If Donner had to do the extended 2006 cut....

[crazy_asian_man]

...as it's an 'alternate' cut, I kind of wish he had gone whole-hog and had it edited with Baird with Lois living and not dying/no time-reversal, the cliffhanger ending as originally planned in the script, with a micro-trailer for part II, and the kid closing the comic book for part 2, etc.

I guess a fan cut is possible..., but that requires effort and time....

[dejan]

As I said before.....it's a miracle that Donner shot as much as he did for SII during that original 1977/78 shoot.

How about this for a what if scenario.

Imagine the Salkinds postponing STM in late 78' and pushing it back for a 1980/81 release so that they could finish SII as originally intended....and release them 5 months apart  (STM and SII) over the fall of 81/early 82.

Goddam that woulda been nice



 

[crazy_asian_man]

Jul 14, 2020 17:00:01 GMT -5 dejan said:

As I said before.....it's a miracle that Donner shot as much as he did for SII during that original 1977/78 shoot.

How about this for a what if scenario.

Imagine the Salkinds postponing STM in late 78' and pushing it back for a 1980/81 release so that they could finish SII as originally intended....and release them 5 months apart  (STM and SII) over the fall of 81/early 82.

Goddam that woulda been nice



 

That's absolutely true!

As much as I (seemingly forever) whine and complain about SII- I forget that maybe I should be grateful for what we got, than what we didn't with Donner/Baird--
(I often wonder how Baird would have cut the Jorel/Supes scenes for SII)

Also-- while I rag on Lester, there are scenes that are done well- my irritation is that the script was already written well, so why rewrite it for a lesser version?
So.... I begrudgingly admit that it could have been a worse director chosen.

Having a 5-month apart release I agree would have been darn nice!!!

[dejan]

No worries CAM 


I probably come across as a Lester apologist lol


When it comes to other fantasy films from 81'.....only Raiders equals or surpasses SII.


All I can say is that when viewing SII for the first time in 81'(back to back with STM)…..it was great.


Back then I was watching Biksby's Hulk on TV and had just seen Hammond's Spiderman dragons challenge(released theatrically here in Europe but only shown on tv in the US


So seeing Supes and the 3 villains fly around NYC crashing into eacother nd destroying stuff was an unreal experience. 

[crazy_asian_man]

I'm glad that you had great experiences with SII- I have to realize and watch myself on ruining others' experiences by what I write- I know there's a way to express one's own disappointment with something without ruining someone else's joy of the same thing- .... again, apologies- I could and should be more tactful when I talk about Lester.
(I still shout out his "Three Musketeers" is fantastic though)

I think when I was steadily watching STM on vhs prior to SII's release.... especially in the last act, with seeing that giant section of Superman saving all of California on a seemingly endless budget and giant scale - I was imagining how much further and how amazing the sequel's battle sequence was going to be compared to STM--- so when it was intercut with jokes and not even a single on camera punch by Superman --- I definitely had pre-conceived notions on what I was going to see with the final battle--- if I had come to SII 'fresh' without being a comic fan prior or having not build up expectations from over-viewing STM I might have not built this whole scenario in my head on what to expect.

In Lester's excellent "three Musketeers" the battles are filled with humor- but I felt there, it totally worked and was welcome to give something fresh and unexpected for a period piece.

With SII- particularly the last act- I didn't feel the gags were appropriate nor what I was interested in focusing on. FX wise and budget wise it was the first time that the comic books could be taken seriously and give jaw-droppoing moments. There's moments of seriousness for sure in that Metro battle section, but it's definitely diluted by humor too much imo- The script by Mank for that section is much darker with no gags. Presumably this is what Donner would have shot.

Anyhow- I'm glad at the inventiveness of even more fans around the world apparently from different corners popping up to give a new spin with fx/whatnot to the Reeve movie series.

Another thought I should give myself is, too...
In an alternate world, if the box office bombed for STM (hard to imagine but)- then SII might never have been completed at all under any director.

