Superman Through the Ages! Forum

Superman on the Screen! => The Movies => Topic started by: davidelliott on December 04, 2006, 04:08:50 AM



Title: Donner Cut more popular than I thought...
Post by: davidelliott on December 04, 2006, 04:08:50 AM
Well, went to Chico this evening to run some errands... biggest town near me and home of the Sierra Nevada brewery...

Anyway, went to Wal Mart to get Superman Returns... HUGE display there, so got my copy...  BUT the Donner Cut is SOLD OUT!!!  So I go pretty much next door to Target (next shopping center over) and there was ONE copy left.... ONE!  Guess who snagged it?

Didn't watch either of them yet... I also got Jumanji in the $5.50 bin at Wal Mart and that's what my wife and one of the kids wanted to watch... tomorrow's a new day!


Title: Re: Donner Cut more popular than I thought...
Post by: Great Rao on December 04, 2006, 07:21:07 PM
I hope this movie is very popular, because it deserves to be seen.

A few thoughts about, and a few SPOILERS for, the Donner cut:

I watched the "making of" documentary and it's pretty clear that Richard Donner is still extrememly hurt and bitter about the fact that Superman II was originally given to someone else to finish.  I've read elsewhere that he is receiving no money for his work on this DVD or for any of the sales.  In spite of that, I don't think he even considered not working on this cut.  He's grateful to the fans for asking that he restore his version of the movie and states that without them it would never have happened.

I'm thrilled that we now have this glimpse into what his finished Superman: Part II might have been like.

The Donner Cut is really a "rough cut":  One of the key scenes was never shot, so he used the screen test version of it, and there were a few times when he had no option but to use some of the Lester footage.  Parts of the film are old and parts are new:  there are some newly-finished scenes that might have been done differently, or not used at all, back in 1980.  He wasn't only restoring the old footage, but also finishing (as much as possible) an incomplete film.

I  like this movie a lot better than the Lester version.  Overall, it's just a better film, much more coherent and better paced.  All the bits with Non being a buffoon are gone. The additional Marlon Brando footage is a wonder to see and there is a lot more interaction - and relationshp - between father and son.  The movie also introduces the idea of a "Kryptonian Prophecy" that, according to Jor-El, Superman has fulfilled by the end of the movie.  We don't see the PZ criminals get loaded onto that "Arctic Patrol" snow-van, but we do see Lex get carted off.  In fact, from beginning to end, there is a lot more Lex in this version of the film.

The Big Spoiler for the end of the flick:

Instead of the "kiss of forgetfulness," Superman erases Lois' knowledge of his dual identity by - yet again - flying backwards around the Earth such that the events of the previous 24 hours never happened.  As in Superman: the Movie, this leads to some major continuity issues:  It seems that only some of the previous events were undone (ie, the ones effecting Lois), but not all of them.  In spite of that, it's great to see the footage that Donner shot for this sequence because as far as I know it's never been seen before and although there are plot problems with it, it's much better looking than Lester's version.

Donner mentions that the going-back-in-time idea was originally intended for Superman II; but that since it was ultimately used for Superman: the Movie, the kiss idea came up later.


Title: Re: Donner Cut more popular than I thought...
Post by: davidelliott on December 04, 2006, 09:40:32 PM
Well, I took the time to watch it this afternoon... the joys of working a few hours in the evening gives me time during the day!!!

SPOILERS:














WOW!  What a treat this movie is.  Much superior than the released version.  The recaps in the form of the pre-credit sequence were redundant, but hey, this was a time when VCRs were novelties and we had to wait until movies were aired on TV.  I LOVE the way the 2nd film really continued from the first... the events of the first film came into play in the second, and CAUSED the sequel.  The effects of the PZ escape were pretty realistic and not cartoony like the released version.

Zod was a lot meaner in the Donner cut... Ursa was the same and as Rao mentioned, Non was very threatening... not a clown.

The interactions between Jor-El and Kal-El were brilliant and explained how Superman got his powers back, more so than the released version. Reeve and Brando were beyond words. Also, no beams coming out of Zod's fingers, no cellophane S in the Fortress... more faithful to the comic book universe.  It also hit me watching the Metropolis Battle how it would seem if real life super beings fought such a fight... destruction and mayhem.

The ending.. I dunno... the PZ villains are back in the PZ, Lois is not pregnant (I guess)... it sort of cheapens it for me, since they used the back in time thing in the first film... it's just too status quo for me.  Like the whole movie didn't happen.  I liked the idea of the kiss... a Super Hypnosis thing.  It retained the events of the film and made the story "real".  In the Donner cut, it makes Clark look like a thug going back to the diner to exact revenge on the driver (who now didn't do anything to him, but he did since the owner just repaired the place).  I don't like the selectivity of the time alteration.

BUT, in all, I loved the released version of S-2... now I ADORE the Donner Cut.  It is a superior version!


