Caped Wonder's Awesome podcast:current episode- Michael Thau

[atp]

Interestingly, those three flaws I mentioned didn't really feel so apparent at the time. It has only been with the passage of decades that they really stand out.

STM, on the other hand, just gets better and more epic with age.

I guess it's like comparing Moonraker with OHMSS for Bond fans. Both were products of their time, but one has aged a lot better than the other.

[crazy_asian_man]

I chose the above excerpts not to disparage Donner, far from it-his unique SII sequences are fantastic. Lester knew this, and utilized them intelligently, interweaving them with his own stuff to create a greater and more effective whole(which is quite frankly, the opposite of the Donner Cut!).
Sure a lot of critics praised Hackman's portrayal in 1981(believing that Lester had directed him!)

But those Donner sequences are not at the central core of the piece.

It's the love story and that battle at the end.
And the credit has to go to Lester here. 

Well.... it's clear that we see Lester's contributions very differently, that's cool.

A number of the quotes that you mentioned I think doesn't specifically target Lester's footage- but it doesn't matter.
In the end, it's down to what we both like and what degree of credit and appreciation both directors deserve and earned and didn't earn--- and we probably will always see the glasses differently. That's cool- we both like Superman II to varying degrees so that's common ground!

But- respectually, I have to get out my own view, too...

To me- STM is ONE HALF of a work- That Donner grew up from the ground, financed and made possible by the Salkinds.

The second half was supposed to be SII- until the vision got splintered and changed by that director who needed a comeback at the time.

What his motives and justifications are, he hasn't shared... though, like how I saw Ilya Salkind's point of view once he shared it, (as well as the late Joel Schumacher in apologizing on camera for choices made on Batman & Robin)- it would have been nice to not feel like he's the creative villain who got away with creative murder (imo).

With STM being one half of the story, scenes there contain the seeds of the love story- so for critics to praise the love story in SII and only credit Lester seems incorrect- the love story already was started in STM... the moments of the helicopter rescue, with Lois fainting, the giddiness of Lois getting the note from 'a friend'- the interview/ flying ballet- SII is the continuation of it.... I doubt Donner felt bad that Lester (with SIII to his credits) outdid him in spots-

But I hated the rewrites. Again, aside from the moral stuff - at first I definitely recalled I was TOTALLY OKAY with ANY DIRECTOR taking over Superman II as long as I: (1) liked the result- which meant- to me- (2) being as good as/better than the original!

So- I know at the time, I was not playing favorites on directors. It could have been my neighbor directing, it could have been Speilberg directing- but STM led me to have certain expectations on the results.

STM's last act bothered me (and still does) on turning back time... even though it was seen at the same time as the first 3/4ths of the film- so even if I saw STM/SII back to back for the first time, I feel I would have been similarly disappointed automatically.... so the few years gap would not have had an effect for this case with the scenes I'm not fond of.

But- again, it's subjective. I think it's impossible to place rigtht or wrong on what one prefers. Can talk about why I prefer it, but it is feelings, hopefully it's of interest, even if not agreed with.

For me, even if ten million critics said director "B"'s footage was better than "A"- if I don't feel that's the case, I still shrug.

To me, SIII is still the best argument for what Lester is capable of when he has pretty much a blank page but a preset great cast and characters.
And STM is the best argument for what Donner is capable of with mostly a blank page, Brando (for a short time) and Hackman (for a short time).

SII to me should always have been credited with both directors and the end credits specifying which parts... in that case, I think the critics may have well changed their reviews and given credit where credit specifically was due... or maybe it would have been the same. Mankiewicz wrote specifically to correct a critic who praised Donner's scenes and gave it to Lester, but the newspaper wouldn't print the letter- showing (at least for that newspaper) to what degree the critic's respect for accuracy and truth was.

Anyhow-
Regardless, even with all the flaws, I feel like the best compromise officially out there is the International Extended Cut of SII.... for now unavailable from WB archives...

Hopefully THAT changes! Need something positive to look forwards to!

[atp]

Apr 3, 2021 13:04:46 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

I chose the above excerpts not to disparage Donner, far from it-his unique SII sequences are fantastic. Lester knew this, and utilized them intelligently, interweaving them with his own stuff to create a greater and more effective whole(which is quite frankly, the opposite of the Donner Cut!).
Sure a lot of critics praised Hackman's portrayal in 1981(believing that Lester had directed him!)

But those Donner sequences are not at the central core of the piece.

It's the love story and that battle at the end.
And the credit has to go to Lester here. 

Well.... it's clear that we see Lester's contributions very differently, that's cool.

A number of the quotes that you mentioned I think doesn't specifically target Lester's footage- but it doesn't matter.
In the end, it's down to what we both like and what degree of credit and appreciation both directors deserve and earned and didn't earn--- and we probably will always see the glasses differently. That's cool- we both like Superman II to varying degrees so that's common ground!

But- respectually, I have to get out my own view, too...

To me- STM is ONE HALF of a work- That Donner grew up from the ground, financed and made possible by the Salkinds.

The second half was supposed to be SII- until the vision got splintered and changed by that director who needed a comeback at the time.

What his motives and justifications are, he hasn't shared... though, like how I saw Ilya Salkind's point of view once he shared it, (as well as the late Joel Schumacher in apologizing on camera for choices made on Batman & Robin)- it would have been nice to not feel like he's the creative villain who got away with creative murder (imo).

With STM being one half of the story, scenes there contain the seeds of the love story- so for critics to praise the love story in SII and only credit Lester seems incorrect- the love story already was started in STM... the moments of the helicopter rescue, with Lois fainting, the giddiness of Lois getting the note from 'a friend'- the interview/ flying ballet- SII is the continuation of it.... I doubt Donner felt bad that Lester (with SIII to his credits) outdid him in spots-

But I hated the rewrites. Again, aside from the moral stuff - at first I definitely recalled I was TOTALLY OKAY with ANY DIRECTOR taking over Superman II as long as I: (1) liked the result- which meant- to me- (2) being as good as/better than the original!

So- I know at the time, I was not playing favorites on directors. It could have been my neighbor directing, it could have been Speilberg directing- but STM led me to have certain expectations on the results.

STM's last act bothered me (and still does) on turning back time... even though it was seen at the same time as the first 3/4ths of the film- so even if I saw STM/SII back to back for the first time, I feel I would have been similarly disappointed automatically.... so the few years gap would not have had an effect for this case with the scenes I'm not fond of.

But- again, it's subjective. I think it's impossible to place rigtht or wrong on what one prefers. Can talk about why I prefer it, but it is feelings, hopefully it's of interest, even if not agreed with.

For me, even if ten million critics said director "B"'s footage was better than "A"- if I don't feel that's the case, I still shrug.

To me, SIII is still the best argument for what Lester is capable of when he has pretty much a blank page but a preset great cast and characters.
And STM is the best argument for what Donner is capable of with mostly a blank page, Brando (for a short time) and Hackman (for a short time).

SII to me should always have been credited with both directors and the end credits specifying which parts... in that case, I think the critics may have well changed their reviews and given credit where credit specifically was due... or maybe it would have been the same. Mankiewicz wrote specifically to correct a critic who praised Donner's scenes and gave it to Lester, but the newspaper wouldn't print the letter- showing (at least for that newspaper) to what degree the critic's respect for accuracy and truth was.

Anyhow-
Regardless, even with all the flaws, I feel like the best compromise officially out there is the International Extended Cut of SII.... for now unavailable from WB archives...

Hopefully THAT changes! Need something positive to look forwards to!

I definitely agree that STM is half of a story, but not a perfect half.

I think it all went wrong when the ending got rushed, and they slapped on the time reversal crap.

That made STM into somewhat of a stand-alone film.

I don't think that S2 could ever be perfected without also going back and fixing STM.

[crazy_asian_man]

Apr 3, 2021 13:22:47 GMT -5 atp said:

Apr 3, 2021 13:04:46 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Well.... it's clear that we see Lester's contributions very differently, that's cool.

A number of the quotes that you mentioned I think doesn't specifically target Lester's footage- but it doesn't matter.
In the end, it's down to what we both like and what degree of credit and appreciation both directors deserve and earned and didn't earn--- and we probably will always see the glasses differently. That's cool- we both like Superman II to varying degrees so that's common ground!

But- respectually, I have to get out my own view, too...

To me- STM is ONE HALF of a work- That Donner grew up from the ground, financed and made possible by the Salkinds.

The second half was supposed to be SII- until the vision got splintered and changed by that director who needed a comeback at the time.

What his motives and justifications are, he hasn't shared... though, like how I saw Ilya Salkind's point of view once he shared it, (as well as the late Joel Schumacher in apologizing on camera for choices made on Batman & Robin)- it would have been nice to not feel like he's the creative villain who got away with creative murder (imo).

With STM being one half of the story, scenes there contain the seeds of the love story- so for critics to praise the love story in SII and only credit Lester seems incorrect- the love story already was started in STM... the moments of the helicopter rescue, with Lois fainting, the giddiness of Lois getting the note from 'a friend'- the interview/ flying ballet- SII is the continuation of it.... I doubt Donner felt bad that Lester (with SIII to his credits) outdid him in spots-

But I hated the rewrites. Again, aside from the moral stuff - at first I definitely recalled I was TOTALLY OKAY with ANY DIRECTOR taking over Superman II as long as I: (1) liked the result- which meant- to me- (2) being as good as/better than the original!

So- I know at the time, I was not playing favorites on directors. It could have been my neighbor directing, it could have been Speilberg directing- but STM led me to have certain expectations on the results.

STM's last act bothered me (and still does) on turning back time... even though it was seen at the same time as the first 3/4ths of the film- so even if I saw STM/SII back to back for the first time, I feel I would have been similarly disappointed automatically.... so the few years gap would not have had an effect for this case with the scenes I'm not fond of.

But- again, it's subjective. I think it's impossible to place rigtht or wrong on what one prefers. Can talk about why I prefer it, but it is feelings, hopefully it's of interest, even if not agreed with.

For me, even if ten million critics said director "B"'s footage was better than "A"- if I don't feel that's the case, I still shrug.

To me, SIII is still the best argument for what Lester is capable of when he has pretty much a blank page but a preset great cast and characters.
And STM is the best argument for what Donner is capable of with mostly a blank page, Brando (for a short time) and Hackman (for a short time).

SII to me should always have been credited with both directors and the end credits specifying which parts... in that case, I think the critics may have well changed their reviews and given credit where credit specifically was due... or maybe it would have been the same. Mankiewicz wrote specifically to correct a critic who praised Donner's scenes and gave it to Lester, but the newspaper wouldn't print the letter- showing (at least for that newspaper) to what degree the critic's respect for accuracy and truth was.

