No, the Lester cut is far superior for me & 80% of the reason I'm a Superman fan to this day. It's just more fun, comic booky & entertaining. I think by the time Christopher Reeve recorded reshoots for the Lester version he was at his 100% peak perfection both physically & character wise as Superman/Clark Kent & his 'General - would you care to step outside' is one if the most iconic moments in superhero cinema
As good as the Lester theatrical version is, it has too much slapstick. Donner's Cut is the superior version. The best version would be if Warner Brothers would make a Ultimate Cut of Superman II using the best of both of the Lester & Donner versions.
I completely agree that a blending of the best of both movies (some humor minus the campy stuff) would make the perfect film. Obviously, you can't have the time reversal sequence, because that was already done in the first movie (even though Donner wanted it at the end of the second one), so the kiss scene should stay in. I still like the idea of Clark teaching the bully a lesson at the end, even after the time reversal because even if he didn't actually beat up Clark, he was still a bully to others and would have beaten up Clark if he had the chance. So the guy needed to be taught a hard lesson.
Yeah I wouldn't take ALL of it out, personally. But some of it just got a little too silly for my taste. It really got out of hand in the next film IMO, but I think the bigger problem there was the script and meager budget compared to the first two.
@@prodigioussaps Same here but I tend to like a bit of wit (Cleverness?) mixed in with my comedy. I honestly don't know.. but I agree some of it was too silly for my tastes, also.. (it made A funny thing Happened on the way to the Forum look like a dissertation of Roman Culture.) Both movies remind me of a crazy quilt. Take the good, ignore the bad.
@@prodigioussaps did Superman 3 have a poor budget compared to the previous two? I never noticed any problem with production values, and actually thought the flying effects were at their best in Superman 3. Of course, Superman 4 was a totally different story...
For me the Lester version feels like a completed movie unlike the Donner version I like both but with the movie originally intended to be a 2 part movie before that concept was really a thing yet it’s easy to see why some say the donner version flows better but t complete it they had to use any piece of usable footage they had from when he was working on the production so some bits are actually test footage like some of the hotel scenes where it’s revealed clark is actually Superman I grew up with the Lester version cause the donner version didn’t exist yet Superman 2 is actually my favorite of the 4 movies
I actually did an edit combining what I thought (and based on a couple friends opinions) was the best parts of both movies. I did like some of the dialogue and music from the Lester version but I got rid of some of the more silly aspects. The scenes with Marlon Brando are absolutely a must, but I thought his going around to reverse time didn't work. I also got rid of the Paris section in the beginning. I'm not so professional so my version is a bit rough in a couple places, but I think it's the most cohesive way to watch this movie.
@@prodigioussapsI replied but maybe RUclips doesn't like my answer. What I said is, it's not available anywhere (legally) but I have made it available on my Drop. Box and sent a link to my friends that send me a eeee male to my gee mail at my screen name Deeesher. But it's a real shame I can't send it that way like I do my friends cause I would love to get your opinion.
It showed that had Donner not been fired, his version would have been superior. He was limited in what could be done on the version actually released as his cut. I believe that he was contracted originally for 5 movies so it's especially disappointing that we only got 1.5 good movies.
I think I prefer the Richard Donner version, partly because it has the same opening titles as the first one, but I just feel it flows way better. I do remember one finding on youtube a fan edit of the scene where he gives up his powers, but they had combined it with the Richard Lester version so he's talking to both his mother and his father, which I seem to remember worked really well! Of course, this was probably about 15 years ago so if I ever watched it again, I'd probably think it was awful, but I did like that it combined elements of both films to make what felt like a more emotionally impacting scene.
If it's done well, I really want to see the audition scene of Lois shooting Clark replaced with an AI version that looks like it was shot for the final film (hairdos consistent, etc.). Maybe add in those scenes of the villains I read in the original script of them taking over the world.
I've seen two cuts, but I don't know if it was the Donner cut or just a cut with deleted scenes. I remember that when Clark drilled his way underground, Lex put him through a gauntlet just to test his strength.
