I totally agree with the scene from the Lester version of Superman bringing the flag back to the White House and saying that he'll never fail them again. That's probably the best addition.
Watching Superman 2 as a child and even up till Richard Donner's Cut, I never understood how Superman regained his powers.. But once you watch Donner's cut, it is very clear..
The Donner Cut is awesome for the Brando scenes. Still removing so much of the theatrical cut makes the final version seem incomplete. The real culprits here with the producers.
Lester couldn't use the Brando footage at all for Superman II due to the law suit against the Salkind's by Brando. The Salkinds told Lester that he was not allowed to use any Brando footage. Also, the Salkinds and Donnor had such animosity between each other that the Salkinds just wanted to fire him. Bad choice on the Salkind's part.
6:19 I just got finished watching that scene for the first time, and I think I have an explanation for it. Jor-El enclosed a portion of his life force in the green crystal, hence how he was able to talk sentiently with Kal-El all this time, also why he said Kal-El would never be alone, at the beginning of the first film. In this scene, the rest of Jor-El's lifeforce was absorbed into Kal-El's body, making him Kryptonian again, hence why he said he would die afterwards. Thoughts?
Great review. Agree 100% that the father-son arc from Superman I plays much better into Superman II. You didn't mention it, but another detail of the Donner Cut that works well in this regard is Superman destroying the Fortress of Solitude. He defies his father, seeks forgiveness, and as a "price" loses his final connection to his father and Krypton. There's nothing left for him at the Fortress; he's accepted his role as earth's defender. BTW, I have a fan-edit of the Donner Cut that makes two small but key changes: 1. re-edits the Niagara Falls screen test footage to be a bit less incongruous, and 2. Restores the "memory kiss" scene, followed by Superman returning the flag to the White House. The only thing I "miss" in this edit is the final Daily Planet scene from the Donner Cut -- that's a great little scene -- but I can't have my cake and eat it too.
I do wish they kept Lois’s dialogue and rest of the scene from the Lester cut when Clark gets her hot dog and she realizes that Superman “just happens to be at Niagara Falls...and Clark is not around as usual.”
I thought the implication of the dinner scene (as well as Lois making slight deja vu about the North Pole) was that, somehow, some memories of that other timeline are carried over into the new one. I don't really know how that works, but that's what I got out of it. If you're familiar with Donnie Darko, think of how several characters seemed to have memories of the other timeline at the end. It was somehow like a dream to them. I can't explain it any better but there you have it.
I’m glad you acknowledged that the original intention was not for Superman to go back in time in both movies. The layman doesn’t know that, as far as they’re aware the Richard Donner Cut of 2 is the follow up to the Theatrical Cut of 1. I know we have 3 cuts of Superman 1 already but would it really be hard to edit the time travel scene out of that movie -meaning Superman saves Lois in the nick of time, and to add in the already existing Zod being released from the Phantom Zone footage from The Donner Cut? But of course, if you did that then it would be better to add some of that time travel scene back into the second movie - such as Superman confronting the ghost of his father in the clouds before altering the course of human history, which fits much more in the story of Superman 2 which was more about Superman disobeying his father but then in the end, it turned out his father was right and now he has to make the decision of whether to disobey his father one last time in order to fix his mistakes or to live with what happened - and obviously he decides it’s worth it to disobey his father one last time in order to heal the damage his mistake caused to Lois and mankind. I also miss that patriotic flag ending as well, but I’ll take a better movie over one excellent shot any day.
I totally agree with your assessment of the Donner Cut. Had it been completed the way Donner envisioned, the two movies would have felt like a big epic. I noticed (primarily with Zod and the M-16) that it seemed Donner was going for a much darker humor than the over-the-top "kneel before Zod!" humor Lester gave the sequel. Zod was still over the top, but Donner never let the audience forget that Zod was one bad dude.
Good review. However, when I watched the Donnor cut, I actually found that I liked some of Lester's ideas better. For one, in the Lester cut, I took the special powers displayed in the Fortress during the fight as abilities only available in this special environment. Once there, perhaps being more like Krypton, all the Kryptonians realized they had these abilities once again available to them to use. Secondly, the regaining of Clark's powers was complete inexplicable nonsense in the Donnor cut. Jor El appearing and merging with his son was purely contrived and bordered on Godlike powers using magic to save the day. In the Lester cut, it made perfect sense. Lara told Kal El that the effects of the molecule chamber were irreversible. We see why she said this when the crystal control panel auto-destructs after the transformation is complete, rendering the Fortress effectively dead and inoperable, therefore cutting off the ability to use any Kryptonian technology ever again. The green crystal used to grow the Fortress in the first film was supposed to be destroyed along with the control panel, but Lois had neglected to return it to the control panel after Superman gave it to her to hold while explaining how it called to him to go and use it to create the Fortress. This wonderful oversight by Lois ends up being the key for Clark to use its powers to restore his own. The implication is simply that he used it to either repair the old Fortress, or grow a new one someplace else. Finally, the choice to cut Brando was made by the Salkinds, not Lester. Brando had just sued them for $50 million over the first film and they were furious over this and demanded he be stripped from this movie, both in punishment and in a way to protect themselves from future litigation from Brando. All of this combined to make me think that the Donnor ideas were not as impressive as I had thought they would be considering the masterpiece he created in the first film. I was left feeling that both versions had both good and bad ideas, but the edge has to go to the Lester cut for having only one truly bad idea, that of the magic kiss. Had Clark used the green crystal to wipe her memory, it would have made more sense as he would have been using some form of advanced technology to accomplish this.
Donner was just shy of filming a few more scenes to complete the movie, which never happened when he was fired and replaced by Lester. The reasons for the Lester changes is because as a director, he can't take credit unless he shot more than 50% of the movie and can't re-shoot old scenes (because that's technically Donner's footage). So for Lester to get directing credit, they had to re-write and film new scenes and use little to no Donner footage to complete the movie.
There were definitely some small things both movies had better than the other. But for most big things I would give most to Donner. I'd say to make it best possible use most of Donner's footage but use Lester's ending
I think the idea behind Jor-El restoring the powers is that he is transferring all the energy of the fortress into Clark. Remember, he tells Clark that it will be the last time they speak. So after that he destroys the fortress because it's kind of useless
I still think that Lester is treated as a scapegoat due to Donner's sacking. The blame should be with the producers who treated Donner like dirt. Donner made the first Superman a box office smash. I thought Lester should get credit of getting Superman II completed and also made money. Okay he did slapstick stuff but even Superman: The Movie has got comedic tones from Clark to Ned Beatty's character.