Title: Re: Donner Cut more popular than I thought...
Post by: Klar Ken T5477 on December 05, 2006, 10:15:36 PM
I enjoyed it as a What IF scenario but ultimately felt like ...great now there's two imperfect movies of the same thing.

If only Donner & Mank  had been given the time and money to do it right...then.


Title: Re: Donner Cut more popular than I thought...
Post by: davidelliott on December 11, 2006, 05:07:46 AM
Well, I watched the documentary extra on the DVD and thought it was interesting... I didn't realize how much work went into this restoration... PLUS, Donner, though still pained, tried to be a champ about the whole thing AND seemed thrilled to be working on this project.


Title: Re: Donner Cut more popular than I thought...
Post by: nightwing on December 20, 2006, 01:46:51 PM
Finally got around to watching it last night, and I have to agree with Klar Ken that while this is a fun film, it's still as frustratingly flawed as Lester's version (just a lot less embarassingly CHEESY!).

Lots of things bugged me.  First, I still don't understand what exactly Jor-El is in the Donner films.  Hologram? Super-advanced computer program?  Ghost?  Some of the crystals seem to bring up recordings of the guy, while others actually summon...well, him...in what passes for "the flesh."  And whatever he is, how can he have the powers of Superman, and pass them to the de-powered Kal?  Does Jor-El have Dr Strange's ability to split off his "astral self," and is this what we're seeing?  Do superpowers reside in a Kryptonian's spirit, or in the cells of his physical form?  And if a Kryptonian doesn't have a body, how can he have any powers under Earth's sun?  It don't add up!

Second, although the timing's a bit reshuffled (now Supes sleeps with Lois BEFORE he's depowered), the biggest flaw of this film is still in place, and that is Superman's selfish and stupid renunciation of his powers for a piece of you-know-what.  In fact, now it's twice as stupid because Jor-El is right there telling him, "Son, don't be so stupid!"  I'm sorry, but any guy who would give up his powers to be with a chick is not my idea of Superman.

Third, and it ties to the second, Donner's version makes the de-powering even dumber than Lester's.  In Lester's version, he has to depower in order to make love to Lois, presumably in a nod to Larry Niven's infamous observations on what sex with a Superman would do to a woman.  But in Donner's version, Lois has already survived sex with Superman, so why depower?  Apparently because Jor-El says he has to.  I get the distinct impression Jor-El is saying (and I'm not sure I disagree), "If you're going to put a woman before your job, you don't deserve to be Superman."  But so what if the big giant head DOES say that?  Why should Superman listen?  Why does he have to choose between sex and his job if sex doesn't kill the girl?  Why can't he keep the powers, even if he's too selfish to actually use them to help anyone?  I don't get it.

Jor-El bugs the poo out of me in these movies.  I often rail against the modern comic Superman's propensity to run home to Ma and Pa Kent for advice all the time, but Donner's Superman is just as bad with Jor-El.  Dad's always there for advice and to bail the dummy out, and here he's even chastising him for his dumb choices.  Movie Superman is all about either obeying or rebelling against Dad, and it's not majestic or quasi-religious, it's just creepy...it lessens Superman as a hero to be a "little boy" answering to his pop.

The one good thing that came out of all this...other than just enjoying Brando's performance (and knowing maybe he DID put in enough work to justify that paycheck!)...was that moment as Superman's going into the booth and Jor-El looks up accusingly at Lois, who shrinks away...as well she might!  Goosebumps.  (Also, it's hard to tell, but is she wearing the "shirt" part of his costume?)

Okay, so bright boy removes his own powers because his Dad says he ought to (not has to, mind you, but ought to).  So how does he get back to civilization?  We next see the couple in a rental car, but how far did they have to go to get one?  Or does Avis have a North Pole branch?  And once he decides he's gotta go back, why not rent another car instead of walking the whole way?  And while we're at it, would it kill the defender of Earth to have some sort of monitoring system in the Fortress, so when supervillains take over the world he isn't the last guy to hear about it?  Screw the tapes of Jor-El reciting Joyce Kilmer poems (which hadn't even been written yet when Jor-El died)...how about a subscription to CNN?

I liked that a lot of the "comedy" was cut out of this version, and in fact somehow this film seems to have a lot less footage than the Lester version all around, despite somehow coming out around the same length?  Editing tricks, I guess.  Donner's goes almost too fast, Lester's dragged horribly.

In the final scenes at the Fortress, it still looks as though the Zoners are killed by Superman and Lois (since their "arrest" remains cut) and in fact since we never see Luthor leave the place, it looks like he's dead, too, given that Superman destroys the place from a safe distance.

