logo Sign In

Info: Superman II Donner, and III & IV extended edits — Page 2

Author
Time
Post link
q]It's already on the drawing board, folks. Plus more great stuff.

Great-- can't wait.

I'd also like to see it be able to tie into Superman Returns.


I totally disagree. Superman Returns was an empty, soulless, plagaristic, sloppy wet kiss on Donner/Lester that recycled and outright stole from Superman I and II, and squandered what could've been a great flick on Singer's obvious hard-on for the old stuff mixed with special effects that were ironically used to little effect. From the music, font (which sadly wasn't used on the generic-ass poster logos), and actual lines of dialogue, it was less a follow-up to those movies as a half-ass homage-slash-rehash.

Not to mention, riddled with irksome elements: If it's 5 years after the events of the old movie, why isn't everyone in '80's clothes, and why are there cellphones and laptops? (seems like he was gone for *25* years) Why would Superman take 5 years to find his homeland, when, since he's *Superman* and all, it couldn't possibly have required that long (he was really brooding like Batman for 5 years)? Why is the child Clark wearing glasses when he doesn't need them as an alter ego yet (other than to remind the clueless audience that yes, that's Clark)? Why would anyone try to shoot Superman with a gun at this point in history, when average joe villain is more than aware that he exists and is bulletproof (other than to showcase the pretty-but-pointless eyeball effects shot)? Why do we need to see Superman get violently beaten to a pulp like a Scorsese film? Why is Superman's kid asthmatic? How is Lex going to build some sort of profitable city to sell land on, if the land is made of jagged molten rock? Why does Supes strike a Christ pose more often than Scott Stapp in a Creed video? Why does Parker Posey's character exist other than to duplicate the equally irrelevant Miss Tessmacher from the old flicks? (there's that Donner/Lester hard-on again) Why is Brandon Routh's performance so wooden? Why is Lois' character not remotely a feisty newspaper woman, and some cold, humorless wench? And what the hell was up with the cannibal dog?

I wasn't a huge fan of the better but still massively flawed Batman Begins, but at least it didn't use Elfman's music, and have anyone say, "Where does he get those wonderful toys" again or whatever.
We don't have enough road to get up to 88.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: DrGonzo369

As for the fact that Supes isn't in it until Niagara Falls....Batman isn't in Batman Begins for a while too (forget the time in the movie, but it's pretty long into it).


Well, yeah, but BB is an origin story. While we're at it, Superman: The Movie takes even longer to unveil our hero. The great thing about sequels is you have the opportunity to hit the ground running with established characters. And if you check out Donner and Mankewicz' commentary on the new disc, that's what they think they're doing with the Lois-out-the-window sequence. I like the scene, but it comes too early in the film to do Lois' character arc any good. I'd keep the bit where she doodles glasses on the picture, but cut the jump and wait to use the now-deleted Niagara swim instead.
Author
Time
Post link
I think an ultimate SUPERMAN II should allow to tie itself with SUPERMAN RETURNS... Otherwise, why bother? I mean, SR is clearly a sequel to those two films (any cut). Why not enhance its viewing. And it doesn't require much, really -either just cut the spinning around and leave the rest of the story intact, or insert the amnesia kiss.

Bizarrely, I prefer it over the spinning around the world again. That doesn't say much. But its more plausible considering SR.

ADM, what do you think of my idea? Or taking taking the Eiffel Towe sequence, the Evil Supes moments/scenes from SIII and the entire SIV (WITH the deleted scenes) and recreate it as a whole new movie? My idea for it, is that it could serve as a continuance to SII itself, furthering the story of SII and STM. If re-edited smartly, we could get a trilogy out of Reeve's films, using all Superman films available. Imagine... CHRISTOPHER REEVE - THE SUPERMAN TRILOGY.

What do you think?
My life is really... Complex!