I have an explanation for turning back time. First, when Superman drains away Zod, Ursa, and Non's powers, he probably got a power boost from them. Second, when Supes flies around the world at super speed, he's not reversing rotation of the earth, but going so fast (maybe light speed) that he reverses time itself. The earth going backwards is just a byproduct of this. Third, Supes does this because when he drops Lois off at her house, he can sense her pain, realizes that he has the power and tr
Does anyone know why Donner and WB didn't re-cut Superman: The Movie as well, so that the Donner cut and the original movie better mesh together. If they wanted to go through all the trouble of having Richard Donner make the movie he ultimately wanted then why not have the big two parter that was intended. Just wondering if anyone knows or can link me to an explanation about this. Thanks.
This is the most logical opininated review of this movie. There are people that are so stuck on the first version, because it's all they know, but I think this movie is far superior in almost every way. Had Donner been able to continue, we would have had a great Superman 3,4,5, etc. Donner cared greatly for this material and it comes across that way on the first film. The original 2 got really cheesy in parts and the villians weren't threatening at all. So glad this is out as a Superman fan
Richard Donner was right, you can't camp this flicks out.. What works on a tv show or in a comic book.. Doesn't mean it will work on the big screen.. Look at Superman 3, 4 and Batman & Robin..
He didn't "spin the world backwards". That would kill every living thing on Earth. What he actually did is fly so fast he broke the time barrier (something he has done in the comics) and went back into the past fixing everything at super-speed.
@CubbieBear1980 Watch the Donner cut. I wasn't referring to time being turned back in the first film. It happens again in Donner's cut, as I explained in the review. -CL
I have just ordered the first Superman movie on blu ray, as they are class and I’ve never owned them, I was looking at Superman 2. Then heard about the Donner cut, you helped me out and I have the donner cut on the way. Great video thanks.
about the diner scene at the end,there is a possibilitty rocky the truck driver regularly causes trouble at the diner,also I think when jor-el appeared he enfused the crystals powers in clark restoring his powers,preventing further use or communication,however it doesnt connect with the other films,but this version explains the kid in superman returns.
(continued from below) ...and tries it out. The reason he stays close to earth is so he can see whether the 3 Kryptonians make it back into the Phantom Zone.
Donner didn't use the turn back the world ending for one because of the studio. He did it because they didn't like the ending they had for one, and the project was so over budget that they had to finish the first one, so they figured the ending for 2 would work well for the first movie, so they decided to use it there and come up with a new ending when that got to that point in making the second movie. But they never did.
I don't believe that Lester was brought on in order to make the film more lighthearted and jokey. The early drafts did have a campier tone, but the real reason the Salkinds fired Donner was because they didn't get along. Lester, as a director, is someone who had a strong reputation for being a talented filmmaker, but he had a cynical edge to him that Donner lacked. To his credit, he directed some very touching scenes between Kidder and Reeve.
@LinkinTrapt1 It was Richard Lester who replaced Donner. If you watch the DVD, Lester was a go between Donner and The Salkinds as the first two movies were being filmed because tensions between them had risen due to the fact that the movies weren't finished, the studio was breathing down The Salkinds necks, and they were way over budget. So Donner was forced to stop filming the second one and finish the first one.
@astrostar49 As originally intended, Lois doesn't die in I. Superman gets to her in time and saves her, hence Superman doesn't spin the earth back. The time travel bit was always originally intended for the end of II. I wonder how Donner and Mankiewicz would've ended II had they come back to finish II. Would they have still used the amnesia kiss or something else.
Wait, how would Lois have survived the first movie if Superman didn't turn back time? I know that Donner would have had that scene in the second movie alone, but if that is the case then how would Superman have saved Lois the first time had he not done some kind of time traveling?
Thank god this version never made it to theaters. I would have been traumatized as a child watching this crap. Why would lois in her right mind jump out of a freaking window just because of a hunch. This blows my mind. That has to be one of the stupidest and far fetched scenes i have witnessed in my entire life. At least with Lesters Niagra Falls scene it was more realistic. Also, why would Lois, want to even point a gun and pretend to shoot Clark. Both Scenes make her look like a psycho
Snowwie88 The closer you are to lightspeed, the time outside the travel looks more and more to be going slower. At lightspeed, time outside the travel stop, and beyond you would go back.
I prefer the original cut, it flowed perfectly into the sequel but i can see why some people would swear by the Donner version . The inclusion of his mother in the crystal holograms made sense to me because i would imagine she would want to have the ability to communicate with her son from beyond the grave of space . Think they got it right with the final theatrical cut
Just finished watching it on the blu-ray, I agree with what you had to say about the whole rework the ending of the first film, but I find that the restaurant still makes sense with the time travel to a degree. The guy Clark beats up is just a jerk so it makes sense that he'd still want to fight him when Clark walked in, there's only one line that doesn't make perfect sense, "I just had this place fixed up" but that doesn't ruin it for me I guess
I like that Superman turns the world back again 'cause it lives up to Lois telling Jimmy towards the end of the first one that Superman cares about 'every'one.
I like the ending of the Lester version better, but other than the ending, overall, I prefer the Donner cut. Luckily I have both on DVD so I can enjoy the best of both. Great review by the way.
The main thing I don't like about the Donner cut is how much it seems like it's just Donner's ego on display, even though the real arrogance that comes through is on the part of editor Michael Thau, whose idea it was to piece this thing together. There seems to be an attitude that every single thing Lester did was bad. Not just a few scenes, but every single thing. So even alternate takes of Donner footage is used, simply because Lester chose the version to use originally.
I really like how the White House battle is much more menacing. You get more of Ursa's flirtatious nature, as she winks at a secret service agent before kicking him in the face. A number of Donner's changes were good, but sometimes the equivalent scene in the Lester version was better. So I think the ideal Superman II falls somewhere in the middle. My version would include the missile at the beginning, the Brando footage, and the Lester ending with the kiss, which doesn't sacrifice the timeline
@Geekvolution, Most of Hackmen's scenes were cut out of the Lester version because he protested the removal of Donner, he refused to shoot any additional scene's or reshoots, that's why there's so many stand in's used for Gene later in the movie.
@karioka2 yeah, it's weak rationalization at best and comes down more to mental gymnastics more than anything else but hey it does work still...I watched some of the extras on the bluray, they talked about the ending and it basically boiled down to Donner not wanting to use any of the other footage so they kept the turn the earth back ending...