And onto the "world goes backward" bit.  I actually like the visuals on this version better than those in "Superman:The Movie," but there are lots of problems.  If time is reversed, then the Fortress is not destroyed, Jor-El is not dead (or is that "double dead"?) and that poor dope in the diner gets beat up for nothing.  I always hated in the first film how Clark went back to beat up that guy -- a petty act at best for Superman -- but in this version, the guy doesn't even know why he's getting clobbered.  That is, if you can call what Clark does "clobbering"...all he does really is a couple of sight gags that would instantly give away his secret identity and most likely would not satisfy his lust for vengeance (because that's all this is).  Also, as in the first film, we're left wondering how Superman can turn back time without running into his previous self.  The "kiss" is almost better as it doesn't screw with the whole world, just Lois.  On the other hand, it was pretty hard to believe Lois wouldn't figure out she was missing about a week of her life once the next TIME magazine hit the stands with a recap of the Zoners' reign of terror.

On the positive side, Lois' restored scenes and some artful editing actually make her pretty likable in this film...smart, sensitive and supportive...and not the shrill nincompoop she is in Lester's.  And Jackie Cooper's Perry White somehow comes out a lot more likable than he ever did for me, though it's hard to say why.  Also the Otis/Luthor scenes are a lot funnier here.  And all the Zoners come off as more threatening now.

In the end, though, this cut just reinforces what I already felt.  Namely, that George Reeves remains the best Superman, and "Returns," for all its flaws, is still the best-made Superman movie I've seen.




Title: Re: Donner Cut more popular than I thought...
Post by: Uncle Mxy on December 26, 2006, 04:24:54 PM
Finally got around to watching it last night, and I have to agree with Klar Ken that while this is a fun film, it's still as frustratingly flawed as Lester's version (just a lot less embarassingly CHEESY!).
Many of the flaws are a function of what he had to work with.  This is closer to the script they'd really intended to shoot, but not quite. 

The climax of Superman I was supposed to be:
- stop the fallout from the bomb in a spectacular fashion (never fully shot)
- fix the earthquake resulting from the impact, catch Luthor
- then a cliffhanger involving Zod and crew being freed by the -other- bomb he hurled into space, flying toward earth. 

No Lois dying, no time travel until Superman II.  It was Lester's input (as middle-man between Donner and the Salkinds) that had changed a lot of Superman I things.  Donner and Manciewicz never had a firm plan for how they'd finish II given how they finished I, if I understand things correctly. 

Quote
Lots of things bugged me.  First, I still don't understand what exactly Jor-El is in the Donner films.
Heck, I don't understand much of what Krypton is in -any- of the films, apart from a cool-looking deus ex machina.

Quote
Second, although the timing's a bit reshuffled (now Supes sleeps with Lois BEFORE he's depowered), the biggest flaw of this film is still in place, and that is Superman's selfish and stupid renunciation of his powers for a piece of you-know-what.  In fact, now it's twice as stupid because Jor-El is right there telling him, "Son, don't be so stupid!"  I'm sorry, but any guy who would give up his powers to be with a chick is not my idea of Superman.

Third, and it ties to the second, Donner's version makes the de-powering even dumber than Lester's.  In Lester's version, he has to depower in order to make love to Lois, presumably in a nod to Larry Niven's infamous observations on what sex with a Superman would do to a woman.  But in Donner's version, Lois has already survived sex with Superman, so why depower?  Apparently because Jor-El says he has to.  I get the distinct impression Jor-El is saying (and I'm not sure I disagree), "If you're going to put a woman before your job, you don't deserve to be Superman."  But so what if the big giant head DOES say that?  Why should Superman listen?  Why does he have to choose between sex and his job if sex doesn't kill the girl?  Why can't he keep the powers, even if he's too selfish to actually use them to help anyone?  I don't get it.
The idea was that he was supposed to be blinded by love.  The Superman II script was to have made that more clear, with him doing some playful and irresponsible things on a super-scale.  There was never supposed to be any sex shown or sex before that depowering scene -- the closest is the tease where they make the souffle (which I think was only ever filmed by Lester).  I don't think you can safely assume they went "all the way" just because she was wearing his S shirt, but you can assume they were close.

Quote
Jor-El bugs the poo out of me in these movies.  I often rail against the modern comic Superman's propensity to run home to Ma and Pa Kent for advice all the time, but Donner's Superman is just as bad with Jor-El.  Dad's always there for advice and to bail the dummy out, and here he's even chastising him for his dumb choices.  Movie Superman is all about either obeying or rebelling against Dad, and it's not majestic or quasi-religious, it's just creepy...it lessens Superman as a hero to be a "little boy" answering to his pop.
Part of it is that the movie Superman was taken away by daddy for 10 years right around the time he'd become a man.  That scene never made sense, especially along with the rocket ship flooding baby Kal-El with information.

Quote
So how does he get back to civilization?  We next see the couple in a rental car, but how far did they have to go to get one?  Or does Avis have a North Pole branch?  And once he decides he's gotta go back, why not rent another car instead of walking the whole way?
Those are relatively minor expository things.

