Lauren Schuler-Donner comments on RIchard Donner's passing

[crazy_asian_man]

Jul 16, 2021 14:36:00 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Jul 16, 2021 13:01:19 GMT -5 dejan said:

@cam 

That's cool regarding differences of opinion and I totally respect yours.

But there is something else going on here and it involved Donner.

From the late 80's onwards, it's almost like Donner was trying to insinuate that Lester's SII was universally despised(by the cast and crew, the fans and the critics) from the get go way back in 1980/81.
Which is patently false.

Of course late 70s/early 80s audiences did not have the benefit of the ubiquity of home video to truly analyse a flick.....shot by shot.

In a cinema you cannot fast forward , rewind  or pause.

You basically have to take it all in on the fly and memorise it as best you can. Sometimes your imagination fills in the blanks and amplifies the quality of the material above and beyond it's intrinsic quality.

Lester was counting on that factor to deceive the audience into accepting his SII version in 81'.

In terms of Lester disparaging Donner's vision......I take issue with that.

The  Donner versions of STM and SII had structural differences , thematically and aesthetically.

Lester's SII  really follows on from the final 3rd of STM in terms of aesthetics .A hypothetical Donner SII would have done the same.

Last time I checked , it was Donner who had Luthor step on Otis's hand whilst climbing the ladder........and it was Donner who had Otis pull the 2 fingers behind Luthor's head shadow......which I personally find more immature and campy(given the dramatic context of the scene---trying to escape from prison)......than an ice cream blowing in someone's face.

And there are many fans/ critics out there now, who accuse STM of imbedded campiness thanks to all those Luthor-Otis(and Teshmacher) interactions.
For the record I am not one of them----I love that stuff-I always did and always will.

As for the epic scale of STM relative to SII.
SII is huge and was designed for the big screen in mind.
In the last couple of years , having acquired a state of the art projection system(JVC NX9 4K-with 8K e-shift) I can really appreciate the meticulous nature of Lester's efforts in terms of detail and realism(given the technology of the time) . He did the same with Robin and Marian, The Muskateers and Royal Flash.

Watching SII on a 40 inch TV is not going to help elucidate that fine detail that can only be discerned(and appreciated) on a bigger screen.

 

That’s the thing isn’t it? Some people think Donners version of II is better on every level. I don’t agree with that. To be fair to Donner it’s not what he would have done in 1979/1980. It’s what Thau did in the early 2000’s. Even if Donner gave notes on that we’ll never really know what a proper Donner Superman II would have looked like. That’s why I don’t think it’s totally fair to judge either existing version of the film against the other.

But as it is there are certain things, certain creative choices, and some acting that is BETTER in Lester’s version IMO. Seems like some people dismiss the possibility simply because it’s not Donners stuff. Like you said even the cast wasn’t always impartial which is understandable. Funny his history repeats itself since we’ve seen the same things happen with the two versions of Justice League when they are compared even though the Superman II situation was very different from Justice League’s.

As for the issues of humor being used between the two directors I don’t think people have a problem with humor in the films but the kind of humor and the way it was approached. Donner humor was organic and believable. You realistically see if the stuff Otis does or Luthor does to Otis in every day life. Some of it was ridiculous and went to far but most of the time it fit within the films. Lester’s humor was far more absurd and far more widespread. Stuff like the ice cream flying in peoples faces and the guy talking on the phone while the booth was blown over just came off as too far. There was more of that in Superman III with the opening sequence. It just wasn’t believable.

Agreed on a lot of this, you put it much better than I would have. Thau's editing choices were so bizzare that I can't really point to the Donner cut to compare performances. He seemed to take a lot of inferior takes and/or didn't quite edit them in a very good way, so the RDC to me doesn't really qualify as evidence to compare any scenes side by side with Lester's cut of Donner-Lester's SII.

[crazy_asian_man]

Jul 15, 2021 18:24:33 GMT -5 Kamdan said:

As far as other directors not wanting to respect a previous director's work.... I dunno--- Speilberg tried to emulate Kurbrick for "A.I." (Even though I feel he failed with the too-happy ending--- but was willing to try. There was a director of "Psycho" that tried to do a shot for shot remake of that movie--- and there's Bryan Singer almost TOO reverential to Donner's work- so, there is precedence of one director respecting another director's work enough to try to stay within the previous director's creative outlines.