@Sydpart2 it could make sense if you take into account that everyone gets nervous when there is gona be a fight, speciay if it is ur pace and u might say things like that out of nervousness and to make em rationalize... there could be plenty of more expoanations,.,
Because it would have been tough to reshoot the scene with the car since Superman hadn't turned the world backwards and he just rescues her from the car.
You know, why don't they just put the Lester "Magic Kiss" scene to replace the "Spin the World Around" Scene. Sure, the Magic Kiss made no sense, but people back then accepted it, and it would certainly solve all of the plot holes that happened. Someone should make a hybrid cut of the movie that tells the original story intended by Donner, but without creating the plot holes induced by the executive meddling, and that'll probably be the quintessential Superman movie.
The fact that they re-used the turn back the world ending here exposes the real deception of the Donner cut. Had he not been replaced he wouldn't have used that ending back then, so it's just a huge cheat. In order to say this is how the film was originally intended, they should have redone the first film to match. Since the ending was used in the first film, the memory kiss/American flag ending is better. The fact he turns back time so much essentially nullifies the whole movie.
there are a couple of alternate lines I wish they hadn't changed. prime example, when Superman comes to the Planet to confront Zod, I hate that they replaced the line "General, would you care to step outside?" as it harkens back to Clark's fight in the diner. that lines shows Superman's human side because now he's not just taking out Zod because he's a threat to the world, but he's also punishing the biggest bullly in the universe for the actions of all bullies everywhere.
The scene at niagra falls reminds me of a great mad magazine version I saw where lois shoots clark a bunch of times screaming, "YOUR SUPPERMAN< YOUR SUPPERMAN!!!." to wich he's just lying there bleeding to death on the ground :>
I like the Eiffel Tower sequence as a standalone, but it makes a lot more sense for the nuke from the first movie to free the baddies. If you watch I and the theatrical II back to back, you see Superman throw a nuclear bomb into space twice within a half hour. Ironic in a way since one of the reasons the Salkinds went with the trip into fire reveal was that a gun had already been used in a major sequence in the first film.
There was a heavily implied collective deja vu after the time reversal (notice how Lois reacts to hearing about the North Pole) so it's not unreasonable to suppose that, for whatever reason, everyone at the diner remembers the fight fully.
@Geekvolution Well I do believe that's the whole reasoning, we've already seen that the Crystal are more than just a way to lok back at his origins, but they had some great power. I think when we see Christopher Reeve shaking violently after Jor-El touches him was supposed to have an added effect showing his life force being absorbed into Clark
I wonder how it would've been if Superman did ended on a cliffhanger and if Richard Donner finished Superman II it would've been more awesome, and I would have this as just one whole movie. Goddang Salkinds and Warner Bros. for taking Richard Donner off the project.
Zack Snyder saw what Donner did to Superman, and what Nolan did to Batman. The two main samples he can follow. I wish the bests for him, and furthermore: I wish Donner would go to see the movie in cinema and say: "Hm, this IS the modern Superman, great work."
I heard that the reason why they did the "spining the world" ending, instead of the scene with Superman carrying the U.S. Flag at the White House. That scene is patriotic, but it was followed after the "magic kiss scene" with Clark kissing Lois in Lester's cut. But here is the reason why. The creative consultant of the Donner cut, Tom Mankiewicz said that only Superman should kiss Lois, not Clark.
@Geekvolution At least there's one big difference between the two movieendings: Kal-El didn't know, that his abilitys were on THAT high level, that he can actually reach and surpass the speed of light. He did it by blind anger the 1. time. Einstein thought time slowes down, when an object movies with lightspeed in a certain direction. Donner must've thought: if a big object such as Earth has a certain direction, making it move in opposite direction would turn time back. Interesting idea.
i like the magic kiss better than the world spinning because if he can just travel back in time, he doesn't have to learn any lessons from his mistakes. he can just go back and change it
True. It was emotional, and made sense in the 1st movie. But in the Donner cut not only does it not make any lick of sense but if he could just do that whenever he wanted to why dint he just do it as soon as he got his powers back. I prefer the Lester kiss. Not only was it well performed but it also leads to one of the most memorable scenes.
Excellent review, Cap. We were both definitely on the same page concerning this one. In any event, "TRUTH, JUSTICE, AND THE AMERICAN WAY"! ('nuff said)
and the story goes...that KAL-EL was a "miracle birth" on Krypton...because an "accident" made LARA almost STERILE...but it was because LARA was "VERY VERY YOUNG" when URSA was born. (Hey! It gives a dark undertone to the whole STILTED demeanor on KRYPTON) And you could have the reaction scene play out, after the BIG REVEAL from LARA to BOTH Kal and Ursa, together...play like this: (continued...)
It's not really clear though because you said above, "I think I have an explanation". Which means it's not clear but you're putting forward an idea for what it might be. A guess. Something that's clear wouldn't require a guess.
I'm also glad, Lester didn't include Marlon Brando's scenes in the movie. The prick wanted 11% of the gross of the movie. Who does he think he is? For some crappy halographic scenes that he's in? Also, the acting in the scenes that were from Donners cut is so cheesy and terrible. When i first heard about Donner's cut i was exctied about watching it. Now that i have seen it, i'm glad it never made it as the original. And for anybody to give Donners cut a good review is an idiot.
Superman turned back time in this movie ONLY to spare Lois the pain of having to know his secret. while in the first movie he defied his father's rules of non-interference for selfish reasons (to spare himself the pain of losing Lois), he does it in this movie for purely selfless reasons (to spare Lois the pain of knowing his secret and not being able to be with him)
Great review...! Now I'm definitely going to have to get the Donner cut. Someone posted a comment around here, the cool idea that Superman isn't literally turning the Earth backwards, but it's a metaphor for him turning time backwards. Also, it's interesting how some of the Donner footage was re-inserted for an extended length television version -- which created some cognitive dissonance for me, lol. This adding material in was also done for the TV airing of Star Trek: TMP. I'm going to share this on my Facebook page. ^_^
YouGotJEWD I wish I had his bank account...but what I said is completely different as what Lucas did with the Original Trilogy. What I meant was, that Donner should have been given the money to finish the movies as he originally intended before he was fired; he was not allowed to finished them, unlike Lucas.
Completely agree. It really does bother me though, that Superman spins the world backwards, making it as if the film never even happened. I really hate that. However, This version is still superior to Lester's film in almost every way. Great review Cap.