Yeah that’s in the first movie, depending on which version you watch. It was cut from the theatrical release, but put back for Donner’s director’s cut and of course the 3-hour extended version.
@@prodigioussaps it’s also In the television version of Superman the movie cause when I got my DVDs of the movies I expected it to be there and it wasn’t and I like the scene
Interesting video! I always loved Superman II. Back in the 1980s, people often considered it superior to the first film. And the 80s was an era where broad comedy was common in films, of course. I think Richard Donner's film, had it been made the way he wanted it to be in the late 1970s, would have worked best. However, Lester's film is still a GREAT early 1980s fantasy-adventure film. I knew nothing about the Donner material for the first 20 years of my life, only eventually reading about it on some new-fangled thing called 'the internet' in the mid 1990s at college! It's frustrating that all that marvellous Donner footage of Brando was shot and not used, but Lester still managed to make a terrific film out of something pretty chaotic. So I'm in that weird position where I feel there's a brilliant version of Superman II (Lester's film) that's always existed, which I love, and a patched-together rough cut that hints at an even better film that could have been made by Richard Donner, but wasn't. Unfortunately, the so-called 'Donner Cut' is too rough - it even uses audition footage from different separate days, weeks apart - to be taken seriously as a proper movie: it's more like an amazing alternate takes reel for an incomplete film. I'm just sorry that when Warner got control of the Superman films back, they didn't talk to Richard Donner about doing a Superman film again in some capacity. After what he went through with the Salkinds, though, I wouldn't blame him for running a mile though! 😆 What remains with me, though, is how great Christopher Reeve was - the guy simply was Superman, the comicbook character made flesh. I judge all Superman - comicbook, cartoon or movie - by his standard.
Much like other comments, the theatrical version is what I remember watching as a kid and loved Superman from then on. Some of the story didn't sit well, made no sense at all even when I was young. When the Donner Cut was released, it felt more like what it should have been and don't think it would be as appreciated if Donner stayed on and got to do it his way back then. The conversation would be criticism over the story or portrayal of whatever ending they went with. Flying back in time just makes sense and the how it should have ended version is just hilarious with it's iteration of it!
The main thing I like about the Donner Cut was how much more angry, intense, and vicious the villains were. Not bumbling around like The Three Stooges in the theatrical cut. Remember, these guys threatened _children_ on Krypton. There wasn't a whole lot of detail about what all they did in the first movie, but it was bad enough to deserve Krypton's substitute basically for the death penalty.
My personal view? The RIchard Lester cinema-released version is -- for me -- the better version. I want to love the Richard Donner-cut, but the fact is - he didn't get to make what he really envisioned, and he didn't film many of the core scenes in the film -- including almost none with the main villains. So as it stands, the Richard Lester version is still top. Yes I would have loved to see the original two films completely as Richard Donner had intended, but let us not kid ourselves that we have seen that or that we ever will. Also, for those who says that Richard Lester 'dumbed it down' -- (i) it was Richard Donner that brought in (the adorable) Clifton James, and also had Miss Teschmacher make an elongated joke about finding the 'bathroom facilities' in the Fortress of Solitude. I love the humour, that was never a criticism from me.
Yeah, there are a LOT of great things Lester did to finish this movie off. That whole Eiffel Tower sequence was necessary not just to provide the device that frees the villains, but to give us an exciting opening. In comparison the Donner Cut kind of drags in the first act. Also all the key scenes between Lois and Clark/Superman that he directed are sooooo good. But yeah, in truth it's not really a fair comparison since the Donner Cut really isn't a complete movie.
Yeah, the Richard Lester film is fantastic. If we didn't know about the Donner material, Superman II would still be considered a terrific film. Before the noise about the Richard Donner material became deafening in the internet age, people used to say Lester's Superman II was the best of the four films. I grew up loving it. Terence Stamp was terrifying as General Zod. It was funny, scary and full of 'air punch' moments - wonderful for us kids in the first decade of our lives. And I actually liked the ambiguity of the dying Clark sensing the glowing green crystal and suddenly returning as Superman. Sometimes, knowing that something important happened because of something mysterious set up in the previous film, but not being told what happened, actually works rather well.