All of those examples were made by the director’s own design. No one above them (typically a producer) told them to proceed with that. Spielberg failed at emulating Kubrick because he somehow got it in his head that he could write like him as well. There’s also no way Kubrick would allow such over lit and out of focus shots in his own films. Kubrick very infamously ordered the ending of The Shining removed and even commissioned another cut of it for the UK. Spielberg would never dream to do that.

Van Sant and Singer drove themselves into their failures with their attempts at emulating their predecessors without other factors that made them classics in the first place. Brian De Palma said it best about those who’ve remade his films, noting that they failed because they made the exact mistakes they tried to avoid when making the first one.

Donner and Lester shared none of the same sensibilities when it came to portraying these characters and Salkind was ignorant to the differing senses of humor between the two and that’s how we ended up with what we ended up with. They apparently thought they had triumphed with many critics saying II was better than I and that led them to think Lester could carry the rest of the series forth.

I think the point got missed... that you had directors who were successful that WANTED to emulate the previous one. It's impossible of course that none of their own biases wouldn't come in, but Lester went too far imo. While there might have been an interesting scene or two in the rewrite under Lester, it's inferior as a whole to the Mank script imo that plays a longer game and is more consistent with fitting with the first film.

[crazy_asian_man]

Jul 16, 2021 11:30:19 GMT -5 Metallo said:

I’d disagree with that. The excuse that the Salkinds didn’t know any better doesn’t hold water. They didn’t understand how to make these films themselves but they’d been in the film business long enough to hire good people that could. That’s what good producers do. They were smart enough to hire Donner after all. They just didn’t care about how things were going creatively because of hubris. Their biggest concern was loosing their meal ticket franchise. Their golden goose. That’s why they clung to it for as long as the could even after the film series sank. They saw what worked on STM but they were more concerned about making money. They spent plenty but they weren’t willing to put the effort in in all the right places.

Lester was the wrong guy from the start to continue what Donner was doing and probably to tackle any kind of superhero project in general. Hiring him was the Salkinds fault. Good filmmaker but he didn’t know how to approach these characters the right way because that wasn’t his style. He didn’t “get” the material. In that sense he didn’t know better. Sure you could say he shouldn’t have made the films but if it hadn’t been him the Salkinds would have hired someone else to do it their way.

Supergirl was doomed from the jump. The franchise had already been on a steady decline so the timing was all wrong anyway. Reeve or no Reeve the writing has some real problems. They had no idea how to really approach it from a character perspective when you look at scenes that didn’t involve Superman and wouldn’t have needed him anyway. Even Helen Slater has talked about that when it comes to what kind of story it probably should have been.

I think it's more that the Salkinds didn't seem to know how to have any good sense of taste, really, enough to fix any project.

Supergirl I think could have turned things around, regardless of Lester's ruining SII and SIII.
I would have thought the X-men franchise was destroyed after X3- but then you have X-men First Class & the best one- Xmen Days of Future Past to redeem everything.

Same thing with the awful Wolverine films, then Logan comes along that's the best of all the Wolverine movies, so it showed me that even if something is declining, it can be fixed. (Thor 3 fixing Thor 1 & 2 as another example)

It's a pity that Supergirl's script was just SO bad. But Slater, the music, and the flying scenes redeem that film.... sorta. I find it easier to sit through than Lester's Superman III.

[Metallo]

Jul 17, 2021 0:44:22 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Jul 16, 2021 11:30:19 GMT -5 Metallo said:

I’d disagree with that. The excuse that the Salkinds didn’t know any better doesn’t hold water. They didn’t understand how to make these films themselves but they’d been in the film business long enough to hire good people that could. That’s what good producers do. They were smart enough to hire Donner after all. They just didn’t care about how things were going creatively because of hubris. Their biggest concern was loosing their meal ticket franchise. Their golden goose. That’s why they clung to it for as long as the could even after the film series sank. They saw what worked on STM but they were more concerned about making money. They spent plenty but they weren’t willing to put the effort in in all the right places.

Lester was the wrong guy from the start to continue what Donner was doing and probably to tackle any kind of superhero project in general. Hiring him was the Salkinds fault. Good filmmaker but he didn’t know how to approach these characters the right way because that wasn’t his style. He didn’t “get” the material. In that sense he didn’t know better. Sure you could say he shouldn’t have made the films but if it hadn’t been him the Salkinds would have hired someone else to do it their way.