Lester is a competent director- but his viewpoint is definitely different from mine (and Donner's) on the perfect Superman movie....
I never have giant feelings against SIII- because it was his vision from beginning to end- but I just feel that his talents should have kept on preserving the original SII- because I think he could have delivered fine in mimicking Donner's style- but already rewriting the Mank script (for Brando's deletion I kind of get, but not the other choices) and redesigning the characters mid-vision upsetted me.

If he chose to, he could have honored Donner's vision, kept the Mank script (outside of Brando), then done his own thing with Superman III... he was guaranteed to have had that option.

In any case, what's done is done--- but my hope is that there's still a shiteload of footage available from both directors for a billionaire to really make a restored version closer to the Mank script one day.... unlikely, but free to dream (or be delusional).

[dejan]

No need to apologize CAM buddy.


Totally respect and empathise where you are coming from.


One factor which I find intriguing is that you had access to the STM VHS before SII was released theatrically.

You would have been one of the few at that point in time...…..I managed to grab that 1979 STM VHS off ebay a couple of years back...….and as I said before.....it's rather poor picture quality actually masks some of the seams of the SPFX and makes them blend in with the live footage more seamlessly.


In my experience watching a film repeatedly can have 2 different effects which I think is applicable in particular to STM and SII

The 1st effect is that the more you watch the film.....the more enamoured with it you become.....some films that spring to mind in my own personal experience that get better or offer  something different with each successive viewing are :

Blade Runner(which I hated when I first saw it)
A Passage To India
Amadeus
Star Trek Wrath Of Khan.....and heck..... The Motion Picture!



….and there are many more.

The 2nd effect is films that get worse with successive viewings

For me personally:
Lord Of the Rings(all 6 flicks)
Star Trek V
Superman IV

…..you get the idea!.....and the last  2  films  started off badly to begin with!

STM and SII fall somewhere inbetween.

In some ways I wish I had never seen STM and SII again after viewing them back to back in 81'.

Home video at once gave you access to your favourite flicks and at the same time stripped away the mystique and aura simply by providing the means to be  overexposed to them.

Regarding SII

In my own personal experience:

1st Viewing may 1981 35mm --Blown away
2nd Viewing Summer 1982 35mm--blown away again

3rd viewing February 1983 at home on the V2000 video system (made by Philips and only released in Europe)------blown away again

4th Viewing February 1983(V2000)…..still blown away but not as much.

And from that point on I have never enjoyed SII as much as those 1st 3 viewings.....despite the advent of better quality VHS tapes,Laserdiscs, DVDs and Blu rays over the course of the next 39 years or so.

I just became too familiar with it.

For me SII works best as a one off first time viewing experience....and especially in the context of 1980/81 where it was undisputedly unique as a cinematic extravaganza.


It is not the kind of film like Blade Runner where you can uncover subtle differences on each successive viewing.  
 
I would say the same for STM in my own personal experience.
The best experience was the first viewing on 35mm on the double bill with SII.

Every time I have seen it since I have got a little bit less out of it.

Seeing as I am going through a whole bunch of flicks from 1978 right now....with the intention of rounding it off with a viewing of STM....I am hoping to recapture some of that 1st time viewing aura! 

[crazy_asian_man]

Jul 16, 2020 9:08:27 GMT -5 dejan said:

No need to apologize CAM buddy.


Totally respect and empathise where you are coming from.


One factor which I find intriguing is that you had access to the STM VHS before SII was released theatrically.

You would have been one of the few at that point in time...…..I managed to grab that 1979 STM VHS off ebay a couple of years back...….and as I said before.....it's rather poor picture quality actually masks some of the seams of the SPFX and makes them blend in with the live footage more seamlessly.


In my experience watching a film repeatedly can have 2 different effects which I think is applicable in particular to STM and SII

The 1st effect is that the more you watch the film.....the more enamoured with it you become.....some films that spring to mind in my own personal experience that get better or offer  something different with each successive viewing are :

Blade Runner(which I hated when I first saw it)
A Passage To India
Amadeus
Star Trek Wrath Of Khan.....and heck..... The Motion Picture!



….and there are many more.

The 2nd effect is films that get worse with successive viewings

For me personally:
Lord Of the Rings(all 6 flicks)
Star Trek V
Superman IV

…..you get the idea!.....and the last  2  films  started off badly to begin with!

