CapedWonder Imagery of the Day...

[crazy_asian_man]

Jan 21, 2021 20:13:42 GMT -5 Kamdan said:

Speaking of Superman Cinema, is there a way to look back at the old site with the Wayback Machine? I think we used to be able to look back at the old forum posts, but that’s out of commission now.

Capedwonder has a pulldown menu with some of the old material on Superman Cinema- I don't think all, but a lot of the key interviews...

[crazy_asian_man]

Jan 21, 2021 20:51:18 GMT -5 dejan said:

@cam
Yes the 1981 UK double bill was my first viewing of STM & SII.

Funnily enough, by missing the opening credits and the approach to Krypton with the subsequent panning shot that encompasses the landscape with the Dome/cupola.......it made it quite awe inspiring to see the structure suddenly and surprisingly arch upwards(just after Zod delivers his ultimatum to Jorel)......to reveal that the criminals were inside a gigantic dome in the first place!!
So I  may not have experienced that sequence as  intended by the director but it still ended up captivating me and pop.
The sense of scale was so well executed that we were just mesmerized!

So in homage to that moment I post this behind the scenes photo of that iconic dome(thanks to Capedwonder):

That's interesting... how funny how a narrative can have a different effect just by how/when something is introduced!

I think there really is something to watching something in a binge versus having to wait an extended period of time. I remember loving Star Trek the Next Generation, but what really got me were the season cliffhangers that you had to wait a few months for the new season to start to see how they would resolve it... but that's lost with binge and quick access to the next installment.

I've been enjoying stuff on Disney plus, but I'm kind of glad the new series are released weekly. It's okay (and sometimes better) to have some time to rest and absorb some elements of a story before going onto the next.

[crazy_asian_man]

Jan 21, 2021 21:13:08 GMT -5 dejan said:

@cam

Regarding your 2 photos of Donner's SII fortress scenes--I do hope there is actually more that can be unearthed.

I did find it surprising that Donner had not lensed more of Lois's reactions to Supes getting depowered.
And I wanna see Donner's soufle scene dammit!

Regarding  Thau's editing---totally agree with your analysis.
STM is a product of a specific nexus in time regarding american cinematic history.
When I watched all those movies from 1978' .......that was one thing that really struck me.....the pacing of all of them....far more measured and more balanced than films we have now.

With STM- every landscape was like a painting and a different world- Krypton, Smallville, the Fortress of Solitude, Metropolis, even Lois' balcony!
All Donner's aesthetics for the film... also, shooting everything from every angle possible (or his second unit) for certain scenes - was perfect for Stuart Baird to blend together so that every scene had a sense of scale and importance.

Lester's mission to make things faster and cheaper I can understand, so the loss of every location looking like a painting kind of went out the window, aside from the previously Donner shot material... that disappointed me, but I could accept that.

What did bother me was that he really went too far imo when the tone of the story changed drastically. Lois in the original script is still spunky and charming, but in the rewrite she's a bit of a complainer and more unlikeable. Zod and company were funny in Donner's version as well- but true to their character and scary as well. The Metro battle hijacked by one-liners and sight gags to this day (and I speak about aud naseum I'm sure) wasn't even scripted but an add-on by Lester that showed where his priorities were with the main characters.

But I digress.... I think things started to change in general at the same time music television started to evolve and shape things to be faster and more intense and (I believe) started to carryover into the movies. There was a general sense of pacing that seemed to be agreed upon for most major films that seemed to shift over time for fantasy and action films. Not sure exactly when, but I agree that things did change drastically with pacing in general on these kind of films.

Anyhow-

[Kamdan]

Capedwonder has a pulldown menu with some of the old material on Superman Cinema- I don't think all, but a lot of the key interviews...

I know. That stuff makes me want to see the old site again and go through what’s not posted there. It was fun back in the day to read the breakdowns of all of the extra footage, who shot what in Superman II and even a speculation of what the Donner cut may look like. I tried entering the supermancinema.co.uk on the Wayback Machine site but it didn’t work. Not sure if I had the right URL.

[dejan]

Jan 22, 2021 1:23:47 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Jan 21, 2021 21:13:08 GMT -5 dejan said:

@cam

Regarding your 2 photos of Donner's SII fortress scenes--I do hope there is actually more that can be unearthed.

I did find it surprising that Donner had not lensed more of Lois's reactions to Supes getting depowered.
And I wanna see Donner's soufle scene dammit!

Regarding  Thau's editing---totally agree with your analysis.
STM is a product of a specific nexus in time regarding american cinematic history.
When I watched all those movies from 1978' .......that was one thing that really struck me.....the pacing of all of them....far more measured and more balanced than films we have now.

With STM- every landscape was like a painting and a different world- Krypton, Smallville, the Fortress of Solitude, Metropolis, even Lois' balcony!
All Donner's aesthetics for the film... also, shooting everything from every angle possible (or his second unit) for certain scenes - was perfect for Stuart Baird to blend together so that every scene had a sense of scale and importance.

Lester's mission to make things faster and cheaper I can understand, so the loss of every location looking like a painting kind of went out the window, aside from the previously Donner shot material... that disappointed me, but I could accept that.

What did bother me was that he really went too far imo when the tone of the story changed drastically. Lois in the original script is still spunky and charming, but in the rewrite she's a bit of a complainer and more unlikeable. Zod and company were funny in Donner's version as well- but true to their character and scary as well. The Metro battle hijacked by one-liners and sight gags to this day (and I speak about aud naseum I'm sure) wasn't even scripted but an add-on by Lester that showed where his priorities were with the main characters.

But I digress.... I think things started to change in general at the same time music television started to evolve and shape things to be faster and more intense and (I believe) started to carryover into the movies. There was a general sense of pacing that seemed to be agreed upon for most major films that seemed to shift over time for fantasy and action films. Not sure exactly when, but I agree that things did change drastically with pacing in general on these kind of films.