Anyhow-
Regardless, even with all the flaws, I feel like the best compromise officially out there is the International Extended Cut of SII.... for now unavailable from WB archives...

Hopefully THAT changes! Need something positive to look forwards to!

I definitely agree that STM is half of a story, but not a perfect half.

I think it all went wrong when the ending got rushed, and they slapped on the time reversal crap.

That made STM into somewhat of a stand-alone film.

I don't think that S2 could ever be perfected without also going back and fixing STM.

Agreed.... The death of Lois brings up the energy and gives the ending of STM a real charge, tying in the earlier phases of him as a teen, pa kent, etc.- so on an emotional level, it works fantastic (not to mention that wonderful Williams music that accompanies it)- but if to be taken seriously, it's one of the worst ideas ever for a movie that's not about time travel- out of the dozen or so times I saw it (When I was younger, I'd pay the ticket, then stay for multiple views on the same day)- nobody ever cheered for turning back time, at most I feel everyone who already saw it accepted it for what it was.

Without it- the energy of the last act in STM all hinges on the release of the villains- (as in the original script)- for sure it wouldn't feel like a real standalone.... but it does bring up the question how audiences would have responded if it was as planned- Three Musketeers sort of did the same- but that had more of an ending... and in the script, it was planned to have a 'miniteaser' to juice people up for SII- which I'm guessing the statue of liberty and superman punching non bit was going to be part of.

Perhaps in that alternate universe where Donner stayed on and they kept the cliffhanger- the pacing might have been even sped up a bit with him saving all the people, if no suprise really happens or emotional punch that would happen EXCEPT for the 'freee' scene with the criminals escaping that we saw part of in the RDC.

[atp]

So I think everything just started to fall apart once it was decided to stop filming both, and to concentrate on finishing STM.

Regarding STM, I don't even think Lois needed to be in California at all. Suoerman had already saved her life several times during STM!

[crazy_asian_man]

Apr 4, 2021 2:06:54 GMT -5 atp said:

So I think everything just started to fall apart once it was decided to stop filming both, and to concentrate on finishing STM.

Regarding STM, I don't even think Lois needed to be in California at all. Suoerman had already saved her life several times during STM!

I wonder how the editing might have changed if they went with the original ending--- if Baird knew that the 'big surprise' was that Lois wouldn't survive- then if the story stayed as it was originally- then would there be more cross-cutting to pickup the pace as the 'big suprise' wouldn't happen until Zod got released?

If only Stuart Baird was bursting at the seams to share all with us here!

[dejan]

Apr 3, 2021 13:04:46 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

I chose the above excerpts not to disparage Donner, far from it-his unique SII sequences are fantastic. Lester knew this, and utilized them intelligently, interweaving them with his own stuff to create a greater and more effective whole(which is quite frankly, the opposite of the Donner Cut!).
Sure a lot of critics praised Hackman's portrayal in 1981(believing that Lester had directed him!)

But those Donner sequences are not at the central core of the piece.

It's the love story and that battle at the end.
And the credit has to go to Lester here. 

Well.... it's clear that we see Lester's contributions very differently, that's cool.

A number of the quotes that you mentioned I think doesn't specifically target Lester's footage- but it doesn't matter.
In the end, it's down to what we both like and what degree of credit and appreciation both directors deserve and earned and didn't earn--- and we probably will always see the glasses differently. That's cool- we both like Superman II to varying degrees so that's common ground!

But- respectually, I have to get out my own view, too...

To me- STM is ONE HALF of a work- That Donner grew up from the ground, financed and made possible by the Salkinds.

The second half was supposed to be SII- until the vision got splintered and changed by that director who needed a comeback at the time.

What his motives and justifications are, he hasn't shared... though, like how I saw Ilya Salkind's point of view once he shared it, (as well as the late Joel Schumacher in apologizing on camera for choices made on Batman & Robin)- it would have been nice to not feel like he's the creative villain who got away with creative murder (imo).

With STM being one half of the story, scenes there contain the seeds of the love story- so for critics to praise the love story in SII and only credit Lester seems incorrect- the love story already was started in STM... the moments of the helicopter rescue, with Lois fainting, the giddiness of Lois getting the note from 'a friend'- the interview/ flying ballet- SII is the continuation of it.... I doubt Donner felt bad that Lester (with SIII to his credits) outdid him in spots-

But I hated the rewrites. Again, aside from the moral stuff - at first I definitely recalled I was TOTALLY OKAY with ANY DIRECTOR taking over Superman II as long as I: (1) liked the result- which meant- to me- (2) being as good as/better than the original!

So- I know at the time, I was not playing favorites on directors. It could have been my neighbor directing, it could have been Speilberg directing- but STM led me to have certain expectations on the results.

STM's last act bothered me (and still does) on turning back time... even though it was seen at the same time as the first 3/4ths of the film- so even if I saw STM/SII back to back for the first time, I feel I would have been similarly disappointed automatically.... so the few years gap would not have had an effect for this case with the scenes I'm not fond of.

But- again, it's subjective. I think it's impossible to place rigtht or wrong on what one prefers. Can talk about why I prefer it, but it is feelings, hopefully it's of interest, even if not agreed with.

For me, even if ten million critics said director "B"'s footage was better than "A"- if I don't feel that's the case, I still shrug.

To me, SIII is still the best argument for what Lester is capable of when he has pretty much a blank page but a preset great cast and characters.
And STM is the best argument for what Donner is capable of with mostly a blank page, Brando (for a short time) and Hackman (for a short time).

SII to me should always have been credited with both directors and the end credits specifying which parts... in that case, I think the critics may have well changed their reviews and given credit where credit specifically was due... or maybe it would have been the same. Mankiewicz wrote specifically to correct a critic who praised Donner's scenes and gave it to Lester, but the newspaper wouldn't print the letter- showing (at least for that newspaper) to what degree the critic's respect for accuracy and truth was.

Anyhow-
Regardless, even with all the flaws, I feel like the best compromise officially out there is the International Extended Cut of SII.... for now unavailable from WB archives...

Hopefully THAT changes! Need something positive to look forwards to!

That's fair enough cam

Trust me, I know exactly where you are coming from. With regards to Lester, I once thought as you do.

But first:

Going back to the production:

You might be giving Donner too much respect there.....as he definitely did not develop the project from the ground up in terms of the evolution of the story. That accolade has to go to Puzo, Benton and the Newmans.

Donner's genius was to bring in Mank , to "doctor" the script and fine tune it's various constituent elements to their own unique tastes. And the result was sensational.

But looking at some of Mank's other work, specifically the Bond films, there is plenty that I find to be of fairly dubious quality at best. Diamonds Are Forever and The Man With The Golden Gun are shockingly bad IMHO(from a script perspective).

If I had been of adult age in 1977, and I had found out (through fanzines/magazines) that Mank was being brought into help with the Superman script ,I would have been very skeptical indeed.

But film making is a collaborative effort.

And the synergistic effect of working with Donner(and the rest of the cast and crew), and the added advantages of manipulating an already fairly substantial/powerful script in an advanced state of evolution(whatever it's inherent imperfections) somehow elevated Mank's own abilities(and the subsequent quality of the script itself).



I totally agree with you that media reviews are definitely not to be trusted!(at a superficial level at least).
And one should always adhere to one’s own personal preferences as opposed to conceding to external pressure(to like or dislike a movie).

Easier said than done though!

Which is where Donner comes in with regards to SII.

During the late 80’s, Donner started making visceral assertions about his own original version of SII.

But he always did it from the advantageous position of his footage essentially not being available for impartial viewing(by us, the fans/audience).

But at the time(late 90s/early 2000s)I bought into this Donner SII hype, hook, line and sinker. It got to the point where I totally detested Lester’s version, simply because Donner was implying as such.

Sure, as you say, SIII hardly accentuated Lester’s interpretation of the material.

But SIII was a relative disappointment (compared to SI & II).But it’s a heckuva lot better than Donner’s 1982 flick , The Toy(also featuring Richard Prior!).

SIII is not a disappointing movie in it’s own right(and especially within the context of the early 80s).And from a technical perspective…..it maybe the most accomplished of the Salkind trilogy. It’s the unbalanced script which ultimately undermines this project and that is where Lester has to shoulder a good portion of the blame.

But It took the release of the Donner cut for me to re-appraise Lester’s contribution to SII. One has to consider that Lester was without the services of Brando,Barry,Williams,Bowie and Unsworth. As Donner would have been had he been allowed to finish in 79’.



With regards to making apologies…..IMHO what Shumacher did to Batman is comparable to what Furie did to Superman!


Below represent my opinions(but I am quite adamant on them nonetheless) 

Peter Jackson's deficiencies were brutally exposed with the Hobbit trilogy---those same shortcomings were also evident with the Lord Of The Ring trilogy too....just more obscured.

Coppola made a rather mediocre Godfather Part III(all be it with the passage of nearly 20 years from parts I & II).

Zemekis screwed up Back To The Future 2 big time IMHO. Part 3 was better but well below part 1.

The Wachowskis sank quite low with The Matrix 2 & 3.(I will take Lester's SII and III over those Matrix sequels anytime!).

Lucas all but pissed over over his own work(the original trilogy) with the prequels(they are still better than the Abrams sequels though!!) .

Ridley Scott has done likewise with Prometheus and Covenant. Hard to believe it's the same director who directed the 79' classic!.

Spielberg's directorial qualities fluctuated widely within the Indiana Jones quadrilogy(the Crystal Skull should never have been made).
And personally speaking, I was very disappointed with The Last Crusade when I saw it in 1989.
Some even found Temple Of Doom a let down back in 84'.

Favreau messed up Iron Man 2!(again Lester's SII is superior in every regard IMHO).

Nolan made an okish Batman Begins , a rather good sequel(but over hyped IMHO) and a 3rd film which was a bloated mess. 

Even Donner himself , struggled to maintain the quality of the Lethal Weapon series(3 & 4 being the worst offenders IMHO). 

So IMHO Lester has little to apologize for.


He could offer or elaborate on his film making reasons/decisions though, for sure.
But that may raise more questions than answers!

[dejan]

Apr 4, 2021 15:56:31 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Apr 4, 2021 2:06:54 GMT -5 atp said:

So I think everything just started to fall apart once it was decided to stop filming both, and to concentrate on finishing STM.

Regarding STM, I don't even think Lois needed to be in California at all. Suoerman had already saved her life several times during STM!

I wonder how the editing might have changed if they went with the original ending--- if Baird knew that the 'big surprise' was that Lois wouldn't survive- then if the story stayed as it was originally- then would there be more cross-cutting to pickup the pace as the 'big suprise' wouldn't happen until Zod got released?

If only Stuart Baird was bursting at the seams to share all with us here!

cam, both you and ATP make some great observations with regards to the time travel paradox.