I liked this version alot but felt there were more errors with the final moments of the film than letsers version . I felt the world spinning backwards thing was an off moment for me it didnt feel like it should of been there . The parts i loved were brando looking at lois with major disapointment after superman rooted her (hehehe)i thought that was hilarious and serious at the same time
The Donner cut was good in alot of ways but you people latch on to something too hard and lose objectivity. There are several flaws in the Donner cut. I hate the part where Superman says have you ever heard of freedom of the press ? That was gay . The scene where Jorel gives Clark his powers back is ok but from the scene I get the feeling that Clark/Superman is a 11 year old boy who played in the freeway and got bitched out by his Dad
Spinning the planet backwards to reverse time was a fairly dumb idea in either case. Time moves forward no matter which way the planet happens to be spinning. I suppose you could look at it as though he was just travelling faster than light to go back in time HIMSELF to prevent the catastrophe(s) off screen. But even then... it was a cheap and confusing gimmick. Not to mention inconsistent. One minute he can barely catch a missile, the next he's circling the planet in a fraction of a second?
The expression is "cobbled together," not "hobbled together." Like a shoe cobbler, scenes were "cobbled together." I mention this because this is the second review where you've used "hobbled," which doesn't even make sense. Did the editor cripple scenes together? No, he did not. He pieced them together, or cobbled them.
I love the Donner Cut... BUT I would have gone with the Super Kiss and the ending scene at the white house. I know that wasn't part of Donner's vision at all... but it makes for a better story. Louis dying is a FAR better reason to spin back time than just to protect his identity.
@qwuezalothus I hear you man but you forgot to mention Bryan Singer..... He has a 'perfect' vision for superman despite the heavy critics.. But i cant wait to see what snyder has to offer =)
THAT's the reason why in the ONE scene...the floating head of Jor-El, looked up at Lois...while Lois was watching Clark get depowered. He and Lara are keeping a secret from Clark. You see, EVERYONE is keeping secrets from each other...except perhaps, the Villians. What would happen if, it was revealed that URSA and LARA were SISTERS....or even more of a shock....LARA and URSA were raised as Sisters...but (big shock!!!) URSA was LARA's Daughter from someone ELSE...maybe the GENERAL(!!!)
Also my favorite part In all the movies is when superman tells the president I'll never let you down again which again is why I prefer the theatrical cut. I wish donner had humbled himself and did the lester ending and this movie would have been my #1
I do prefer most of Donner's work for this movie, however I do feel that the part where lois shoots clark (ok blank) makes no sense. As surely Superman would realise that the gun had no bullets. If it was that easy to work out who he is everybody would know he's Clark/Superman. Hence why Clark tripping (on purpose) putting his hand in the fire work (lester's cut) cause he wanted to confess to lois who he was (just like in Superman 1).
In answer to your question in the video, regarding why Lester felt the need to change things that really anybody with half a brain would agree with you, that Donner's is far better. The logistical problem was that for Lester to be entitled, under director guild requirements, to the "Director" credit, he must have directed more than 51% of the film, hence we get a collection of sub standard filler scenes and sequences. It really is such an awful shame that Salklind felt the need to fire Donner.
@dstebbin I just watched that again recently myself, and I think you're right. Even so, it's not clear enough for an audience on first viewing, especially when people like us, who know something about Superman already, have to explain it to each other! Well explained, thank you. -CL
"General! Would you care to step outside?" Much better than the "Don't you believe in freedom of the press?" line from Donner. Otherwise, Donner's version as intended, not what we were presented with here, better than what the Salkinds had Lester complete.
LOl....no way . The donner cut city fight is pretty poor and far too cheesy. Lesters is way better. I respect donner of course and he was the one who brought it together. But hes not perfect. I always felt superman 1 was a little dull and not that memorable. It also lacks that 'feel good' factor as someone else pointed out. When watching superman 2 as a child....everyone loved it in the family, from my dad to my grandma...who doesnt even speak english. But she loved reeve and superman 2. There was just a wonderful atmosphere surrounding the film...something the first film didnt have. It was a combination of both lester and donner that made superman 2 work. Donner for his original ideas, vision and serious tone which we needed. Lester for his timing and knowing when to put light touches and emotion. Because to be frank....I did find lesters version at niagra falls way more emotional and real than donners lois shooting clark inside the apartment. Im sorry but donners version in the apartment was plain awful and ridiculous. Both directors have their strong points and weak points.
@donkeyballs1234 i know stupid Brando ruined it, but to me Kal-El's mom there just doesn't make sense. Jor-El was the scientist, he built the ship, why would his wife be on the recording? Plus it was Jor-El in the first one so its better to have continuity. Plus lester gave superman new, stupid, and unrealistic powers such as the cellophane S
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Richard Donner - Richard Lester
Zack Snyder - Joss Whedon
History repeats itself
I totally agree with the scene from the Lester version of Superman bringing the flag back to the White House and saying that he'll never fail them again. That's probably the best addition.
"General, would you care to step outside?!" was iconic, but "Haven't you heard about freedom of the press" was weak.
Watching Superman 2 as a child and even up till Richard Donner's Cut, I never understood how Superman regained his powers.. But once you watch Donner's cut, it is very clear..
The Donner Cut is awesome for the Brando scenes. Still removing so much of the theatrical cut makes the final version seem incomplete. The real culprits here with the producers.
Lester couldn't use the Brando footage at all for Superman II due to the law suit against the Salkind's by Brando. The Salkinds told Lester that he was not allowed to use any Brando footage. Also, the Salkinds and Donnor had such animosity between each other that the Salkinds just wanted to fire him. Bad choice on the Salkind's part.
Donald Cordner the Salkinds were morons
6:19
I just got finished watching that scene for the first time, and I think I have an explanation for it.
Jor-El enclosed a portion of his life force in the green crystal, hence how he was able to talk sentiently with Kal-El all this time, also why he said Kal-El would never be alone, at the beginning of the first film.
In this scene, the rest of Jor-El's lifeforce was absorbed into Kal-El's body, making him Kryptonian again, hence why he said he would die afterwards.
Thoughts?
Great review. Agree 100% that the father-son arc from Superman I plays much better into Superman II. You didn't mention it, but another detail of the Donner Cut that works well in this regard is Superman destroying the Fortress of Solitude. He defies his father, seeks forgiveness, and as a "price" loses his final connection to his father and Krypton. There's nothing left for him at the Fortress; he's accepted his role as earth's defender.