Quote
And while we're at it, would it kill the defender of Earth to have some sort of monitoring system in the Fortress, so when supervillains take over the world he isn't the last guy to hear about it?  Screw the tapes of Jor-El reciting Joyce Kilmer poems (which hadn't even been written yet when Jor-El died)...how about a subscription to CNN?
Part of the deus ex machina that is Kryptonian tech, the ludicrousness of which is highlighted in...

Quote
I liked that a lot of the "comedy" was cut out of this version
...Tessmacher finding the bathroom.

Quote
In the final scenes at the Fortress, it still looks as though the Zoners are killed by Superman and Lois (since their "arrest" remains cut) and in fact since we never see Luthor leave the place, it looks like he's dead, too, given that Superman destroys the place from a safe distance.
Did you actually have to see the trucks haul him off before you believe that the trucks hauled him off?

Quote
And onto the "world goes backward" bit.  I actually like the visuals on this version better than those in "Superman:The Movie," but there are lots of problems.  If time is reversed, then the Fortress is not destroyed, Jor-El is not dead (or is that "double dead"?) and that poor dope in the diner gets beat up for nothing.  I always hated in the first film how Clark went back to beat up that guy -- a petty act at best for Superman -- but in this version, the guy doesn't even know why he's getting clobbered.  That is, if you can call what Clark does "clobbering"...all he does really is a couple of sight gags that would instantly give away his secret identity and most likely would not satisfy his lust for vengeance (because that's all this is).
I agree it would've been better if he sat there, nice and innocent, and the trucker bully approached him with intent to rumble. 


Title: Re: Donner Cut more popular than I thought...
Post by: nightwing on December 28, 2006, 10:40:47 PM
Quote
Many of the flaws are a function of what he had to work with.  This is closer to the script they'd really intended to shoot, but not quite. 

The climax of Superman I was supposed to be:
- stop the fallout from the bomb in a spectacular fashion (never fully shot)
- fix the earthquake resulting from the impact, catch Luthor
- then a cliffhanger involving Zod and crew being freed by the -other- bomb he hurled into space, flying toward earth. 

No Lois dying, no time travel until Superman II.  It was Lester's input (as middle-man between Donner and the Salkinds) that had changed a lot of Superman I things.  Donner and Manciewicz never had a firm plan for how they'd finish II given how they finished I, if I understand things correctly. 

You raise an interesting point.  This is not really Superman: II as originally intended because even Superman:The Movie wasn't finished as originally intended!  Wonder how long it'll be before they go back and re-edit that one so we get a special-special-edition?

Quote
Quote
In the final scenes at the Fortress, it still looks as though the Zoners are killed by Superman and Lois (since their "arrest" remains cut) and in fact since we never see Luthor leave the place, it looks like he's dead, too, given that Superman destroys the place from a safe distance.
Did you actually have to see the trucks haul him off before you believe that the trucks hauled him off?

What trucks?

Look at it again...the bit with the Arctic Police is only in the "Deleted Scenes" portion of the disc.  It does not survive Mr Thau's "final" cut.  So if you just watch the film, without checking the deleted scenes and doing a back-and-fill, what you have is Supes and Lois "killing" the Zoners, Luthor pleading, "Let's make a deal..." and then Superman flying Lois a few hundred yards away, turning and destroying the fortress.  Without that deleted "arrest" scene...campy as it is...it sure looks like Luthor meets his end.

Speaking of that scene, I was confused by the editing. It looks like Superman and Lois fly to a nearby ice flow and look back at the Fortress.  Only then Superman turns and aims his beams at the Fortress, which is about 90 to 120 degrees from where they were looking a moment at before.  So what are they looking at before they look at the Fortress?  Some other structure?  The Arctic Police driving off?  The last sunset they'll ever see as a couple?  I don't get it.



Title: Re: Donner Cut more popular than I thought...
Post by: Klar Ken T5477 on December 29, 2006, 09:40:10 AM
Yeah the recut Thau definitely leads one to believe that Supes offed the Zoners and Lex - I was watching a sneak weeks before official release and was shouting "Code against killing?!!!"

I think I'll chalk the viewing up to a Red K induced "what If" scenario or "Imaginary Story" and forget about it. Didn't like the Lois discovers Clark's identity scenario either as lame as the Lester version was - that at least worked on a subconscious desire as opposed to being tricked by a wiley coyote...uh..Lois.


Title: Re: Donner Cut more popular than I thought...
Post by: Great Rao on December 29, 2006, 10:12:16 AM
It looks like Superman and Lois fly to a nearby ice flow and look back at the Fortress.  Only then Superman turns and aims his beams at the Fortress, which is about 90 to 120 degrees from where they were looking a moment at before.  So what are they looking at before they look at the Fortress?  Some other structure?  The Arctic Police driving off?  The last sunset they'll ever see as a couple?  I don't get it.

Keep in mind that with this cut, Donner was limited to what little footage exists.  He never had the opportunity to do any additional takes, rewrites, or reshoots; or to shoot missing scenes.  This isn't a final cut as much as it is a rough outline to what his movie might have been like.