STM and SII fall somewhere inbetween.

In some ways I wish I had never seen STM and SII again after viewing them back to back in 81'.

Home video at once gave you access to your favourite flicks and at the same time stripped away the mystique and aura simply by providing the means to be  overexposed to them.

Regarding SII

In my own personal experience:

1st Viewing may 1981 35mm --Blown away
2nd Viewing Summer 1982 35mm--blown away again

3rd viewing February 1983 at home on the V2000 video system (made by Philips and only released in Europe)------blown away again

4th Viewing February 1983(V2000)…..still blown away but not as much.

And from that point on I have never enjoyed SII as much as those 1st 3 viewings.....despite the advent of better quality VHS tapes,Laserdiscs, DVDs and Blu rays over the course of the next 39 years or so.

I just became too familiar with it.

For me SII works best as a one off first time viewing experience....and especially in the context of 1980/81 where it was undisputedly unique as a cinematic extravaganza.


It is not the kind of film like Blade Runner where you can uncover subtle differences on each successive viewing.  
 
I would say the same for STM in my own personal experience.
The best experience was the first viewing on 35mm on the double bill with SII.

Every time I have seen it since I have got a little bit less out of it.

Seeing as I am going through a whole bunch of flicks from 1978 right now....with the intention of rounding it off with a viewing of STM....I am hoping to recapture some of that 1st time viewing aura! 

Great points Dejan!

For me, I was up/down on the FIRST viewing of SII for the reasons I mentioned about preconceived notions from STM about the big battle.

I also was in the thought of: "I've been wanting a big budget superhero film for YEARS- don't screw it up! Because... it might be the last one, too!"

What's funny is that I was kind of right for the time- the Superman movies came out... but then no other superhero movies came out despite STM's success until Batman '89.... and then when that one fizzled out, nothing for a long time until Spiderman/X-men.

SR excited me because it was unique in that it was going to try to do the impossible: "Restore/preserve" the Donner vision.

I still love parts of it but such a pity it never even got a second film to see how things would have gone from there, but-

Anyhow... neat to hear you're revisiting the golden era- don't forget "The Last Starfighter"- it's not great, but has good bits and a good heart- even if it's REALLY derivative of Star Wars...

[dejan]

Yeah....I think there will always be a what if with regards to SII until the end of time.

As it stands for me personally at the moment....STM sits above SII...and then there is the rest.


But being objective there are plenty of other film series where there was a decline in quality as they progressed.


The Matrix, Lord Of The Rings(Viggo Mortensen did an interview where he was scathing about ROTK----saying it just turned into videogame slug fest!)...Harry Potter is all over the place,,,,I personally will take the Winter Soldier over anything that came before or after in the marvel universe......and some of these films even had the same directors for the subsequent installations and they still could not maintain the quality!


There are also plenty of SW fans who actually prefer A New Hope to Empire even now...….and at the time of Empire's release many saw it as a step back relative to EpIV.


Put it this way.....I have no problem these days playing and enjoying the 3 Salkind Supes films and enjoying them for what they are(as opposed to what they could have been)

SIV does not exist for me



Ahh the last StarFighter……..will have to track that one down!

[crazy_asian_man]

Jul 16, 2020 17:38:16 GMT -5 dejan said:

Yeah....I think there will always be a what if with regards to SII until the end of time.

As it stands for me personally at the moment....STM sits above SII...and then there is the rest.


But being objective there are plenty of other film series where there was a decline in quality as they progressed.


The Matrix, Lord Of The Rings(Viggo Mortensen did an interview where he was scathing about ROTK----saying it just turned into videogame slug fest!)...Harry Potter is all over the place,,,,I personally will take the Winter Soldier over anything that came before or after in the marvel universe......and some of these films even had the same directors for the subsequent installations and they still could not maintain the quality!


There are also plenty of SW fans who actually prefer A New Hope to Empire even now...….and at the time of Empire's release many saw it as a step back relative to EpIV.