BTW, I have a fan-edit of the Donner Cut that makes two small but key changes:
1. re-edits the Niagara Falls screen test footage to be a bit less incongruous, and
2. Restores the "memory kiss" scene, followed by Superman returning the flag to the White House.
The only thing I "miss" in this edit is the final Daily Planet scene from the Donner Cut -- that's a great little scene -- but I can't have my cake and eat it too.
I do wish they kept Lois’s dialogue and rest of the scene from the Lester cut when Clark gets her hot dog and she realizes that Superman “just happens to be at Niagara Falls...and Clark is not around as usual.”
I thought the implication of the dinner scene (as well as Lois making slight deja vu about the North Pole) was that, somehow, some memories of that other timeline are carried over into the new one. I don't really know how that works, but that's what I got out of it. If you're familiar with Donnie Darko, think of how several characters seemed to have memories of the other timeline at the end. It was somehow like a dream to them. I can't explain it any better but there you have it.
I’m glad you acknowledged that the original intention was not for Superman to go back in time in both movies. The layman doesn’t know that, as far as they’re aware the Richard Donner Cut of 2 is the follow up to the Theatrical Cut of 1.
I know we have 3 cuts of Superman 1 already but would it really be hard to edit the time travel scene out of that movie -meaning Superman saves Lois in the nick of time, and to add in the already existing Zod being released from the Phantom Zone footage from The Donner Cut? But of course, if you did that then it would be better to add some of that time travel scene back into the second movie - such as Superman confronting the ghost of his father in the clouds before altering the course of human history, which fits much more in the story of Superman 2 which was more about Superman disobeying his father but then in the end, it turned out his father was right and now he has to make the decision of whether to disobey his father one last time in order to fix his mistakes or to live with what happened - and obviously he decides it’s worth it to disobey his father one last time in order to heal the damage his mistake caused to Lois and mankind.
I also miss that patriotic flag ending as well, but I’ll take a better movie over one excellent shot any day.
I totally agree with your assessment of the Donner Cut. Had it been completed the way Donner envisioned, the two movies would have felt like a big epic. I noticed (primarily with Zod and the M-16) that it seemed Donner was going for a much darker humor than the over-the-top "kneel before Zod!" humor Lester gave the sequel. Zod was still over the top, but Donner never let the audience forget that Zod was one bad dude.
Good review. However, when I watched the Donnor cut, I actually found that I liked some of Lester's ideas better.
For one, in the Lester cut, I took the special powers displayed in the Fortress during the fight as abilities only available in this special environment. Once there, perhaps being more like Krypton, all the Kryptonians realized they had these abilities once again available to them to use.
Secondly, the regaining of Clark's powers was complete inexplicable nonsense in the Donnor cut. Jor El appearing and merging with his son was purely contrived and bordered on Godlike powers using magic to save the day. In the Lester cut, it made perfect sense. Lara told Kal El that the effects of the molecule chamber were irreversible. We see why she said this when the crystal control panel auto-destructs after the transformation is complete, rendering the Fortress effectively dead and inoperable, therefore cutting off the ability to use any Kryptonian technology ever again. The green crystal used to grow the Fortress in the first film was supposed to be destroyed along with the control panel, but Lois had neglected to return it to the control panel after Superman gave it to her to hold while explaining how it called to him to go and use it to create the Fortress. This wonderful oversight by Lois ends up being the key for Clark to use its powers to restore his own. The implication is simply that he used it to either repair the old Fortress, or grow a new one someplace else.
Finally, the choice to cut Brando was made by the Salkinds, not Lester. Brando had just sued them for $50 million over the first film and they were furious over this and demanded he be stripped from this movie, both in punishment and in a way to protect themselves from future litigation from Brando.
All of this combined to make me think that the Donnor ideas were not as impressive as I had thought they would be considering the masterpiece he created in the first film. I was left feeling that both versions had both good and bad ideas, but the edge has to go to the Lester cut for having only one truly bad idea, that of the magic kiss. Had Clark used the green crystal to wipe her memory, it would have made more sense as he would have been using some form of advanced technology to accomplish this.
Donner was just shy of filming a few more scenes to complete the movie, which never happened when he was fired and replaced by Lester. The reasons for the Lester changes is because as a director, he can't take credit unless he shot more than 50% of the movie and can't re-shoot old scenes (because that's technically Donner's footage). So for Lester to get directing credit, they had to re-write and film new scenes and use little to no Donner footage to complete the movie.
There were definitely some small things both movies had better than the other. But for most big things I would give most to Donner. I'd say to make it best possible use most of Donner's footage but use Lester's ending
I think the idea behind Jor-El restoring the powers is that he is transferring all the energy of the fortress into Clark. Remember, he tells Clark that it will be the last time they speak. So after that he destroys the fortress because it's kind of useless
I still think that Lester is treated as a scapegoat due to Donner's sacking. The blame should be with the producers who treated Donner like dirt. Donner made the first Superman a box office smash. I thought Lester should get credit of getting Superman II completed and also made money. Okay he did slapstick stuff but even Superman: The Movie has got comedic tones from Clark to Ned Beatty's character.
In reality Lester's Superman 2 is better than the donner cut.
I have an explanation for turning back time. First, when Superman drains away Zod, Ursa, and Non's powers, he probably got a power boost from them. Second, when Supes flies around the world at super speed, he's not reversing rotation of the earth, but going so fast (maybe light speed) that he reverses time itself. The earth going backwards is just a byproduct of this. Third, Supes does this because when he drops Lois off at her house, he can sense her pain, realizes that he has the power and tr
@LinkinTrapt1 Should it be The Salkinds or Richard Lester fault?
Does anyone know why Donner and WB didn't re-cut Superman: The Movie as well, so that the Donner cut and the original movie better mesh together. If they wanted to go through all the trouble of having Richard Donner make the movie he ultimately wanted then why not have the big two parter that was intended. Just wondering if anyone knows or can link me to an explanation about this. Thanks.
This is the most logical opininated review of this movie. There are people that are so stuck on the first version, because it's all they know, but I think this movie is far superior in almost every way. Had Donner been able to continue, we would have had a great Superman 3,4,5, etc. Donner cared greatly for this material and it comes across that way on the first film. The original 2 got really cheesy in parts and the villians weren't threatening at all. So glad this is out as a Superman fan
Richard Donner was right, you can't camp this flicks out.. What works on a tv show or in a comic book.. Doesn't mean it will work on the big screen.. Look at Superman 3, 4 and Batman & Robin..
