I can remember, like it was yesterday, my old man taking me to see Superman 2 in the theater while my brother and his friend went to see Cannonball Run in the theater next door. I was 7 years old. I think it was the second movie I saw in the theater? The first was Empire Strikes Back a year earlier. Good times.
I always liked Superman II. Superman II was a pretty good and entertaining sequel to the first Superman film, I really love the Richard Donner Cut of Superman II from 2006, and the best scene of Superman II was the White House scene with General Zod, Ursa, and Non. Terence Stamp was an awesome villain as General Zod, the finale with Superman defeating General Zod was pretty cool, and Superman II is one of my absolute favorite movie sequels along with Aliens, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Toy Story 2, Shrek 2, Spider-Man 2 with Tobey Maguire, and The Dark Knight with Heath Ledger.
I was about 7 or 8 years old when they filmed the tropical island scene in the Caribbean island of Saint Lucia, where I'm originally from. I remember the big fuss made about it, as very few movies were filmed there, one of those being the 1979 espionage film FIREPOWER, starring Sophia Loren, James Confirm, O.J. Simpson and a cameo by an elderly Victor Mature.
The biggest difference between Donner and Lester is that Donnet really understood, and cared about Superman. His " verisimilitude " and love for the character is what set Superman the Movie apart. Plus the lighting and cinematography of Geoffrey Unsworth gave the movie an almost surreal look. However Donner could tend to be shortsighted a bit. The Paris opening far outclasses the Lois figures it out 5 minutes into the film part he shot. There always should have been a period of time that passes between movies. As little things like Luthor getting 25 to life, and the 3 villains breaking out immediately after the first movie ends makes little sense. They should have just left the original ending for 1 with him saving Lois and left the going back in time to Jor El giving his son his Identity back. I always thought the story was rushed . Lois and Superman should have gotten together in part 3. And the two movies filmed together I feel is what hurt the franchise the most. But Lester was too off key. He never got the importance and idea of Superman. His British humor and his comic relief ( especially the US military) threw the movie off. Yes at first it felt more of a comic book movie. But with the plot and the characters involved that was bound to be the case. Donner was king. And Superman 3 is a case of studio interference, and a director who was clueless about Superman.
I liked part one much better, probably because it was exciting and new. The follow-up was pretty good, and I liked the addition of 3 Supervillians to raise the bar. I haven't ever made it through III or IV though, and haven't even tried the new ones.
I hate to break it to you pal but if East Houston was located in Texas it would be in the South not the Midwest. East Houston is actually located in the U.S State of IDAHO!!!
I... can truly say, in all the decades of watching Superman II, I never interpreted Zod's "So...this is Houston" to mean they actually landed in Houston. It comes from a misunderstanding of hearing the communications between the astronauts on the moon and NASA com in Houston. They think Earth is called Houston until they're corrected on it. Though, to be fair, there's a lot of debate on where Texas actually lands in terms of the South or Midwest, in and of itself. But I definitely don't get _actual Houston_ vibes from a small farming town set like that.
Superior sequels? Aliens, Mad Max II and Lethal Weapon II. Speaking of Superman, I'm a fan of Superman Returns (2006). I think it beautifully captures the spirit of the 1978 movie.
I thought Superman Returns was QUITE boring and bland,I also felt it should've been a brand new Superman film,instead of a continuation of an old SUPES film from the late 70s.And when Superman looks into the home of Lois and her family was very-CREEPY-and intrusive,something Superman wouldn't ever do. Only our own government can put video cameras and recording devices into our homes with out our knowledge,they've been doing it for generations any way. LOL.😇😇😇😇
The Salkinds, Golan and Globus, Dino De Laurientiis, the late 1970s and the early 1980's was THE era for cheapskate producers and, strangely, all of them foreigners running the Hollywood Dream Scam to ridiculously shoddy excess. I, for one, believe a lot of the inside baseball stories that these producers were never broke, but basically stealing money for themselves from their own productions and using litigation, threats and ever-decreasing qualities in their films to try and get away from it. Dino basically is the only one who survived his era seemingly because he had no scruples about putting out trashy films and rolled with his own rise and fall, while the Salkinds and Cannon Films fought tooth and nail to stay on top of the world, demanding people looked to them as "legit" filmmakers all the while robbing their own companies and films. Hollywood Accounting is real, but man I hand it to the producers who swindle for their own benefit and STILL put out good films and come off as people who want to be seen as artists in the same process.