Anyhow-

I agree with regards to Donner and Unsworth's fantastic cinematography.:




But Lester (and the DP Bob Paynter) also shot some pretty impressive establishing wide angle shots of The Niagra Falls and The Eiffel Tower(albeit in rather overcast conditions).
I also thought some of the photography for the set based stuff(42nd st and The Fortress) were also lensed with a great deal of class.







Because I am watching this stuff on a 100inch wide home theater screen maybe I am privy to a few details that get lost on smaller TV sets.
However, the advantage of smaller screens is that your eyes don't have to move backwards and forwards to comprehend the entire breadth of the image. So it is pros and cons.
But on my screen and projection system(JVC NX9 with anamorphic ISCO 1.25 lens)most of Lester's stuff holds up exceedingly well.

But Donner and Unsworth were a tough act to follow! 

[crazy_asian_man]

Jan 22, 2021 13:19:35 GMT -5 dejan said:

Jan 22, 2021 1:23:47 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

With STM- every landscape was like a painting and a different world- Krypton, Smallville, the Fortress of Solitude, Metropolis, even Lois' balcony!
All Donner's aesthetics for the film... also, shooting everything from every angle possible (or his second unit) for certain scenes - was perfect for Stuart Baird to blend together so that every scene had a sense of scale and importance.

Lester's mission to make things faster and cheaper I can understand, so the loss of every location looking like a painting kind of went out the window, aside from the previously Donner shot material... that disappointed me, but I could accept that.

What did bother me was that he really went too far imo when the tone of the story changed drastically. Lois in the original script is still spunky and charming, but in the rewrite she's a bit of a complainer and more unlikeable. Zod and company were funny in Donner's version as well- but true to their character and scary as well. The Metro battle hijacked by one-liners and sight gags to this day (and I speak about aud naseum I'm sure) wasn't even scripted but an add-on by Lester that showed where his priorities were with the main characters.

But I digress.... I think things started to change in general at the same time music television started to evolve and shape things to be faster and more intense and (I believe) started to carryover into the movies. There was a general sense of pacing that seemed to be agreed upon for most major films that seemed to shift over time for fantasy and action films. Not sure exactly when, but I agree that things did change drastically with pacing in general on these kind of films.

Anyhow-

I agree with regards to Donner and Unsworth's fantastic cinematography.:




But Lester (and the DP Bob Paynter) also shot some pretty impressive establishing wide angle shots of The Niagra Falls and The Eiffel Tower(albeit in rather overcast conditions).
I also thought some of the photography for the set based stuff(42nd st and The Fortress) were also lensed with a great deal of class.







Because I am watching this stuff on a 100inch wide home theater screen maybe I am privy to a few details that get lost on smaller TV sets.
However, the advantage of smaller screens is that your eyes don't have to move backwards and forwards to comprehend the entire breadth of the image. So it is pros and cons.
But on my screen and projection system(JVC NX9 with anamorphic ISCO 1.25 lens)most of Lester's stuff holds up exceedingly well.

But Donner and Unsworth were a tough act to follow! 

In bits Lester did a good job in matching shots to Donner's work- the high points I feel are the 'alleyway change' that everyone cheers and the 'General, would you care to step outside' insert shots with Reeve. (the inserts with bad hair Lois- not so much). The Paris stuff is okay but mostly pretty mediocre. It would not have taken much to have redone the scene to have shown off his powers more (I still think the Paris terrorists could have shot at Supes or whatnot and cross-cut with the zone exploding as an example)

But the mediocrity and plain ugly looking other shots I contribute to not just the cinematographer- but also the art direction/set dresser other choices that was approved by Lester at some points (Thinking of Lois' awful office at the DP- it is an office, but couldn't she have had a view like Perry's so it wouldn't have looked so cheap?

On another note- with the cinematography, I can sort of understand why producers were angry when Donner would hold up production until the lighting was right outdoors to shoot certain things--- so maybe Lester's insistence on keeping budget may have interfered with better looking footage- on the other hand, they already knew STM was a giant hit so it's unfortunate that they didn't spend a little more if that's what it would have taken to get better shots.

The compositions I think bothered me on a number of shots, too. I don't think most were necessarily bad, but just not that interesting an angle or a little too conventional... but, again.... I guess it could have been much worse, but if one had a script ready to go- I bemoan that it should have been much better. People may complain about the Whedon-Snyder Justice League being schizophrenic, but I don't think that's anywhere close to SII imo...

[dejan]

@cam

I have to respectfully disagree with regards to the mediocrity assertion regarding the Eiffel Tower sequence.
I would argue that the overcast conditions actually add  a certain foreboding mood to the scene...and to be honest that is the way I perceived it when I first saw it in 81'.
On a big screen you can see practically every rivet and flange that constitutes the Eiffel Tower stairway as Lois makes her way up. And the angle looking through the elevator shaft(once Lois is perched underneath the lift) is excellent.
In terms of color temperature, I also think the cinematographer did an excellent job of matching the live footage to the miniature equivalents to make it one cohesive sequence (as there are a number of rapid fire edits as the lift descends). 

I get the aspect of the cheapness of Lois's office.....although I personally never read that much into it.....there is actually a lot of detail in those shots regardless(the walls are plastered with practically every newspaper clipping under the sun).....so I always like the density of stuff in that office.....like she is busy!.....but I understand your argument.
Also one other point just came to me......in the 1981 Making of SII documentary Lester referred to the fact that he wanted every other scene to not have effects and to have just people interacting with each other.
So that may have something to do with it too.....and I personally think the acting in both scenes in Lois's office is excellent and that is what takes center stage.