Supergirl was doomed from the jump. The franchise had already been on a steady decline so the timing was all wrong anyway. Reeve or no Reeve the writing has some real problems. They had no idea how to really approach it from a character perspective when you look at scenes that didn’t involve Superman and wouldn’t have needed him anyway. Even Helen Slater has talked about that when it comes to what kind of story it probably should have been.

I think it's more that the Salkinds didn't seem to know how to have any good sense of taste, really, enough to fix any project.

Supergirl I think could have turned things around, regardless of Lester's ruining SII and SIII.
I would have thought the X-men franchise was destroyed after X3- but then you have X-men First Class & the best one- Xmen Days of Future Past to redeem everything.

Same thing with the awful Wolverine films, then Logan comes along that's the best of all the Wolverine movies, so it showed me that even if something is declining, it can be fixed. (Thor 3 fixing Thor 1 & 2 as another example)

It's a pity that Supergirl's script was just SO bad. But Slater, the music, and the flying scenes redeem that film.... sorta. I find it easier to sit through than Lester's Superman III.

But the Salkinds knew good talent when they saw it. They just got to a point where their egos got in the way and making a profit came first.

I think as it was Supergirl was doomed. The franchise was on a downward spiral and most people seemed to have checked out after Superman III.

The difference with the FoX-men films is they brought in new respected directors like Mangold and Vaughn and brought back Singer. The Salkinds weren’t going to bring in people like that that could rebuild confidence or make films good enough to get more people excited. Besides back then the general audiences had less ways and less interest to keep up with that behind the scenes stuff. You’d have to get them in theaters first to change opinions and that didn’t seem to be happening.

As for the Thor series the MCU had Feige in charge and those fixes didn’t come until Disney got Perlmutter out of his way. With The Superman series we were either stuck with The Salkinds or Golan and Globus in charge.

[crazy_asian_man]

Jul 17, 2021 11:59:25 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Jul 17, 2021 0:44:22 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

I think it's more that the Salkinds didn't seem to know how to have any good sense of taste, really, enough to fix any project.

Supergirl I think could have turned things around, regardless of Lester's ruining SII and SIII.
I would have thought the X-men franchise was destroyed after X3- but then you have X-men First Class & the best one- Xmen Days of Future Past to redeem everything.

Same thing with the awful Wolverine films, then Logan comes along that's the best of all the Wolverine movies, so it showed me that even if something is declining, it can be fixed. (Thor 3 fixing Thor 1 & 2 as another example)

It's a pity that Supergirl's script was just SO bad. But Slater, the music, and the flying scenes redeem that film.... sorta. I find it easier to sit through than Lester's Superman III.

But the Salkinds knew good talent when they saw it. They just got to a point where their egos got in the way and making a profit came first.

I think as it was Supergirl was doomed. The franchise was on a downward spiral and most people seemed to have checked out after Superman III.

The difference with the FoX-men films is they brought in new respected directors like Mangold and Vaughn and brought back Singer. The Salkinds weren’t going to bring in people like that that could rebuild confidence or make films good enough to get more people excited. Besides back then the general audiences had less ways and less interest to keep up with that behind the scenes stuff. You’d have to get them in theaters first to change opinions and that didn’t seem to be happening.

As for the Thor series the MCU had Feige in charge and those fixes didn’t come until Disney got Perlmutter out of his way. With The Superman series we were either stuck with The Salkinds or Golan and Globus in charge.

I'm not so sure if the Salkinds did or do know the best way to put anything together....
I'm not trying to be harsh- but-
#1: Look at how the first season of Superboy turned out--- it became a case where the affiliates complained enough about the quality that they had to do something about it.
#2: Look at the reception of Christopher Columbus: The Discovery- 7 percent rotten tomatoes
#3: Look at the reception of Santa Claus: the Movie- 20 percent

Donner was chosen I think as someone who had recent success with the Omen and they wanted to jump on it asap- according to Tom Mankiewicz, neither Guy Hamilton nor Lester were the right directors for the project.... but Donner looks like a happy accident for STM, rather than something made from careful consideration.
Lester perhaps was a happy accident for Three Musketeers--- and a convenient go-to when they owed him money, but - as mentioned, a disaster for SII.

