for people trying to link the two with their fan edits, since your solution negates the entire conversation completely. Which is kinda counterproductive as far as the people actually trying to link the two. I'm just providing an angle to tie the two movies together rather easily without having to use the wholly insipid "Magic Kiss."

I've already said I think my preferred Fan Edit of II would end with Superman flying away and trusting Lois to keep the secret, no magic kiss OR time reversal. But for the purposes of the conversation about linking II with SR via fan-edit, I think you could do it pretty easily, and with very little muss or fuss, by keeping the spinning the world back.
The Best Show You've Never Heard
Author
Time
Originally posted by: strangelove
Originally posted by: Commander Courage
And to answer your question, Lois was originally to have died at the end of Superman II, at the hands of the villains. This was to enrage Superman enough for him to reverse time, saving Lois and putting the villains back into the Phantom Zone. In this context everything would have fell into place quite nicely.


Aha, thank you. Though I'm not sure I prefer her being torn apart to her being smothered in her car. Can you recommend a source for info on the original script?

.


In the original script perhaps, but not actually shot by Donner, because we have that Donner scene after the Villians are defeated were Superman and Lois share another kiss outside the fortress which is then followed by him destroying the fortress of solitude forever.

Author
Time
The spinning around the world in SII WON'T tie it with SR. No sir, no.

Not in any stretch of the imagination. Its also far too complicated a concept. So please, keep the kiss scene. May be insipid, but makes more "sense" when considering tieing to SR.

Booah, the kiss is just ONE scene, THE one scene that would allow SII to tie with SR well. I am not asking the film to be modified to SR, no sir no. But the inclusion of that scene would allow SR to happen, seamlessly.
My life is really... Complex!

Batman Returns
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Jobel
In the original script perhaps, but not actually shot by Donner, because we have that Donner scene after the Villians are defeated were Superman and Lois share another kiss outside the fortress which is then followed by him destroying the fortress of solitude forever.


That's why I'm curious to see the script, or at least notes on it. I guess it's kind of off-topic to discuss it here since the effect on a fan-edit of the existing footage would be minimal.
Author
Time
The spinning around the world in SII WON'T tie it with SR. No sir, no.


I just explained how it would. Explain how it won't. It's not a complicated concept at all. It's pretty instinctive, actually, and overtly simple. not quite complicated at all.

Again, I don't understand how the kiss ties into Superman Returns better than "I humped Lois BEFORE I lost my powers, and then spun the world back to a couple hours after Superman The Movie, and then left, leaving Lois pregnant and with a very, VERY fuzzy vague recollection that anything happened at all."

That sets up her hooking up with Richard very perfectly (superman wasn't actually in her life very long by that reckoning, so it's no longer weird that she'd latch onto Richard so quickly after Superman leaves--Superman was all of what, a week in her life at that point, as she figures it?) The pregnancy, the reason she'd believe Richard was the father, the reason the kid has half Superman's powers, and gives Lex enough time to con his way out of jail and make it up to the Fortress on his own time.

The Kiss doesn't even APPROACH answering any of these questions if you're trying to link II and Returns.

The Best Show You've Never Heard
Author
Time
You don't even HAVE these questions watching Superman I and II. That's the point. They're their own island, just as Returns is on its own island as well. There is no pregancy, no plans of leaving (so as to Return), no other boyfriend. That is all copyright 2006. Why does any regard NEED to be taken with respect to Returns if making a NEW version of Superman II, other than, it'll make you feel all gooey inside?

For the 100th time: Returns ALREADY "ties in" with the old fucking movies as is. It's done. It's on DVD. Good night. So a cool new version of the old movies or a Superman II hybrid is its own thing-- maybe it ties in, maybe not, who cares? Not to mention the fact that all the Superman movies thus far have pulled stuff outta their ass in terms of "canon", so cinematically Supes has been all one big open field. Have fun, and don't think so much about a fan edit of an already bastardized film having to tie into another bastardized film.
We don't have enough road to get up to 88.
Author
Time
Again, if you think that, then why are you inserting yourself into a discussion where people are trying to figure out how to tie them together even CLOSER?

That's the whole point of the line of questioning. If you don't give a shit, then your opinion as to how they shouldn't better fit together is fuckin worthless, man. You don't understand WHY someone would want to, so you can't HELP the people who DO want to. And if you can't help, then what's the point of wasting thousands of words saying otherwise?

Your argument has nothing to do with my argument. They're parallel.

I'm not saying you're not making sense. You are. The thing is, nobody's DEBATING what you're arguing. No one's even mentioning that. The whole premise is "If someone wants to try and make a TRILOGY out of the three movies, how would you best tie them together?" That's where I jumped in, after people started tossing around how to do that. If you think the first two and Returns are an island, then why waste the time to try and jump in at all? What's the point there? Or are you just arguing to argue because, as I figure, you don't really like the Singer flick and the mere IDEA of tying them together even closer than "the vague history" is offensive to you?

because "It's done. It's on DVD. Good night." seems like a strange line of thought for people who visit a fan-edit messageboard. If that was the line of thought people took with DVD's, this forum wouldn't exactly exist now, would it.

I think they're an island too, dude. I've said as much a couple times. I prefer Superman II to just END. No spinning back the world, no trip to the Diner, He drops Lois off, they agree to trust each other, he flies off and is Superman. That's my preference. But for the purposes of the discussion as to HOW to tie II into Returns closer so that Returns ends up being the end of the "trilogy" for these fan-edits, I can see how you could do it and still make sense of it, and that's what I'm talking about.

It's not that hard, man.
The Best Show You've Never Heard