IMHO

I would argue that the initial death of Lois(crushed in the car) was a master stoke in terms of script writing(credit to Mank/Donner here).

On my first viewing in 81', as Supes was racing to save her....I honestly thought that he would get there in time.
Precisely because he had already done so on the previous occasions(helicopter, romantic fight).
So it was tremendous sucker punch when he failed to arrive to save her.

Turning back the world however.....that' another story altogether!
I would say that I still bought into it though, if only because it was actually a unique solution(if not entirely a logical one)!......from a cinematic perspective. Remember, this is  6 years before Back To The Future!   
I am not the most knowledgeable when it comes to going back in time  movies(especially those that predate Back To The Future), but had there ever been a resolution to a movie using a time travelling solution?

So for me it worked as a the climax for STM.
But it potentially introduced a load of paradoxes for the sequel(as intended by Donner).

For STM, Donner filmed that brief sequence where Lois and Jimmy question the presence(or absence) of Clark.

Lois:
"Clark wait a minute...wait a minute!"

Jimmy:
"What??!"

Lois:
"ahh....Lois Lane that is the silliest idea ever!!!!"

So from the perspective of the narrative,  Lois was essentially already entertaining the idea of Clark being Supes there and then(at the end of STM).

But when you append that ending(for STM) onto Donner's original SII opening at the Daily Planet........

The way Lois reacts to the Superman pose(folded arms) in the photo in the DP newspaper(thereby inducing her recognition that he could be Clark)........makes it seem like that she had never entertained the idea before!
Especially considering that the Donner SII Daily Planet opening seems to place literally right after the San Andreas earthquake.

It makes sense from a film making/production  perspective......because Donner had shot those DP SII sequences in the summer of 77'(and in accordance with the original unaltered script).......long before he would shoot those climactic and  revised earthquake scenes (where Lois gets killed).

So basically, if Donner had come back in 79' to finish SII, he would have to have used either a different take(if they even existed in the first place).....or maybe film some new insert shots to show a more circumspect Lois realizing that Supes is Clark:
("hey I thought Clark could be Supes when I spoke to Jimmy in California a few days ago ......and now this photo proves it!").

But hopefully that highlights yet another example how the revised (and last minute alterations )ending for STM created further complexities for SII....no matter which director took the reigns! 

 

[atp]

Apr 8, 2021 10:07:45 GMT -5 dejan said:

Apr 3, 2021 13:04:46 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Well.... it's clear that we see Lester's contributions very differently, that's cool.

A number of the quotes that you mentioned I think doesn't specifically target Lester's footage- but it doesn't matter.
In the end, it's down to what we both like and what degree of credit and appreciation both directors deserve and earned and didn't earn--- and we probably will always see the glasses differently. That's cool- we both like Superman II to varying degrees so that's common ground!

But- respectually, I have to get out my own view, too...

To me- STM is ONE HALF of a work- That Donner grew up from the ground, financed and made possible by the Salkinds.

The second half was supposed to be SII- until the vision got splintered and changed by that director who needed a comeback at the time.

What his motives and justifications are, he hasn't shared... though, like how I saw Ilya Salkind's point of view once he shared it, (as well as the late Joel Schumacher in apologizing on camera for choices made on Batman & Robin)- it would have been nice to not feel like he's the creative villain who got away with creative murder (imo).

With STM being one half of the story, scenes there contain the seeds of the love story- so for critics to praise the love story in SII and only credit Lester seems incorrect- the love story already was started in STM... the moments of the helicopter rescue, with Lois fainting, the giddiness of Lois getting the note from 'a friend'- the interview/ flying ballet- SII is the continuation of it.... I doubt Donner felt bad that Lester (with SIII to his credits) outdid him in spots-

But I hated the rewrites. Again, aside from the moral stuff - at first I definitely recalled I was TOTALLY OKAY with ANY DIRECTOR taking over Superman II as long as I: (1) liked the result- which meant- to me- (2) being as good as/better than the original!

So- I know at the time, I was not playing favorites on directors. It could have been my neighbor directing, it could have been Speilberg directing- but STM led me to have certain expectations on the results.

STM's last act bothered me (and still does) on turning back time... even though it was seen at the same time as the first 3/4ths of the film- so even if I saw STM/SII back to back for the first time, I feel I would have been similarly disappointed automatically.... so the few years gap would not have had an effect for this case with the scenes I'm not fond of.

But- again, it's subjective. I think it's impossible to place rigtht or wrong on what one prefers. Can talk about why I prefer it, but it is feelings, hopefully it's of interest, even if not agreed with.

For me, even if ten million critics said director "B"'s footage was better than "A"- if I don't feel that's the case, I still shrug.

To me, SIII is still the best argument for what Lester is capable of when he has pretty much a blank page but a preset great cast and characters.
And STM is the best argument for what Donner is capable of with mostly a blank page, Brando (for a short time) and Hackman (for a short time).

SII to me should always have been credited with both directors and the end credits specifying which parts... in that case, I think the critics may have well changed their reviews and given credit where credit specifically was due... or maybe it would have been the same. Mankiewicz wrote specifically to correct a critic who praised Donner's scenes and gave it to Lester, but the newspaper wouldn't print the letter- showing (at least for that newspaper) to what degree the critic's respect for accuracy and truth was.

Anyhow-
Regardless, even with all the flaws, I feel like the best compromise officially out there is the International Extended Cut of SII.... for now unavailable from WB archives...

Hopefully THAT changes! Need something positive to look forwards to!

That's fair enough cam

Trust me, I know exactly where you are coming from. With regards to Lester, I once thought as you do.

But first:

Going back to the production:

You might be giving Donner too much respect there.....as he definitely did not develop the project from the ground up in terms of the evolution of the story. That accolade has to go to Puzo, Benton and the Newmans.

Donner's genius was to bring in Mank , to "doctor" the script and fine tune it's various constituent elements to their own unique tastes. And the result was sensational.

But looking at some of Mank's other work, specifically the Bond films, there is plenty that I find to be of fairly dubious quality at best. Diamonds Are Forever and The Man With The Golden Gun are shockingly bad IMHO(from a script perspective).

If I had been of adult age in 1977, and I had found out (through fanzines/magazines) that Mank was being brought into help with the Superman script ,I would have been very skeptical indeed.

But film making is a collaborative effort.

And the synergistic effect of working with Donner(and the rest of the cast and crew), and the added advantages of manipulating an already fairly substantial/powerful script in an advanced state of evolution(whatever it's inherent imperfections) somehow elevated Mank's own abilities(and the subsequent quality of the script itself).



I totally agree with you that media reviews are definitely not to be trusted!(at a superficial level at least).
And one should always adhere to one’s own personal preferences as opposed to conceding to external pressure(to like or dislike a movie).

Easier said than done though!

Which is where Donner comes in with regards to SII.

During the late 80’s, Donner started making visceral assertions about his own original version of SII.

But he always did it from the advantageous position of his footage essentially not being available for impartial viewing(by us, the fans/audience).

But at the time(late 90s/early 2000s)I bought into this Donner SII hype, hook, line and sinker. It got to the point where I totally detested Lester’s version, simply because Donner was implying as such.

Sure, as you say, SIII hardly accentuated Lester’s interpretation of the material.

But SIII was a relative disappointment (compared to SI & II).But it’s a heckuva lot better than Donner’s 1982 flick , The Toy(also featuring Richard Prior!).

SIII is not a disappointing movie in it’s own right(and especially within the context of the early 80s).And from a technical perspective…..it maybe the most accomplished of the Salkind trilogy. It’s the unbalanced script which ultimately undermines this project and that is where Lester has to shoulder a good portion of the blame.

But It took the release of the Donner cut for me to re-appraise Lester’s contribution to SII. One has to consider that Lester was without the services of Brando,Barry,Williams,Bowie and Unsworth. As Donner would have been had he been allowed to finish in 79’.



With regards to making apologies…..IMHO what Shumacher did to Batman is comparable to what Furie did to Superman!


Below represent my opinions(but I am quite adamant on them nonetheless) 

Peter Jackson's deficiencies were brutally exposed with the Hobbit trilogy---those same shortcomings were also evident with the Lord Of The Ring trilogy too....just more obscured.

Coppola made a rather mediocre Godfather Part III(all be it with the passage of nearly 20 years from parts I & II).

Zemekis screwed up Back To The Future 2 big time IMHO. Part 3 was better but well below part 1.

The Wachowskis sank quite low with The Matrix 2 & 3.(I will take Lester's SII and III over those Matrix sequels anytime!).

Lucas all but pissed over over his own work(the original trilogy) with the prequels(they are still better than the Abrams sequels though!!) .

Ridley Scott has done likewise with Prometheus and Covenant. Hard to believe it's the same director who directed the 79' classic!.

Spielberg's directorial qualities fluctuated widely within the Indiana Jones quadrilogy(the Crystal Skull should never have been made).
And personally speaking, I was very disappointed with The Last Crusade when I saw it in 1989.
Some even found Temple Of Doom a let down back in 84'.

Favreau messed up Iron Man 2!(again Lester's SII is superior in every regard IMHO).

Nolan made an okish Batman Begins , a rather good sequel(but over hyped IMHO) and a 3rd film which was a bloated mess. 

Even Donner himself , struggled to maintain the quality of the Lethal Weapon series(3 & 4 being the worst offenders IMHO). 

So IMHO Lester has little to apologize for.


He could offer or elaborate on his film making reasons/decisions though, for sure.
But that may raise more questions than answers!

Surprised you dont like BTTF2. I thought it was really clever, especially the way it revisited the 1955 events. All the 1955 stuff that happened in BTTF2 also happened in Part 1, but we didn't realise.

I think Superman 3 is actually good. Time has been kind to it. I think it looks the best of all three Salkind films. If it hadn't been so weighted to Richard Pryor, it would have been a perfect 1980s superhero movie. I still think it's better than any of the modern DC and Marvel stuff

[atp]

Apr 8, 2021 11:20:46 GMT -5 dejan said:

Apr 4, 2021 15:56:31 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

I wonder how the editing might have changed if they went with the original ending--- if Baird knew that the 'big surprise' was that Lois wouldn't survive- then if the story stayed as it was originally- then would there be more cross-cutting to pickup the pace as the 'big suprise' wouldn't happen until Zod got released?

If only Stuart Baird was bursting at the seams to share all with us here!

cam, both you and ATP make some great observations with regards to the time travel paradox.

IMHO

I would argue that the initial death of Lois(crushed in the car) was a master stoke in terms of script writing(credit to Mank/Donner here).

On my first viewing in 81', as Supes was racing to save her....I honestly thought that he would get there in time.
Precisely because he had already done so on the previous occasions(helicopter, romantic fight).
So it was tremendous sucker punch when he failed to arrive to save her.