Jeannot Swarc according to Ilya didn't fight back enough - but as awful as Supergirl is, there's the flying scenes and sincerity with that- but a terrible script is a terrible script- even if it was remade from Reeve's exit. The script was 'meh' with Superman, but went way worse with trying to repair the damage. Bad judgement all the way around, though I do think having Slater as Supergirl in costume in those flying scenes are still nice to view in and of itself. Couldn't save the movie, though.

I would have a counter-argument that if reviews were good and buzz was good from Supergirl, it might have turned things around- to at least be a modest hit, if it stuck around the theatres long enough.... but the film was just so bad, bad on arrival that it's hard to know (much like Superman IV) if the audience would have stayed away for the longer term even if it was great.

[dejan]

@cam

Totally agreed with you that the Salkinds had a mentality of "throw the money at the thing....and see if it sticks".
And when it came to their Hollywood endeavours , most of the time it did not.
Having said that , it looks like Alex Salkind had a very diversified portfolio stretching back to the 50s and 60s with regards to his cinematic output.....essentially French and Italian arthouse films.......of which little is known in terms of revenue generated at those European box offices. It's difficult to find out whether these films met with critical acclaim either.

But as Benton said in the 2006 docu..... Ilya's idea of tackling a comic book super hero within the paradigm of a big budget cinematic epic was a stroke of genius.

Donner can't claim credit for that one......he of course does get credit for helping to realise that idea. 

And in some ways STM and SII were the magnum opuses of the Salkinds(at least within their Hollywood outings).

The fact that they could not sustain that quality with SIII and Supergirl should not detract from the ground breaking(from both a commercial and critical perspective) qualities that both STM and SII brought to the cinematic table in the first place.  

[dejan]

Jul 16, 2021 14:36:00 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Jul 16, 2021 13:01:19 GMT -5 dejan said:

@cam 

That's cool regarding differences of opinion and I totally respect yours.

But there is something else going on here and it involved Donner.

From the late 80's onwards, it's almost like Donner was trying to insinuate that Lester's SII was universally despised(by the cast and crew, the fans and the critics) from the get go way back in 1980/81.
Which is patently false.

Of course late 70s/early 80s audiences did not have the benefit of the ubiquity of home video to truly analyse a flick.....shot by shot.

In a cinema you cannot fast forward , rewind  or pause.

You basically have to take it all in on the fly and memorise it as best you can. Sometimes your imagination fills in the blanks and amplifies the quality of the material above and beyond it's intrinsic quality.

Lester was counting on that factor to deceive the audience into accepting his SII version in 81'.

In terms of Lester disparaging Donner's vision......I take issue with that.

The  Donner versions of STM and SII had structural differences , thematically and aesthetically.

Lester's SII  really follows on from the final 3rd of STM in terms of aesthetics .A hypothetical Donner SII would have done the same.

Last time I checked , it was Donner who had Luthor step on Otis's hand whilst climbing the ladder........and it was Donner who had Otis pull the 2 fingers behind Luthor's head shadow......which I personally find more immature and campy(given the dramatic context of the scene---trying to escape from prison)......than an ice cream blowing in someone's face.

And there are many fans/ critics out there now, who accuse STM of imbedded campiness thanks to all those Luthor-Otis(and Teshmacher) interactions.
For the record I am not one of them----I love that stuff-I always did and always will.

As for the epic scale of STM relative to SII.
SII is huge and was designed for the big screen in mind.
In the last couple of years , having acquired a state of the art projection system(JVC NX9 4K-with 8K e-shift) I can really appreciate the meticulous nature of Lester's efforts in terms of detail and realism(given the technology of the time) . He did the same with Robin and Marian, The Muskateers and Royal Flash.

Watching SII on a 40 inch TV is not going to help elucidate that fine detail that can only be discerned(and appreciated) on a bigger screen.

 

That’s the thing isn’t it? Some people think Donners version of II is better on every level. I don’t agree with that. To be fair to Donner it’s not what he would have done in 1979/1980. It’s what Thau did in the early 2000’s. Even if Donner gave notes on that we’ll never really know what a proper Donner Superman II would have looked like. That’s why I don’t think it’s totally fair to judge either existing version of the film against the other.

But as it is there are certain things, certain creative choices, and some acting that is BETTER in Lester’s version IMO. Seems like some people dismiss the possibility simply because it’s not Donners stuff. Like you said even the cast wasn’t always impartial which is understandable. Funny his history repeats itself since we’ve seen the same things happen with the two versions of Justice League when they are compared even though the Superman II situation was very different from Justice League’s.