I don‘t think I‘ll ever understand why so many people rate this movie so highly. The first Superman movie was my absolute favorite film as a kid, but when I saw this film at the age of 13 or so, it kind of broke my heart. It was full of nonsense, contradictions, inexplicable new powers that no Kryptonian ever had before, stuff happening with no explanation that the movie had already clearly stated could not happen (anyone care to explain clearly to me how Superman really got his powers back after being told there was no going back?), Superman acting like a vindictive dick (beating up the trucker just to get back at him). I really wanted to love this movie, but it was just dumb, and it ended up completely putting me off superheroes and comics for years … Until I finally read ‘Watchmen’ and ‘The Dark Knight Returns’.
Regarding the Salkinds, the other issue is that they have a *history* of shady dealings. Like you mentioned their two Muskateers movies being filmed at the same time. The thing is, they didn't tell the actors! The actors thought they were only making one movie, and only got paid for one movie. They had to file suit against the Salkins to get paid for two movies' worth of work.
I do enjoy Superman II, but it's hard to watch either cut without being distracted by the huge seams that are holding the movie together. As faulty as the vision behind Superman III was, at least it's one vision. But even Superman II feels more like a coherent and complete product than Superman IV, so there's that.
Have to disagree!Never really believed Superman would give up his powers!Once I accepted it to make the story work it was a lot of fun but still not a masterpiece!
I remember I loved Superman II as a kid; I was 10 years old when it was released. Probably due to my age, I don't remember noticing the differences in the filmed footage. Of course, now it sticks out as a sore thumb. Especially, the scenes at the Fortress Of Solitude at the end of the movie. It's pretty jarring the physical differences in Christopher Reeve & Margot Kidder when they cut back and forth between Donner & Lester's footage. I like certain elements of Donner's & Lester's versions. There is a perfect version in my mind that doesn't exist. From Lester's material I like the Paris plot line at the beginning of the movie; Superman's return to Metropolis after getting his powers back (love the line "General would you care to step outside") & the climax in the Fortress is better, minus the plastic S which was stupid. From Donner's material I enjoy the Clark is Superman reveal plus of course all Marlon Brando's cut material especially how Clark gets his powers back. Still a bit torn on which ending I like better. The memory wiping kiss is stupid but it's a very powerful scene & fantastic acting from Reeve & Kidder. As for movies that are better than the originals, the ones that stick out in my mind are Aliens, Spider-man 2, Star Trek II, Terminator 2, The Dark Knight, The Empire Strikes Back & X2.
I find the production issues of this film endlessly fascinating. Im surprised its not talked about more in the vein of Apocalyse Now and others. When people talked about the Snyder Cut, not enough people brought up that it was essentially history repeating itself. The Donner Cut is superior, but sections of it are edited so badly that it needs a revisit along the lines of what they did with Star Trek The Motion Picture recently.
As to sequels surpassing their predecessors, I have to give kudos to "Start Trek II: The Wrath of Khan," "2010," "SW: Empire Strikes Back," and "Aliens."
The great thing about having the boxed Blu-ray set (besides the extras, which are legion, including the movie introduction to the George Reeves series and the entire run of the Fleischer cartoons) is that it includes two versions of both SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE and SUPERMAN II. It's great to have choices. That having been said, I prefer the Donner cut for not making Lois Lane look like an idiot (and I would assert that there is a difference between 'lovably goofy' and 'borderline suicidal', which is what I get from the Lester Lois Lane). That having been said, while I am not a fan of the Vulcan Mind Meld Forget The Last Two Hours kiss, the speech that Margot Kidder delivered breaks my heart. She certainly deserved kudos for excelling while objecting to Mr Donner's firing. (I feel bad for Mr Lester, who would appear to have been caught in the middle. Especially knowing, from the THREE MUSKETEERS movies, that the Salkinds were given to screw over the people working for them.) Favorite sequel? I don't know, really, because my preference between a first movie and a sequel depends on my mood on a given day.