I would argue the sequence in the Donner Cut where Clark returns to the Planet after turning back the world actually looks rather bland and sterile by comparison(although that may have been by design given the context of the scene)......the acting is not great either....but as I said before and IMHO Donner , for SII, could not quite match the quality of his own STM footage(with the Daily Planet stuff).Of course he would have junked this footage had he been allowed to return in 79'....given the fact that the turning back the world sequence had been transposed onto STM. 

I think with Snyder and Wheddon.....it's a completely different era of film making.......whereby digital fixes can be applied in almost infinite ways to rectify discrepant footage.....and they still could not do it properly!.
In that regard, I would argue that Lester did an amazing job marrying some(if not all!) his footage to Donner's because in the photochemical/analogue world, that kind of work was extremely difficult.       

As an interesting aside:
IMHO Donners unique SII footage(the moon,White House,Diner Tunnel) is fantastic both in terms of shot composition and acting.
It's actually the fortress and Daily Planet stuff which seems to suffer in comparison.
It could be that Donner's priority when he was shooting in locations that featured stuff for both STM and SII.....that he made sure that the STM stuff really hit the mark!.....he could always come back later and tweak the SII stuff.
It's a shame he never got the chance to do it. 

[crazy_asian_man]

Jan 23, 2021 18:36:27 GMT -5 dejan said:

@cam

I have to respectfully disagree with regards to the mediocrity assertion regarding the Eiffel Tower sequence.
I would argue that the overcast conditions actually add  a certain foreboding mood to the scene...and to be honest that is the way I perceived it when I first saw it in 81'.
On a big screen you can see practically every rivet and flange that constitutes the Eiffel Tower stairway as Lois makes her way up. And the angle looking through the elevator shaft(once Lois is perched underneath the lift) is excellent.
In terms of color temperature, I also think the cinematographer did an excellent job of matching the live footage to the miniature equivalents to make it one cohesive sequence (as there are a number of rapid fire edits as the lift descends). 

I get the aspect of the cheapness of Lois's office.....although I personally never read that much into it.....there is actually a lot of detail in those shots regardless(the walls are plastered with practically every newspaper clipping under the sun).....so I always like the density of stuff in that office.....like she is busy!.....but I understand your argument.
Also one other point just came to me......in the 1981 Making of SII documentary Lester referred to the fact that he wanted every other scene to not have effects and to have just people interacting with each other.
So that may have something to do with it too.....and I personally think the acting in both scenes in Lois's office is excellent and that is what takes center stage.

I would argue the sequence in the Donner Cut where Clark returns to the Planet after turning back the world actually looks rather bland and sterile by comparison(although that may have been by design given the context of the scene)......the acting is not great either....but as I said before and IMHO Donner , for SII, could not quite match the quality of his own STM footage(with the Daily Planet stuff).Of course he would have junked this footage had he been allowed to return in 79'....given the fact that the turning back the world sequence had been transposed onto STM. 

I think with Snyder and Wheddon.....it's a completely different era of film making.......whereby digital fixes can be applied in almost infinite ways to rectify discrepant footage.....and they still could not do it properly!.
In that regard, I would argue that Lester did an amazing job marrying some(if not all!) his footage to Donner's because in the photochemical/analogue world, that kind of work was extremely difficult.       

As an interesting aside:
IMHO Donners unique SII footage(the moon,White House,Diner Tunnel) is fantastic both in terms of shot composition and acting.
It's actually the fortress and Daily Planet stuff which seems to suffer in comparison.
It could be that Donner's priority when he was shooting in locations that featured stuff for both STM and SII.....that he made sure that the STM stuff really hit the mark!.....he could always come back later and tweak the SII stuff.
It's a shame he never got the chance to do it. 

Sure, I never have a problem with civil disagreement.

The money suprisingly was there..... but after seeing the last act of STM where he zips in/out of different spots of California to save the day, the design of the action for the Paris sequence felt (1) SLOW by comparison and (2) not like a lot was at stake. A few minor tweaks I think would have raised the danger level and not cost all that much more. Instead of releasing the hostages earlier- why not have had Superman also save them at the same time and fight it out with the terrorists AND stop the nuclear bomb from going off by hurling the elevator in place?

When viewing many scenes in "Raiders of the Lost Ark", what's intriguing is how every 'danger' scene usually has three or four complications going off at once while going against the clock, making one clutch the edge of their seat. Indy there usually has to take care of two or three things at the same time.

If Supes had done the same for the Paris sequence, I feel like it could have been spectacular (what if another smaller bomb blew up the Effeil Tower so that he had to repair it at the same time from collapsing? That sort of thing). So that's why I thought it was 'okay' rather than a showstopper scene. Editing and concept wise, it was effective, but to this day, I still am wowed by the helicopter scene and even the short 30 second 'Superman speeds by the Concorde' I was more excited by than the whole of the Paris. The money seemed to be there, so I don't fault that, but how it was put together--- but, again, it is subjective. I'm glad money was put in there, though.

I actually have another thought that also sounds blasphemous: it's not impossible that another director of the same caliber could have done a good job finishing. Donner had and always deserve credit for the foundation- but if you had someone like Michael Mann or Robert Zemeckis finishing off SII at the time, I think it's not impossible that it could have been a good fit and feel more like STM.

But.... realistically, even with Deepfake tech/whatnot, there seems to be way too much against a re-edit or 'fix' of SII to be more like what Donner intended- the main thing to look forwards to that seems even halfway possible now is an extended SII tv cut... one day....

[dejan]

@cam

As always you make valid points
It's always enjoyable to comprehend how someone else can perceive exactly the same material in a different way.!
 
Think I remember you proposing on another thread some alterations to the climax of the Eiffel Tower sequence.