The fact that he used screen-test footage for an unshot scene is testament to this.


Title: Re: Donner Cut more popular than I thought...
Post by: Uncle Mxy on December 29, 2006, 10:35:58 AM
You raise an interesting point.  This is not really Superman: II as originally intended because even Superman:The Movie wasn't finished as originally intended!  Wonder how long it'll be before they go back and re-edit that one so we get a special-special-edition?
And, it's the same person who wasn't quite right for Superman II who made the decision on Superman I.  Donner's Superman II cut sorta starts out with how they'd wanted Superman I to end, but it's not nearly clear enough on that point.  The commentary would have benefitted from being more tightly scripted rather than off the cuff.

Quote
What trucks?

Look at it again...the bit with the Arctic Police is only in the "Deleted Scenes" portion of the disc.  It does not survive Mr Thau's "final" cut.
Doh!  You're right.  I didn't notice, and I even know -why- I didn't notice now that I think about it.  I went to the deleted scenes before I watched the movie itself.  I'm used to that scene 'cause I've seen it before on TV.  Of course, a lot of people think the "arctic police" is equally lame. 

I know what it might have benefitted from -- comic-book style narrative.  A yellow rectangle appears at the top of the scene saying: "After putting Luthor and the Phantom Zone villains behind bars...".  In fact, this might have worked in a lot of places, minimized the Lester footage. 

Super-speed, senses, hypnosis, etc. makes all sorts of "Lois actively discovers his identity" scenarios preposterous, as tons of Silver Age comics will attest.  At least Lois struck me as a woman worth wanting around, rather than Lucy to Charlie Brown.  And blanks do actually have a projectile element to them...  it isn't as if they only make a sound.  And Superman's awareness and sensitivity to his physical invulnerability has been portrayed inconsistently at best.

 



Title: Re: Donner Cut more popular than I thought...
Post by: Super Monkey on December 30, 2006, 11:21:20 AM
New Article that will answer most of your questions!
http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=95763


Title: Re: Donner Cut more popular than I thought...
Post by: nightwing on January 03, 2007, 11:00:21 AM
Quote
Of course, a lot of people think the "arctic police" is equally lame.

Oh, I don't know.  I've heard those polar bears can get pretty rowdy on a Saturday night.  Who else is gonna break up the bar fights?

On the other hand, it's not much of a Fortress of "Solitude" if the cops are only a phone call away, and they know what address to show up at.

I did like that Supes blew the place up, though.  It makes sense, as Luthor's found it.  Would've prevented the return visit by Spacey-Luthor, anyway!  Plus it's an ugly structure at best, so good riddance...though I agree with Donner's commentary that his cinematographer did a whole lot neater stuff with it than Lester's.



Title: Re: Donner Cut more popular than I thought...
Post by: Gangbuster on January 03, 2007, 12:18:55 PM
Not necessarily, since it never happened anyway (time reversal at the end.)

Thus, Spacey Luthor was able to return because the crystals were never destroyed or expended by Jor-El in the first place. 


Title: Re: Donner Cut more popular than I thought...
Post by: Uncle Mxy on January 03, 2007, 01:11:11 PM
Why doesn't Superman timespin the earth a few years back and avoid that pesky business with him abandoning the earth so Lois could have his kid?  He could just keep on doing things until he does it right. 

Yes, it's Super-Groundhog Day, starring Bill Murray as Lex Luthor!




Title: Re: Donner Cut more popular than I thought...
Post by: nightwing on January 03, 2007, 02:52:29 PM
Gangbuster writes:

Quote
Not necessarily, since it never happened anyway (time reversal at the end.)

Thus, Spacey Luthor was able to return because the crystals were never destroyed or expended by Jor-El in the first place.

Yes, and Jor-El didn't "die"...making that whole "moving" scene between him and Superman pointless and meaningless.

Except...if Jor-El didn't die, then how did Superman get the power to reverse time?  But if he does reverse time, then how could Jor-El have died?  What a mess.

Another question is just how far back does Superman turn time?  Obviously back to before the villains escaped, but logically also before the missile drifted off into space, or else we'd just have to relive the whole mess over again.  So does he go back to before the missile was even fired, and simply catch Luthor before he pushes the button?  Apparently he's undoing the last movie as well as the second one.

And if he did indeed stop the missile, then everything after that would have happened differently.  So Luthor never went to the Fortress at all.  Which makes his trip there in Superman Returns his first trip, not his second...which actually helps that film a lot.

On the other hand, if the sex scene with Lois is undone, then the kid can't be Superman's.

Uncle Mxy asks:


Quote
Why doesn't Superman timespin the earth a few years back and avoid that pesky business with him abandoning the earth so Lois could have his kid?  He could just keep on doing things until he does it right.