Batman Returns
Author
Time
Post link
booah:

You make valid arguments against Superman Returns, but at the end of the day I still think we got a quality movie. Singer being such a Donner fan is a wonderful thing, although I'll admit he takes things a bit overboard at times. When promoting the sequel as "Wrath of Khan"-esque I can only hope he doesn't plan on using Zod yet again. That definitely would be crossing the line. So yes, more orginality on Singer and his writers' parts is in order, but I think SR accomplished what it set out to do: update the Reeve Superman franchise and bring it into modern times. Now that's been done, and I don't see why SR2 can't be one of the best Superhero films of all time.
Author
Time
Post link
There is one scene in the Donner Cut that ties to Superman Returns is that Lois sleeps with Superman BEFORE he asks Jor-El to be human. Which oddly, turns us to the conversation in Mallrats for some strange reason.
Author
Time
Post link
Salvaging the Kent/Superman fight from Supes III is key, because that is one of the few salvagable scenes of that flick. Without having watched the deleted IV stuff, I think that's an underrated movie. Flawed (the Nuclear Man stuff is laughable), but underrated, and still possessing the spirit and heart of the Reeve films. If combined with III, it could work as part 3 of a "Reeve Trilogy."

Originally posted by: Batman Beyond
I mean, SR is clearly a sequel to those two films (any cut).

Uh, no it's not. It's far from a "sequel." It may be "inspired by", and "stolen from", but it's more of a remake/companion than anything. Aside from saying he was gone for x amount of years, it doesn't continue the stories of I and II, it just replicates elements from them and sets it in present day. It rehashes some origin story from I, and recycles the "man vs. superman" theme of II. It's all been done. It could've been more inspired by the old flicks without just redoing a lot of it.

Originally posted by: Commander Courage
You make valid arguments against Superman Returns, but at the end of the day I still think we got a quality movie. Singer being such a Donner fan is a wonderful thing, although I'll admit he takes things a bit overboard at times. When promoting the sequel as "Wrath of Khan"-esque I can only hope he doesn't plan on using Zod yet again. That definitely would be crossing the line. So yes, more orginality on Singer and his writers' parts is in order, but I think SR accomplished what it set out to do: update the Reeve Superman franchise and bring it into modern times. Now that's been done, and I don't see why SR2 can't be one of the best Superhero films of all time.


Yeah, it was decent enough overall, and not embarassing (like Batman & Robin or something). It just left a lot to be desired. I hope Singer does go more all-out with story in a follow-up. It has the potential to be great stuff.
We don't have enough road to get up to 88.
Author
Time
Post link
I think that Singer had a very difficult job on his hands, and handeled it about as well as he could have. For one, the movie had the task of not being a franchise reboot, but more of a "Superman 5" film. But if it were to directly continue from the eighties films, then there would be lots of people having trouble getting it, because lots of people who had never seen a Superman film would be watching this. So the charecter had to be reintroduced to the world. But it also had to be a follow up. To me, that seems like a hard job. I think going down the homage route was a good choice. Those scenes from the original movie introduced the world to Superman very well, so if it had to be done again, why not update them? Obviously, it would have been more original and probably more enjoyable to have a totally new movie, with a few little homages here and there, but when you have the job of re-introducing the charecter AND making a follow up, I think they did a very good job. And now with that out of the way, I think the next movie can be totally kick ass, one of the best Superman movies yet, as long as its original.
Watch DarthEvil's Who Framed Darth Vader? video on YouTube!

You can also access the entire Horriffic Violence Theater Series from my Channel Page.
Author
Time
Post link
The thing that cracks me up about the Donner cut is that Supes goes back to that diner to cream Rocky. If he had really reversed time, that means he never got beat up and none of the diner patrons would know who he is. All references to the past ("I just paid to fix up this place!") make no sense and basically the patrons would just think that this guy (Kent) is coming in to wipe the floor with Rocky. Not that there's anything wrong with that but...

I liked a lot of the Donner cut, though that nuclear missle in space looks remarkably like a flying pen.

Cashiers du Cinemart - The Only Magazine That Matters
http://www.cashiersducinemart.com

Author
Time
Post link
I liked the Donner Cut too but like most ppl here, I'd like a Donner/Lester hybrid as well. For one thing I felt the Donner cut did not concentrate enough on the Superman-Lois romance compared to the Lester version. Those parts of the movie felt rushed and incomplete.

I don't like the ending in either version though. I think it'd be much better to have Lois remember at the end. Maybe end the movie with the Clark and Lois kiss like in the Lester version. Cut out the part where it's obvious she has forgotten everything and go straight to the diner scene.