A lot of the scenes with the villains in the Lester cut were shot by Donner. For example, the entire takeover of the White House was Donner's work. As was the majority of the stuff in the Fortress of Solitude. Basically, if you see Gene Hackman, it was shot by Donner. He did not shoot any scenes with Lester.
The Theatrical version is a core memory and a childhood favourite. Donner’s Jor-el reconciliation scene is my prefered new addition. However, his opening prologue sequence is all over the place, and not my favourite. But without question, the absence of Clark’s laneway change in the Donner cut makes the Theatrical version my preferred watch.
Originally donner only wanted the time traveling sequence for the 2nd movie. But the salkinds & wb overrode him on it and demanded he use it in the 1st movie.
While I love the Donner Cut a lot more, i think a mix of the two would be the best of both worlds and i'd keep the "forgetful kiss" instead of turning the world around again as it makes the movie pointless and as if he didn't learn his lesson from interfering with human history. I'd also use his Lois opening scene and not the Eiffel tower (or maybe shove the Eiffel tower at a different place without it being used to explode the Phantom Zone?) and the silliness during the battle has to be trimmed down...
The Donner cut would be perfect if (1) they had actually shot the scene of Lois shooting the blank instead of having to use the screen test and (2) they had a different ending than re-using the ending from the original movie. Perhaps I am in the minority, but I think Lester's ending with the 'magic kiss' is fine and given the limitations they had with budget and time, I think they should have just stuck with it. Heck, I didn't like the turning back time thing in the original movie, but re-using it in II just doesn't work.
Is the DONNER CUT superior to the original? - No. Would it have been if it was made in 197x? Absolutely. But that ship had sadly sailed. Imagine if John Williams had written a second Superman! (But what would we have lost? What would The Empire Strikes Back have been like? We can't mess with that.)
The Donner cut has its moments but I'm used to Lester version the only part I really liked is when Superman punched non that was the first time I've seen him really throw a punch in the film
The only thing I like about the theatrical I like was the inclusion of Kal'El's mother. In many versions of Superman, Lara'El is left out of the story to focus more on Jor'El. But the Donner cut is the true sequel to the first Superman movie and much preferred by this viewer! LOL
That’s a good point! Too bad they couldn’t have worked in something from Jor-El saying something like “Umm, errr… you should ask your mother that question. Lara!!”
I'd say some of the Donner Cut was better than the theatrical. However it wouldn't have mattered if the Donner Cut was superior in every way (which it isn't imo), it's not the film I grew up endlessly rewatching on VHS.
No. I could be more forgiving if it didn't cut the best 1 liner. I think of it more as an extra or a supplement to the series rather than a legitimate potential replacement for SM2. Also, this is coming from someone who heavily prefers siding with the director and creatives, but this time the theatrical release was better.
People want the Donner cut to be better than it is because nobody likes the way the Salkinds treated him. That said, Superman: the Movie had comedy--loads of it, in fact--so it actually seems a little against Donner's own character to trim down Lester's as much as he did. It doesn't really feel like a completed movie. Then, worst of all, is Donner's decision to turn back time, again, like this is something Superman does whenever he wants a takeback. In the first movie, we hear his father warn him about interference. It pains him to do it; it's grueling and breaches Superman's ethical code but if he doesn't, Lois will die. In the Donner cut of Superman II, he does it so Lois won't remember his secret identity, as if turning back time is something he always does whenever he feels like he screwed up.
Of the versions that have been released I would say that the Richard Lester version is superior, though it's interesting to see how it _could_ have been different. The problem is that the Richard Donner version that has been released is made from available clips rather than ones that Richard Donner had actually shot himself (some of them were, yes) so we don't really know how it would have come out.
Of course Donner cut is superior. It's an incomplete film but superior. I think that a good part of the 1980 film is the work of Donner. We can see real Lester's work in the third film and the producers wanted that since the beginning in their vision.