Well, I'd imagine that would create some moral issues even for the morally challenged movie Superman.  It's one thing to take back a few minutes as he does in the first film.  Here he's taking back days and maybe weeks.  To fix the bit with Jason, he'd have to undo a whopping five years.  Over and above the question of whether he even COULD do it (how long would he have to fly at that speed?), there's also the issue of screwing with people's lives.  A lot of people are born and die in five years, a lot of things happen that change lives.  Who is Superman to monkey with billions of lives just to solve his own problems?  Indeed, who is he to do it in the Donner cut of Superman II, or even Superman I? 



Title: Re: Donner Cut more popular than I thought...
Post by: Great Rao on January 03, 2007, 04:10:49 PM
I think the only way to explain all these problems is to clearly define Superman's "turn-back-time" super power.  This power obviously doesn't really turn back time 100% - it only "sort of" turns back time, leaving some of the original events in place, but turning back time on others.  Plus, most people still have a subconcious memory of those original events, since many of them kind-of-sort-of took place, which explains why Lois is so confused about who Jason's father is.


Title: Re: Donner Cut more popular than I thought...
Post by: maggiethecat on May 16, 2007, 04:33:38 PM
Even if Superman killed everyone in the Fortress upon destroying it, it doesn't matter, since he turned back time.  This means that Lex is still alive and the Zoners never make it out of their cube... here's the fun part! He only turned back time on Earth, meaning that as time continues again, they will not be re-released.  He now knows not to throw the bomb in that direction and they never escape and thus never die! 

It's all too much fun


Title: Re: Donner Cut more popular than I thought...
Post by: Great Rao on May 16, 2007, 06:48:16 PM
He only turned back time on Earth, meaning that as time continues again, they will not be re-released.  He now knows not to throw the bomb in that direction and they never escape...

Until Superman Returns - The Sequel.


Title: Re: Donner Cut more popular than I thought...
Post by: DBN on May 16, 2007, 10:18:34 PM
He only turned back time on Earth, meaning that as time continues again, they will not be re-released.  He now knows not to throw the bomb in that direction and they never escape...

Until Superman Returns - The Sequel.

*groans* Well, it's not like Singer could do anything original.


Title: Re: Donner Cut more popular than I thought...
Post by: Uncle Mxy on November 08, 2007, 06:33:17 PM
Richard Lester weighs in on the Donner cut:

http://www.avclub.com/content/interview/richard_lester
Quote
AVC: A great deal was made of the Richard Donner cut of Superman II. Do you have an opinion on the re-cutting of the film?

RL: I didn't know it was re-cut. I read about it once. I've never seen it. I don't know anything about it.

This stands in such stark contrast to the emotion Donner feels about it, where he won't even say Lester's name.



Title: Re: Donner Cut more popular than I thought...
Post by: jayce77 on March 07, 2011, 03:55:55 PM
Honestly this thing would have been an actual enjoyable and quite emotional version of Superman II. Right up there with the Classic 1982 A.B.C. braodcast version, if it had been given too an actual talented and passionate editor and Dick Dooner had stayed as far away from this thing as the Sun is from the Moon. Like he original said he would in multiple interviews.

What we got is hardly watchable. And makes people thankful that he did'nt finish it. Which is the exact opposite of how we should feel. What a shame.


Title: Re: Donner Cut more popular than I thought...
Post by: BBally81 on March 07, 2011, 06:45:35 PM
I think the only way to explain all these problems is to clearly define Superman's "turn-back-time" super power.  This power obviously doesn't really turn back time 100% - it only "sort of" turns back time, leaving some of the original events in place, but turning back time on others.  Plus, most people still have a subconcious memory of those original events, since many of them kind-of-sort-of took place, which explains why Lois is so confused about who Jason's father is.

Yeah..... I personally don't consider SR as official canon to the Christopher Reeves films (first 2 anyway), I know my opinion doesn't matter to Waner Bros. but I would rather watch Superman 3 and 4 than rewatch Returns.


Title: Re: Donner Cut more popular than I thought...
Post by: jayce77 on March 08, 2011, 12:02:11 AM
Yeah..... I personally don't consider SR as official canon to the Christopher Reeves films (first 2 anyway), I know my opinion doesn't matter to Waner Bros. but I would rather watch Superman 3 and 4 than rewatch Returns.





Honestly I think Superman III, gets a bad rap by a lotta people. Sure it's nowhere near perfect. But it's definitley a fun and entertaining stand alone Superman adventure. Plenty of good and even some great.


Title: Re: Donner Cut more popular than I thought...
Post by: King Krypton on September 15, 2011, 10:04:32 PM
I have to be totally honest...I hate the Donner cut. Absolutely loathe it. Up until it came out, the rank of "Worst Superman Movie" went squarely to Superman III. To be even more distasteful than that is quite an accomplishment. Why is this the worst of the franchise, at least in my eyes? The heroes, the guys we're supposed to care about and root for, are selfish, inconsiderate, hypocritical people who refuse to look beyond themselves or to even use anything resembling common sense. Seriously, when Lex Luthor and General Zod are more likeable than Superman, Jor-El, and Lois, you've completely gone off the rails.