I know I watched the sequel, but I'll be darned if I can remember Susanna York replacing Marlon Brando. I was smoking a lot of weed in those days. I do remember how incredibly fun I found the first movie. I found the second quite hoky, strangely it felt more comic book like than the first.
From best to worst: SUPERMAN 2, SUPERMAN THE MOVIE, SUPERMAN VS THE MOLE MEN, THE SERIALS, SUPERMAN RETURNS, SUPERMAN 3, SUPERMAN 4: THE QUEST FOR PEACE, MAN OF STEEL.
“And over the last few years we have heard a lot about something called ‘family values’. And like many of you, I have struggled to figure out what that means. And since my accident, I've found a definition that seems to make sense. I think it means that we're all family. And that we all have value.” Christopher Reeve, speaking at the Democratic National Convention in 1996. What a Super Man.
Yeah because it feels like Superman has an arc on till Superman 3 and Superman Returns ruined it because of how that his parents told him that he has to give up his powers and that he can’t have a family but at least Lana liked Clark for Clark but I guess that Kill Bill speech probably is valid. And this movie series and the Tim Burton’s Batman movies do have a lot in common
Saw this in the cinema (having not yet seen the first film). I liked some parts better than others, which turned out to be the Donner scenes. Lester's work suffers in comparison by feeling......generic is the best term I can think of. Plus there is too much broader humour in Lester's footage.
I hear there is a second ending for the Donner cut without the time travel at the end where the Zod trio and Lex were turned over to Arctic authorities. I only saw that ending on RUclips.
How did Lois and Clark get back to civilization? I think this movie suggests that in the universe of the movie there is a direct highway to the North Pole. Also, a quick deleted shot only seen in the TV cut shows a “Polar Patrol” of police based in the Arctic arresting the super villains and Luthor. Even in Donner’s more “serious” take, the movie is clearly set in a Silver Age comic book where things just conveniently happen.
I demand to know why the pervert cop in Pulp Fiction didn't tell Marcellus Wallace to "Kneel before Zed."... . I can't say this is a higher quality film than the first one. But I can say it's a heck of a lot more fun. But then, origin stories usually do have an uphill battle in the "exposition vs. action" department. There are countless sequels better than the original films of their series. But finding better prequels... THAT'S tough.
Are superhero films really sci-fi? Why don't you look at some of the many outstanding real science fiction from the Eastern Bloc. A good starting point is Ikarie XB1, an absolutely outstanding Czech space film from the 60s that predated 2001. Don't watch the crappy US dub/re-edit. Best wishes, I always enjoy your videos
I've been working on an Ikarie XB1 video since I covered Solaris a while back. And yes, I consider most superhero films sci-fi, especially when the superhero in question is an alien.
Excluding the Marvel Universe (where you can consider just about everything after the original Iron Man to be a sequel), I agree that it's the best follow-up to an original film. The idea of Superman abandoning his powers to be with Lois was the movie's only major misstep. Fortunately, everyone knew Supes would abandon that totally against character attitude by the end of the film.
The original theatrical cut of Superman II is vastly superior to Donnor's godawful what-if. It proves how editing can ruin a great film. Superman II definitely follows in the same tradition of better than the originals. Superman II, Batman Returns, Temple of Doom, Terminator 2, Aliens, Catching Fire, Rocky II, Rambo: First Blood Part II and Predator 2 are all examples of superior to the original. Which is saying a lot, since the first movies in each of those franchises are excellent. But these sequels are undeniable.
I like Superman The Movie, I like Superman II better. A supervillain for a superhero works best IMHO. For superior sequels I'll go with Aliens, Mad Max II, and Lethal Weapon II. I think "From Russia with Love" is superior to "Dr. No" on a couple of levels.