The Donner cut is terrible. The amnesia kiss might have been dumb but the way he turns back time, AGAIN, makes it like Superman just turns back time whenever he feels like it. It works in the first movie because you know it's something he never does for ethical purposes but he can't allow Lois to die. In Donner's cut, he just does it because Lois feels bad about their breakup.
The two versions are also subtly different in their relarionship to the first Superman movie. The Donner version is literally the second half of one long story, and it takes place immedately after the first movie. The Lester version, on the other hand, is a sequel. It takes place some indeterminate time after the first movie. And it gives the feeling that things have settled down, and that Superman has become a fixture in the world. I prefer the Lester version.
The Donner Cut is like when rich people clone their dead dog. The new dog might look the dead one and respond to the same name but it's a different individual. You can't go back two decades later and assemble something from what's on hand and pass it off as something you would have made at the time.
That’s a little harsh. He wasn’t at all trying to “pass it off” as something he would have made it at the time, and he makes that clear in the introductory statement. The fans asked for this and he delivered.
the only "dead dogs" here are the Salkunts and Spengler, who had Lester bastardise another man's project. It took 25 years of begging to even come close to fixing their arrogant shit.
I never understood the argument for why the Donner Cut is better...I mean, it totally recycled the ending of the first film. In what world is that preferable to ANY alternative, regardless of how silly?
Donnor cut is not only inferior - it is comically horrible in almost every choice in my opinion. The time thing is so bad it is a crime against film - something fit for an SNL skit only.
@ Its fair that seeing more Jor-El was cool, but I didn't see a problem with seeing other entities in the records, and it wasn't worth all the cringe of the other parts, Just ruined what I thought was a great fun movie before. Maybe some is bias from growing up with it, but I don't think so. I grew up with Star Wars too, and was open to a lot of the special addition changes. Some of it just felt like Donner doing a 'different to be different' revenge cut lol.
Okay I see. I don't really see it as a complete film, because it never could have been, really, unless Donner used more of Lester's footage. I know Warner Brothers marketed it as a standalone film, but to be fair it's really more of an elaborate DVD bonus feature. I do agree that some of Donner's humor falls flat, but I think some of it is great. The main problem with the Donner Cut is the ending, but again that's something they went with because they had little choice.
@@prodigioussaps It's definitely a fascinating and interesting look into these other clips and ideas, I'll give it that. But it just irks me that some folks out there are watching that as their first or only viewing of S2. Love y'alls videos btw thanks!
No, the Lester cut is far superior for me & 80% of the reason I'm a Superman fan to this day. It's just more fun, comic booky & entertaining. I think by the time Christopher Reeve recorded reshoots for the Lester version he was at his 100% peak perfection both physically & character wise as Superman/Clark Kent & his 'General - would you care to step outside' is one if the most iconic moments in superhero cinema
Donner Cut 100%
I feel good about having been part of the Internet community who begged and helped make this happen!
Yeah those were some good days back in the late 90s to the mid 2000s. I remember the old Superman Cinema boards, most of those guys were from England.
Sure, let's just use time travel to retcon every Superman film
It's funny to think of a guy in a diner minding his own business when a fellow he's never seen before suddenly beats the hell out of him and leaves.
Yep! I love Tom Mankiewicz but he was not a sci-fi writer.
I’m a fan of the Donner cut. It flowed better and made more sense. The director is the artist of a film. Not the suits.
As good as the Lester theatrical version is, it has too much slapstick. Donner's Cut is the superior version. The best version would be if Warner Brothers would make a Ultimate Cut of Superman II using the best of both of the Lester & Donner versions.
I completely agree that a blending of the best of both movies (some humor minus the campy stuff) would make the perfect film. Obviously, you can't have the time reversal sequence, because that was already done in the first movie (even though Donner wanted it at the end of the second one), so the kiss scene should stay in. I still like the idea of Clark teaching the bully a lesson at the end, even after the time reversal because even if he didn't actually beat up Clark, he was still a bully to others and would have beaten up Clark if he had the chance. So the guy needed to be taught a hard lesson.