Turning back the world however.....that' another story altogether!
I would say that I still bought into it though, if only because it was actually a unique solution(if not entirely a logical one)!......from a cinematic perspective. Remember, this is  6 years before Back To The Future!   
I am not the most knowledgeable when it comes to going back in time  movies(especially those that predate Back To The Future), but had there ever been a resolution to a movie using a time travelling solution?

So for me it worked as a the climax for STM.
But it potentially introduced a load of paradoxes for the sequel(as intended by Donner).

For STM, Donner filmed that brief sequence where Lois and Jimmy question the presence(or absence) of Clark.

Lois:
"Clark wait a minute...wait a minute!"

Jimmy:
"What??!"

Lois:
"ahh....Lois Lane that is the silliest idea ever!!!!"

So from the perspective of the narrative,  Lois was essentially already entertaining the idea of Clark being Supes there and then(at the end of STM).

But when you append that ending(for STM) onto Donner's original SII opening at the Daily Planet........

The way Lois reacts to the Superman pose(folded arms) in the photo in the DP newspaper(thereby inducing her recognition that he could be Clark)........makes it seem like that she had never entertained the idea before!
Especially considering that the Donner SII Daily Planet opening seems to place literally right after the San Andreas earthquake.

It makes sense from a film making/production  perspective......because Donner had shot those DP SII sequences in the summer of 77'(and in accordance with the original unaltered script).......long before he would shoot those climactic and  revised earthquake scenes (where Lois gets killed).

So basically, if Donner had come back in 79' to finish SII, he would have to have used either a different take(if they even existed in the first place).....or maybe film some new insert shots to show a more circumspect Lois realizing that Supes is Clark:
("hey I thought Clark could be Supes when I spoke to Jimmy in California a few days ago ......and now this photo proves it!").

But hopefully that highlights yet another example how the revised (and last minute alterations )ending for STM created further complexities for SII....no matter which director took the reigns! 

 

I really think the California stuff in STM lets it down. There are some epic scenes (the railway track rescue and so on), but I think it messes things up for the sequel.

I also don't know why Jimmy was on the Hoover Dam, while Lois was driving in the desert! Wasn't he supposed to be with her on an assignment?

[crazy_asian_man]

Apr 8, 2021 10:07:45 GMT -5 dejan said:

Apr 3, 2021 13:04:46 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Well.... it's clear that we see Lester's contributions very differently, that's cool.

A number of the quotes that you mentioned I think doesn't specifically target Lester's footage- but it doesn't matter.
In the end, it's down to what we both like and what degree of credit and appreciation both directors deserve and earned and didn't earn--- and we probably will always see the glasses differently. That's cool- we both like Superman II to varying degrees so that's common ground!

But- respectually, I have to get out my own view, too...

To me- STM is ONE HALF of a work- That Donner grew up from the ground, financed and made possible by the Salkinds.

The second half was supposed to be SII- until the vision got splintered and changed by that director who needed a comeback at the time.

What his motives and justifications are, he hasn't shared... though, like how I saw Ilya Salkind's point of view once he shared it, (as well as the late Joel Schumacher in apologizing on camera for choices made on Batman & Robin)- it would have been nice to not feel like he's the creative villain who got away with creative murder (imo).

With STM being one half of the story, scenes there contain the seeds of the love story- so for critics to praise the love story in SII and only credit Lester seems incorrect- the love story already was started in STM... the moments of the helicopter rescue, with Lois fainting, the giddiness of Lois getting the note from 'a friend'- the interview/ flying ballet- SII is the continuation of it.... I doubt Donner felt bad that Lester (with SIII to his credits) outdid him in spots-

But I hated the rewrites. Again, aside from the moral stuff - at first I definitely recalled I was TOTALLY OKAY with ANY DIRECTOR taking over Superman II as long as I: (1) liked the result- which meant- to me- (2) being as good as/better than the original!

So- I know at the time, I was not playing favorites on directors. It could have been my neighbor directing, it could have been Speilberg directing- but STM led me to have certain expectations on the results.

STM's last act bothered me (and still does) on turning back time... even though it was seen at the same time as the first 3/4ths of the film- so even if I saw STM/SII back to back for the first time, I feel I would have been similarly disappointed automatically.... so the few years gap would not have had an effect for this case with the scenes I'm not fond of.

But- again, it's subjective. I think it's impossible to place rigtht or wrong on what one prefers. Can talk about why I prefer it, but it is feelings, hopefully it's of interest, even if not agreed with.

For me, even if ten million critics said director "B"'s footage was better than "A"- if I don't feel that's the case, I still shrug.

To me, SIII is still the best argument for what Lester is capable of when he has pretty much a blank page but a preset great cast and characters.
And STM is the best argument for what Donner is capable of with mostly a blank page, Brando (for a short time) and Hackman (for a short time).

SII to me should always have been credited with both directors and the end credits specifying which parts... in that case, I think the critics may have well changed their reviews and given credit where credit specifically was due... or maybe it would have been the same. Mankiewicz wrote specifically to correct a critic who praised Donner's scenes and gave it to Lester, but the newspaper wouldn't print the letter- showing (at least for that newspaper) to what degree the critic's respect for accuracy and truth was.

Anyhow-
Regardless, even with all the flaws, I feel like the best compromise officially out there is the International Extended Cut of SII.... for now unavailable from WB archives...

Hopefully THAT changes! Need something positive to look forwards to!

That's fair enough cam

Trust me, I know exactly where you are coming from. With regards to Lester, I once thought as you do.

But first:

Going back to the production:

You might be giving Donner too much respect there.....as he definitely did not develop the project from the ground up in terms of the evolution of the story. That accolade has to go to Puzo, Benton and the Newmans.

Donner's genius was to bring in Mank , to "doctor" the script and fine tune it's various constituent elements to their own unique tastes. And the result was sensational.

But looking at some of Mank's other work, specifically the Bond films, there is plenty that I find to be of fairly dubious quality at best. Diamonds Are Forever and The Man With The Golden Gun are shockingly bad IMHO(from a script perspective).

If I had been of adult age in 1977, and I had found out (through fanzines/magazines) that Mank was being brought into help with the Superman script ,I would have been very skeptical indeed.

But film making is a collaborative effort.

And the synergistic effect of working with Donner(and the rest of the cast and crew), and the added advantages of manipulating an already fairly substantial/powerful script in an advanced state of evolution(whatever it's inherent imperfections) somehow elevated Mank's own abilities(and the subsequent quality of the script itself).



I totally agree with you that media reviews are definitely not to be trusted!(at a superficial level at least).
And one should always adhere to one’s own personal preferences as opposed to conceding to external pressure(to like or dislike a movie).

Easier said than done though!

Which is where Donner comes in with regards to SII.

During the late 80’s, Donner started making visceral assertions about his own original version of SII.

But he always did it from the advantageous position of his footage essentially not being available for impartial viewing(by us, the fans/audience).

But at the time(late 90s/early 2000s)I bought into this Donner SII hype, hook, line and sinker. It got to the point where I totally detested Lester’s version, simply because Donner was implying as such.

Sure, as you say, SIII hardly accentuated Lester’s interpretation of the material.

But SIII was a relative disappointment (compared to SI & II).But it’s a heckuva lot better than Donner’s 1982 flick , The Toy(also featuring Richard Prior!).

SIII is not a disappointing movie in it’s own right(and especially within the context of the early 80s).And from a technical perspective…..it maybe the most accomplished of the Salkind trilogy. It’s the unbalanced script which ultimately undermines this project and that is where Lester has to shoulder a good portion of the blame.

But It took the release of the Donner cut for me to re-appraise Lester’s contribution to SII. One has to consider that Lester was without the services of Brando,Barry,Williams,Bowie and Unsworth. As Donner would have been had he been allowed to finish in 79’.



With regards to making apologies…..IMHO what Shumacher did to Batman is comparable to what Furie did to Superman!


Below represent my opinions(but I am quite adamant on them nonetheless) 

Peter Jackson's deficiencies were brutally exposed with the Hobbit trilogy---those same shortcomings were also evident with the Lord Of The Ring trilogy too....just more obscured.

Coppola made a rather mediocre Godfather Part III(all be it with the passage of nearly 20 years from parts I & II).

Zemekis screwed up Back To The Future 2 big time IMHO. Part 3 was better but well below part 1.

The Wachowskis sank quite low with The Matrix 2 & 3.(I will take Lester's SII and III over those Matrix sequels anytime!).

Lucas all but pissed over over his own work(the original trilogy) with the prequels(they are still better than the Abrams sequels though!!) .

Ridley Scott has done likewise with Prometheus and Covenant. Hard to believe it's the same director who directed the 79' classic!.

Spielberg's directorial qualities fluctuated widely within the Indiana Jones quadrilogy(the Crystal Skull should never have been made).
And personally speaking, I was very disappointed with The Last Crusade when I saw it in 1989.
Some even found Temple Of Doom a let down back in 84'.

Favreau messed up Iron Man 2!(again Lester's SII is superior in every regard IMHO).

Nolan made an okish Batman Begins , a rather good sequel(but over hyped IMHO) and a 3rd film which was a bloated mess. 

Even Donner himself , struggled to maintain the quality of the Lethal Weapon series(3 & 4 being the worst offenders IMHO). 

So IMHO Lester has little to apologize for.


He could offer or elaborate on his film making reasons/decisions though, for sure.
But that may raise more questions than answers!

As always, thanks for the discussion and points of view.... yeah, we disagree, but that's cool.
I agree with you on some of the films' sequels of other directors as well, but not others.
Donner isn't a perfect director, but his priorities, level of quality, and tone of his aesthetics I feel made for a fantastic Superman film.

Lester's Superman 3.... I hate it from the lack of what it could have been on a zillion levels, but I also love portions of Superman Returns, which others despise- so, I don't want to think there's a right or wrong to what one likes-

The Toy was not a good fit for Donner-I thought it was an odd comparison- but, I do agree that it was not a good movie for many reasons. Donner has done films that weren't great- but if we're comparing hits to misses to Lester's resume- to show who is the better director, I could point out how much I loved Three Musketeers by Lester, but I didn't care for many of the others he did.

In the end, we both have strong opinions for each director as being the superior one- that's cool.... everyone has their own favorite football teams, I figure this isn't much different. So, maybe we just can agree that we have different favorites on who we feel is a better director?

IMHO Lester has a lot to apologize for, but I'd be open to hear his point of view personally - that may sway me and I'd be open to hearing another side, but on the flip side, the world has gotten so crazy, it's all small potatoes... but then again, this whole forum is about (for me) thinking about things outside of the world issues that I don't have any solutions for, so it's all good!