As for the villains, I have an idea though I'm not sure if it'll work: is it possible to show that Zod and co have been banished back to the Phantom Zone by Superman? Maybe show them in that crystal floating away in space. About Lex, this is a long shot, but how about using the end of Superman IV where Lex is taken back to prison and Superman says "see you in twenty" ? I haven't seen IV in a long time so I dunno if that scene can fit into SII. Just a thought.

I don't think it's a good idea to tie this to SR. SR is supposed to be a "vague sequel" anyway. So let it remain in it's own continuity.
Author
Time
Post link
Agree with cashiers on both counts-- the Revenge on Rocky scene has always been of questionable value but the new cut renders it nonsensical as well.

As for the FX, I would like some documentation on which shots were reconstructed from the original shoot and which were fabricated for the DVD, as was done on the supplements for Star Trek- The Motion Picture. If I'm not mistaken the Washington Monument shots are cheap CGI, and Zod's "FREE!" appears to have been modified with a digital zoom.
Author
Time
Post link
I also think the best edit would be a hybrid, without Superman turning the earth around, and with Lois remembering at the end. If people want to take the next two into account, that probably wouldn't be the right editI, but I think with this kind of end, it would truly be the two part epic originally conceived. I'm wondering why Lester's ending with the kiss wasn't left in the Donner cut. After all, he was trying to come up with a new ending upon his sacking, so he probably would have come to an ending similar to that.
Watch DarthEvil's Who Framed Darth Vader? video on YouTube!

You can also access the entire Horriffic Violence Theater Series from my Channel Page.
Author
Time
Post link
I would love to see someone take a stab at retaining the amnesia kiss in the story (it's been that way for 20 years anyway, so what the hell) but using only the Donner stuff. In other words, there must be a way to imply that their last kiss in the snow was it, and the effect was gradual. So we go from leaving her on the balcony to a "flashback" to their last kiss (maybe in black and white, or stylized somehow) directly to the next morning and the "get me a pizza" scene? I dunno, I just hate to negate the entire fricking movie (with a concept reused, and to much better effect, from the 1st movie)
Author
Time
Post link
Exactly!
Originally posted by: booah
Salvaging the Kent/Superman fight from Supes III is key, because that is one of the few salvagable scenes of that flick. Without having watched the deleted IV stuff, I think that's an underrated movie. Flawed (the Nuclear Man stuff is laughable), but underrated, and still possessing the spirit and heart of the Reeve films. If combined with III, it could work as part 3 of a "Reeve Trilogy."

Originally posted by: Batman Beyond
I mean, SR is clearly a sequel to those two films (any cut).

Uh, no it's not. It's far from a "sequel." It may be "inspired by", and "stolen from", but it's more of a remake/companion than anything. Aside from saying he was gone for x amount of years, it doesn't continue the stories of I and II, it just replicates elements from them and sets it in present day. It rehashes some origin story from I, and recycles the "man vs. superman" theme of II. It's all been done. It could've been more inspired by the old flicks without just redoing a lot of it.

Originally posted by: Commander Courage
You make valid arguments against Superman Returns, but at the end of the day I still think we got a quality movie. Singer being such a Donner fan is a wonderful thing, although I'll admit he takes things a bit overboard at times. When promoting the sequel as "Wrath of Khan"-esque I can only hope he doesn't plan on using Zod yet again. That definitely would be crossing the line. So yes, more orginality on Singer and his writers' parts is in order, but I think SR accomplished what it set out to do: update the Reeve Superman franchise and bring it into modern times. Now that's been done, and I don't see why SR2 can't be one of the best Superhero films of all time.


Yeah, it was decent enough overall, and not embarassing (like Batman & Robin or something). It just left a lot to be desired. I hope Singer does go more all-out with story in a follow-up. It has the potential to be great stuff.

Thanks for supporting my SUPERMAN III idea.

My main idea is, as SUPERMAN II: THE DONNER CUT follows immediately from SUPERMAN THE MOVIE, a re-edited SUPERMAN IV (because, like you said, IV had the heart of the first Supes movie, still) could follow from II almost immediately. If handled professionaly, IV could be the continuance of the story told in I and II. Not just a sequel re-modified. But a movie modified to be a continuance.

Superman's stance towards nuclear weapons and all could very well follow his need to help the people he recklessly abandoned when he was with Lois. His guilt over not protecting them could be the main motive of doing what he does in the story. That angle can play in the film.