I agree.....those extra incidents that you define could have indeed added a bit of extra jeopardy. Had they been implemented however(e.g the terrorists shooting at Supes)......it would have to have been incorporated with very quick editing, so as not to detract from the main plot.....i.e to get the bomb outta there!

One thing that literally just popped into my head was the fact there are no crowd reactions(at the base of the tower) to the moment the lift starts falling! It has taken me exactly 40 years to notice that!
I just checked the Lester SII revised shooting script....and indeed there is no reference to crowd reaction footage(be it as  the lift is falling.....or Supes ascending through the shaft with the lift in hand).
To be fair, Lester did include the reaction of Lois as she looks up(it's very quick) as Supes begins his ascent towards the top of the tower.
Maybe Lester could have shot some very quick scenes of the crowd screaming and dispersing as the lift begins it's descent.....and then some other shots of the crowd applauding/cheering as Supes takes the bomb into the sky. Would not have been difficult to shoot.....and Lester did go to the trouble of assembling a decent amount of extras at the base of the tower  to accentuate Lois's arrival in the first place.
But maybe it would have mirrored the helicopter scene from STM too much.
Still a little food for thought.

Interesting with regards to your idea of Zemekis replacing Donner.
Zemekis never really found his stride until Romancing The Stone( a full 4 years after the release of SII)...so it would have been a gamble for the Salkinds to have taken a chance on him as early as 79'.
Also Zemekis showed he too was not invulnerable given the lesser quality of BTTF II(which I personally think is a bit of a mess) when compared to BTTF III.And the general consensus is that neither II or III are as good as I.

Film making can be a little bit like capturing lightning in a bottle......and Donner definitely  caught it for STM!   

  

[crazy_asian_man]

Jan 24, 2021 12:36:33 GMT -5 dejan said:

@cam

As always you make valid points
It's always enjoyable to comprehend how someone else can perceive exactly the same material in a different way.!
 
Think I remember you proposing on another thread some alterations to the climax of the Eiffel Tower sequence.

I agree.....those extra incidents that you define could have indeed added a bit of extra jeopardy. Had they been implemented however(e.g the terrorists shooting at Supes)......it would have to have been incorporated with very quick editing, so as not to detract from the main plot.....i.e to get the bomb outta there!

One thing that literally just popped into my head was the fact there are no crowd reactions(at the base of the tower) to the moment the lift starts falling! It has taken me exactly 40 years to notice that!
I just checked the Lester SII revised shooting script....and indeed there is no reference to crowd reaction footage(be it as  the lift is falling.....or Supes ascending through the shaft with the lift in hand).
To be fair, Lester did include the reaction of Lois as she looks up(it's very quick) as Supes begins his ascent towards the top of the tower.
Maybe Lester could have shot some very quick scenes of the crowd screaming and dispersing as the lift begins it's descent.....and then some other shots of the crowd applauding/cheering as Supes takes the bomb into the sky. Would not have been difficult to shoot.....and Lester did go to the trouble of assembling a decent amount of extras at the base of the tower  to accentuate Lois's arrival in the first place.
But maybe it would have mirrored the helicopter scene from STM too much.
Still a little food for thought.

Interesting with regards to your idea of Zemekis replacing Donner.
Zemekis never really found his stride until Romancing The Stone( a full 4 years after the release of SII)...so it would have been a gamble for the Salkinds to have taken a chance on him as early as 79'.
Also Zemekis showed he too was not invulnerable given the lesser quality of BTTF II(which I personally think is a bit of a mess) when compared to BTTF III.And the general consensus is that neither II or III are as good as I.

Film making can be a little bit like capturing lightning in a bottle......and Donner definitely  caught it for STM!   

  

dejan:
Thanks! I totally love engaging in different viewpoints when everyone is chill about different points of view and respects one another at the core.... I wish this was more common on the net speaking on different subjects as well, but... it is what it is, I guess...

You made an excellent idea that for some reason never even crossed my mind all these years.... if there had been on-the-ground reaction to mirror the helicopter sequence, (the extras playing reporters were already there- how much more money would it have been to get reaction shots to what's happening at the top of the towers?)... the overall effect would have been more powerful had we gotten the shots of all reacting to what was happening above them.... and cost next to nothing for the producers!

Zemeckis I agree wasn't invulnerable, but I would have hoped that he wouldn't have gone too far off on slapstick for finishing SII as Lester did. A better choice imo would have been someone who maybe even had slightly darker aesthetics like Michael Mann. Or more realistically perhaps John Glen, who directed "For Your Eyes Only" and several other Bond films- NOT Moonraker- that had the drama and comedy--- but while his films may not have been visual masterpieces, they were competent films and didn't go off the rails. Or maybe Irvin Kershner?

[crazy_asian_man]

As with all the pics, great thanks to Jim & his Capedwonder website!

Another fun pic:


I kind of wish that Jimmy were in this picture as well, but if anything were at the heart of the Superman Reeve films, it's the charm of these two in character, encapsulated in one picture.

The tricky thing I think if Donner had returned was how to continue this- On one hand, the romance was the center of STM and SII- but once the arc completed in those two films- it really would have been difficult to go back to that... even with Donner in charge, I could see it being difficult to keep Lois that far out of the center.

If there were multiple films guided by Donner- then perhaps later on towards the end of the run, he could have gotten permission from DC to have had Clark reveal his secret again & this time marry Lois... even if he would have tried out a possible relationship with Lana, it feels like the idea of Lois being Supes' one true love has been established for so long, it would feel false if it ended up being anyone else in the end, imo.

Still--- love the photo.

[dejan]

@cam

Irwin Kirchner eh!!....not bad at all.
That would have been interesting.
Personally have not seen much of Mann's stuff so cannot comment...I did enjoy very much Collateral...but that came out in 2004......how would the Michael Mann of 1979 handled SII?! So many variables.
I saw For Your Eyes Only not long after watching SII in 81'.
At the time in 81', SII was way ahead(and in my opinion still is) in practically every facet....although Eyes Only does have some fantastic stunts(and a nice opening song from Sheena Easton).
Also, I don't think Glen had the directing chops to coax the best out of the actors......Eyes Only is several notches down from SII in that regard (IMHO) too.