As for the issues of humor being used between the two directors I don’t think people have a problem with humor in the films but the kind of humor and the way it was approached. Donner humor was organic and believable. You realistically see if the stuff Otis does or Luthor does to Otis in every day life. Some of it was ridiculous and went to far but most of the time it fit within the films. Lester’s humor was far more absurd and far more widespread. Stuff like the ice cream flying in peoples faces and the guy talking on the phone while the booth was blown over just came off as too far. There was more of that in Superman III with the opening sequence. It just wasn’t believable.

Actually the digital bits , to commemorate SII's 40th anniversary theatrical release , and in conjunction with CapedWonder, published a series of contemporary reviews from 81'......many of which I personally had not seen before.

And it reinforces the notion that SII was indeed perceived to be better than(or at the very least as good as)   it's predecessor at the  time of it's theatrical release.

thedigitalbits.com/columns/history-legacy-showmanship/superman-ii-40th




“Superman II may be the ultimate summer entertainment movie for those of us who had a debilitating time with Raiders of the Lost Ark. Is it better than Superman I? Better, indeed—far better. The new movie, directed by Richard Lester, is gleefully lighthearted. It snaps, crackles and pops with thrills, spills and all manners of general excitement.
Carol Olten, The San Diego Union

“It is that rarity of rarities, a sequel that readily surpasses the original.”
— Richard Schickel, Time Magazine

“’How better to say it than simply… Superman II is purely super. Smashing. Sensational. And, just as indicated in press reports from Europe where the film has been in release for some months: It’s considerably more entertaining than Superman I.”
— Tom McElfresh, The Cincinnati Enquirer



“This sequel is clearly superior to the original. Under Richard Lester’s action-packed direction, Christopher Reeve’s Man of Steel grows up. It’s faster than a speeding bullet and sure to please the summer escapist crowd.” —
Bruce McCabe, The Boston Globe


“Superman II has a slight edge over the original, an amazing feat considering the relative merits (mostly demerits) of sequels, and the improvement comes from Richard Lester, who replaced Richard Donner as director. Lester has a fine touch with comedy, and it comes through, in a very campy manner, in many situations. Some of it descends into silliness, but then, so comic strips…
Joe Pollack, St. Louis Post-Dispatch


“Now that it has been proven that a movie like Superman can fly, the chief interest in Superman II is can it rise above the curse of being a sequel? Almost without exception, follow-up films have been a letdown. The Godfather Part II and The Empire Strikes Back are among the few exceptions. Add Superman II.” — George Anderson, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette




“Lester has given the film more than consistency in style and tone. He is a filmmaker whose comic gifts protrude even when the subject at hand is quite serious
Desmond Ryan, The Philadelphia Inquirer


For all the production halts, setbacks, personnel changeovers and legal wrangling that paved its way to the screen, Superman II emerges as a solid, classy, cannily constructed piece of entertainment.” —
“Step,” Variety



“The first Superman played like the promising first half of a good movie. Superman II fulfills the promise, but it still seems like the second half of a good movie. It’s a pleasant diversion but hardly a galactic sensation.” —
Philip Wuntch, The Dallas Morning News


And just to be fair here are couple of reviewers who preferred STM to the then new SII.....but even here.....the critics still concede that SII is good.....just not quite as good as STM:


“The only thing really wrong with this film is that it’s not the first one. Part of the amusement of the first feature was discovering how the filmmakers were going to handle this great icon of American popular culture. We watch them take the first giddy step onto the high wire, see them approach decision points and grin with pleasure and admiration both as, time after time, things were done dead right. You can’t go home again. We can’t wait again to see how the filmmakers are going to handle the phone booth schtick, because it’s been done. We can’t discover whether or not the filmmakers have solutions, because we know they do. II is quite good, but I expected it to be, and I’m greedy. Superman II pleases, but it doesn’t delight. This is not in censure of its makers, who are talented, but simple recognition to temporal law. There’s only one first time.” —
Jeff Millar, Houston Chronicle



“They just couldn’t leave super enough alone. The first Superman film, with its whammo charm, stunned modern audiences with such shock of wholesome, naïve, good-humored virtue that all that was required for a sequel was more of the same…. [T]he thrust of the film is to escalate the Superman idea to the point where the charm is no longer visible. A snide and knowing viewpoint has left a cloud of smudge over the original clean satire…. This is a sad spectacle for audiences waiting to cheer virtue triumphant. If Superman has succumbed to sleaze, who’s going to save the world?” —
Judith Martin, The Washington Post

It begins to make sense as to why Donner and Mank felt pissed off................the fact is that Lester's SII was being hailed as better than their own.
It would take 20 years for them to get their revenge........but it should  never have been at the expense of erasing history(or at the very least, trying to obfuscate it) .