He didn't "spin the world backwards". That would kill every living thing on Earth. What he actually did is fly so fast he broke the time barrier (something he has done in the comics) and went back into the past fixing everything at super-speed.
@CubbieBear1980 Watch the Donner cut. I wasn't referring to time being turned back in the first film. It happens again in Donner's cut, as I explained in the review.
-CL
I have just ordered the first Superman movie on blu ray, as they are class and I’ve never owned them, I was looking at Superman 2. Then heard about the Donner cut, you helped me out and I have the donner cut on the way. Great video thanks.
will you do the 1943 batman serial and the 1948 superman serial
about the diner scene at the end,there is a possibilitty rocky the truck driver regularly causes trouble at the diner,also I think when jor-el appeared he enfused the crystals powers in clark restoring his powers,preventing further use or communication,however it doesnt connect with the other films,but this version explains the kid in superman returns.
(continued from below) ...and tries it out. The reason he stays close to earth is so he can see whether the 3 Kryptonians make it back into the Phantom Zone.
i agree with the 3.5 the cut was great just finished watching. majority of the movie made sense and effects were pretty good.
Donner didn't use the turn back the world ending for one because of the studio. He did it because they didn't like the ending they had for one, and the project was so over budget that they had to finish the first one, so they figured the ending for 2 would work well for the first movie, so they decided to use it there and come up with a new ending when that got to that point in making the second movie. But they never did.
I don't believe that Lester was brought on in order to make the film more lighthearted and jokey. The early drafts did have a campier tone, but the real reason the Salkinds fired Donner was because they didn't get along. Lester, as a director, is someone who had a strong reputation for being a talented filmmaker, but he had a cynical edge to him that Donner lacked. To his credit, he directed some very touching scenes between Kidder and Reeve.
Lester being brought on to make the movie more lighthearted if anyone thinks that they are obviously retarded, The first film was campy.
@LinkinTrapt1 It was Richard Lester who replaced Donner. If you watch the DVD, Lester was a go between Donner and The Salkinds as the first two movies were being filmed because tensions between them had risen due to the fact that the movies weren't finished, the studio was breathing down The Salkinds necks, and they were way over budget. So Donner was forced to stop filming the second one and finish the first one.
@astrostar49 As originally intended, Lois doesn't die in I. Superman gets to her in time and saves her, hence Superman doesn't spin the earth back. The time travel bit was always originally intended for the end of II. I wonder how Donner and Mankiewicz would've ended II had they come back to finish II. Would they have still used the amnesia kiss or something else.
Wait, how would Lois have survived the first movie if Superman didn't turn back time? I know that Donner would have had that scene in the second movie alone, but if that is the case then how would Superman have saved Lois the first time had he not done some kind of time traveling?
Thank god this version never made it to theaters. I would have been traumatized as a child watching this crap. Why would lois in her right mind jump out of a freaking window just because of a hunch. This blows my mind. That has to be one of the stupidest and far fetched scenes i have witnessed in my entire life. At least with Lesters Niagra Falls scene it was more realistic. Also, why would Lois, want to even point a gun and pretend to shoot Clark. Both Scenes make her look like a psycho
HE DOESN"T SPIN THE PLANET BACKWARDS, HE GOES FASTER THAN LIGHTSPEED AND TRAVEL BACK IN TIME.
If you go faster than light you actually go FORWARD (faster) in time.
Snowwie88 Not a fan of Star Trek, right?
Snowwie88 The closer you are to lightspeed, the time outside the travel looks more and more to be going slower. At lightspeed, time outside the travel stop, and beyond you would go back.
big
On the contrary, I love Star Trek. ;-)
big
So in fact you are going forward in time. Just spending a few days at near light speed and when you come back everyone on Earth is much older.
I prefer the original cut, it flowed perfectly into the sequel but i can see why some people would swear by the Donner version .
The inclusion of his mother in the crystal holograms made sense to me because i would imagine she would want to have the ability to communicate with her son from beyond the grave of space .
Think they got it right with the final theatrical cut
Just finished watching it on the blu-ray, I agree with what you had to say about the whole rework the ending of the first film, but I find that the restaurant still makes sense with the time travel to a degree. The guy Clark beats up is just a jerk so it makes sense that he'd still want to fight him when Clark walked in, there's only one line that doesn't make perfect sense, "I just had this place fixed up" but that doesn't ruin it for me I guess
I like that Superman turns the world back again 'cause it lives up to Lois telling Jimmy towards the end of the first one that Superman cares about 'every'one.
I like the ending of the Lester version better, but other than the ending, overall, I prefer the Donner cut. Luckily I have both on DVD so I can enjoy the best of both. Great review by the way.
are you going to do the superman and batman serials from the 1940's
The main thing I don't like about the Donner cut is how much it seems like it's just Donner's ego on display, even though the real arrogance that comes through is on the part of editor Michael Thau, whose idea it was to piece this thing together. There seems to be an attitude that every single thing Lester did was bad. Not just a few scenes, but every single thing. So even alternate takes of Donner footage is used, simply because Lester chose the version to use originally.
The theatrical cut is way better, The donner cut is just for fanboys to cream their pants to.
I really like how the White House battle is much more menacing. You get more of Ursa's flirtatious nature, as she winks at a secret service agent before kicking him in the face.
A number of Donner's changes were good, but sometimes the equivalent scene in the Lester version was better. So I think the ideal Superman II falls somewhere in the middle. My version would include the missile at the beginning, the Brando footage, and the Lester ending with the kiss, which doesn't sacrifice the timeline
@Geekvolution, Most of Hackmen's scenes were cut out of the Lester version because he protested the removal of Donner, he refused to shoot any additional scene's or reshoots, that's why there's so many stand in's used for Gene later in the movie.
isnt there a scene where Clark is fighting the superman version of himself or is that just me?
That's from Superman 3.
The ending of this is the only reason why I put original cut above this one
@karioka2 yeah, it's weak rationalization at best and comes down more to mental gymnastics more than anything else but hey it does work still...I watched some of the extras on the bluray, they talked about the ending and it basically boiled down to Donner not wanting to use any of the other footage so they kept the turn the earth back ending...
@Sydpart2 it could make sense if you take into account that everyone gets nervous when there is gona be a fight, speciay if it is ur pace and u might say things like that out of nervousness and to make em rationalize... there could be plenty of more expoanations,.,
Because it would have been tough to reshoot the scene with the car since Superman hadn't turned the world backwards and he just rescues her from the car.