One idea for an opening is, have a recap of the previous movie -not STM, just Donner's Cut-, and have then Superman deliver the american flag to the white house and him saying "I won't let you down again" or something (its been awhile, sorry for not remembering), then the new titles. The thing is, this line could be the prelude to what Superman promises to do and what the re-edited story can hold on to. I have other ideas, too. Want to expand them? Please tell, cause if you're not interested, I won't delve into it much more.

Now, on SUPERMAN II....I'm in favor of a re-edit that follows the Donner Cut, but with Lester elements thrown here and there. Except for the Eiffer Tower sequence, which I think could work for a modified SUPERMAN IV-III, the rest of the film could use some good, mind GOOD, scenes from the Lester cut. So yeah, I'm in favor of that.

As for the ending, either the amnesia kiss re-instated -it HAS been the film's official ending for over 25 years, whatever way you look at it- or nothing at all. But definetely no spinning the world around again. That seemed just out of place in the movie. Plus, the bully scene doesn't work nearly as well with the spinning around.

However, if the amnesia kiss is left out of II, it should be re-instated in my aformentioned SUPERMAN IV-III. That way, it can always lead to SUPERMAN RETURNS, nicely.

I stand by my opinion that, if any re-edit doesn't even try to help SR be aknowledged, why bother? Singer himself was in a tight spot, because he didn't know if he was going to follow Lester's cut, or Donner's cut. He used Brando, but by the time he did, Donner's cut was already commisioned. So Singer worked the story around to be as loose as possible, to allow both II's to have happened, somehow. Really, if the Donner cut had happened before or at the early production of SR, Singer would've been more clear about how it follows the previous Reeve flicks.

And I like SR, by the way. I found it wonderful. But STM and the Donner Cut of SII are better. 'Nuff said.
My life is really... Complex!

Batman Returns
Author
Time
Post link
I say keep the Eiffel Tower in II... Just saw IV (what an experience!!! better picture, but still a harmless little flick. Not bad. Loads of potential there, though), and can't fit there at all. Main reason: Perry White. He's quite old in IV. So either re-instate it smartly, or not at all - I prefer the way the villains are released in the Donner Cut.

IMO, always!
I love Batman.
Author
Time
Post link
Oh, one other thing... I'm trying to remember if the orange juice thing was in Superman 1 at all? The remark about "freshly squeezed" in the Donner cut in Supes 2 doesn't seem to make a lot of sense unless we have the orange juice bit earlier.

Cashiers du Cinemart - The Only Magazine That Matters
http://www.cashiersducinemart.com

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: cashiers
Oh, one other thing... I'm trying to remember if the orange juice thing was in Superman 1 at all? The remark about "freshly squeezed" in the Donner cut in Supes 2 doesn't seem to make a lot of sense unless we have the orange juice bit earlier.

No, the orange juice was never mentioned in S:TM, being introduced in the "friendship" scene in Lester's II. Even though I still haven't seen the Donner Cut, I can assume this is another example of the Lois and Clark relationship being hurt by the anti-Lester editing. For all of Lester's inappropriate gags with the villains, he delivered some great Lois and Clark scenes, both at the Daily Planet and at Niagra Falls.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Darth_Evil
I'm wondering why Lester's ending with the kiss wasn't left in the Donner cut. After all, he was trying to come up with a new ending upon his sacking, so he probably would have come to an ending similar to that.


From what I understand, the earth-spinning ending was originally intended for part II, but later moved to the end of I since it fit well with that story. Being left with no new ending written or shot for II, it seems that the ending was reinserted for the Donner Cut *as scripted* for completion purposes. Who knows how Donner would've concluded II-- if he didn't address it or comment on it, then one can only assume. I think the kiss works on a comic-booky level, but it always was rather cheesy. Envisioning that scene in my mind, I wonder with a bit of editing, if the actual kiss itself could be removed, but Lois getting woozy from Clark's powers (a sound effect, or a slight shuffling of the scene's footage) could work. Or, ditch the kiss thing altogether. Lois doesn't really *need* to forget. It's only a movie...
We don't have enough road to get up to 88.
Author
Time
Post link
Or, ditch the kiss thing altogether. Lois doesn't really *need* to forget. It's only a movie...