This will sound controversial but again IMHO, Lester surpassed Donner when it came to the acting in pivotal scenes in SII.
I gave Donner the benefit of the doubt during the years that his footage was under lock and key.
But now having had the chance to evaluate said footage  side by side and without bias then that it is my personal and  final opinion. Of course many will disagree
But my personal evaluation is predicated on what is as opposed to what could have been.
Had Donner come back in 79' then that is a different story.
Lots more variables to take into consideration.
Donner most likely would have been without Brando. He would have been without Barry, Unsworth and Bowie(key players all in STM).I do wonder if Williams would have been available for the music as there are differing stories as to why he did not score Lester's SII. Williams says he was unavailable due to other contractual obligations--Ilya says he could not stand Lester.....who knows. However, I still think Ken Thorn would have done a fine job with a hypothetical Donner SII.  
As for the rest then I think Donner would have seriously had to trim down(and reshoot ) the already existing footage and lens all the new stuff.
I love the Donner /Mank SII script.
It pisses me off I have to imagine what it would have looked like!

[crazy_asian_man]

Jan 25, 2021 17:53:47 GMT -5 dejan said:

@cam

Irwin Kirchner eh!!....not bad at all.
That would have been interesting.
Personally have not seen much of Mann's stuff so cannot comment...I did enjoy very much Collateral...but that came out in 2004......how would the Michael Mann of 1979 handled SII?! So many variables.
I saw For Your Eyes Only not long after watching SII in 81'.
At the time in 81', SII was way ahead(and in my opinion still is) in practically every facet....although Eyes Only does have some fantastic stunts(and a nice opening song from Sheena Easton).
Also, I don't think Glen had the directing chops to coax the best out of the actors......Eyes Only is several notches down from SII in that regard (IMHO) too.

This will sound controversial but again IMHO, Lester surpassed Donner when it came to the acting in pivotal scenes in SII.
I gave Donner the benefit of the doubt during the years that his footage was under lock and key.
But now having had the chance to evaluate said footage  side by side and without bias then that it is my personal and  final opinion. Of course many will disagree
But my personal evaluation is predicated on what is as opposed to what could have been.
Had Donner come back in 79' then that is a different story.
Lots more variables to take into consideration.
Donner most likely would have been without Brando. He would have been without Barry, Unsworth and Bowie(key players all in STM).I do wonder if Williams would have been available for the music as there are differing stories as to why he did not score Lester's SII. Williams says he was unavailable due to other contractual obligations--Ilya says he could not stand Lester.....who knows. However, I still think Ken Thorn would have done a fine job with a hypothetical Donner SII.  
As for the rest then I think Donner would have seriously had to trim down(and reshoot ) the already existing footage and lens all the new stuff.
I love the Donner /Mank SII script.
It pisses me off I have to imagine what it would have looked like!

dejan:
Again, thanks for sharing your thoughts. Again, no worries on disagreements, it's refreshing and we're doing it in a civil way, so hopefully all good!

The acting I didn't have a problem with- but I personally wouldn't compare the choices Michael Thau made with takes and his editing to the theatrical Lester scenes.... the RDC is a mess, but we didn't have a chance to see the takes available... but with the majority of STM's scenes with great performances-not just STM but Lethal Weapon, Inside Moves, Conspiracy Theory, etc.- lends me to believe that the takes in the RDC aren't represented of the best of DOnner's work with actors.
(I'll grant you I could be wrong- but this is where I base his directing abilities on to give him the benefit of the doubt.)

STM and SII scenes were shot back to back- so the performances liked in STM probably weren't all that different from what Donner shot in SII- but the difference is that Michael Thau chose the takes and Donner wasn't there for the majority of the time supervising it, as mentioned in interviews- maybe just the tail end of shooting.

Lois's performances under both directors are convincing, but the tones combined with the rewritten choices make her more snippy and (to me) more unlikeable. Mank's script for how she behaved/behaves in the Honeymoon Haven assignment as an example actually has her more fun and upbeat and Clark being the sour one during the trip.

Lester is a capable director in his own right- but it's the aesthetics and rewriting choices that I didn't/don't agree with. To me, even Superman III had elements that could have been elevated to the level of STM- the budget was there, but it lands on the director (and producers) to do so. Just as Donner had STM rewritten and shaped to where he felt he could direct it, Lester had to have had the same option.

In any case- I'm glad for Donner taking on STM- I still have resentment to this day on Lester for taking it in the wrong direction imo towards SIII territory. Parts he did for SII are mostly good, but off track from what the original tone was in minor to major degrees from the script already in place and footage already shot for it.

To be fair, if Lester had been the original director of STM, I do think it could have been a good film, but Donner/Baird's touches and ambition made it one that was the work of a perfectionist. I got spoiled by that... but if I saw the two films back to back, I could see myself having a different reaction to it if it were all presented as one piece.

[dejan]

No worries cam-pleasure
I think it's fair to say we are united in our passion for this stuff!

Totally agree that Thau may not have used the best takes in 2006.......we know because John Victor Smith used better Donner takes nearly 26 years prior in 1980--lol!
For the theatrical, it's actually ironic that Lester/Victor Smith trimmed out Donner's own slightly crass humor- ("I said pssht") or ("I found it I think").
I think the Baird/Donner combine of 1979 would have cut the above 1977 footage out too.

