Superman II (Theatrical) Commentary

[Jimbo]

Even if Donner returned, Salkind would not have cut a check to Brando to make him happy and keep his footage usable. Donner would have needed to work around that, too. And with an even tighter schedule.

Not to mention the script itself (and later the Donner cut) had Superman turning the world around at the end, and THEN going back to fight the bully. What a shitty way to end a movie, Superman effectively picking on a guy who would have beaten him up. Continuity errors abound.

[crazy_asian_man]

Superman II...ANY version of Superman II is only objectively "good" based on a few performances, some great special effects (some of which still hold up), and that's it. Everything else is either nostalgia factor or simply "because it's Superman". It's not a very good movie, especially when you judge it against other big-budget fantasy movies of its time like STM, Star Wars, ESB, or Raiders, NONE of which cop-out the way any version of SII does.

Neither version had a satisfactory ending (in fact, both are quite fucking stupid). Lois jumping out the window is roughly as retarded as the extra powers and slapstick at the end of TLC, etc.

I disagree..... Objectivity doesn't come into opinions on film--- unless it's whether or not something is in focus or not.

Does SII compare to STM? In certain sequences, it's just as good as, if not better. I point at the villains' attack on the moon and attack on the Daily Planet- (not including the Lester cutaways) - with it's build up (the shaking windows of the DP long before the shaking cup of water in Jurrassic Park) and execution --- holds up extremely well.... sequences that are just as good imo as Empire and Raiders of the Lost Ark. (Actually, Speilberg and Donner's styles were incredibly similar at that time- not too suprising, as they both came from many hours of television prior to their bigscreen debuts).

The whole isn't, though- neither version, for various reasons that we've all discussed.... and we're dissatisfied with both versions in comparison to the original for different reasons as well, but I still think that certain scenes are just as good as/if not better than STM.

Objective? Nah, impossible for anything regarding opinions on film. But this is just my opinion....


When looking at the whole, no (imo).

[crazy_asian_man]

Even if Donner returned, Salkind would not have cut a check to Brando to make him happy and keep his footage usable. Donner would have needed to work around that, too. And with an even tighter schedule.

Not to mention the script itself (and later the Donner cut) had Superman turning the world around at the end, and THEN going back to fight the bully. What a shitty way to end a movie, Superman effectively picking on a guy who would have beaten him up. Continuity errors abound.

Under the Mank script (which mostly was used in STM without too many differences, outside of dialogue) & Baird as his editor--- even if cheaper, both Lois would have been portrayed less bitchy and more spunky/charming (Love or hate the DP jump, at least she's not a bitchy/whining chain-smoker in that scene)--- and the tone would have been far more serious (looking at the East Houston scenes under Mank vs. the Lester screenwriters.... the Mank one is more like the moon attack).

With Baird, who knows what would have stayed. (Would he have removed the diner revenge scene? It's darker without it and makes more sense anyhow)

The battles between Donner & Baird over STM's editing turned out for the best- Baird got a nomination for best editing for STM, didn't he?

I keep on saying..... if they did the reconstruction of the RDC like they might have done for a film classic like "Metropolis" (sans Gorgio Moroder music and tint) and had storyboards and title cards for missing dialogue, we could have REALLY seen more of how Donner might have intended his version.

The RDC will make Donner's Superman II live on forever--- as a place of never-ending controversy over 'what might have been'....

Pity. Would have just preferred it be the version of the sequel we thought would have immediately followed STM.....oh well

[Valentine Smith]

CAM, fair point about objectivity. What I meant by "objectivity" is to take away certain factors which blind us to the quality of the story itself, things like our adulation for/adoration of Reeve as Superman, the Williams theme, etc.

Absolutely, there are great moments in Superman II. Just not nearly enough to validate the complete mess that the rest of the movie is. Just by reading Mank's shooting script for SII, it's really what Donner was going to shoot. It's still pretty lousy.

And yes, either way, we were probably gonna get fucked with a memory kiss, or a world-turning, both of which are complete cop-outs which demonstrate disregard, if not outright contempt for the audience, and showcase the exact moment when they wrote themselves into a corner. It is the equivalent of "and the little boy woke up, and it was all a dream", which is unacceptable and unsatisfying in ANY medium.