[Metallo]

Jul 19, 2021 0:43:20 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Jul 17, 2021 11:59:25 GMT -5 Metallo said:

But the Salkinds knew good talent when they saw it. They just got to a point where their egos got in the way and making a profit came first.

I think as it was Supergirl was doomed. The franchise was on a downward spiral and most people seemed to have checked out after Superman III.

The difference with the FoX-men films is they brought in new respected directors like Mangold and Vaughn and brought back Singer. The Salkinds weren’t going to bring in people like that that could rebuild confidence or make films good enough to get more people excited. Besides back then the general audiences had less ways and less interest to keep up with that behind the scenes stuff. You’d have to get them in theaters first to change opinions and that didn’t seem to be happening.

As for the Thor series the MCU had Feige in charge and those fixes didn’t come until Disney got Perlmutter out of his way. With The Superman series we were either stuck with The Salkinds or Golan and Globus in charge.

I'm not so sure if the Salkinds did or do know the best way to put anything together....
I'm not trying to be harsh- but-
#1: Look at how the first season of Superboy turned out--- it became a case where the affiliates complained enough about the quality that they had to do something about it.
#2: Look at the reception of Christopher Columbus: The Discovery- 7 percent rotten tomatoes
#3: Look at the reception of Santa Claus: the Movie- 20 percent

Donner was chosen I think as someone who had recent success with the Omen and they wanted to jump on it asap- according to Tom Mankiewicz, neither Guy Hamilton nor Lester were the right directors for the project.... but Donner looks like a happy accident for STM, rather than something made from careful consideration.
Lester perhaps was a happy accident for Three Musketeers--- and a convenient go-to when they owed him money, but - as mentioned, a disaster for SII.

Jeannot Swarc according to Ilya didn't fight back enough - but as awful as Supergirl is, there's the flying scenes and sincerity with that- but a terrible script is a terrible script- even if it was remade from Reeve's exit. The script was 'meh' with Superman, but went way worse with trying to repair the damage. Bad judgement all the way around, though I do think having Slater as Supergirl in costume in those flying scenes are still nice to view in and of itself. Couldn't save the movie, though.

I would have a counter-argument that if reviews were good and buzz was good from Supergirl, it might have turned things around- to at least be a modest hit, if it stuck around the theatres long enough.... but the film was just so bad, bad on arrival that it's hard to know (much like Superman IV) if the audience would have stayed away for the longer term even if it was great.

I never said they did themselves. I said they knew how to hire good talent that could. They always had good talent. They just got in the way with their own idiocy. They did try to go with the big hot name at the time but lots of independent producers tried that when they didn’t have the kind of experience to make the right choice off the bat. Dino DeLaurentiis was the same way. So were Peter Davis and Bill Panzer.

The problems with Santa Clause the movie were the same issues that plagued the Superman movies. I’d imagine the same is true for their Columbus project. Superboy was a new experience for them. They’d never done television on that level before as far as I know. It’s a different beast from film. But compare it to other superhero that shows and it was way beyond anything that came before it as far as ambition even if the results were sometimes mixed.

Supergirl wouldn’t have turned things around because where would they have gone? What would they have done to make that a possibility? The Salkinds were never going to do the things that needed to be done to make that happen. You’ve laid out the case why yourself. You’ve said yourself words like happy accident.

It would have taken a good clear plan to turn the franchise around back then. They weren’t capable of coming up with that and by that point the damage had been done. All the while the industry around them was changing and evolving for the 80s while the Salkinds films were looking old hat. The money was there but they had some incredible looking fresh and cool competition against Supergirl in 1984 alone.