You know, why don't they just put the Lester "Magic Kiss" scene to replace the "Spin the World Around" Scene. Sure, the Magic Kiss made no sense, but people back then accepted it, and it would certainly solve all of the plot holes that happened. Someone should make a hybrid cut of the movie that tells the original story intended by Donner, but without creating the plot holes induced by the executive meddling, and that'll probably be the quintessential Superman movie.
The fact that they re-used the turn back the world ending here exposes the real deception of the Donner cut. Had he not been replaced he wouldn't have used that ending back then, so it's just a huge cheat. In order to say this is how the film was originally intended, they should have redone the first film to match. Since the ending was used in the first film, the memory kiss/American flag ending is better. The fact he turns back time so much essentially nullifies the whole movie.
I keep wanting to ask those giant floating Jor-El heads:
"Why does God need a starship?"
Why doesn't Clarke's Glasses melt when Clarke uses his heat ray vision through his glasses anyone ever notice that?.
there are a couple of alternate lines I wish they hadn't changed. prime example, when Superman comes to the Planet to confront Zod, I hate that they replaced the line "General, would you care to step outside?" as it harkens back to Clark's fight in the diner. that lines shows Superman's human side because now he's not just taking out Zod because he's a threat to the world, but he's also punishing the biggest bullly in the universe for the actions of all bullies everywhere.
man you could have picked a better still for 9:00, superman has a derp face in that pic
The scene at niagra falls reminds me of a great mad magazine version I saw where lois shoots clark a bunch of times screaming, "YOUR SUPPERMAN< YOUR SUPPERMAN!!!." to wich he's just lying there bleeding to death on the ground :>
There are only 3 Superman movies that were good: Superman I., the Donner Cut of Superman II., and Man of Steel. Nothing else.
I like the Eiffel Tower sequence as a standalone, but it makes a lot more sense for the nuke from the first movie to free the baddies. If you watch I and the theatrical II back to back, you see Superman throw a nuclear bomb into space twice within a half hour. Ironic in a way since one of the reasons the Salkinds went with the trip into fire reveal was that a gun had already been used in a major sequence in the first film.
Nice explanation. Now I love the movie even more.
@LinkinTrapt1 his name was Richard Lester he would go on to direct both Superman 3 and 4 and we all know how that turned out
There was a heavily implied collective deja vu after the time reversal (notice how Lois reacts to hearing about the North Pole) so it's not unreasonable to suppose that, for whatever reason, everyone at the diner remembers the fight fully.
@Geekvolution Well I do believe that's the whole reasoning, we've already seen that the Crystal are more than just a way to lok back at his origins, but they had some great power. I think when we see Christopher Reeve shaking violently after Jor-El touches him was supposed to have an added effect showing his life force being absorbed into Clark
I wonder how it would've been if Superman did ended on a cliffhanger and if Richard Donner finished Superman II it would've been more awesome, and I would have this as just one whole movie. Goddang Salkinds and Warner Bros. for taking Richard Donner off the project.
Wait, if the Fortress of Solitude was able to erase Superman's powers, then couldn't the same technology of Krytonian origin erase someone's memory?
@qwuezalothus i respectfully disagree , i think the repowering scene was more dramatic in the Lester version with only that single glowing crystal.
Zack Snyder saw what Donner did to Superman, and what Nolan did to Batman. The two main samples he can follow. I wish the bests for him, and furthermore: I wish Donner would go to see the movie in cinema and say: "Hm, this IS the modern Superman, great work."
I heard that the reason why they did the "spining the world" ending, instead of the scene with Superman carrying the U.S. Flag at the White House. That scene is patriotic, but it was followed after the "magic kiss scene" with Clark kissing Lois in Lester's cut.
But here is the reason why. The creative consultant of the Donner cut, Tom Mankiewicz said that only Superman should kiss Lois, not Clark.
@Geekvolution
At least there's one big difference between the two movieendings: Kal-El didn't know, that his abilitys were on THAT high level, that he can actually reach and surpass the speed of light. He did it by blind anger the 1. time.
Einstein thought time slowes down, when an object movies with lightspeed in a certain direction. Donner must've thought: if a big object such as Earth has a certain direction, making it move in opposite direction would turn time back. Interesting idea.
i like the magic kiss better than the world spinning because if he can just travel back in time, he doesn't have to learn any lessons from his mistakes. he can just go back and change it
True.
It was emotional, and made sense in the 1st movie. But in the Donner cut not only does it not make any lick of sense but if he could just do that whenever he wanted to why dint he just do it as soon as he got his powers back.
I prefer the Lester kiss. Not only was it well performed but it also leads to one of the most memorable scenes.
Excellent review, Cap. We were both definitely on the same page concerning this one. In any event, "TRUTH, JUSTICE, AND THE AMERICAN WAY"! ('nuff said)
and the story goes...that KAL-EL was a "miracle birth" on Krypton...because an "accident" made LARA almost STERILE...but it was because LARA was "VERY VERY YOUNG" when URSA was born. (Hey! It gives a dark undertone to the whole STILTED demeanor on KRYPTON)
And you could have the reaction scene play out, after the BIG REVEAL from LARA to BOTH Kal and Ursa, together...play like this:
(continued...)
It's not really clear though because you said above, "I think I have an explanation". Which means it's not clear but you're putting forward an idea for what it might be. A guess. Something that's clear wouldn't require a guess.
I'm also glad, Lester didn't include Marlon Brando's scenes in the movie. The prick wanted 11% of the gross of the movie. Who does he think he is? For some crappy halographic scenes that he's in? Also, the acting in the scenes that were from Donners cut is so cheesy and terrible. When i first heard about Donner's cut i was exctied about watching it. Now that i have seen it, i'm glad it never made it as the original. And for anybody to give Donners cut a good review is an idiot.
I have never understood the critisism of the theatrical cut, The donner cut in my opinion is nothing special.
Superman turned back time in this movie ONLY to spare Lois the pain of having to know his secret. while in the first movie he defied his father's rules of non-interference for selfish reasons (to spare himself the pain of losing Lois), he does it in this movie for purely selfless reasons (to spare Lois the pain of knowing his secret and not being able to be with him)
@donkeyballs1234 Probably for the same reason she jumped into a waterfall in the Lester version, on a hunch.
The scene where Lois throws herself out of the Daily Planet window is horrible and forgetable
Great review...! Now I'm definitely going to have to get the Donner cut.