But on the flip side, he doesn't owe ME an apology but I would think Donner!

[crazy_asian_man]

Apr 8, 2021 11:29:04 GMT -5 atp said:

Apr 8, 2021 10:07:45 GMT -5 dejan said:

That's fair enough cam

Trust me, I know exactly where you are coming from. With regards to Lester, I once thought as you do.

But first:

Going back to the production:

You might be giving Donner too much respect there.....as he definitely did not develop the project from the ground up in terms of the evolution of the story. That accolade has to go to Puzo, Benton and the Newmans.

Donner's genius was to bring in Mank , to "doctor" the script and fine tune it's various constituent elements to their own unique tastes. And the result was sensational.

But looking at some of Mank's other work, specifically the Bond films, there is plenty that I find to be of fairly dubious quality at best. Diamonds Are Forever and The Man With The Golden Gun are shockingly bad IMHO(from a script perspective).

If I had been of adult age in 1977, and I had found out (through fanzines/magazines) that Mank was being brought into help with the Superman script ,I would have been very skeptical indeed.

But film making is a collaborative effort.

And the synergistic effect of working with Donner(and the rest of the cast and crew), and the added advantages of manipulating an already fairly substantial/powerful script in an advanced state of evolution(whatever it's inherent imperfections) somehow elevated Mank's own abilities(and the subsequent quality of the script itself).



I totally agree with you that media reviews are definitely not to be trusted!(at a superficial level at least).
And one should always adhere to one’s own personal preferences as opposed to conceding to external pressure(to like or dislike a movie).

Easier said than done though!

Which is where Donner comes in with regards to SII.

During the late 80’s, Donner started making visceral assertions about his own original version of SII.

But he always did it from the advantageous position of his footage essentially not being available for impartial viewing(by us, the fans/audience).

But at the time(late 90s/early 2000s)I bought into this Donner SII hype, hook, line and sinker. It got to the point where I totally detested Lester’s version, simply because Donner was implying as such.

Sure, as you say, SIII hardly accentuated Lester’s interpretation of the material.

But SIII was a relative disappointment (compared to SI & II).But it’s a heckuva lot better than Donner’s 1982 flick , The Toy(also featuring Richard Prior!).

SIII is not a disappointing movie in it’s own right(and especially within the context of the early 80s).And from a technical perspective…..it maybe the most accomplished of the Salkind trilogy. It’s the unbalanced script which ultimately undermines this project and that is where Lester has to shoulder a good portion of the blame.

But It took the release of the Donner cut for me to re-appraise Lester’s contribution to SII. One has to consider that Lester was without the services of Brando,Barry,Williams,Bowie and Unsworth. As Donner would have been had he been allowed to finish in 79’.



With regards to making apologies…..IMHO what Shumacher did to Batman is comparable to what Furie did to Superman!


Below represent my opinions(but I am quite adamant on them nonetheless) 

Peter Jackson's deficiencies were brutally exposed with the Hobbit trilogy---those same shortcomings were also evident with the Lord Of The Ring trilogy too....just more obscured.

Coppola made a rather mediocre Godfather Part III(all be it with the passage of nearly 20 years from parts I & II).

Zemekis screwed up Back To The Future 2 big time IMHO. Part 3 was better but well below part 1.

The Wachowskis sank quite low with The Matrix 2 & 3.(I will take Lester's SII and III over those Matrix sequels anytime!).

Lucas all but pissed over over his own work(the original trilogy) with the prequels(they are still better than the Abrams sequels though!!) .

Ridley Scott has done likewise with Prometheus and Covenant. Hard to believe it's the same director who directed the 79' classic!.

Spielberg's directorial qualities fluctuated widely within the Indiana Jones quadrilogy(the Crystal Skull should never have been made).
And personally speaking, I was very disappointed with The Last Crusade when I saw it in 1989.
Some even found Temple Of Doom a let down back in 84'.

Favreau messed up Iron Man 2!(again Lester's SII is superior in every regard IMHO).

Nolan made an okish Batman Begins , a rather good sequel(but over hyped IMHO) and a 3rd film which was a bloated mess. 

Even Donner himself , struggled to maintain the quality of the Lethal Weapon series(3 & 4 being the worst offenders IMHO). 

So IMHO Lester has little to apologize for.


He could offer or elaborate on his film making reasons/decisions though, for sure.
But that may raise more questions than answer

Surprised you dont like BTTF2. I thought it was really clever, especially the way it revisited the 1955 events. All the 1955 stuff that happened in BTTF2 also happened in Part 1, but we didn't realise.

I think Superman 3 is actually good. Time has been kind to it. I think it looks the best of all three Salkind films. If it hadn't been so weighted to Richard Pryor, it would have been a perfect 1980s superhero movie. I still think it's better than any of the modern DC and Marvel stuff

BTFF2 had neat things in it - the novel revisiting of the original movie, which I imagine helped give Kevin Feige the inspiration for what could be done with Avengers: Endgame. But, it was never meant to have a sequel--- and it kind of shows. But if you think of it as a fun showcase to spend more time with the main actors in those beloved roles, it definitely could be worse- (I thought if it was going to be a ocmpromised thing, it could have been lighter and had more fun in general with
My issue with Superman 3 is the tone - it feels like the filmmakers have a certain contempt for the material to try to mock and laugh AT it rather than WITH it. Lois is zany in STM--- but there's the closeup moments and the heart-on-sleeve 'poem' that Lois sortof sings.... cringeworthy to some fans for being too corny but you can't say if someone's putting out a scene like that, that they don't believe it in the romance.

I read the script prior to the movie coming out, and thought it okay... (not great), but when I saw how it was on film, it was below what I imagined. Supergirl may have also had a terrible script, but I feel that the way it was shot, that the heart was there... which makes certain scenes of that bad film more rewatchable to me.

I'm shocked to hear that you feel like the look best of all the Superman films... production design and the cinematography seemed like such a priority on STM - but... again, everyone sees things differently. All good...

[crazy_asian_man]

Apr 8, 2021 11:33:00 GMT -5 atp said:

Apr 8, 2021 11:20:46 GMT -5 dejan said:

cam, both you and ATP make some great observations with regards to the time travel paradox.

IMHO

I would argue that the initial death of Lois(crushed in the car) was a master stoke in terms of script writing(credit to Mank/Donner here).

On my first viewing in 81', as Supes was racing to save her....I honestly thought that he would get there in time.
Precisely because he had already done so on the previous occasions(helicopter, romantic fight).
So it was tremendous sucker punch when he failed to arrive to save her.

Turning back the world however.....that' another story altogether!
I would say that I still bought into it though, if only because it was actually a unique solution(if not entirely a logical one)!......from a cinematic perspective. Remember, this is  6 years before Back To The Future!   
I am not the most knowledgeable when it comes to going back in time  movies(especially those that predate Back To The Future), but had there ever been a resolution to a movie using a time travelling solution?

So for me it worked as a the climax for STM.
But it potentially introduced a load of paradoxes for the sequel(as intended by Donner).

For STM, Donner filmed that brief sequence where Lois and Jimmy question the presence(or absence) of Clark.

Lois:
"Clark wait a minute...wait a minute!"

Jimmy:
"What??!"

Lois:
"ahh....Lois Lane that is the silliest idea ever!!!!"

So from the perspective of the narrative,  Lois was essentially already entertaining the idea of Clark being Supes there and then(at the end of STM).

But when you append that ending(for STM) onto Donner's original SII opening at the Daily Planet........

The way Lois reacts to the Superman pose(folded arms) in the photo in the DP newspaper(thereby inducing her recognition that he could be Clark)........makes it seem like that she had never entertained the idea before!
Especially considering that the Donner SII Daily Planet opening seems to place literally right after the San Andreas earthquake.

It makes sense from a film making/production  perspective......because Donner had shot those DP SII sequences in the summer of 77'(and in accordance with the original unaltered script).......long before he would shoot those climactic and  revised earthquake scenes (where Lois gets killed).

So basically, if Donner had come back in 79' to finish SII, he would have to have used either a different take(if they even existed in the first place).....or maybe film some new insert shots to show a more circumspect Lois realizing that Supes is Clark:
("hey I thought Clark could be Supes when I spoke to Jimmy in California a few days ago ......and now this photo proves it!").

But hopefully that highlights yet another example how the revised (and last minute alterations )ending for STM created further complexities for SII....no matter which director took the reigns! 

I really think the California stuff in STM lets it down. There are some epic scenes (the railway track rescue and so on), but I think it messes things up for the sequel.

I also don't know why Jimmy was on the Hoover Dam, while Lois was driving in the desert! Wasn't he supposed to be with her on an assignment?

The California stuff all was (originally) setup for the release of the villains, but in rewatching it on the bigscreen, it's there- but it's not the most compelling stuff compared to other parts of STM, agreed- though I prefer the tv cut that ia longer but adds a few seconds here and there - one key expression I loved in the tv cut showed a close up of Supes at the power plant that looked a little angry/stressed that I wish was kept in the theatrical to give it more energy and suggest that it was getting to Supes under the skin as well about getting everywhere in time.

I would have been okay keeping the bit at the end with Lois wondering- but I also would have kept the extended bit of Jimmy taking glam pics of Lois and then realizing he ran out of film- showed a different funny side to Lois and Jimmy. I think it could have been good foreshadowing for the RDC opening, not necessarily canceling it out.

[atp]

Apr 8, 2021 23:17:08 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Apr 8, 2021 11:29:04 GMT -5 atp said:

Surprised you dont like BTTF2. I thought it was really clever, especially the way it revisited the 1955 events. All the 1955 stuff that happened in BTTF2 also happened in Part 1, but we didn't realise.

I think Superman 3 is actually good. Time has been kind to it. I think it looks the best of all three Salkind films. If it hadn't been so weighted to Richard Pryor, it would have been a perfect 1980s superhero movie. I still think it's better than any of the modern DC and Marvel stuff

BTFF2 had neat things in it - the novel revisiting of the original movie, which I imagine helped give Kevin Feige the inspiration for what could be done with Avengers: Endgame. But, it was never meant to have a sequel--- and it kind of shows. But if you think of it as a fun showcase to spend more time with the main actors in those beloved roles, it definitely could be worse- (I thought if it was going to be a ocmpromised thing, it could have been lighter and had more fun in general with
My issue with Superman 3 is the tone - it feels like the filmmakers have a certain contempt for the material to try to mock and laugh AT it rather than WITH it. Lois is zany in STM--- but there's the closeup moments and the heart-on-sleeve 'poem' that Lois sortof sings.... cringeworthy to some fans for being too corny but you can't say if someone's putting out a scene like that, that they don't believe it in the romance.