Right. If they (the creatives forces behind the Donner Cut) were going for the best possible story, letting Lois retain the secret would have been the way to go. It's not like they'd have to follow up on it in a sequel. Instead, they were so biased against Lester and so adament on "following the original script" that they just cut-and-paste the ending of S:TM and negated the events of the entire film. That's just bad storytelling.
Author
Time
Post link
Well, leaving the kiss allows the story to actually tie with SUPERMAN RETURNS better... Why refuse the fact that SR follows it (although loosely)? Lets make an effort to aknowledge it. Because no matter what, officially, Supes made Lois forget by that kiss. So no edit with change that fact. Better as well aknowledge it, and move from there. Making a hybrid is a priority.

Although, I got to ask... If a Superman II re-edit happens, should it follow Donner Cut's structure/timeline, with Lester bits here and there (my choice), or be it the theatrical-Lester cut with Donner scenes here and there (NOT my choice)?

What do you think?
I love Batman.
Author
Time
Post link
Should any of the mother footage be left in? It was nice to see all the Brando footage, but I also felt the mother lent a nice touch in places as well in the Lester version.
Author
Time
Post link
Well, leaving the kiss allows the story to actually tie with SUPERMAN RETURNS better... Why refuse the fact that SR follows it (although loosely)? Lets make an effort to aknowledge it. Because no matter what, officially, Supes made Lois forget by that kiss. So no edit with change that fact. Better as well aknowledge it, and move from there. Making a hybrid is a priority.
I'm all for tying S:TM, SII, and SR all together. The SuperKiss is the definite way to go in that scenario, there's really no way around it, and it doesn't destroy continuity as the other possible endings would.

In my previous post I was just pointing out if they were so biased against Lester not to use the SuperKiss, they didn't have to resort to reversing time (AGAIN), they could have just allowed Lois to retain her knowledge. At least that scenario doesn't create plotholes in both S:TM (how often does Superman use this time reversal trick?) and SII (getting "even" with the bully, even though that never happened). If they were really trying to complete Donner's vision of a two-part epic, based on the materials available to them, the balcony scene should have been the final Clark/Lois scene.

Although, I got to ask... If a Superman II re-edit happens, should it follow Donner Cut's structure/timeline, with Lester bits here and there (my choice), or be it the theatrical-Lester cut with Donner scenes here and there (NOT my choice)?

Definitely the former.

Should any of the mother footage be left in? It was nice to see all the Brando footage, but I also felt the mother lent a nice touch in places as well in the Lester version.

No for a few reasons.
1) It's inconsistent with S:TM in which Superman talks to Jor-El.
2) Lara did not record her intellect and personality onto the crystals, only Jor-El did.
3) There would be no conclusion to the mother & son relationship as there is with father & son.
Author
Time
Post link
For the purposes of making a new Supes II, SR is totally irrelevant when you think about. Just because it came out, doesn't make it essential. Someone mentioned that it was supposed to be a "vague sequel", and vague is something that it sure is. As a Superman fan, I understand *why* it was made the way it was made, but it's not my fault that WB and Singer decided to do a big-budget-yet-half-assed reboot-slash-sequel instead of going balls-out from the get-go. It's kinda similar to Lucas insisting he "had to" make Menace and Clones boring and loaded with pointless exposition to get to Sith, when he could've done whatever the hell he wanted.

It's more of a jumbled part-sequel, part-remake. There is both overlap and disconnect, so "tying it in" is largely a waste of time. Keeping the stupid super-kiss, even though its removal may improve the old story, just to weakly tie it into a movie that itself weakly ties into the old ones is a waste of time. Excising the kiss doesn't damage the continuity or the story-- Lois doesn't *need* to forget anything. It's the end of the movie-- it could be open-ended as to if she really remembers. As long as it ends with Supes flying off into the distance, the flick's gold. You can acknowledge SR's existence all you want for yourself, but for Superman II.0 purposes, it doesn't need to be a factor. If SR is indeed a "sequel" (which it's not), it should've been stated that Supes was gone TWENTY-five years, since the 21st century world depicted in the movie (not to mention the exact-opposite-of-sassy new Lois attitude) is very far removed from Donner/Lester, as is Returns as a whole. Either way, all of the films revolve around a dude from Krypton in blue tights, so they "tie in" enough...