Also, Donner was not averse to a touch of very mild slapstick of his own!:
Luthor stepping on Otis's hand or Otis sticking his 2 fingers behind the shadow of Luthor's head!---interesting that Lester left those shots in.....as it allowed him to amalgamate  them with his own slapstick ideology and form a cohesive whole.
BTW , excising excessive Donner fluff was not new , as Baird had already done the same on STM--ruthlessly eliminating anything that fell below a certain standard("feed the babies" ect) to make STM  a lean mean cinematic fighting machine!

With regards to Lois I have to say that Lester elicited quite a range from Kidder.
The scene in the office at the end where she cries has genuine integrity.
But just after the memory wipe where she says :"Clark I appreciate you for what you are!"-----that for me is the Lois of STM(the wig notwithstanding!)

[crazy_asian_man]

Jan 25, 2021 21:32:22 GMT -5 dejan said:

No worries cam-pleasure
I think it's fair to say we are united in our passion for this stuff!

Totally agree that Thau may not have used the best takes in 2006.......we know because John Victor Smith used better Donner takes nearly 26 years prior in 1980--lol!
For the theatrical, it's actually ironic that Lester/Victor Smith trimmed out Donner's own slightly crass humor- ("I said pssht") or ("I found it I think").
I think the Baird/Donner combine of 1979 would have cut the above 1977 footage out too.

Also, Donner was not averse to a touch of very mild slapstick of his own!:
Luthor stepping on Otis's hand or Otis sticking his 2 fingers behind the shadow of Luthor's head!---interesting that Lester left those shots in.....as it allowed him to amalgamate  them with his own slapstick ideology and form a cohesive whole.
BTW , excising excessive Donner fluff was not new , as Baird had already done the same on STM--ruthlessly eliminating anything that fell below a certain standard("feed the babies" ect) to make STM  a lean mean cinematic fighting machine!

With regards to Lois I have to say that Lester elicited quite a range from Kidder.
The scene in the office at the end where she cries has genuine integrity.
But just after the memory wipe where she says :"Clark I appreciate you for what you are!"-----that for me is the Lois of STM(the wig notwithstanding!)

The replacement shots for inferior ones drove me crazy in SII - in an interview, Thau gave a few explanations for alternate takes:

#1: To give the audience a 'fresh' feeling to the scene- that's fine as long as the take was better, but... imo the only great addition that stood out was the DP behind Supes' view where he's standing on the flagpole. The 'Freedom of the Press' shot was a lot weaker- but we know that Donner was always slammed for taking too many takes of every shot. If there were a bonus disc of alternate takes on the 'new' sequences' (Depowering/repowering/DP attack) it would probably vindicate some of the Michael Thau choices, but as is... we can only compare the extended & theatrical to the RDC material.

#2: The second reason is somewhat more defensible- if a particular shot was damaged or was in poor shape, he would use the alternate.... but if the STM tv extended cut footage was available for that, wouldn't there be (in most cases) an option to use that?

In regards to Donner going over the top with humor at times, I absolutely agree--- but I use the Mank scripts as a blueprint to what was there/allowed. The Metro battle is amazingly intense in the original script- I think we get a glimmer in even the one second of how intense that battle would have been when Non tosses Supes at the FOS & they're pointing fingers at one another. If Donner/Baird stayed, even if they had to trim or scale back the battle, I think there would have been more on bits of performance from the characters during the battle- and more dimensional.

With the Lois/Supes scenes, I prefer the Donner talk outside the FOS (the extended tv cut one) & the Balcony scene.... it looks beautiful and both still gives both great opportunities for performance there.

That awful wig is.... well... that wig deserves its own agent. It steals many a scene...

[crazy_asian_man]

On another note, in '79 Michael Mann won an emmy for "Jericho Mile" on tv- in 1981 Michael Mann did 'Thief' which was nomainated for a Palme d'Or.... plus in commentaries it didn't seem that a superhero film would have been his thing... let alone finishing someone else's project.

I think the thing is: it seems like anyone of quality would not have wanted to take on finishing SII and stay faithful to it- unless they were big enough of a fan or had more to gain for their career by doing so.

At that time 1979, Lester had "Butch and Sundance: The Early Years"- with mixed reviews (Siskel and Ebert were 'meh' on it) and his 1979 "Cuba" got mostly negative reviews... and neither a box office success.

He needed a hit that he could call his own at that point it seemed....

So why not hijack STM's success, rewrite the script to his own tastes, and hope that Donner didn't want to share credit?

It may sound harsh, but the evidence is all there... SIII is 100% Lester and not even Reeve seemed proud about that picture afterwards...

[crazy_asian_man]

I LOVE the candid photos- Wish there was more footage of 'behind the scenes' during these shoots.

I do wonder what Reeve and Rocky were talking about in this scene... so interesting..

[dejan]

@cam

I actually re-watched Lester's SII for the first time in just over a year last night.....in fact I did a marathon of MOS, SR and SII.....but that is for another thread!

My personal impressions on the theatrical  are still the same. Maybe I will give the Donner cut a spin too soon...have not watched it for a couple of years.

I will say that the evolution of cinema as an art form was in a high state of turbulence during the 60s and 70s(around the time that Lester and Donner were honing their skills).

If I look at Lester from a contemporaneous perspective(i.e as stuff was happening)......then this guy was a discrete trailblazer long before he came anywhere close to being involved with Superman.
If on the other hand I look it at through the lens of 2021 then it is easy to point out the imperfections or limitations(technical or even cultural) of works from several decades prior.
I could find holes in Citizen Kane, Lawrence Of Arabia, The Godfather or indeed STM and Star Wars!

As contemporary cinema stands at the moment.....it's saturated with stagnancy(it's been this way for at least 25 years).
IMHO it's the reason why the likes of MOS or SR fail to resonate.....because they offer nothing new within the context of contemporary competition. 
SR had to play second fiddle to Pirates, Cars ,The DaVinci Code and X Men:Last Stand.....MOS got buried by Gravity, Thor 2 and Iron Man 3.