Donner did an incredible job
Lester made the movies comical and silly. Also the attention to flying sequences. Lester made them wire noticeable
Also kudos/shout-out to Michael Thau who edited the Donner cut. 👍
Superman 2 with none of Lester's comedy would be like champagne without the fizz.
Yeah I wouldn't take ALL of it out, personally. But some of it just got a little too silly for my taste. It really got out of hand in the next film IMO, but I think the bigger problem there was the script and meager budget compared to the first two.
@@prodigioussaps Same here but I tend to like a bit of wit (Cleverness?) mixed in with my comedy. I honestly don't know.. but I agree some of it was too silly for my tastes, also.. (it made A funny thing Happened on the way to the Forum look like a dissertation of Roman Culture.) Both movies remind me of a crazy quilt. Take the good, ignore the bad.
@@prodigioussaps did Superman 3 have a poor budget compared to the previous two? I never noticed any problem with production values, and actually thought the flying effects were at their best in Superman 3. Of course, Superman 4 was a totally different story...
For me the Lester version feels like a completed movie unlike the Donner version I like both but with the movie originally intended to be a 2 part movie before that concept was really a thing yet it’s easy to see why some say the donner version flows better but t complete it they had to use any piece of usable footage they had from when he was working on the production so some bits are actually test footage like some of the hotel scenes where it’s revealed clark is actually Superman I grew up with the Lester version cause the donner version didn’t exist yet Superman 2 is actually my favorite of the 4 movies
Yes and no
I believe moving the diner fight scene was a mistake other than that, Donner Cut is better
Donner Cut > Snydercut
I actually did an edit combining what I thought (and based on a couple friends opinions) was the best parts of both movies. I did like some of the dialogue and music from the Lester version but I got rid of some of the more silly aspects. The scenes with Marlon Brando are absolutely a must, but I thought his going around to reverse time didn't work. I also got rid of the Paris section in the beginning. I'm not so professional so my version is a bit rough in a couple places, but I think it's the most cohesive way to watch this movie.
Oh cool!!! Have you made your edit available anywhere?
@@prodigioussapsI replied but maybe RUclips doesn't like my answer. What I said is, it's not available anywhere (legally) but I have made it available on my Drop. Box and sent a link to my friends that send me a eeee male to my gee mail at my screen name Deeesher. But it's a real shame I can't send it that way like I do my friends cause I would love to get your opinion.
@@prodigioussaps I agree, let’s see this Frankenstein version and maybe help smooth it out with You!
It showed that had Donner not been fired, his version would have been superior. He was limited in what could be done on the version actually released as his cut. I believe that he was contracted originally for 5 movies so it's especially disappointing that we only got 1.5 good movies.
Speaking of a better cut, Christopher Reeve's portrayal of The Man of Steel in today's Superman movies would've been fantastic.
I think I prefer the Richard Donner version, partly because it has the same opening titles as the first one, but I just feel it flows way better. I do remember one finding on youtube a fan edit of the scene where he gives up his powers, but they had combined it with the Richard Lester version so he's talking to both his mother and his father, which I seem to remember worked really well! Of course, this was probably about 15 years ago so if I ever watched it again, I'd probably think it was awful, but I did like that it combined elements of both films to make what felt like a more emotionally impacting scene.
Yeah I saw something like that, it was a pretty clever edit. Cheers!
If it's done well, I really want to see the audition scene of Lois shooting Clark replaced with an AI version that looks like it was shot for the final film (hairdos consistent, etc.). Maybe add in those scenes of the villains I read in the original script of them taking over the world.
there are certain scenes in the Donner cut that I liked, but for me it's theatrical cut.
I've seen two cuts, but I don't know if it was the Donner cut or just a cut with deleted scenes. I remember that when Clark drilled his way underground, Lex put him through a gauntlet just to test his strength.
Yeah that’s in the first movie, depending on which version you watch. It was cut from the theatrical release, but put back for Donner’s director’s cut and of course the 3-hour extended version.