Should any of the mother footage be left in? It was nice to see all the Brando footage, but I also felt the mother lent a nice touch in places as well in the Lester version.
No for a few reasons.
1) It's inconsistent with S:TM in which Superman talks to Jor-El.
2) Lara did not record her intellect and personality onto the crystals, only Jor-El did.
3) There would be no conclusion to the mother & son relationship as there is with father & son.


While Brando is essential, there is an obvious, strong bond with the mother in part I as well, and her presence could be a nice addition (not replacement). I don't recall anywhere stating that the mother *didn't* record anything for Jor-El, so it's plausable that both his mom and dad imparted wisdom. And there doesn't need to be a "conclusion" with the mother/son relationship-- her love is more simple and unconditional-- there is nothing that needs concluding. The father/son bond, like with many fathers and sons, seems more complex and would still see resolution even with the inclusion of some mom footage.
We don't have enough road to get up to 88.
Author
Time
Post link
This site (written pre-Donner Cut release) has fascinating, what-if edit suggestions/speculations for making Lester's Supes II as close to Donner's as possible, using scripts and footage and edits, complete with visual aids/screen caps. Wonder if Donner checked this out before tackling his cut?...
Superman II Reconstructed Speculation

The time travel issue is addressed, and one suggestion mirrors some others here about cutting out the kiss. Since the earth-spinning bit was concocted pre-Back to the Future, I don't think writers at the time thought as much about plausability or common sense in regards to time travel "rules" and effects. It's probably safe to assume that before something like BTTF dealt with time travel in mainstream entertainment in a more logical manner (changes to the past rippling through the timeline, being erased from existence, etc.), it was viewed more literally ("he'll just reverse time and make her forget-- sounds good").

After reading that WB apparently did not compensate Donner for his time on the new version, maybe the earth-spinning was tacked on in lieu of a more clever ending if he wasn't getting paid and wanted to wrap it up. Who knows...
We don't have enough road to get up to 88.
Author
Time
Post link
I generally agree with Commander Courage concerning the Lester kiss scene. Why create a whole lot of fuss for not including it, just because it might connect to a film that may not be liked by some. The kiss has been there for YEARS now, one fourth of a century (in Ridley Scott's words for ALIEN ), and just leaving Lois know would be wonderful indeed, but pointless since the story would go NOWHERE. With the amnesia kiss back in, one can safely assume SR takes places afterwards. Which is a nice thought, really, because that was the intention with SR all along.

Look, booh, fact is, its just a movie. A comic book movie. So the 80's sensibilities to be brought back in SR just to fit the story told in STM and SII is stretching it. You can just as easily say that all three movies take place in an alternate reality from ours (WHOAH!). Never mind the 25 years between the films. In the end of the day, that doesn't really matter.

Anyway, I agree with you about the mother scenes. I think we can have both Cal-El/Lara-El and Jor-El/Cal-El scenes brought back in. However, Jor El's time must be dominant. I say use her only on the Clark scenes, and not the other ones, the Luther scenes and so on.
I love Batman.
Author
Time
Post link
It looks like there might need to be two versions of the Ultimate Superman II, one that stands alone and one that ties into Superman Returns. That shouldn't be a problem though with SII being such a ripe ground for fan edits. I don't see the time reversal as being an opiton in either version though. Unless someone can concoct a better solution based on the materials we have to work with, this is the way I see endings:
-If you don't want to consider SR, and want the best stand alone story for S:TM and SII, Lois keeps the secrect, with the last Lois and Clark scene being on the balcony.
-If you DO want to consider SR, the SuperKiss erases her memory of Clark=Superman. One alteration to this would be the deletion of Lois' line "What's happening in the world?" as to suggest she only forgets Clark's secret, not the entirety of the last few days. Surely Perry would ask her to write a story on the events, and she'd definitely think something was up if she couldn't remember any of it. (That's my interpretation, anyway.)

And I don't think Lara should be incorporated. Yes it was a nice idea for Superman to be able to talk to both of his parents, but that's just not the way it was supposed to be. Jor-El already has a larger role here than he ever did in any other incarnation of Superman, and to include Lara on top of that would take away the impact of Superman truly being the last of of his kind, isolated, and alone. Add to that the SII Lara in her crystalline box and distorted voice doesn't mesh well with the rest of the Fortress.