It's the main reason I was so anxious to compare STM to all those other 1978 flicks in my binge watch last summer.
No doubt STM is just a beautiful movie. Period. But it was also radically different to anything else out there. It's a huge factor and not to be underestimated.

Lester's SII also belongs to that class.
There was nothing like it in 81(except STM from 2 years prior!) Sure, in 81', there was Clash Of The Titans, Excalibur, DragonSlayer, Outland and American Warewolf In London(I enjoy all of those too!)---but SII was another level in terms of scale and quality(artistic or technical).

So I totally agree with you that the Mank script was fantastic with regards to the Metropolis climax.......but what we got with Lester was still great just by virtue of the fact that it was unique. Even Raider's climax relied more on sheer horror than outright scale to provide a satisfactory finale to that film.

[dejan]

@cam

Nice photo of the diner scene....agree 100%....would be nice to see some behind the scenes footage of that set up.

Sorry just realized I have not been contributing any imagery--lol:

Here is one which may have got some fans salivating for some cinematic action in 1981 when they saw these lobby cards(again no internet back then just our imaginations!):

 

[atp]

Jan 26, 2021 12:43:59 GMT -5 dejan said:

@cam

I actually re-watched Lester's SII for the first time in just over a year last night.....in fact I did a marathon of MOS, SR and SII.....but that is for another thread!

My personal impressions on the theatrical  are still the same. Maybe I will give the Donner cut a spin too soon...have not watched it for a couple of years.

I will say that the evolution of cinema as an art form was in a high state of turbulence during the 60s and 70s(around the time that Lester and Donner were honing their skills).

If I look at Lester from a contemporaneous perspective(i.e as stuff was happening)......then this guy was a discrete trailblazer long before he came anywhere close to being involved with Superman.
If on the other hand I look it at through the lens of 2021 then it is easy to point out the imperfections or limitations(technical or even cultural) of works from several decades prior.
I could find holes in Citizen Kane, Lawrence Of Arabia, The Godfather or indeed STM and Star Wars!

As contemporary cinema stands at the moment.....it's saturated with stagnancy(it's been this way for at least 25 years).
IMHO it's the reason why the likes of MOS or SR fail to resonate.....because they offer nothing new within the context of contemporary competition. 
SR had to play second fiddle to Pirates, Cars ,The DaVinci Code and X Men:Last Stand.....MOS got buried by Gravity, Thor 2 and Iron Man 3.

It's the main reason I was so anxious to compare STM to all those other 1978 flicks in my binge watch last summer.
No doubt STM is just a beautiful movie. Period. But it was also radically different to anything else out there. It's a huge factor and not to be underestimated.

Lester's SII also belongs to that class.
There was nothing like it in 81(except STM from 2 years prior!) Sure, in 81', there was Clash Of The Titans, Excalibur, DragonSlayer, Outland and American Warewolf In London(I enjoy all of those too!)---but SII was another level in terms of scale and quality(artistic or technical).

So I totally agree with you that the Mank script was fantastic with regards to the Metropolis climax.......but what we got with Lester was still great just by virtue of the fact that it was unique. Even Raider's climax relied more on sheer horror than outright scale to provide a satisfactory finale to that film.

Speaking of Raiders... was Indiana Jones actually important to the story? If he hadn't existed, would the conclusion have been any different? He spends the movie losing out to Belloq, getting captured, and basically just being a witness to the events!

Pretty much like James Bond in Goldfinger.

[crazy_asian_man]

Jan 26, 2021 12:43:59 GMT -5 dejan said:

@cam

I actually re-watched Lester's SII for the first time in just over a year last night.....in fact I did a marathon of MOS, SR and SII.....but that is for another thread!

My personal impressions on the theatrical  are still the same. Maybe I will give the Donner cut a spin too soon...have not watched it for a couple of years.

I will say that the evolution of cinema as an art form was in a high state of turbulence during the 60s and 70s(around the time that Lester and Donner were honing their skills).

If I look at Lester from a contemporaneous perspective(i.e as stuff was happening)......then this guy was a discrete trailblazer long before he came anywhere close to being involved with Superman.
If on the other hand I look it at through the lens of 2021 then it is easy to point out the imperfections or limitations(technical or even cultural) of works from several decades prior.
I could find holes in Citizen Kane, Lawrence Of Arabia, The Godfather or indeed STM and Star Wars!

As contemporary cinema stands at the moment.....it's saturated with stagnancy(it's been this way for at least 25 years).
IMHO it's the reason why the likes of MOS or SR fail to resonate.....because they offer nothing new within the context of contemporary competition. 
SR had to play second fiddle to Pirates, Cars ,The DaVinci Code and X Men:Last Stand.....MOS got buried by Gravity, Thor 2 and Iron Man 3.

It's the main reason I was so anxious to compare STM to all those other 1978 flicks in my binge watch last summer.
No doubt STM is just a beautiful movie. Period. But it was also radically different to anything else out there. It's a huge factor and not to be underestimated.

Lester's SII also belongs to that class.
There was nothing like it in 81(except STM from 2 years prior!) Sure, in 81', there was Clash Of The Titans, Excalibur, DragonSlayer, Outland and American Warewolf In London(I enjoy all of those too!)---but SII was another level in terms of scale and quality(artistic or technical).

So I totally agree with you that the Mank script was fantastic with regards to the Metropolis climax.......but what we got with Lester was still great just by virtue of the fact that it was unique. Even Raider's climax relied more on sheer horror than outright scale to provide a satisfactory finale to that film.

dejan:

I think what gets under my skin (and definitely Donner's!) is that when reading about all the heavy heavy lifting Donner had to do to get everything in place for what could have been a two-movie masterpiece--- and how many things were already lined up to finish and there was a blueprint...