Star Wars and Raiders are internally consistent films from start to finish. SII (and, by extension, STM, with the world-turn) is not. There's talk of the tonal inconsistency in STM in the later segments, which I tend to disregard, but once you get to that world-turn, you invalidate everything that the movie has been setting-up for the last two hours.

[crazy_asian_man]

CAM, fair point about objectivity. What I meant by "objectivity" is to take away certain factors which blind us to the quality of the story itself, things like our adulation for/adoration of Reeve as Superman, the Williams theme, etc.

Absolutely, there are great moments in Superman II. Just not nearly enough to validate the complete mess that the rest of the movie is. Just by reading Mank's shooting script for SII, it's really what Donner was going to shoot. It's still pretty lousy.

And yes, either way, we were probably gonna get fucked with a memory kiss, or a world-turning, both of which are complete cop-outs which demonstrate disregard, if not outright contempt for the audience, and showcase the exact moment when they wrote themselves into a corner. It is the equivalent of "and the little boy woke up, and it was all a dream", which is unacceptable and unsatisfying in ANY medium.

Star Wars and Raiders are internally consistent films from start to finish. SII (and, by extension, STM, with the world-turn) is not. There's talk of the tonal inconsistency in STM in the later segments, which I tend to disregard, but once you get to that world-turn, you invalidate everything that the movie has been setting-up for the last two hours.

Ah....ok, I see where you're coming from, Val.

I NEVER was crazy about 'time reversal'--- it's a dumb idea, no matter what and it does insult the audience.

BUT- it was what Puzo wrote into his script from the get-go..... and you're right- it's written in a way that forces the reversal or the memory kiss- IF you don't want to continue the Superman series with Lois knowing who Supes is.

Given how much money the Salkinds paid Puzo, (I don't know what it is, but I know it was a lot) I'm not suprised that they WOULDN'T let go of a lot of it.

(A side note: Could Superman II have worked at all without having the subplot of Superman giving up his humanity for Lois/revealing who he is? I think so, but it would have called for a total rethinking of the plot from ground zero)

The tonal shifts of STM drove me a little CRAZY when I first saw it, but (1) I found so the film went into areas I hadn't even thought would work from reading the comics so long, and (2) when I heard about what was planned for the second, and anticipating the seriousness of the danger that was going to return (Or so I thought) with the villains shown so seriously in the front of STM, I thought: "Ok, this is clever--- if they keep all the different tones- the campiness of Luthor, the spunkiness of Lois, the innocence of Supes/Clark, and then a dark terror of the villains (like in the moon sequence outside of the Lester inserts)- it could be brilliant."

Then, Lester turned the villains mostly into clowns, when they weren't in Donner footage. Bleaugh.

Anyhow--- that's what got me to forgive the tonal changes. As far as the time reversal--- if, as planned, there were two films and this time reversal was ONLY at the very end of worldwide destruction.... then, it's still a dumb ending- but at least (ideally) the filmmakers would have milked all the areas that they could have with the story in two giant films.

So--- in concept, there were a number of dicey things that I think could have been more justified/felt better..... in that, I like Selutron's idea of calling his cut "Superman Part II"- because I think if (1) time reversal wasn't used for the end of the first one and (2) we had Donner stay on, we would have seen a more cohesive vision by the end, with different flavors in the mix.

But, given that the reversal was used for STM and Donner (or someone true to Donner's intentions) didn't stay on, we got something that had different tones all blurred down into something more campy and more silly at the end. To me, this is what ruined the Superman movies. Not SIII or SIV.

If Donner stayed, I have this terrible feeling that the time reversal would have just been ignored at the front of the movie--- and for an ending to SII, that the memory kiss (suggested by Chris Reeve--- versus the script that has Supes using his heat vision on Lois' drink to change it into some amnesia drink!) would have been chosen, but Donner would have shot it in a more visually interesting way.... and I think it was Verisimilitude (where is he? miss him around here) who implanted the idea of having 'memory flashbacks' in editing to add power to this--- I would think that Baird may have come up with something similar, versus the rather flat way that Lester approached it.