Someone posted a comment around here, the cool idea that Superman isn't literally turning the Earth backwards, but it's a metaphor for him turning time backwards.
Also, it's interesting how some of the Donner footage was re-inserted for an extended length television version -- which created some cognitive dissonance for me, lol. This adding material in was also done for the TV airing of Star Trek: TMP.
I'm going to share this on my Facebook page. ^_^
I wonder why Donner wasn't allowed to re-cut both movies and maybe add scenes via CGI, so that we could have gotten closer to his vision.
mvckalel are you George Lucas by chance?
YouGotJEWD I wish I had his bank account...but what I said is completely different as what Lucas did with the Original Trilogy. What I meant was, that Donner should have been given the money to finish the movies as he originally intended before he was fired; he was not allowed to finished them, unlike Lucas.
Completely agree. It really does bother me though, that Superman spins the world backwards, making it as if the film never even happened. I really hate that. However, This version is still superior to Lester's film in almost every way. Great review Cap.
This is a message for whoever replaced Donner: You are hated for ruining what could have been te greatest 2-part epic in film history.
There is actally a fan edit that makes Superman I and II into a 4 hour epic like Donner intended.
ifdb.fanedit.org/superman-son-of-jor-el/
I liked this version alot but felt there were more errors with the final moments of the film than letsers version . I felt the world spinning backwards thing was an off moment for me it didnt feel like it should of been there . The parts i loved were brando looking at lois with major disapointment after superman rooted her (hehehe)i thought that was hilarious and serious at the same time
The Donner cut was good in alot of ways but you people latch on to something too hard and lose objectivity. There are several flaws in the Donner cut. I hate the part where Superman says have you ever heard of freedom of the press ? That was gay . The scene where Jorel gives Clark his powers back is ok but from the scene I get the feeling that Clark/Superman is a 11 year old boy who played in the freeway and got bitched out by his Dad
I like the theatrical version better the donner cut to me is massively overrated.
Spinning the planet backwards to reverse time was a fairly dumb idea in either case. Time moves forward no matter which way the planet happens to be spinning. I suppose you could look at it as though he was just travelling faster than light to go back in time HIMSELF to prevent the catastrophe(s) off screen. But even then... it was a cheap and confusing gimmick. Not to mention inconsistent. One minute he can barely catch a missile, the next he's circling the planet in a fraction of a second?
The expression is "cobbled together," not "hobbled together." Like a shoe cobbler, scenes were "cobbled together." I mention this because this is the second review where you've used "hobbled," which doesn't even make sense. Did the editor cripple scenes together? No, he did not. He pieced them together, or cobbled them.
I love the Donner Cut... BUT I would have gone with the Super Kiss and the ending scene at the white house. I know that wasn't part of Donner's vision at all... but it makes for a better story. Louis dying is a FAR better reason to spin back time than just to protect his identity.
@qwuezalothus I hear you man but you forgot to mention Bryan Singer..... He has a 'perfect' vision for superman despite the heavy critics.. But i cant wait to see what snyder has to offer =)
THAT's the reason why in the ONE scene...the floating head of Jor-El, looked up at Lois...while Lois was watching Clark get depowered. He and Lara are keeping a secret from Clark.
You see, EVERYONE is keeping secrets from each other...except perhaps, the Villians.
What would happen if, it was revealed that URSA and LARA were SISTERS....or even more of a shock....LARA and URSA were raised as Sisters...but (big shock!!!) URSA was LARA's Daughter from someone ELSE...maybe the GENERAL(!!!)
Also my favorite part In all the movies is when superman tells the president I'll never let you down again which again is why I prefer the theatrical cut. I wish donner had humbled himself and did the lester ending and this movie would have been my #1
I do prefer most of Donner's work for this movie, however I do feel that the part where lois shoots clark (ok blank) makes no sense. As surely Superman would realise that the gun had no bullets. If it was that easy to work out who he is everybody would know he's Clark/Superman. Hence why Clark tripping (on purpose) putting his hand in the fire work (lester's cut) cause he wanted to confess to lois who he was (just like in Superman 1).
In answer to your question in the video, regarding why Lester felt the need to change things that really anybody with half a brain would agree with you, that Donner's is far better. The logistical problem was that for Lester to be entitled, under director guild requirements, to the "Director" credit, he must have directed more than 51% of the film, hence we get a collection of sub standard filler scenes and sequences. It really is such an awful shame that Salklind felt the need to fire Donner.
@dstebbin I just watched that again recently myself, and I think you're right. Even so, it's not clear enough for an audience on first viewing, especially when people like us, who know something about Superman already, have to explain it to each other! Well explained, thank you.
-CL
In the donner cut the reason he turned the world back was cuz of Lois finding out Clark is superman
Great review of a good movie. It makes me wish that Donner had done both movies.
You can't blame Lester for going on board in such a desperate situation the Salkinds put themselves in.
great review.
your next should be "the crow"
"General! Would you care to step outside?" Much better than the "Don't you believe in freedom of the press?" line from Donner. Otherwise, Donner's version as intended, not what we were presented with here, better than what the Salkinds had Lester complete.
well done. gr8 review
I'll have to see it again but I remember the city fight scene being better in the Donner cut.
LOl....no way . The donner cut city fight is pretty poor and far too cheesy. Lesters is way better.
I respect donner of course and he was the one who brought it together. But hes not perfect. I always felt superman 1 was a little dull and not that memorable. It also lacks that 'feel good' factor as someone else pointed out.
When watching superman 2 as a child....everyone loved it in the family, from my dad to my grandma...who doesnt even speak english. But she loved reeve and superman 2. There was just a wonderful atmosphere surrounding the film...something the first film didnt have.
It was a combination of both lester and donner that made superman 2 work. Donner for his original ideas, vision and serious tone which we needed. Lester for his timing and knowing when to put light touches and emotion. Because to be frank....I did find lesters version at niagra falls way more emotional and real than donners lois shooting clark inside the apartment.
Im sorry but donners version in the apartment was plain awful and ridiculous.
Both directors have their strong points and weak points.
@machanalan Same! It's the first time ever shown in a UK cinema, and Mark Millar is introducing it so it should be awesome!
@donkeyballs1234 i know stupid Brando ruined it, but to me Kal-El's mom there just doesn't make sense. Jor-El was the scientist, he built the ship, why would his wife be on the recording? Plus it was Jor-El in the first one so its better to have continuity. Plus lester gave superman new, stupid, and unrealistic powers such as the cellophane S
I just watched this the other day.