I read the script prior to the movie coming out, and thought it okay... (not great), but when I saw how it was on film, it was below what I imagined. Supergirl may have also had a terrible script, but I feel that the way it was shot, that the heart was there... which makes certain scenes of that bad film more rewatchable to me.

I'm shocked to hear that you feel like the look best of all the Superman films... production design and the cinematography seemed like such a priority on STM - but... again, everyone sees things differently. All good...

Maybe I should have been more specific. I think Reeve looks best as Superman in S3. In STM, his look fluctuates a bit much and you can see him gaining size! Similarly S2 has him fluctuating between how he looked in 1978 and in 1980. Bit honestly, it's no huge difference. We are talking about levels of perfection here!

I will also say that the flying effects in S3 were best looking. They had really mastered it all by then. The technology in 1978 was groundbreaking,but S3's flying looks the least dated.

And as for overall production values, this is just a personal preference. It definitely looks and feels more solid and less cheap than S2. But in hindsight, I was mistaken to say it looks better than STM.

[crazy_asian_man]

Maybe I should have been more specific. I think Reeve looks best as Superman in S3. In STM, his look fluctuates a bit much and you can see him gaining size! Similarly S2 has him fluctuating between how he looked in 1978 and in 1980. Bit honestly, it's no huge difference. We are talking about levels of perfection here!

I will also say that the flying effects in S3 were best looking. They had really mastered it all by then. The technology in 1978 was groundbreaking,but S3's flying looks the least dated.

And as for overall production values, this is just a personal preference. It definitely looks and feels more solid and less cheap than S2. But in hindsight, I was mistaken to say it looks better than STM.

I've heard others also comment that they feel like Reeve had the best look as Superman- he does look bigger and closer to the way he was being drawn in comics, but I actually liked the somewhat leaner look in STM. (Plus I didn't care for the dye job that from memory seemed to show a little too much of his natural brown hair)... but, he looked amazing in all 4 films, so I agree! (And without the 'cheat' of a muscle costume/etc.!)

The wire work was always amazing... probably even moreso now (imo) given how practical fx seem mostly gone now in films.

For SII- Donner stuff looks expensive, but the Lester stuff was expensive, too.... but the way some of it was shot (the bright lighting of that gigantic Metropolis city set makes me roll my eyes- SO much trouble to make it look authentic- and it looks HUGE in the behind the scenes footage-and is, plus the actual location shooting of south america when Supes goes to get the flower by the waterfall looked like something at a hotel--- even though reportedly it was shot on location!) made it look cheap to me.

But- like you mentioned, it's all personal preference.

[dejan]

atp   & cam

Lots of points you fine folks have made!

ATP makes a reference to Jimmy and Lois being separated in California.
This year marks a personal 40th anniversary since first seeing STM.......and I never noticed the fact that Lois and Jimmy are indeed working independently in California!

It's amazing how the same material can be interpreted differently by various viewers!

To be fair , after being saved , Jimmy does say to Supes:

"Miss Lane will be driving by any minute!!"(although how he would have known that seems a bit arbitrary as it's not like Jimmy and Lois had cell phones to communicate-lol!). 

In the commentary , Spengler points out that when they reviewed the original ending, they felt that it seemed to lack impact(in terms of any of the main characters actually suffering).And I would agree with Spengler here. 
Hence the reason why they then decided to transpose Lois's death (and resurrection)climax from SII onto STM's coda.

For me it worked perfectly(despite it's inherent logical fallacy) , but I can see why many had trouble digesting it as a satisfying climax. 

With regards to Back To The Future II........I actually do enjoy it and I still believe it's a technically proficient movie.
In the DVD commentary, Zemekis complains that he needed more time during the editing phase for Part II......the problem was that he was contemporaneously engulfed in the shooting for Part III.....and Part II suffered as a result. But my personal rancor with the film is practically identical to cam's.

The only point I was trying to emphasize was how directors of all stripes and colors have struggled to maintain consistency across a wide range of sequels. So in this regard, Lester is not alone.

And ATP, I like the fact that you prefer SIII to a lot of the Marvel (and DC) flicks. Me too!

@ cam

No worries bud....I know we see things a bit differently for SII. Still I think it's fair to say that we both love STM!
And I actually do prefer STM to SII these days(not by much though). Back in 81', I marginally preferred SII to STM.....but it's really important to emphasize this aspect......I thought both were very special.

I am actually hoping later on this year to get a whole bunch of Blu Rays of other Donner and Lester flicks.

One of the main points that gets lost is that Donner and Lester were eclectic directors.
They had way more range(comedy, horror, social dramas ect) than some of the directors that are being roped into filming today's superhero flicks.

One Lester flick I am hoping gets put onto Blu ray is Petulia(1967)......it's essentially doing a Nolan before Nolan!.....i.e lots of flash backs(and forwards!)

For Donner, I would like to track down Salt and Peppa(1968ish).

BTW...this is Donner's first flick from 1961....it's called X-15 and is essentially a military/avionics documentary:


These guys were way more diversified in their directorial skills, simply because they interweaved their careers through several genres.

One could argue that Nolan has done likewise..........but I can instantly recognize Nolan's fingerprints....whether it's Dunkirk, Memento, Batman or Inception.

Superman The Movie is radically different to Donner's Inside Moves......as Superman II is to Lester's Cuba.

And that is one of the reasons what makes the Reeve/Salkind trilogy a unique piece of cinematic entertainment(whatever the flaws).
 


      

  
 

[atp]

Apr 11, 2021 12:37:47 GMT -5 dejan said:

atp   & cam

Lots of points you fine folks have made!

ATP makes a reference to Jimmy and Lois being separated in California.
This year marks a personal 40th anniversary since first seeing STM.......and I never noticed the fact that Lois and Jimmy are indeed working independently in California!

It's amazing how the same material can be interpreted differently by various viewers!

To be fair , after being saved , Jimmy does say to Supes:

"Miss Lane will be driving by any minute!!"(although how he would have known that seems a bit arbitrary as it's not like Jimmy and Lois had cell phones to communicate-lol!). 

In the commentary , Spengler points out that when they reviewed the original ending, they felt that it seemed to lack impact(in terms of any of the main characters actually suffering).And I would agree with Spengler here. 
Hence the reason why they then decided to transpose Lois's death (and resurrection)climax from SII onto STM's coda.

For me it worked perfectly(despite it's inherent logical fallacy) , but I can see why many had trouble digesting it as a satisfying climax. 

With regards to Back To The Future II........I actually do enjoy it and I still believe it's a technically proficient movie.
In the DVD commentary, Zemekis complains that he needed more time during the editing phase for Part II......the problem was that he was contemporaneously engulfed in the shooting for Part III.....and Part II suffered as a result. But my personal rancor with the film is practically identical to cam's.

The only point I was trying to emphasize was how directors of all stripes and colors have struggled to maintain consistency across a wide range of sequels. So in this regard, Lester is not alone.

And ATP, I like the fact that you prefer SIII to a lot of the Marvel (and DC) flicks. Me too!

@ cam

No worries bud....I know we see things a bit differently for SII. Still I think it's fair to say that we both love STM!
And I actually do prefer STM to SII these days(not by much though). Back in 81', I marginally preferred SII to STM.....but it's really important to emphasize this aspect......I thought both were very special.

I am actually hoping later on this year to get a whole bunch of Blu Rays of other Donner and Lester flicks.

One of the main points that gets lost is that Donner and Lester were eclectic directors.
They had way more range(comedy, horror, social dramas ect) than some of the directors that are being roped into filming today's superhero flicks.

One Lester flick I am hoping gets put onto Blu ray is Petulia(1967)......it's essentially doing a Nolan before Nolan!.....i.e lots of flash backs(and forwards!)

For Donner, I would like to track down Salt and Peppa(1968ish).

BTW...this is Donner's first flick from 1961....it's called X-15 and is essentially a military/avionics documentary:


These guys were way more diversified in their directorial skills, simply because they interweaved their careers through several genres.

One could argue that Nolan has done likewise..........but I can instantly recognize Nolan's fingerprints....whether it's Dunkirk, Memento, Batman or Inception.

Superman The Movie is radically different to Donner's Inside Moves......as Superman II is to Lester's Cuba.

And that is one of the reasons what makes the Reeve/Salkind trilogy a unique piece of cinematic entertainment(whatever the flaws).
 


      

  
 

I think a lot of the issues (with STM and S2) stem from the fact that STM "needed an ending". It is artificial.

Perhaps the best format for the StM/2 story would have been a miniseries. You could get four to five solid episodes out of them, without having the pressure to have "an ending" artificially somewhere in the middle.

Part 1 of the miniseries could be everything from Krypton until Reeve's first flight past the camera in the fortress. Part 2 could end with Superman in the pool with Kryptonite around his neck. Part 3 could be the whole California rescue, ending with villains freed by the missile. (No Lois death). Part 4 can cover Lois discovering the truth, and end with depowered Superman beaten in the diner. And Part 5 could start with him walkibg back to the fortress, leading to the finale.

No artificial "endings" -- just a few cliffhangers.

Of course, the question then becomes: how do you release a miniseries in theatres???

So my idea wouldn't have worked in 1978. But now, 40 years later, perhaps that's the best way to treat STM and S2.

Mr Thau try to create it please.

[crazy_asian_man]

Apr 11, 2021 14:06:04 GMT -5 atp said:

Apr 11, 2021 12:37:47 GMT -5 dejan said:

atp   & cam

Lots of points you fine folks have made!

ATP makes a reference to Jimmy and Lois being separated in California.
This year marks a personal 40th anniversary since first seeing STM.......and I never noticed the fact that Lois and Jimmy are indeed working independently in California!

It's amazing how the same material can be interpreted differently by various viewers!

To be fair , after being saved , Jimmy does say to Supes:

"Miss Lane will be driving by any minute!!"(although how he would have known that seems a bit arbitrary as it's not like Jimmy and Lois had cell phones to communicate-lol!). 

In the commentary , Spengler points out that when they reviewed the original ending, they felt that it seemed to lack impact(in terms of any of the main characters actually suffering).And I would agree with Spengler here. 
Hence the reason why they then decided to transpose Lois's death (and resurrection)climax from SII onto STM's coda.

For me it worked perfectly(despite it's inherent logical fallacy) , but I can see why many had trouble digesting it as a satisfying climax. 

With regards to Back To The Future II........I actually do enjoy it and I still believe it's a technically proficient movie.
In the DVD commentary, Zemekis complains that he needed more time during the editing phase for Part II......the problem was that he was contemporaneously engulfed in the shooting for Part III.....and Part II suffered as a result. But my personal rancor with the film is practically identical to cam's.

The only point I was trying to emphasize was how directors of all stripes and colors have struggled to maintain consistency across a wide range of sequels. So in this regard, Lester is not alone.