So- anyways- getting back to the flaws of the Superman movies- I'll agree that as a whole, by design, it's always been imperfect storywise, but imo far, far worse under Lester.....

[Valentine Smith]

If you're right about Puzo, and if his script is half as bad as the Newman/Benton one, then the world-turning at the end of II is even more unforgivable. Of all the things to carry over, that's the bit they won't let go of?

By the way, despite all of this, it remains a goal of mine to ultimately unearth the original Puzo drafts. I must read them!

I wish I was as interested in the paper I'm writing as I am in this thread!!!

[Knight]

Nov 30, 2011 3:50:27 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Actually, it's hard to say.
Lester's script doesn't have nonsense like:
- Lois jumping out of the Daily Planet window
- Blank bullets scene
- Lame lines like, "I failed you. I failed myself and ... all humanity. I traded my birthright for a life of submission in a world that's now ruled by your enemies...."

I liked those scenes, so as I always say--- it is subjective.

But here's another litmus test: with the scenes that exist in the theatrical SII--- which scenes do you prefer more (going by actual screen time) - do you find more of what you enjoy by Donner or Lester?

Me too,CAM. The DPJ,BB and FOS scenes are excellent (excusing the screen test of course)


Yes, Superman's appearance is sorely missed,a reveal is very much needed. But... given the fact that this is supposed to be the second half of the same movie (the next day) can a early appearance in the first act be forgiven ?

The end as Salkind stated is: ''the end of the fairy tale after being kissed by price charming,she wakes up''. mmm, I'm unsure of that.

The film isn't boring at all,goes along nicely at a swift pace.

Turning back the world,well... that's dumb in both movies...


Some valid point raised,I too would love to read Puzo's original,sure.

[crazy_asian_man]

If you're right about Puzo, and if his script is half as bad as the Newman/Benton one, then the world-turning at the end of II is even more unforgivable. Of all the things to carry over, that's the bit they won't let go of?

By the way, despite all of this, it remains a goal of mine to ultimately unearth the original Puzo drafts. I must read them!

I read this in an old movie magazine "Mediascene Prevue" (Jim Steranko's old magazine" BEFORE STM actually came out, that gave a synopsis of what Puzo had-- which had Supes turning back time.

What I find odd is..... after ALL this time--- with the internet and the interest, that NOBODY seems to have this script available?

(Would Ilya be willing to sell a copy of his on ebay?)

[Valentine Smith]

I've tried to find it (please).

I even wrote a letter to the Puzo estate.

[Keith]

Quick question: I've yet to get the Superman Blu Ray set, but are the director commentaries subtitled? I cannot remember if they are or not.

[crazy_asian_man]

Yes, Superman's appearance is sorely missed,a reveal is very much needed. But... given the fact that this is supposed to be the second half of the same movie (the next day) can a early appearance in the first act be forgiven ?

True.... Also, given how heavy(and dark) the action is in the Mank script (cars fall off the Brooklyn Bridge that DON'T get saved during the Metropolis battle- Imagining the Golden Gate rescue sequence from STM, only without a happy ending) with Supes--- I imagine that's why Mank wrote something 'light' with the Superman appearance fox hunt in the beginning- to build up to the giant action that would have happened during the last act.

[crazy_asian_man]

Quick question: I've yet to get the Superman Blu Ray set, but are the director commentaries subtitled? I cannot remember if they are or not.

If I recall right, the 'actual' movie's subtitles appear while you listen to the commentary..... will update later when I have a chance to check it out, unless someone else knows for sure?

[SGB]

Nov 30, 2011 16:12:44 GMT -5 Keith said:

Quick question: I've yet to get the Superman Blu Ray set, but are the director commentaries subtitled?

Unfortunately, they're not.

[atp]

Nov 30, 2011 8:30:05 GMT -5 Valentine Smith said:

In other words, Superman II was ALWAYS doomed to be a shitty sequel, no matter what. In trying to save money and cut corners (something that we seem to only accuse modern studio execs of doing) they were going to push a not fully-realized/developed/properly vetted and re-written script into production.