While a huge fan of those first 2 Suoermsn films ... that's a bold statement in light of far superior films like The Dark Knight, Winter Soldier, Spider-man 2, X-men 2, and even Batman Returns.
With the exception of Batman Returns, the rest of your choices are objectively awful films. You've got a mix of pretentious, misguided and contrived. Superman II is vastly superior to them all, and Batman Returns is second to Superman II. Is it a huge gap? No, but Superman II is the better film at the end of the day. Not to mention the most influential.
@JessicaChastainFan lol ... I love me some Superman 2 flaws and all but Im pretty sure The Dark Knight is regarded as the best superhero film of all time by most. Hell take the superhero out of it and it's still one of the greatest crime drama epics of all time. It's characters are supremely human and dynamic. It's plot is finely tuned steering us perfectly straight into a head on collision of tragedy. It masterfullu uses it's characters to contrast and define its protagonist allowing him, in the face of loss, to reunite the him he always was, make the choice he was always going to choose yet now with clarity. We all could learn a little bit from excepting our trauma, flaws and realizing we can't take them off. They are the source of what we can't have but also the source of our armor, what we can weather and what we can sacrifice and go without for the greater good. You can't miss what you've never had. That's beautiful, salient, and true.
The first Star Trek movie is abysmally boring. Virtually all the sequels are better than it. But if it hadn't been made and made some bucks, we wouldn't have the rest of them.
Patton Oswalt refers to STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE as "Beige Trek" ( ruclips.net/video/ifRzEiNJ10E/видео.htmlsi=2zp5k7FlTTralOMB ), (accurately, IMHO) but praises it as being the reason they needed to make THE WRATH OF KHAN, as an example of how to do it better.
Ironically Spider-Man two deals with losing superpowers better then this one . People always point to doc oc as the reason the movie works but it's what Peter go through that makes it a great sequel. But I enjoyed both Superman movies about the same each having there own strengths. The first one did have the task of establishing the groundwork for it . But Terrance Stamps as Zod is probably on of the most memorable supervillains. I only figured out that he plays the Chancellor in the phantom menace.
Nothing about Spider-Man 2 worked. Not Ock, not Peter. Blame Sam Raimi's awkward style of delivering what he feels is emotional. Then there's the fact that everything feels pointless in Spider-Man 2. You don't buy Peter and Mary Jane's connection. It feels so forced. Superman II did it first, and actually made it work. Superman wanted to live like a normal human being for Lois, but he just couldn't and that harsh reality hit him hard. He's not meant to love someone, as much as he wants. You don't get that tragic realization in Spider-Man 2, when Peter's relationship with Mary Jane was disjointed and borderline toxic.
I can remember, like it was yesterday, my old man taking me to see Superman 2 in the theater while my brother and his friend went to see Cannonball Run in the theater next door. I was 7 years old. I think it was the second movie I saw in the theater? The first was Empire Strikes Back a year earlier. Good times.
Hey fellow 50 year old lol. I was 7 when I saw it in the theater too. I was obsessed with Superman for a long time after that
I always liked Superman II. Superman II was a pretty good and entertaining sequel to the first Superman film, I really love the Richard Donner Cut of Superman II from 2006, and the best scene of Superman II was the White House scene with General Zod, Ursa, and Non. Terence Stamp was an awesome villain as General Zod, the finale with Superman defeating General Zod was pretty cool, and Superman II is one of my absolute favorite movie sequels along with Aliens, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Toy Story 2, Shrek 2, Spider-Man 2 with Tobey Maguire, and The Dark Knight with Heath Ledger.
Superman II absolutely blew us kids away.
I was 7 when I saw that in the theater. I was obsessed with that movie.
Another great review! I learned so much from this. Thanks
I was about 7 or 8 years old when they filmed the tropical island scene in the Caribbean island of Saint Lucia, where I'm originally from. I remember the big fuss made about it, as very few movies were filmed there, one of those being the 1979 espionage film FIREPOWER, starring Sophia Loren, James Confirm, O.J. Simpson and a cameo by an elderly Victor Mature.