It didn't need a great director to finish it off.... it just needed one who wasn't going to rewrite it and change the story and characters to a more comedic level.

That Lester willingly took full credit for the majority of scenes that Donner/Baird made great so he could re-launch his own career to this day annoys me-

Lester got 100% control (as far as we know) for SIII--- and comparing SII and SIII, scenes at a time- the majority of the great stuff (imo) in the theatrical was the Donner material:

#1: The moon attack
#2: The Hackman material
#3: The white house w/criminals
#4: The Diner scene
#5: The DP attack
#6: The final FOS scene

If one were to subtract those from the theatrical and had those shot by Lester in a faster cheaper conventional style, I don't feel like it would have gotten all the raves it got from the critics.

I do think that it would have been a competent film even rewritten.... but -especially with the jokey Metro battle- I would have been annoyed, but less annoyed if it wasn't one director jumping on the back of the other and accepting full credit.

It's true that Donner was offered shared credit and turned it down, but it's hard to blame him.... but I personally wish he did accept it so that people knew off the bat how much he contributed to SII.

Anyhow, I don't mean to get riled up..... we're all passionate about the first two Superman reeve films, but I just wish Lester had put his ego aside and completed it to match Donner's vision, as he had his own Superman film in Superman III afterwards to show off his own vision of what he felt a great Superman film should be. IMO he didn't have to half-ruin another professional's movie to restart his career.

On another note- I give that the scenes shot that I didn't care for or cared less for were well performed and looked 'good' but it's the nagging feeling of what we were supposed to get originally that bothers me.

If Lester was ALWAYS going to shoot SII from beginning to end (much like Ratner's X3)- I would not have been as bothered. I dislike X3, but it wasn't as if the original script were already written- and it wasn't as if Bryan Singer had shot half of it already....

So, anyhow that's where I view things.

The best hope is a recut at this point... 2nd hope is extended tv cut of SII.
But.... most likely fan cuts are going to be the most satisfying.

[crazy_asian_man]

Jan 26, 2021 12:59:00 GMT -5 atp said:

Jan 26, 2021 12:43:59 GMT -5 dejan said:

@cam

I actually re-watched Lester's SII for the first time in just over a year last night.....in fact I did a marathon of MOS, SR and SII.....but that is for another thread!

My personal impressions on the theatrical  are still the same. Maybe I will give the Donner cut a spin too soon...have not watched it for a couple of years.

I will say that the evolution of cinema as an art form was in a high state of turbulence during the 60s and 70s(around the time that Lester and Donner were honing their skills).

If I look at Lester from a contemporaneous perspective(i.e as stuff was happening)......then this guy was a discrete trailblazer long before he came anywhere close to being involved with Superman.
If on the other hand I look it at through the lens of 2021 then it is easy to point out the imperfections or limitations(technical or even cultural) of works from several decades prior.
I could find holes in Citizen Kane, Lawrence Of Arabia, The Godfather or indeed STM and Star Wars!

As contemporary cinema stands at the moment.....it's saturated with stagnancy(it's been this way for at least 25 years).
IMHO it's the reason why the likes of MOS or SR fail to resonate.....because they offer nothing new within the context of contemporary competition. 
SR had to play second fiddle to Pirates, Cars ,The DaVinci Code and X Men:Last Stand.....MOS got buried by Gravity, Thor 2 and Iron Man 3.

It's the main reason I was so anxious to compare STM to all those other 1978 flicks in my binge watch last summer.
No doubt STM is just a beautiful movie. Period. But it was also radically different to anything else out there. It's a huge factor and not to be underestimated.

Lester's SII also belongs to that class.
There was nothing like it in 81(except STM from 2 years prior!) Sure, in 81', there was Clash Of The Titans, Excalibur, DragonSlayer, Outland and American Warewolf In London(I enjoy all of those too!)---but SII was another level in terms of scale and quality(artistic or technical).

So I totally agree with you that the Mank script was fantastic with regards to the Metropolis climax.......but what we got with Lester was still great just by virtue of the fact that it was unique. Even Raider's climax relied more on sheer horror than outright scale to provide a satisfactory finale to that film.

Speaking of Raiders... was Indiana Jones actually important to the story? If he hadn't existed, would the conclusion have been any different? He spends the movie losing out to Belloq, getting captured, and basically just being a witness to the events!

Pretty much like James Bond in Goldfinger.

There's a deleted scene where Indiana Jones and Marion have to pick up the Ark of the Covenant, walk it back to the Submarine, and bring it back to the states. (Where it ends up in a gov't closet)
THAT'S why we needed Indy all along.

[crazy_asian_man]

Jan 26, 2021 12:50:11 GMT -5 dejan said:

@cam

Nice photo of the diner scene....agree 100%....would be nice to see some behind the scenes footage of that set up.

Sorry just realized I have not been contributing any imagery--lol:

Here is one which may have got some fans salivating for some cinematic action in 1981 when they saw these lobby cards(again no internet back then just our imaginations!):

 

dejan:

The teaser poster for SII in the lobby with the three criminals standing was what was thrilling to me months before!

[crazy_asian_man]

This was great comedy - because to me, it stayed in character:
"THIS is the son of Jor-el?"
Why on earth did these bits get trimmed for the lame ice cream/blowing sight gags? (Sorry, I will be forever annoyed those got forced into the film)

But... glad these bits were restored in the tv and RDC!

[crazy_asian_man]

Loved Susannah York as Lara- Part of me wished there were more Jor-el/Lara scenes on Krypton... If Donner had continued, I wonder if they would have had 'flashback' scenes (maybe with the creation of Brainiac) with York, Brando (well, probably not because of the costs) and the other actors who played the Phantom Zone criminals prior to STM.