@@prodigioussaps it’s also In the television version of Superman the movie cause when I got my DVDs of the movies I expected it to be there and it wasn’t and I like the scene
@@kevin10001 That the 3-hour extended television version is available on bluray; I recommend buying it, if you haven't already done so?
Is Donner’s Superman II superior? Is there a mustache in Mexico!
Indeed it is!
Interesting video! I always loved Superman II. Back in the 1980s, people often considered it superior to the first film. And the 80s was an era where broad comedy was common in films, of course. I think Richard Donner's film, had it been made the way he wanted it to be in the late 1970s, would have worked best. However, Lester's film is still a GREAT early 1980s fantasy-adventure film. I knew nothing about the Donner material for the first 20 years of my life, only eventually reading about it on some new-fangled thing called 'the internet' in the mid 1990s at college!
It's frustrating that all that marvellous Donner footage of Brando was shot and not used, but Lester still managed to make a terrific film out of something pretty chaotic. So I'm in that weird position where I feel there's a brilliant version of Superman II (Lester's film) that's always existed, which I love, and a patched-together rough cut that hints at an even better film that could have been made by Richard Donner, but wasn't. Unfortunately, the so-called 'Donner Cut' is too rough - it even uses audition footage from different separate days, weeks apart - to be taken seriously as a proper movie: it's more like an amazing alternate takes reel for an incomplete film.
I'm just sorry that when Warner got control of the Superman films back, they didn't talk to Richard Donner about doing a Superman film again in some capacity. After what he went through with the Salkinds, though, I wouldn't blame him for running a mile though! 😆 What remains with me, though, is how great Christopher Reeve was - the guy simply was Superman, the comicbook character made flesh. I judge all Superman - comicbook, cartoon or movie - by his standard.
Great summation! You nailed it, I agree 100%. Cheers 👊
Much like other comments, the theatrical version is what I remember watching as a kid and loved Superman from then on. Some of the story didn't sit well, made no sense at all even when I was young. When the Donner Cut was released, it felt more like what it should have been and don't think it would be as appreciated if Donner stayed on and got to do it his way back then. The conversation would be criticism over the story or portrayal of whatever ending they went with. Flying back in time just makes sense and the how it should have ended version is just hilarious with it's iteration of it!
The main thing I like about the Donner Cut was how much more angry, intense, and vicious the villains were. Not bumbling around like The Three Stooges in the theatrical cut. Remember, these guys threatened _children_ on Krypton. There wasn't a whole lot of detail about what all they did in the first movie, but it was bad enough to deserve Krypton's substitute basically for the death penalty.
My personal view? The RIchard Lester cinema-released version is -- for me -- the better version. I want to love the Richard Donner-cut, but the fact is - he didn't get to make what he really envisioned, and he didn't film many of the core scenes in the film -- including almost none with the main villains. So as it stands, the Richard Lester version is still top. Yes I would have loved to see the original two films completely as Richard Donner had intended, but let us not kid ourselves that we have seen that or that we ever will.
Also, for those who says that Richard Lester 'dumbed it down' -- (i) it was Richard Donner that brought in (the adorable) Clifton James, and also had Miss Teschmacher make an elongated joke about finding the 'bathroom facilities' in the Fortress of Solitude. I love the humour, that was never a criticism from me.
Yeah, there are a LOT of great things Lester did to finish this movie off. That whole Eiffel Tower sequence was necessary not just to provide the device that frees the villains, but to give us an exciting opening. In comparison the Donner Cut kind of drags in the first act. Also all the key scenes between Lois and Clark/Superman that he directed are sooooo good.
But yeah, in truth it's not really a fair comparison since the Donner Cut really isn't a complete movie.