Very cool!
The biggest difference between Donner and Lester is that Donnet really understood, and cared about Superman. His " verisimilitude " and love for the character is what set Superman the Movie apart. Plus the lighting and cinematography of Geoffrey Unsworth gave the movie an almost surreal look. However Donner could tend to be shortsighted a bit. The Paris opening far outclasses the Lois figures it out 5 minutes into the film part he shot. There always should have been a period of time that passes between movies. As little things like Luthor getting 25 to life, and the 3 villains breaking out immediately after the first movie ends makes little sense. They should have just left the original ending for 1 with him saving Lois and left the going back in time to Jor El giving his son his Identity back. I always thought the story was rushed . Lois and Superman should have gotten together in part 3. And the two movies filmed together I feel is what hurt the franchise the most. But Lester was too off key. He never got the importance and idea of Superman. His British humor and his comic relief ( especially the US military) threw the movie off. Yes at first it felt more of a comic book movie. But with the plot and the characters involved that was bound to be the case. Donner was king. And Superman 3 is a case of studio interference, and a director who was clueless about Superman.
I liked part one much better, probably because it was exciting and new. The follow-up was pretty good, and I liked the addition of 3 Supervillians to raise the bar. I haven't ever made it through III or IV though, and haven't even tried the new ones.
I hate to break it to you pal but if East Houston was located in Texas it would be in the South not the Midwest. East Houston is actually located in the U.S State of IDAHO!!!
I... can truly say, in all the decades of watching Superman II, I never interpreted Zod's "So...this is Houston" to mean they actually landed in Houston. It comes from a misunderstanding of hearing the communications between the astronauts on the moon and NASA com in Houston. They think Earth is called Houston until they're corrected on it. Though, to be fair, there's a lot of debate on where Texas actually lands in terms of the South or Midwest, in and of itself. But I definitely don't get _actual Houston_ vibes from a small farming town set like that.
They actually say East Houston on the news broadcast.
"Rocky III" is more satisfying than "Rocky" I or II, I think.
That was very interesting and entertaining. Thanks.
Superior sequels? Aliens, Mad Max II and Lethal Weapon II. Speaking of Superman, I'm a fan of Superman Returns (2006). I think it beautifully captures the spirit of the 1978 movie.
I thought Superman Returns was QUITE boring and bland,I also felt it should've been a brand new Superman film,instead of a continuation of an old SUPES film from the late 70s.And when Superman looks into the home of Lois and her family was very-CREEPY-and intrusive,something Superman wouldn't ever do. Only our own government can put video cameras and recording devices into our homes with out our knowledge,they've been doing it for generations any way. LOL.😇😇😇😇
The Salkinds, Golan and Globus, Dino De Laurientiis, the late 1970s and the early 1980's was THE era for cheapskate producers and, strangely, all of them foreigners running the Hollywood Dream Scam to ridiculously shoddy excess. I, for one, believe a lot of the inside baseball stories that these producers were never broke, but basically stealing money for themselves from their own productions and using litigation, threats and ever-decreasing qualities in their films to try and get away from it.
Dino basically is the only one who survived his era seemingly because he had no scruples about putting out trashy films and rolled with his own rise and fall, while the Salkinds and Cannon Films fought tooth and nail to stay on top of the world, demanding people looked to them as "legit" filmmakers all the while robbing their own companies and films.
Hollywood Accounting is real, but man I hand it to the producers who swindle for their own benefit and STILL put out good films and come off as people who want to be seen as artists in the same process.
I don‘t think I‘ll ever understand why so many people rate this movie so highly. The first Superman movie was my absolute favorite film as a kid, but when I saw this film at the age of 13 or so, it kind of broke my heart. It was full of nonsense, contradictions, inexplicable new powers that no Kryptonian ever had before, stuff happening with no explanation that the movie had already clearly stated could not happen (anyone care to explain clearly to me how Superman really got his powers back after being told there was no going back?), Superman acting like a vindictive dick (beating up the trucker just to get back at him). I really wanted to love this movie, but it was just dumb, and it ended up completely putting me off superheroes and comics for years … Until I finally read ‘Watchmen’ and ‘The Dark Knight Returns’.