And ATP, I like the fact that you prefer SIII to a lot of the Marvel (and DC) flicks. Me too!

@ cam

No worries bud....I know we see things a bit differently for SII. Still I think it's fair to say that we both love STM!
And I actually do prefer STM to SII these days(not by much though). Back in 81', I marginally preferred SII to STM.....but it's really important to emphasize this aspect......I thought both were very special.

I am actually hoping later on this year to get a whole bunch of Blu Rays of other Donner and Lester flicks.

One of the main points that gets lost is that Donner and Lester were eclectic directors.
They had way more range(comedy, horror, social dramas ect) than some of the directors that are being roped into filming today's superhero flicks.

One Lester flick I am hoping gets put onto Blu ray is Petulia(1967)......it's essentially doing a Nolan before Nolan!.....i.e lots of flash backs(and forwards!)

For Donner, I would like to track down Salt and Peppa(1968ish).

BTW...this is Donner's first flick from 1961....it's called X-15 and is essentially a military/avionics documentary:


These guys were way more diversified in their directorial skills, simply because they interweaved their careers through several genres.

One could argue that Nolan has done likewise..........but I can instantly recognize Nolan's fingerprints....whether it's Dunkirk, Memento, Batman or Inception.

Superman The Movie is radically different to Donner's Inside Moves......as Superman II is to Lester's Cuba.

And that is one of the reasons what makes the Reeve/Salkind trilogy a unique piece of cinematic entertainment(whatever the flaws).
 

I think a lot of the issues (with STM and S2) stem from the fact that STM "needed an ending". It is artificial.

Perhaps the best format for the StM/2 story would have been a miniseries. You could get three to four solid episodes out of them, without having the pressure to have "an ending" artificially somewhere in the middle.

Part 1 of the miniseries could be everything from Krypton until Reeves first flight past the camera in the fortress.

Of course, the question then becomes: how do you release a miniseries in theatres???

So my idea wouldn't have worked in 1978. But now, 40 years later, perhaps that's the best way to treat STM and S2.

Mr Thau try to create it please.

Hey Dejan!
Always pleasant chatting with you, it's nice to have disagreements on perspectives and still have a good back and forth!

With regards to the possible best format for STM/SII--- It's unfortunate for a number of reasons that Donner couldn't finish SII- but it looked like the model for it had to be Three Musketeers/Four Musketeers, as there was a trailer right at the end of Three Musketeers - and in the original STM script, at the end, there's this on the earlier Mank script to show this was probably their method of teasing them back similarly:

"264 CLOSE 0N ROCKET

The ROCKET nears the Phantom Zone, then suddenly explodes. The massive shock waves ripple furiously through space.

265 CLOSE ON PHANTOM ZONE

The intense waves caused by the nuclear explosion collide with the Phantom Zone. It cracks
releasing the VILLAINS. They rush to the opened section and their unexpected freedom. NON lets out the horrible roar or an animal suddenly uncaged.

ZOD
Free!

URSA
Free!

Their grotesque faces fill the SCREEN with howls of glee as they drift off into space.

IMMEDIATE CUT TO:

SELECTED SCENES FROM SUPERMAN II

Selected film clips from SUPERMAN II with the exact content to be determined, but certainly establishing:

A. LOIS and SUPERMAN making love .
B. JOR-EL physically appearing before SUPERMAN to give him new life.
C. CLARK KENT being beaten up and bloodied.
D. ZOD, URSA and, NON destroying and conquering the world.

INSERT SHOT - COMIC BOOK

The tiny CHILD'S hand seen in the opening shot of the film comes back into frame, quietly turns over the final page of the SUPERMAN comic book. On the back cover is the enticing message

DON'T MISS THE FURTHER ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN!
COMING SOON!

FADE OUT:

THE END OF
PART I

So... definitely was set for a cliffhanger- and probably would have felt more like how audiences felt at the end of "Empire Strikes Back"- where (at the time) it was a bit of a suprise that there wasn't the standalone ending for the movie, even though people loved it nontheless.

But- there is definitely something really appealing emotionally (though as you said it has no logic)- about seeing Superman lose it completely and hearing all the voices of Pa Kent, Jor-el, and his own younger self... and it does give the final portion of the movie that big surge of energy.

In an ideal world, with Donner finishing SII- and no time reversal for the official release- it would have also been fun to have had the theatrical STM be the 'alternate dvd cut'.

On a related note- it would have been interesting to see how things would have developed if DOnner got his wish and had been able to do ONE test preview with an audience. If they loved everything but didn't like the time reversal, it might well have resorted back to the original plan!

Your idea of having STM/SII be a miniseries would have been cool.... another option I think wouild have been formatted like some of the extra long movies of the time (Lawrence of Arabia, Dr. Zhivago I think, and Reds later on)- by having an intermission instead of two movies, but one extra extra long one - the first part ending with Zod screaming 'freeeee' and then intermission and then right to the Daily Planet jump and the rest of SII for the second part.

But.... I guess that's somewhat possible in a fan cut...

[atp]

If STM and S2 were turned into one long movie, that would be a good opportunity to chop out some of the crap that drags both movies down.

I'd definitely get rid of a lot of the Otis stuff in STM.

And I may even have the villains attack the White House immediately after arriving on Earth. No more silly East Houston rubbish, and a more consistent portrayal of the villains.

[crazy_asian_man]

Apr 12, 2021 2:50:59 GMT -5 atp said:

If STM and S2 were turned into one long movie, that would be a good opportunity to chop out some of the crap that drags both movies down.

I'd definitely get rid of a lot of the Otis stuff in STM.

And I may even have the villains attack the White House immediately after arriving on Earth. No more silly East Houston rubbish, and a more consistent portrayal of the villains.

Agreed 1000 percent!
The original Mank script goes MUCH faster to the white house stuff and does away with so much of the mediocre villain material that’s not tha funny nor that scary that the Newmans and Lester forced in...

[dejan]

Apr 12, 2021 2:50:59 GMT -5 atp said:

If STM and S2 were turned into one long movie, that would be a good opportunity to chop out some of the crap that drags both movies down.

I'd definitely get rid of a lot of the Otis stuff in STM.

And I may even have the villains attack the White House immediately after arriving on Earth. No more silly East Houston rubbish, and a more consistent portrayal of the villains.

That's an interesting idea.
One has to remember ,Francis Ford Coppola doing something similar for Godfather Parts 1 & 2.....way back in the late 70s/early 80s.

The difference being that Coppola had "artistic rights" over both movies.
The problem with Superman is that hypothetically , Lester and Donner would argue about which parts to keep in or let go.....if such a project came to pass in an official capacity(lol).
Obviously a fan cut would not suffer from these mitigating circumstances......but it would still be a fan cut with all the bias and prejudices that come along with the territory!

[dejan]

Apr 12, 2021 15:45:47 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Apr 12, 2021 2:50:59 GMT -5 atp said:

If STM and S2 were turned into one long movie, that would be a good opportunity to chop out some of the crap that drags both movies down.

I'd definitely get rid of a lot of the Otis stuff in STM.

And I may even have the villains attack the White House immediately after arriving on Earth. No more silly East Houston rubbish, and a more consistent portrayal of the villains.

Agreed 1000 percent!
The original Mank script goes MUCH faster to the white house stuff and does away with so much of the mediocre villain material that’s not tha funny nor that scary that the Newmans and Lester forced in...

Agreed with your assertions there.....if you view the theatrical SII as 2 distinct narratives helmed by 2 different directors(and this definitely applies to the Donner cut).

If on the other hand , you perceive Lester's SII as one narrative(with elements shot by 2 directors!), then the lack of uniformity of the villains(i.e Non brutally killing the astronauts on the moon in one scene-----then hugging the siren of the Police car in the next)......actually allows the audience to essentially breathe with regards to the unfolding story.

In the theater, I actually remember people laughing when Non tried to bake the snake ,when he hugged the siren and when he looked at Zod after he blew up the jeep. But the audience were definitely laughing with the character....not at him.
In comparison, the audience were definitely laughing at Nuclear Man(and quite  frankly Superman himself) in 1987.
It was pitiful and so sad to see. 
 
But back in 81', Lester knew that he could rely on those Donner sequences(where Non is merciless) to accentuate those scenes where Non is more gentle---it's an interesting dynamic.
If the villains where effectively like Schwarzenegger's  Terminator!!(specifically from the first James Cameron film) I don't think that it would have worked within the context  of a Superman flick.
A Superman movie is not a horror action/thriller(even if it may contain some elements from those genres).

e.g...in the Mank script there is the scene were Non does the following:

NON swings around, puts his hands on top of the

car, pushes down softly. He flattens it like a pancake,

with RANGER #2 still inside.


I don't think they would have shot this stuff had Donner been at the helm for SII......it's too tough for a Supes flick(IMHO).
Also Non had already flattened the Lunar Module by this point in the script!........pancaking the cop's car would have simply been a repeat of that.

So in Lester's SII, allowing for the ebb and flow of the villain's behavior(deadly in one scene, cartoonish in the next) actually provided a bit of contrast and even an air of unpredictability within the context of the narrative........and audiences back in 81' responded positively to that. 






  

[dejan]

cam wrote:

Hey Dejan!

Always pleasant chatting with you, it's nice to have disagreements on perspectives and still have a good back and forth!



With regards to the possible best format for STM/SII--- It's unfortunate for a number of reasons that Donner couldn't finish SII- but it looked like the model for it had to be Three Musketeers/Four Musketeers, as there was a trailer right at the end of Three Musketeers - and in the original STM script, at the end, there's this on the earlier Mank script to show this was probably their method of teasing them back similarly:



"264 CLOSE 0N ROCKET



The ROCKET nears the Phantom Zone, then suddenly explodes. The massive shock waves ripple furiously through space.



265 CLOSE ON PHANTOM ZONE



The intense waves caused by the nuclear explosion collide with the Phantom Zone. It cracks

releasing the VILLAINS. They rush to the opened section and their unexpected freedom. NON lets out the horrible roar or an animal suddenly uncaged.



ZOD

Free!



URSA

Free!



Their grotesque faces fill the SCREEN with howls of glee as they drift off into space.



IMMEDIATE CUT TO:



SELECTED SCENES FROM SUPERMAN II



Selected film clips from SUPERMAN II with the exact content to be determined, but certainly establishing:



A. LOIS and SUPERMAN making love .

B. JOR-EL physically appearing before SUPERMAN to give him new life.

C. CLARK KENT being beaten up and bloodied.

D. ZOD, URSA and, NON destroying and conquering the world.



INSERT SHOT - COMIC BOOK



The tiny CHILD'S hand seen in the opening shot of the film comes back into frame, quietly turns over the final page of the SUPERMAN comic book. On the back cover is the enticing message



DON'T MISS THE FURTHER ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN!