Yeah, the Richard Lester film is fantastic. If we didn't know about the Donner material, Superman II would still be considered a terrific film. Before the noise about the Richard Donner material became deafening in the internet age, people used to say Lester's Superman II was the best of the four films. I grew up loving it. Terence Stamp was terrifying as General Zod. It was funny, scary and full of 'air punch' moments - wonderful for us kids in the first decade of our lives. And I actually liked the ambiguity of the dying Clark sensing the glowing green crystal and suddenly returning as Superman. Sometimes, knowing that something important happened because of something mysterious set up in the previous film, but not being told what happened, actually works rather well.
A lot of the scenes with the villains in the Lester cut were shot by Donner. For example, the entire takeover of the White House was Donner's work. As was the majority of the stuff in the Fortress of Solitude. Basically, if you see Gene Hackman, it was shot by Donner. He did not shoot any scenes with Lester.
@@tompinkerton7101 Right, because Hackman refused to return for the reshoots.
Has anyone done a deep fake of Margot Kidder onto that Donner Cut shot yet? Should be quite easy now to replace the stand-in's face.
Not that I'm aware of. You're right, it would be pretty easy now.
The Theatrical version is a core memory and a childhood favourite. Donner’s Jor-el reconciliation scene is my prefered new addition. However, his opening prologue sequence is all over the place, and not my favourite. But without question, the absence of Clark’s laneway change in the Donner cut makes the Theatrical version my preferred watch.
Yeah no kidding, that alleyway changing shot is a banger!
Originally donner only wanted the time traveling sequence for the 2nd movie. But the salkinds & wb overrode him on it and demanded he use it in the 1st movie.
While I love the Donner Cut a lot more, i think a mix of the two would be the best of both worlds and i'd keep the "forgetful kiss" instead of turning the world around again as it makes the movie pointless and as if he didn't learn his lesson from interfering with human history. I'd also use his Lois opening scene and not the Eiffel tower (or maybe shove the Eiffel tower at a different place without it being used to explode the Phantom Zone?) and the silliness during the battle has to be trimmed down...
The Donner cut would be perfect if (1) they had actually shot the scene of Lois shooting the blank instead of having to use the screen test and (2) they had a different ending than re-using the ending from the original movie. Perhaps I am in the minority, but I think Lester's ending with the 'magic kiss' is fine and given the limitations they had with budget and time, I think they should have just stuck with it. Heck, I didn't like the turning back time thing in the original movie, but re-using it in II just doesn't work.
Is the DONNER CUT superior to the original? - No. Would it have been if it was made in 197x? Absolutely. But that ship had sadly sailed. Imagine if John Williams had written a second Superman! (But what would we have lost? What would The Empire Strikes Back have been like? We can't mess with that.)
The Donner cut has its moments but I'm used to Lester version the only part I really liked is when Superman punched non that was the first time I've seen him really throw a punch in the film
Where's the love for part 3?
Next episode is all about Superman III… hopefully out on Friday
Yes!!! Unquestionably!!!
The only thing I like about the theatrical I like was the inclusion of Kal'El's mother. In many versions of Superman, Lara'El is left out of the story to focus more on Jor'El. But the Donner cut is the true sequel to the first Superman movie and much preferred by this viewer! LOL
That’s a good point! Too bad they couldn’t have worked in something from Jor-El saying something like “Umm, errr… you should ask your mother that question. Lara!!”
I like the Donner cut but I wish they had merged the two cuts..
they who? Who authorises and arbitrates the editing?
I'd say some of the Donner Cut was better than the theatrical. However it wouldn't have mattered if the Donner Cut was superior in every way (which it isn't imo), it's not the film I grew up endlessly rewatching on VHS.
No. I could be more forgiving if it didn't cut the best 1 liner.
I think of it more as an extra or a supplement to the series rather than a legitimate potential replacement for SM2.
Also, this is coming from someone who heavily prefers siding with the director and creatives, but this time the theatrical release was better.
In defence of Richard Lester - 5 reasons I prefer the Lester cut of Superman 2!!
ruclips.net/video/gOWNbx6M22o/видео.html
People want the Donner cut to be better than it is because nobody likes the way the Salkinds treated him. That said, Superman: the Movie had comedy--loads of it, in fact--so it actually seems a little against Donner's own character to trim down Lester's as much as he did. It doesn't really feel like a completed movie.