Yes, it is!
Regarding the Salkinds, the other issue is that they have a *history* of shady dealings. Like you mentioned their two Muskateers movies being filmed at the same time. The thing is, they didn't tell the actors! The actors thought they were only making one movie, and only got paid for one movie. They had to file suit against the Salkins to get paid for two movies' worth of work.
I do enjoy Superman II, but it's hard to watch either cut without being distracted by the huge seams that are holding the movie together. As faulty as the vision behind Superman III was, at least it's one vision. But even Superman II feels more like a coherent and complete product than Superman IV, so there's that.
Have to disagree!Never really believed Superman would give up his powers!Once I accepted it to make the story work it was a lot of fun but still not a masterpiece!
It also seems very early in a film series for the hero to 'settle down' and renounce his powers/mission.
Still Luthors line With all this accumulated knowledge when are these dummys going to learn to use a doorknob alone makes it worth seeing!
The idea that he would never do so is something Lex believes in the comics. And we all know Lex knows Jack about Superman's personality.
I remember I loved Superman II as a kid; I was 10 years old when it was released. Probably due to my age, I don't remember noticing the differences in the filmed footage. Of course, now it sticks out as a sore thumb. Especially, the scenes at the Fortress Of Solitude at the end of the movie. It's pretty jarring the physical differences in Christopher Reeve & Margot Kidder when they cut back and forth between Donner & Lester's footage. I like certain elements of Donner's & Lester's versions. There is a perfect version in my mind that doesn't exist. From Lester's material I like the Paris plot line at the beginning of the movie; Superman's return to Metropolis after getting his powers back (love the line "General would you care to step outside") & the climax in the Fortress is better, minus the plastic S which was stupid. From Donner's material I enjoy the Clark is Superman reveal plus of course all Marlon Brando's cut material especially how Clark gets his powers back. Still a bit torn on which ending I like better. The memory wiping kiss is stupid but it's a very powerful scene & fantastic acting from Reeve & Kidder. As for movies that are better than the originals, the ones that stick out in my mind are Aliens, Spider-man 2, Star Trek II, Terminator 2, The Dark Knight, The Empire Strikes Back & X2.
I find the production issues of this film endlessly fascinating. Im surprised its not talked about more in the vein of Apocalyse Now and others.
When people talked about the Snyder Cut, not enough people brought up that it was essentially history repeating itself.
The Donner Cut is superior, but sections of it are edited so badly that it needs a revisit along the lines of what they did with Star Trek The Motion Picture recently.
As to sequels surpassing their predecessors, I have to give kudos to "Start Trek II: The Wrath of Khan," "2010," "SW: Empire Strikes Back," and "Aliens."
Sorry original Star Wars is better
And Alien is better
Original superman film is seamless compared to Superman 2
The great thing about having the boxed Blu-ray set (besides the extras, which are legion, including the movie introduction to the George Reeves series and the entire run of the Fleischer cartoons) is that it includes two versions of both SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE and SUPERMAN II. It's great to have choices. That having been said, I prefer the Donner cut for not making Lois Lane look like an idiot (and I would assert that there is a difference between 'lovably goofy' and 'borderline suicidal', which is what I get from the Lester Lois Lane).
That having been said, while I am not a fan of the Vulcan Mind Meld Forget The Last Two Hours kiss, the speech that Margot Kidder delivered breaks my heart. She certainly deserved kudos for excelling while objecting to Mr Donner's firing. (I feel bad for Mr Lester, who would appear to have been caught in the middle. Especially knowing, from the THREE MUSKETEERS movies, that the Salkinds were given to screw over the people working for them.)
Favorite sequel? I don't know, really, because my preference between a first movie and a sequel depends on my mood on a given day.