[crazy_asian_man]

Jul 19, 2021 9:33:14 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Jul 19, 2021 0:43:20 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

I'm not so sure if the Salkinds did or do know the best way to put anything together....
I'm not trying to be harsh- but-
#1: Look at how the first season of Superboy turned out--- it became a case where the affiliates complained enough about the quality that they had to do something about it.
#2: Look at the reception of Christopher Columbus: The Discovery- 7 percent rotten tomatoes
#3: Look at the reception of Santa Claus: the Movie- 20 percent

Donner was chosen I think as someone who had recent success with the Omen and they wanted to jump on it asap- according to Tom Mankiewicz, neither Guy Hamilton nor Lester were the right directors for the project.... but Donner looks like a happy accident for STM, rather than something made from careful consideration.
Lester perhaps was a happy accident for Three Musketeers--- and a convenient go-to when they owed him money, but - as mentioned, a disaster for SII.

Jeannot Swarc according to Ilya didn't fight back enough - but as awful as Supergirl is, there's the flying scenes and sincerity with that- but a terrible script is a terrible script- even if it was remade from Reeve's exit. The script was 'meh' with Superman, but went way worse with trying to repair the damage. Bad judgement all the way around, though I do think having Slater as Supergirl in costume in those flying scenes are still nice to view in and of itself. Couldn't save the movie, though.

I would have a counter-argument that if reviews were good and buzz was good from Supergirl, it might have turned things around- to at least be a modest hit, if it stuck around the theatres long enough.... but the film was just so bad, bad on arrival that it's hard to know (much like Superman IV) if the audience would have stayed away for the longer term even if it was great.

I never said they did themselves. I said they knew how to hire good talent that could. They always had good talent. They just got in the way with their own idiocy. They did try to go with the big hot name at the time but lots of independent producers tried that when they didn’t have the kind of experience to make the right choice off the bat. Dino DeLaurentiis was the same way. So were Peter Davis and Bill Panzer.

The problems with Santa Clause the movie were the same issues that plagued the Superman movies. I’d imagine the same is true for their Columbus project. Superboy was a new experience for them. They’d never done television on that level before as far as I know. It’s a different beast from film. But compare it to other superhero that shows and it was way beyond anything that came before it as far as ambition even if the results were sometimes mixed.

Supergirl wouldn’t have turned things around because where would they have gone? What would they have done to make that a possibility? The Salkinds were never going to do the things that needed to be done to make that happen. You’ve laid out the case why yourself. You’ve said yourself words like happy accident.

It would have taken a good clear plan to turn the franchise around back then. They weren’t capable of coming up with that and by that point the damage had been done. All the while the industry around them was changing and evolving for the 80s while the Salkinds films were looking old hat. The money was there but they had some incredible looking fresh and cool competition against Supergirl in 1984 alone.

I think with Supergirl, if it had a good script- you had a lot of the other elements going for it- I like some of the casting- particularly Helen Slater of course & it had the money behind it to have a decent product. I don't know if they would have had the box office of a STM or SII- but if it wasn't a complete disaster box office wise and content-wise, I would have been pleased to have seen a sequel. But without a good enough script..... well, the flying scenes are nice & I enjoy the Jerry Goldsmith music. I do find it interesting that there was enough still for some young fans to love the whole decades later- particularly at the Supergirl panels at comicon. I guess the age you see something has a big effect, too- as well as how critical one can be.

[crazy_asian_man]

Jul 19, 2021 9:29:41 GMT -5 dejan said:

Actually the digital bits , to commemorate SII's 40th anniversary theatrical release , and in conjunction with CapedWonder, published a series of contemporary reviews from 81'......many of which I personally had not seen before.

And it reinforces the notion that SII was indeed perceived to be better than(or at the very least as good as)   it's predecessor at the  time of it's theatrical release.

thedigitalbits.com/columns/history-legacy-showmanship/superman-ii-40th




“Superman II may be the ultimate summer entertainment movie for those of us who had a debilitating time with Raiders of the Lost Ark. Is it better than Superman I? Better, indeed—far better. The new movie, directed by Richard Lester, is gleefully lighthearted. It snaps, crackles and pops with thrills, spills and all manners of general excitement.
Carol Olten, The San Diego Union

“It is that rarity of rarities, a sequel that readily surpasses the original.”
— Richard Schickel, Time Magazine

“’How better to say it than simply… Superman II is purely super. Smashing. Sensational. And, just as indicated in press reports from Europe where the film has been in release for some months: It’s considerably more entertaining than Superman I.”
— Tom McElfresh, The Cincinnati Enquirer



“This sequel is clearly superior to the original. Under Richard Lester’s action-packed direction, Christopher Reeve’s Man of Steel grows up. It’s faster than a speeding bullet and sure to please the summer escapist crowd.” —
Bruce McCabe, The Boston Globe