Then, worst of all, is Donner's decision to turn back time, again, like this is something Superman does whenever he wants a takeback. In the first movie, we hear his father warn him about interference. It pains him to do it; it's grueling and breaches Superman's ethical code but if he doesn't, Lois will die.
In the Donner cut of Superman II, he does it so Lois won't remember his secret identity, as if turning back time is something he always does whenever he feels like he screwed up.
I prefer the Donner cut
I did not like Superman II. It was too silly, but I did like the Donner Cut.
Of the versions that have been released I would say that the Richard Lester version is superior, though it's interesting to see how it _could_ have been different. The problem is that the Richard Donner version that has been released is made from available clips rather than ones that Richard Donner had actually shot himself (some of them were, yes) so we don't really know how it would have come out.
Donner cut.
No. Real Superman fans will watch both versions and then mashup their own version of the movie..using that thing called the imagination.
Of course Donner cut is superior. It's an incomplete film but superior. I think that a good part of the 1980 film is the work of Donner. We can see real Lester's work in the third film and the producers wanted that since the beginning in their vision.
Good summation. Cheers 👊
The Donner cut is terrible. The amnesia kiss might have been dumb but the way he turns back time, AGAIN, makes it like Superman just turns back time whenever he feels like it. It works in the first movie because you know it's something he never does for ethical purposes but he can't allow Lois to die. In Donner's cut, he just does it because Lois feels bad about their breakup.
In a word: No. :)
no the nucullar bomb elevator was hystarical and much better for the strory.
Yeah I personally didn’t have a problem with that scene at all. The movie needed a big opening, the Donner Cut is lacking there.
The two versions are also subtly different in their relarionship to the first Superman movie. The Donner version is literally the second half of one long story, and it takes place immedately after the first movie. The Lester version, on the other hand, is a sequel. It takes place some indeterminate time after the first movie. And it gives the feeling that things have settled down, and that Superman has become a fixture in the world. I prefer the Lester version.
Good points! Cheers 👊
The Donner Cut is like when rich people clone their dead dog. The new dog might look the dead one and respond to the same name but it's a different individual. You can't go back two decades later and assemble something from what's on hand and pass it off as something you would have made at the time.
That’s a little harsh. He wasn’t at all trying to “pass it off” as something he would have made it at the time, and he makes that clear in the introductory statement. The fans asked for this and he delivered.
the only "dead dogs" here are the Salkunts and Spengler, who had Lester bastardise another man's project.
It took 25 years of begging to even come close to fixing their arrogant shit.
I never understood the argument for why the Donner Cut is better...I mean, it totally recycled the ending of the first film. In what world is that preferable to ANY alternative, regardless of how silly?
Quick answer: No.
Donnor cut is not only inferior - it is comically horrible in almost every choice in my opinion. The time thing is so bad it is a crime against film - something fit for an SNL skit only.
Really, even the inclusion of Brando’s Jor-El footage? The extended Oval Office scenes?
@ Its fair that seeing more Jor-El was cool, but I didn't see a problem with seeing other entities in the records, and it wasn't worth all the cringe of the other parts, Just ruined what I thought was a great fun movie before. Maybe some is bias from growing up with it, but I don't think so. I grew up with Star Wars too, and was open to a lot of the special addition changes. Some of it just felt like Donner doing a 'different to be different' revenge cut lol.
Okay I see. I don't really see it as a complete film, because it never could have been, really, unless Donner used more of Lester's footage. I know Warner Brothers marketed it as a standalone film, but to be fair it's really more of an elaborate DVD bonus feature. I do agree that some of Donner's humor falls flat, but I think some of it is great. The main problem with the Donner Cut is the ending, but again that's something they went with because they had little choice.
@@prodigioussaps It's definitely a fascinating and interesting look into these other clips and ideas, I'll give it that. But it just irks me that some folks out there are watching that as their first or only viewing of S2. Love y'alls videos btw thanks!
Agreed. Thanks Daniel! Cheers 👊