I know I watched the sequel, but I'll be darned if I can remember Susanna York replacing Marlon Brando.
I was smoking a lot of weed in those days.
I do remember how incredibly fun I found the first movie. I found the second quite hoky, strangely it felt more comic book like than the first.
From best to worst: SUPERMAN 2, SUPERMAN THE MOVIE, SUPERMAN VS THE MOLE MEN, THE SERIALS, SUPERMAN RETURNS, SUPERMAN 3, SUPERMAN 4: THE QUEST FOR PEACE, MAN OF STEEL.
Man of Steel is a-GREAT-film.
Terminator 2 superior sequel is probably a too obvious choice lol
Actually prefer original Terminator
I do prefer T2, but it's not a huge gap between T2 and Superman II.
""Superhero" seems to apply to any movie +1.
“And over the last few years we have heard a lot about something called ‘family values’. And like many of you, I have struggled to figure out what that means. And since my accident, I've found a definition that seems to make sense. I think it means that we're all family. And that we all have value.”
Christopher Reeve, speaking at the Democratic National Convention in 1996.
What a Super Man.
I agree with you on the superiority of the Donner cut.
Yeah because it feels like Superman has an arc on till Superman 3 and Superman Returns ruined it because of how that his parents told him that he has to give up his powers and that he can’t have a family but at least Lana liked Clark for Clark but I guess that Kill Bill speech probably is valid.
And this movie series and the Tim Burton’s Batman movies do have a lot in common
Ken Thorne recycled 'The Dome Opens(alternate)' in the General Zod footage.
Saw this in the cinema (having not yet seen the first film). I liked some parts better than others, which turned out to be the Donner scenes. Lester's work suffers in comparison by feeling......generic is the best term I can think of. Plus there is too much broader humour in Lester's footage.
I absolutely love Superman II and Christopher Reeve, but it does not hold a candle to The Dark Knight
I hear there is a second ending for the Donner cut without the time travel at the end where the Zod trio and Lex were turned over to Arctic authorities. I only saw that ending on RUclips.
How did Lois and Clark get back to civilization? I think this movie suggests that in the universe of the movie there is a direct highway to the North Pole. Also, a quick deleted shot only seen in the TV cut shows a “Polar Patrol” of police based in the Arctic arresting the super villains and Luthor. Even in Donner’s more “serious” take, the movie is clearly set in a Silver Age comic book where things just conveniently happen.
There is a deleted scene in various TV versions that shows Clark walking back to the FoS.
I demand to know why the pervert cop in Pulp Fiction didn't tell Marcellus Wallace to "Kneel before Zed."...
.
I can't say this is a higher quality film than the first one.
But I can say it's a heck of a lot more fun.
But then, origin stories usually do have an uphill battle in the "exposition vs. action" department.
There are countless sequels better than the original films of their series.
But finding better prequels... THAT'S tough.
I prefer the Donner cut of the movie
Didn’t know that about the Marlboro product placement. Whoa.
Smoking is good for you.
@@jorgezarco9269 Tom Servo, Santa Clause Conquers The Martians!
Are superhero films really sci-fi? Why don't you look at some of the many outstanding real science fiction from the Eastern Bloc. A good starting point is Ikarie XB1, an absolutely outstanding Czech space film from the 60s that predated 2001. Don't watch the crappy US dub/re-edit. Best wishes, I always enjoy your videos
I've been working on an Ikarie XB1 video since I covered Solaris a while back. And yes, I consider most superhero films sci-fi, especially when the superhero in question is an alien.
Super! 😄👍🏼👍🏼
Excluding the Marvel Universe (where you can consider just about everything after the original Iron Man to be a sequel), I agree that it's the best follow-up to an original film. The idea of Superman abandoning his powers to be with Lois was the movie's only major misstep. Fortunately, everyone knew Supes would abandon that totally against character attitude by the end of the film.
I prefer "Aliens" over "Alien". The other sequels are crap, of course.
why superman go back to the restaurant after he travels in time an erase everything that happen?