Put it this way.....I have no problem these days playing and enjoying the 3 Salkind Supes films and enjoying them for what they are(as opposed to what they could have been)

SIV does not exist for me



Ahh the last StarFighter……..will have to track that one down!

Agreed... SII will always be the 'what if' movie that never got completed quite the way intended... but it sits next to other films in the past that had great ambitions and (for one reason or another) had misfortune happen.

The Marvel movies I'd agree aren't consistent- but considering the ambition to do what Marvel comics have done and movies hadn't done in crossovers, building up a gigantic storyline on a big budget movie scale--- that had never been done before. To read that even tv crossovers would require a lot of headaches with contracts and schedules (and I guess they still do) made me appreciate the giant obstacles from a production standpoint- not just a story standpoint.

We were pretty lucky to get even a superhero trilogy done right from beginning to end pre-Marvel.... so while there are movies in the Marvel machine that underwhelm me- there would either be fantastic 'straight from the comics' scenes that I'd never dream I'd see done right (Captain America's origin comes to mind) that to me would be worth the price of admission or at least continue to be successful enough to make Hollywood comfortable enough to continue putting money into other superhero properties--- so Marvel's success was all good in one way or the other, I felt.

Up unti Marvel, we could never dream of a crossover superhero film with the same actors--- let alone a group superhero movie from different standalone movies.

If things had worked out differently with the Superman Reeve movies- can you imagine if the build up of a chain of superhero movie titles happened then?
I know there's fan art presenting that idea that's cool- and it keeps coming up, but that's why I'm so impressed with Marvel's ambition and success....

If WB/DC had someone in charge that wanted to build a whole universe of superhero films back in the 80's with STM as the foundation- talk about a golden age of movies! But, for whatever reason, nobody in charge seemed to be interested in building up a superhero movie machine until Kevin Feige....

[dejan]

Jul 16, 2020 18:11:38 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Jul 16, 2020 17:38:16 GMT -5 dejan said:

Yeah....I think there will always be a what if with regards to SII until the end of time.

As it stands for me personally at the moment....STM sits above SII...and then there is the rest.


But being objective there are plenty of other film series where there was a decline in quality as they progressed.


The Matrix, Lord Of The Rings(Viggo Mortensen did an interview where he was scathing about ROTK----saying it just turned into videogame slug fest!)...Harry Potter is all over the place,,,,I personally will take the Winter Soldier over anything that came before or after in the marvel universe......and some of these films even had the same directors for the subsequent installations and they still could not maintain the quality!


There are also plenty of SW fans who actually prefer A New Hope to Empire even now...….and at the time of Empire's release many saw it as a step back relative to EpIV.


Put it this way.....I have no problem these days playing and enjoying the 3 Salkind Supes films and enjoying them for what they are(as opposed to what they could have been)

SIV does not exist for me



Ahh the last StarFighter……..will have to track that one down!

Agreed... SII will always be the 'what if' movie that never got completed quite the way intended... but it sits next to other films in the past that had great ambitions and (for one reason or another) had misfortune happen.

The Marvel movies I'd agree aren't consistent- but considering the ambition to do what Marvel comics have done and movies hadn't done in crossovers, building up a gigantic storyline on a big budget movie scale--- that had never been done before. To read that even tv crossovers would require a lot of headaches with contracts and schedules (and I guess they still do) made me appreciate the giant obstacles from a production standpoint- not just a story standpoint.

We were pretty lucky to get even a superhero trilogy done right from beginning to end pre-Marvel.... so while there are movies in the Marvel machine that underwhelm me- there would either be fantastic 'straight from the comics' scenes that I'd never dream I'd see done right (Captain America's origin comes to mind) that to me would be worth the price of admission or at least continue to be successful enough to make Hollywood comfortable enough to continue putting money into other superhero properties--- so Marvel's success was all good in one way or the other, I felt.

Up unti Marvel, we could never dream of a crossover superhero film with the same actors--- let alone a group superhero movie from different standalone movies.

If things had worked out differently with the Superman Reeve movies- can you imagine if the build up of a chain of superhero movie titles happened then?
I know there's fan art presenting that idea that's cool- and it keeps coming up, but that's why I'm so impressed with Marvel's ambition and success....