Superman II...ANY version of Superman II is only objectively "good" based on a few performances, some great special effects (some of which still hold up), and that's it. Everything else is either nostalgia factor or simply "because it's Superman". It's not a very good movie, especially when you judge it against other big-budget fantasy movies of its time like STM, Star Wars, ESB, or Raiders, NONE of which cop-out the way any version of SII does.

Neither version had a satisfactory ending (in fact, both are quite fucking stupid). Lois jumping out the window is roughly as retarded as the extra powers and slapstick at the end of TLC, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I will always enjoy SII, whichever version I'm watching (although, to be honest, I tend to reach for The Donner Cut more often, despite it just being, essentially, a bonus disc). It's an important part of my life. But, I no longer delude myself that it's actually any good. In fact, I remember a few years before the Donner Cut was released, I was watching the Lester version with a couple of friends, and by the time we got to Niagara Falls, there was that heavy, uncomfortable feeling in the room...we all realized "This movie sucks". The script is barely realized and juvenile, the re-shoots are painfully obvious, and it just meanders along until the final act, when things finally improve.

I agree.

Time has actually been kinder to S3 than it has to S2.

In fact, I now think S3 is better -- something I would NEVER have said as a child.

S3 feels more "solid" somehow. It's more consistent throughout, and the effects are still excellent. Reeve looked the most like Superman in S3 as well.

[Kamdan]

I too am grateful that they got Salkind and Spengler to share their thoughts on all three of the films they did. The original Thau produced special features was very one-sided and they did not deserve that treatment. After all, they were the ones who originated the idea and were putting up the massive budgets for the films. Of course they wanted to do things cheaper, because they already were in the hole and they did cite how Donner bashed them in the press. I don’t get how you can do something like that and expect to show back up at work like nothing happened. I just really wish that they had been able to talk Richard Lester into sharing his thoughts on both films.

[Keith]

Dec 1, 2011 1:41:18 GMT -5 SGB said:

Nov 30, 2011 16:12:44 GMT -5 Keith said:

Quick question: I've yet to get the Superman Blu Ray set, but are the director commentaries subtitled?

Unfortunately, they're not.

I really, really hate that. WB is terrible with subtitles for commentaries. One of the things I love about the Star Trek DVD's and I think Back to the Future set was being able to read the commentaries.

They should at least provide a transcript or something.

[Valentine Smith]

I couldn't even tell you the last time I watched Superman III...or IV for that matter. It's been at least ten years. The last time I tried to watch IV I just got really sad. It's such an earnest, sincere...piece of shit. I felt bad for everyone involved.

[ye5man]

earnest, sincere...piece of shit...with a great score!

[crazy_asian_man]

earnest, sincere...piece of shit...with a great score!

Probably the most accurate and succinct review of SIV ever!
Still, I like it better than SIII....

[Valentine Smith]

Dec 1, 2011 11:54:37 GMT -5 ye5man said:

earnest, sincere...piece of shit...with a great score!

touche'!

[Jimbo]

Superman IV, Star Trek V, RoboCop 3, Masters of the Universe....

Horrible pieces of shit, but worthy of existence just for the scores they brought about.

[EnriqueH]

I actually prefer SII to STM, always have.

Probably always will.

I still find the family tragedies in Krypton and Smallville TOO well done to be entertaining.

[crazy_asian_man]

I actually prefer SII to STM, always have.
Probably always will.

I still find the family tragedies in Krypton and Smallville TOO well done to be entertaining.

Good point!

I always thought of STM as 'part one' or 'prologue' anyhow to a whole story.... just as I thought of SR as a prologue to what Singer would have done next.

Oh well....

[Keith]

I don't know how much of this is known.. parts of script and storyboards are listed here from an early draft of Superman 2, there were 4 baddies, and man was it pretty vicious and graphic. People getting killed by Zod and co.

Here's the link.. Capedwonder posted it on facebook a few mins ago..

mondoprop.blogspot.com/2009/01/superman-ii-1980-early-color-concept.html

Like I said.. I don't know if there's anything new in there or not, so check it out.

[Valentine Smith]

Yeah, these are legit. There were still four baddies in the Newman/Benton revision. Jak-El was pretty fucking stupid/useless. But yeah, the graphic violence is intact...which is weird considering how much of the rest of those drafts read like straight-up Batman '66 comedy.