Let's start with Jor-El. Who does he think he is, telling Clark he can't live his own life, can't be happy, can't be in love, and can only find happiness in his "mission"? He's a dead guy living on as a holographic AI. He's in no position whatsoever to dictate how Clark can or can't live. Secondly, his talk about Clark needing to dedicate himself to "a higher happiness" of eternal servitude? Uh...Jor-El? You were married. You had a son. You did all this and were a prominent government figure. How is it "selfish" for Clark to live a similar life, when you balanced work and family? Where was your "higher happiness"? Why didn't you sacrifice any chance of a personal life to serve a supposed greater good?

It's doubly frustrating when you compare this self-righteous, arrogant Jor-El to the guy we saw in the first film who warned his own people against acting like this. The man who was begging the Council of Elders to see reason is now behaving exactly like them. The nobility and wisdom we saw in the original film stands revealed as a sham. The Jor-El we see in Donner's Superman II doesn't love or value his son as a person; he only sees him as a tool to play out his personal agendas. I hated him, utterly and completely, and I shouldn't feel that way about Jor-El. I shouldn't think he deserved to die on Krypton. I shouldn't cringe every time he's on screen. But here I do, and that's wrong. Donner and Mankiewicz want me to believe Jor-El's hypocrisy as admirable and just, and that's not going to happen. I refuse to believe Jor-El would want to deprive his son of love, family, friends, and happiness. I refuse to believe he's that cold and heartless. There's no way to spin this behavior into anything other than Jor-El talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Then there's Clark...what happened to the guy who defied Jor-El's "don't interfere" edict because it clashed with his own sense of right and wrong? What happened to the guy who, at the end of the first film, showed he had the goods to forge his own path? Why are we being given a dunce who (a) responds to a truly cruel and manipulative ploy to expose him by cuddling up to the guilty party, (b) thinks foiling one terrorist plot counts as doing enough to justify retirement, (c) gives no thought to the idea that he could juggle duty and family like cops and firefighters do, and (d) has no agency at all save for what Jor-El dictates? Where is Superman? Because this guy running around in his clothes ain't Superman. He's selfish. He's short-sighted. He's easily manipulated, both by Jor-El and Lois. He's stupid. He's irresponsible. There's nothing noble about this guy at all. I cannot imagine the Fleischer Superman, Kirk Alyn, George Reeves, the DCAU Superman, or any of the DC animated movie Supermen acting like this. This guy's pathetic. I don't see this Clark and Jor-El acting out a father/son dynamic. I see two egotistical idiots butting heads to see who can be more obnoxious and irritating. Considering this is supposed to be the hero, this is a great way to make me hate him. And as with Jor-El, if I come away hating Superman, you've failed.

As for Lois...what is wrong with her? Why is she so bent on exposing him in public in the opening scene? At the Daily Planet of all places, where they'd waste no time running the story of Superman's true identity? How can she be this thoughtless? In the Kirk Alyn serials, when Lois and Jimmy both speculate Clark is Superman, they agree that they have no right to violate his privacy. This Lois is all too willing to do that, all for the sake of sating her own curiosity. How is it that almost 30 years later, we go from a Lois who doesn't want to compromise Superman's private life to a Lois who doesn't care at all about it? And the blank bullet scene...how much more disgusting can you get? That was just pure manipulation. It wasn't romantic, it wasn't charming...it was the kind of horrendous behavior the 1995-2011 comic book Lois was prone to, being passed off as the actions of a strong role model when actually being anything but. I mean, I'm used to writers making me hate Lois, but this is way beyond the pale. There's nothing about this woman that would make anybody fall in love with her. And yet Superman's stupid enough to swoon over her for doing this to him, instead of feeling angry and betrayed like a normal person would?

That's why the Donner version of Superman II is so appalling to me. The Jor-El, Superman, and Lois stuff is the very core of the movie, and all three characters are deeply vile. I don't care about Jor-El and Clark's feuding, because they're both terrible people. I don't care about Clark and Lois' romance, because Lois is a terrible person and Clark's a complete loon when it comes to her. I don't care about Clark giving up his powers and having to lose contact with Jor-El to regain them, because Jor-El's a raging hypocrite and this Clark Kent doesn't deserve to be Superman. All the stuff with Zod and Luthor can't make up for the awfulness, because the movie's not about those guys. It's about these three reprehensible people who deserve each other, quite frankly. Honestly, I would rather have spent the movie with Zod and the gang. At least those guys were honest about themselves and what they did. At least they were fun to watch. And when that happens in a Superman movie, there's no hope.