COMING SOON!



FADE OUT:



THE END OF

PART I



So... definitely was set for a cliffhanger- and probably would have felt more like how audiences felt at the end of "Empire Strikes Back"- where (at the time) it was a bit of a suprise that there wasn't the standalone ending for the movie, even though people loved it nontheless.



But- there is definitely something really appealing emotionally (though as you said it has no logic)- about seeing Superman lose it completely and hearing all the voices of Pa Kent, Jor-el, and his own younger self... and it does give the final portion of the movie that big surge of energy.



In an ideal world, with Donner finishing SII- and no time reversal for the official release- it would have also been fun to have had the theatrical STM be the 'alternate dvd cut'.



On a related note- it would have been interesting to see how things would have developed if DOnner got his wish and had been able to do ONE test preview with an audience. If they loved everything but didn't like the time reversal, it might well have resorted back to the original plan!



Your idea of having STM/SII be a miniseries would have been cool.... another option I think wouild have been formatted like some of the extra long movies of the time (Lawrence of Arabia, Dr. Zhivago I think, and Reds later on)- by having an intermission instead of two movies, but one extra extra long one - the first part ending with Zod screaming 'freeeee' and then intermission and then right to the Daily Planet jump and the rest of SII for the second part.



But.... I guess that's somewhat possible in a fan cut...

Hey thanks for that portion of the STM script where it insinuates a pre-trailer for SII!!!!!
I have never seen that before.

It may explain why Donner shot those brief clips of Zod kicking Superman into the Statue Of Liberty and Non being bashed into the Empire State.

Back To The Future 2 and Matrix Reloaded also included pre-trailers too.

But I would argue that those 2 flicks suffered from underwhelming endings(particularly  Reloaded) .

Would STM(or at least it's climax) been underwhelming if Lois did not die.....and the villains were released as originally intended. IMHO....yes I think so....but that is IMHO!!!!!
It's difficult to visualize that original script, given the fact that we(I!) am so used to seeing the ending that we are all familiar with.
The theatrical climax  does pack an emotional wallop though(Lois dying--turning back time).....no matter what discrepancies it introduces with regards to logic.......and hey.....remember this is still a far fletched flick about a guy who flies(it's not a film about Gandhi!).....so anything goes(within reason- lol)!

I do wonder that if Donner had come back in 79'......that he too may have ditched that DP opening in favor of  something entirely different(i.e an Eiffel Tower like scenario).......just so the audience could step away from the paradoxes of that time travelling ending to STM.

This could be one of the artistic reasons why Lester chose to go with a new opening sequence for his SII.
Maybe Donner would have ultimately done the same?!!
  

[atp]

Apr 16, 2021 11:28:58 GMT -5 dejan said:

Apr 12, 2021 15:45:47 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Agreed 1000 percent!
The original Mank script goes MUCH faster to the white house stuff and does away with so much of the mediocre villain material that’s not tha funny nor that scary that the Newmans and Lester forced in...

Agreed with your assertions there.....if you view the theatrical SII as 2 distinct narratives helmed by 2 different directors(and this definitely applies to the Donner cut).

If on the other hand , you perceive Lester's SII as one narrative(with elements shot by 2 directors!), then the lack of uniformity of the villains(i.e Non brutally killing the astronauts on the moon in one scene-----then hugging the siren of the Police car in the next)......actually allows the audience to essentially breathe with regards to the unfolding story.

In the theater, I actually remember people laughing when Non tried to bake the snake ,when he hugged the siren and when he looked at Zod after he blew up the jeep. But the audience were definitely laughing with the character....not at him.
In comparison, the audience were definitely laughing at Nuclear Man(and quite  frankly Superman himself) in 1987.
It was pitiful and so sad to see. 
 
But back in 81', Lester knew that he could rely on those Donner sequences(where Non is merciless) to accentuate those scenes where Non is more gentle---it's an interesting dynamic.
If the villains where effectively like Schwarzenegger's  Terminator!!(specifically from the first James Cameron film) I don't think that it would have worked within the context  of a Superman flick.
A Superman movie is not a horror action/thriller(even if it may contain some elements from those genres).

e.g...in the Mank script there is the scene were Non does the following:

NON swings around, puts his hands on top of the

car, pushes down softly. He flattens it like a pancake,

with RANGER #2 still inside.


I don't think they would have shot this stuff had Donner been at the helm for SII......it's too tough for a Supes flick(IMHO).
Also Non had already flattened the Lunar Module by this point in the script!........pancaking the cop's car would have simply been a repeat of that.

So in Lester's SII, allowing for the ebb and flow of the villain's behavior(deadly in one scene, cartoonish in the next) actually provided a bit of contrast and even an air of unpredictability within the context of the narrative........and audiences back in 81' responded positively to that. 






  

I get what you're saying about the villains having some less evil and more comedic moments. And yes, the 1980s audiences (myself included!) responded well.

But in hindsight,I think there already was a more comical and "loveable" villain and that was Lex Luthor. I think he is enough of a counterbalance to the scary villains.

I once met Sarah Douglas at a comic con. I wish I had asked her if she remembers changing her Ursa character for Lester. She is the most consistent of the three, in my opinion.

By the way, does anyone know who shot Non in the White House being mesmerised by those clanking steel balls? I was under the impression all the White House stuff was Donner's, but that shot is very Lesterish!

In the beginning of STM, Jack O'Halloran looks absolutely terrifying. Like an axe murderer or something. I also remember audiences saying he was the scariest villain in a Chuck Norris movie; he played opposite him in 1990's "Hero and the Terror."

[dejan]

Apr 16, 2021 12:21:00 GMT -5 atp said:

Apr 16, 2021 11:28:58 GMT -5 dejan said:

Agreed with your assertions there.....if you view the theatrical SII as 2 distinct narratives helmed by 2 different directors(and this definitely applies to the Donner cut).

If on the other hand , you perceive Lester's SII as one narrative(with elements shot by 2 directors!), then the lack of uniformity of the villains(i.e Non brutally killing the astronauts on the moon in one scene-----then hugging the siren of the Police car in the next)......actually allows the audience to essentially breathe with regards to the unfolding story.

In the theater, I actually remember people laughing when Non tried to bake the snake ,when he hugged the siren and when he looked at Zod after he blew up the jeep. But the audience were definitely laughing with the character....not at him.
In comparison, the audience were definitely laughing at Nuclear Man(and quite  frankly Superman himself) in 1987.
It was pitiful and so sad to see. 
 
But back in 81', Lester knew that he could rely on those Donner sequences(where Non is merciless) to accentuate those scenes where Non is more gentle---it's an interesting dynamic.
If the villains where effectively like Schwarzenegger's  Terminator!!(specifically from the first James Cameron film) I don't think that it would have worked within the context  of a Superman flick.
A Superman movie is not a horror action/thriller(even if it may contain some elements from those genres).

e.g...in the Mank script there is the scene were Non does the following:

NON swings around, puts his hands on top of the

car, pushes down softly. He flattens it like a pancake,

with RANGER #2 still inside.


I don't think they would have shot this stuff had Donner been at the helm for SII......it's too tough for a Supes flick(IMHO).
Also Non had already flattened the Lunar Module by this point in the script!........pancaking the cop's car would have simply been a repeat of that.

So in Lester's SII, allowing for the ebb and flow of the villain's behavior(deadly in one scene, cartoonish in the next) actually provided a bit of contrast and even an air of unpredictability within the context of the narrative........and audiences back in 81' responded positively to that. 






  

I get what you're saying about the villains having some less evil and more comedic moments. And yes, the 1980s audiences (myself included!) responded well.

But in hindsight,I think there already was a more comical and "loveable" villain and that was Lex Luthor. I think he is enough of a counterbalance to the scary villains.

I once met Sarah Douglas at a comic con. I wish I had asked her if she remembers changing her Ursa character for Lester. She is the most consistent of the three, in my opinion.

By the way, does anyone know who shot Non in the White House being mesmerised by those clanking steel balls? I was under the impression all the White House stuff was Donner's, but that shot is very Lesterish!

In the beginning of STM, Jack O'Halloran looks absolutely terrifying. Like an axe murderer or something. I also remember audiences saying he was the scariest villain in a Chuck Norris movie; he played opposite him in 1990's "Hero and the Terror."

Agree with what you say there ATP, regarding Lex being the comical counter balance, and the villains attracting all the violence and horror.....at least as depicted by Mank in his original SII script.

Tone is such an important, understated factor in visual storytelling.

Take Star Wars(77').

A lot of rebels are killed in the opening sequence......with Vader brutally strangling the commander.
Beru and  Owen are literally burnt to a cinder!
The jawas are massacred.
Kenobi cuts off the arm of an alien (in bloody fashion) in the cantina.
Alderaan(an entire planet!) gets blown up.
Obi Wan gets killed.
Most of the rebels die in the assault on the death star.
The entire death star gets blown up(Luke has killed all those people....even if they were bad!).

That's pretty down beat stuff.....but because it was narrated with a certain tone....practically everyone viewing the movie back in 77' thought it was fun and uplifting!!!!!!!

When you compare Star Wars to Empire......I would wager that SW actually has the more de-spiriting story.......it's just recounted in a more optimistic tone!.

Back to SII:

To be fair, Donner shot Non effectively pancaking that lunar module.....with Zod and Ursa kicking the astronauts into the high heavens.....a fantastic, terrifying and ground breaking sequence( I don't think there was a film before SII, that depicted individuals who looked earthly, expressing super powers in detrimental ways to other humans).
So as an example, Lester used the residual psychological impact of that Moon attack for the ensuing scenes(landing in the lake, attacking the sheriff's car ect) where the Villains are less visceral but also unpredictable.....creating in my view, just the right balance between threat and entertainment.
As you said, this was 1980/81.....not 2020....where every flick under the sun contains CG action where human like characters perform super action feats.  

So speaking personally, on my first viewing......I was not sure what the villains were going to do when they were in East Huston.......pancake the town......or hug the police sirens!
Watching Zod toss that red neck through the wall or deflect the fire onto the building......was as terrifying as seeing him kick that poor Astronaut into touch on the moon! 
That's the context within which to view SII.....the minute you start breaking it down into who shot what......and in particular....applying post 1990/2000s cinematic sensibilities(CGI city scape destruction ect ect) ....it's gonna create problems for your viewing experience.

In terms of who shot Non looking at those beads in the white house.......my vote goes to Lester.

I have lost the link but there is an interview from years back where Douglas describes working with Lester as ironically being very serious.....with a more light hearted result appearing on the screen........wheras Donner would joke around and have more fun more on set........but what ended up on film was way more serious!