If WB/DC had someone in charge that wanted to build a whole universe of superhero films back in the 80's with STM as the foundation- talk about a golden age of movies! But, for whatever reason, nobody in charge seemed to be interested in building up a superhero movie machine until Kevin Feige....

All good points as usual CAM

I do think the technology(i.e CGI) is now commensurate with generating these types of flicks(Marvel) though.

Even if there was a Feige back in the early 80s there was no way that they could have produced these kinds of flicks in any where near the same spectrum of time frames.

I do think that analogue technology would have been good enough to generate 22 inter related superhero flicks......but instead of taking 10 years(as it eventually did)...it would have taken 20-30 years--maybe more....lol
 
As Obi-Wan would say if he could see a CGI movie:

"They are more (digital)machine now than man"

[crazy_asian_man]

Jul 19, 2020 10:45:10 GMT -5 dejan said:

Jul 16, 2020 18:11:38 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Agreed... SII will always be the 'what if' movie that never got completed quite the way intended... but it sits next to other films in the past that had great ambitions and (for one reason or another) had misfortune happen.

The Marvel movies I'd agree aren't consistent- but considering the ambition to do what Marvel comics have done and movies hadn't done in crossovers, building up a gigantic storyline on a big budget movie scale--- that had never been done before. To read that even tv crossovers would require a lot of headaches with contracts and schedules (and I guess they still do) made me appreciate the giant obstacles from a production standpoint- not just a story standpoint.

We were pretty lucky to get even a superhero trilogy done right from beginning to end pre-Marvel.... so while there are movies in the Marvel machine that underwhelm me- there would either be fantastic 'straight from the comics' scenes that I'd never dream I'd see done right (Captain America's origin comes to mind) that to me would be worth the price of admission or at least continue to be successful enough to make Hollywood comfortable enough to continue putting money into other superhero properties--- so Marvel's success was all good in one way or the other, I felt.

Up unti Marvel, we could never dream of a crossover superhero film with the same actors--- let alone a group superhero movie from different standalone movies.

If things had worked out differently with the Superman Reeve movies- can you imagine if the build up of a chain of superhero movie titles happened then?
I know there's fan art presenting that idea that's cool- and it keeps coming up, but that's why I'm so impressed with Marvel's ambition and success....

If WB/DC had someone in charge that wanted to build a whole universe of superhero films back in the 80's with STM as the foundation- talk about a golden age of movies! But, for whatever reason, nobody in charge seemed to be interested in building up a superhero movie machine until Kevin Feige....

All good points as usual CAM

I do think the technology(i.e CGI) is now commensurate with generating these types of flicks(Marvel) though.

Even if there was a Feige back in the early 80s there was no way that they could have produced these kinds of flicks in any where near the same spectrum of time frames.

I do think that analogue technology would have been good enough to generate 22 inter related superhero flicks......but instead of taking 10 years(as it eventually did)...it would have taken 20-30 years--maybe more....lol
 
As Obi-Wan would say if he could see a CGI movie:

"They are more (digital)machine now than man"

True- but it would have been interesting to have seen what those mostly-practical films would have been like.

One thing that I give Marvel Movies credit for right out of the running gate is: (1) the 'look' of the character often looks traditional-enough that it does carry the spirit of the character form the comics and (2) the origin usually isn't taken over by a screenwriter who thinks he/she can do it better.* (*Having said that, X-men Origins rewrote the x-men history and in many ways was far superior to the original comic origin... but I feel that's a really rare exception).

Whether or not the studios would have kept the original origins at the time is a big question mark.

Batman was supposed to happen soon after STM was a giant hit (even a script by Mankiewicz commissioned)- but rather than dive in, I think STM was considered an anomaly. Wasn't until Burton jumped in off of the Beetlejuice success that I recall the greenlights happening right away on that project... almost ten years later!

And then after Batman... where were all the superhero film projects? Again, I think Hollywood thought a superhero film was too big a risk until Sam Raimi's Spiderman and SInger's X-men started to show if done right, it could be bank.