I'm going to say it...Donner getting canned and replaced with Lester was for the best. If he'd stayed on, this movie would have killed the franchise before Superman III had a chance to. At least with Lester, Lois was sympathetic and admitted that her antics were ridiculous. Superman was allowed to keep his dignity and even though giving up his powers proved to be a wrong-place-wrong-time situation, it was played as genuinely sincere and romantic. Lester changed the love story for the better. I cared about his Lois and Clark. I liked them. I felt bad for them when it didn't work out. Yes, some camp snuck its way into the movie, but it's a small price to pay for having a love story that actually mattered. Superman II is a better movie for his changes, and the characters feel authentic to what I've known and loved over the years. Donner's version was a total betrayal of that, and would have been more so had he finished it. I also have to say that Superman II was the first time I'd ever encountered Superman. If I'd seen Donner's version instead of the one that was made, I would never have become a Superman fan. I would have found the character insufferable. Lester's version got the ball rolling on my Superman fandom, and even now it's perhaps the only good Superman movie around. (The first is a soft-focus slog that was lucky to have likeable characters, the third is a train wreck, the fourth was compromised beyond all hope, and Superman Returns -- so faithful to the mythology that it even takes inspiration from Elseworlds stories! -- lacked any kind of narrative or thematic cohesion to make its various plot points work as a whole.) Donner's II would have been to the series what Batman Returns was for the Batman series; a derailment of the momentum and the goodwill engendered by the first film. Seeing it even in this form, it's a painful experience.


Title: Re: Donner Cut more popular than I thought...
Post by: India Ink on September 16, 2011, 01:00:25 AM
I think there are two good reasons for people "liking" the Donner Cut.

First, they like it because it's a chance to see what Donner might have done. Without that Cut in existence people would just have to guess--and no one would be able to even post their review of it, and form an opinion on it one way or the other. So you have to "like" that this is now made possible. It's always a good thing to have films restored that were lost (such as the wonderful l'Atalante)--although in the case of the Donner Cut this is not really a full restoration of the Cut--because that never existed. Donner was removed from the movie before many of the scenes could be properly shot. And furthermore, we don't know what other decisions he might have made in post. So the Cut is just a guess--and we have to work with it in our imaginations to conjure up what the actual theatrical release would have looked like. But however much we guess and no matter how we get from the Cut, we will never really know what that movie would have been like.

The second reason, going along with the first, has to do with the auteur theory. The auteur theory--formulated by the Cahier du Cinema critics and filmmakers--was that the director is the true author of the film. Therefore it is always desirable that the director be in full control of the film, from beginning to end, and that his vision should not be interfered with. Whatever results--for good or for ill--is the work of art that the director intended and we can see how well he realized his vision. But when this is compromised, we are cheated. I love many movies by Richard Lester--but I want them to be fully Richard Lester works--I don't want them to be works that were cobbled together with some of what Donner did matched with some of what Lester did. It's not like the Coen brothers where both work together to produce a complete whole. There was no collaboration between Donner and Lester. Lester simply took over a project that rightly belonged to Donner--he did so as the result of a wrong he had been done on the Three Musketeers, but that doesn't justify him usurping Donner on the Superman project. The audience is not well served by the Superman II theatrical release because it is not a true vision of either director.

The Donner/Lester movie is better than the Donner Cut, because it was completed, so it had the advantage of being polished for theatrical release. As a commercial product it's better. But not as an artistic accomplishment--because it's really the triumph of commerce over art.

What I loved about the Donner Cut was that it allowed me to see better the whole vision of Donner that begins in Superman the Movie and continues to completion in the second--or would have, if he had had control over the finished product. I can now see how themes are developed--and certain elements that didn't make sense now make sense because I can put them into this context.

For sure there were ideas about the Superman mythology introduced in both movies that I didn't like--and many of those elements have been recycled in TV shows, comics, and movies since then, unfortunately. But I already realized after the first time I viewed STM (and I sat in the theatre to watch it a second time), back in 1978, that I had to let go of my own idea of how Superman should be and just let this movie and this director tell the story according to a different sensibilty--and appreciate it on those terms. Not for what I wanted it to be, but for what it was. And when viewed that way, STM is a cinematic work of art that reflects the vision of its director. I can't say the same for Superman II.



Title: Re: Donner Cut more popular than I thought...
Post by: BBally81 on September 16, 2011, 06:53:07 AM
I think the only way to explain all these problems is to clearly define Superman's "turn-back-time" super power.  This power obviously doesn't really turn back time 100% - it only "sort of" turns back time, leaving some of the original events in place, but turning back time on others.  Plus, most people still have a subconcious memory of those original events, since many of them kind-of-sort-of took place, which explains why Lois is so confused about who Jason's father is.

Me and a friend of mine are planning to write a story where Superman does have that ability but doesn't use that much because the amount of power he uses to perform such an act can actually kill him but to be honest I didn't like the "turn back time" scene mostly because it only gives cynics more ammo to say why they hate Superman (like for example: he doesn't go through real loss because he could just spin the world around and turn back time)