Yeah, that bugs me too. It makes no sense to go back!
@@TheUnapologeticGeek yeap is like a error in editing
I liked superman 3 the 4th was a right mess lol
11:52
Great sequel 😊
The original theatrical cut of Superman II is vastly superior to Donnor's godawful what-if. It proves how editing can ruin a great film.
Superman II definitely follows in the same tradition of better than the originals. Superman II, Batman Returns, Temple of Doom, Terminator 2, Aliens, Catching Fire, Rocky II, Rambo: First Blood Part II and Predator 2 are all examples of superior to the original. Which is saying a lot, since the first movies in each of those franchises are excellent. But these sequels are undeniable.
The reason Superman 2 isn't as good as the first film is the editing
I like Superman The Movie, I like Superman II better. A supervillain for a superhero works best IMHO. For superior sequels I'll go with Aliens, Mad Max II, and Lethal Weapon II. I think "From Russia with Love" is superior to "Dr. No" on a couple of levels.
Don't forget Terminator 2.
@@user-be7tc2bd6e Good point.
@@rsacchi100 Thank you.
chance is super man
Better sequel: Goldfinger easily better than Dr NO
Road Warrior > Mad Max.
Fact.
While a huge fan of those first 2 Suoermsn films ... that's a bold statement in light of far superior films like The Dark Knight, Winter Soldier, Spider-man 2, X-men 2, and even Batman Returns.
With the exception of Batman Returns, the rest of your choices are objectively awful films. You've got a mix of pretentious, misguided and contrived. Superman II is vastly superior to them all, and Batman Returns is second to Superman II. Is it a huge gap? No, but Superman II is the better film at the end of the day. Not to mention the most influential.
@JessicaChastainFan lol ... I love me some Superman 2 flaws and all but Im pretty sure The Dark Knight is regarded as the best superhero film of all time by most. Hell take the superhero out of it and it's still one of the greatest crime drama epics of all time.
It's characters are supremely human and dynamic. It's plot is finely tuned steering us perfectly straight into a head on collision of tragedy. It masterfullu uses it's characters to contrast and define its protagonist allowing him, in the face of loss, to reunite the him he always was, make the choice he was always going to choose yet now with clarity.
We all could learn a little bit from excepting our trauma, flaws and realizing we can't take them off. They are the source of what we can't have but also the source of our armor, what we can weather and what we can sacrifice and go without for the greater good.
You can't miss what you've never had.
That's beautiful, salient, and true.
The first Star Trek movie is abysmally boring. Virtually all the sequels are better than it. But if it hadn't been made and made some bucks, we wouldn't have the rest of them.
Patton Oswalt refers to STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE as "Beige Trek" ( ruclips.net/video/ifRzEiNJ10E/видео.htmlsi=2zp5k7FlTTralOMB ), (accurately, IMHO) but praises it as being the reason they needed to make THE WRATH OF KHAN, as an example of how to do it better.
@@Malvito that is a good term for it, beige Trek. Wrath of Khan was so good!
Ironically Spider-Man two deals with losing superpowers better then this one . People always point to doc oc as the reason the movie works but it's what Peter go through that makes it a great sequel. But I enjoyed both Superman movies about the same each having there own strengths. The first one did
have the task of establishing the groundwork for it . But Terrance Stamps as Zod is probably on of the most memorable supervillains. I only figured out that he plays the Chancellor in the phantom menace.
Nothing about Spider-Man 2 worked. Not Ock, not Peter. Blame Sam Raimi's awkward style of delivering what he feels is emotional. Then there's the fact that everything feels pointless in Spider-Man 2. You don't buy Peter and Mary Jane's connection. It feels so forced.
Superman II did it first, and actually made it work. Superman wanted to live like a normal human being for Lois, but he just couldn't and that harsh reality hit him hard. He's not meant to love someone, as much as he wants. You don't get that tragic realization in Spider-Man 2, when Peter's relationship with Mary Jane was disjointed and borderline toxic.