“Superman II has a slight edge over the original, an amazing feat considering the relative merits (mostly demerits) of sequels, and the improvement comes from Richard Lester, who replaced Richard Donner as director. Lester has a fine touch with comedy, and it comes through, in a very campy manner, in many situations. Some of it descends into silliness, but then, so comic strips…
Joe Pollack, St. Louis Post-Dispatch


“Now that it has been proven that a movie like Superman can fly, the chief interest in Superman II is can it rise above the curse of being a sequel? Almost without exception, follow-up films have been a letdown. The Godfather Part II and The Empire Strikes Back are among the few exceptions. Add Superman II.” — George Anderson, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette




“Lester has given the film more than consistency in style and tone. He is a filmmaker whose comic gifts protrude even when the subject at hand is quite serious
Desmond Ryan, The Philadelphia Inquirer


For all the production halts, setbacks, personnel changeovers and legal wrangling that paved its way to the screen, Superman II emerges as a solid, classy, cannily constructed piece of entertainment.” —
“Step,” Variety



“The first Superman played like the promising first half of a good movie. Superman II fulfills the promise, but it still seems like the second half of a good movie. It’s a pleasant diversion but hardly a galactic sensation.” —
Philip Wuntch, The Dallas Morning News


And just to be fair here are couple of reviewers who preferred STM to the then new SII.....but even here.....the critics still concede that SII is good.....just not quite as good as STM:


“The only thing really wrong with this film is that it’s not the first one. Part of the amusement of the first feature was discovering how the filmmakers were going to handle this great icon of American popular culture. We watch them take the first giddy step onto the high wire, see them approach decision points and grin with pleasure and admiration both as, time after time, things were done dead right. You can’t go home again. We can’t wait again to see how the filmmakers are going to handle the phone booth schtick, because it’s been done. We can’t discover whether or not the filmmakers have solutions, because we know they do. II is quite good, but I expected it to be, and I’m greedy. Superman II pleases, but it doesn’t delight. This is not in censure of its makers, who are talented, but simple recognition to temporal law. There’s only one first time.” —
Jeff Millar, Houston Chronicle



“They just couldn’t leave super enough alone. The first Superman film, with its whammo charm, stunned modern audiences with such shock of wholesome, naïve, good-humored virtue that all that was required for a sequel was more of the same…. [T]he thrust of the film is to escalate the Superman idea to the point where the charm is no longer visible. A snide and knowing viewpoint has left a cloud of smudge over the original clean satire…. This is a sad spectacle for audiences waiting to cheer virtue triumphant. If Superman has succumbed to sleaze, who’s going to save the world?” —
Judith Martin, The Washington Post

It begins to make sense as to why Donner and Mank felt pissed off................the fact is that Lester's SII was being hailed as better than their own.
It would take 20 years for them to get their revenge........but it should  never have been at the expense of erasing history(or at the very least, trying to obfuscate it) .

First: Respectfully- we're never going to agree on this topic, but that's cool. I think we can still agree that we'd both love an extended SII tv cut on blu ray and letterbox- or more deleted scenes by Donner to be released, but more and more unlikely with the streaming taking over and physical media disappearing...

With regards to those review-

I read a number of these reviews back in the day- and they irritated me then as they do now-

Tom Mankiewicz wrote back against a noted critic that praised how well Lester brought out better performances out of Gene Hackman- explaining that Donner shot all the Hackman footage for STM and SII- but the critic ignored it and the letter never got published--- so, that's the best indicator of how deep the research is or how much I take into account critics' praise of Lester over Donner in these reviews.

I don't consider SII to be 'Lester's SII' when the best stuff is from Donner in SII. I was HOPING Lester would have matched the quality of Donner- I remember the newspaper article mentioning that Lester of "Three Musketeers" was taking over & I thought it was a perfect choice at the time.... but I had no idea that it was going to be pushed into tones that poked holes into the reverence for the character and the story.

The final movie is undeniably good overall- and rewatchable- but the extra pain I think is feeling like the world of critics didn't do the extra homework to know who directed what and/or didn't care to give proper credit.

In any case- all the critics in the world wouldn't matter anyhow- it's down to our individual tastes and what we experienced and what script versions we feel are superior.

I do wonder if the dramatization of the behind the scenes with Superman the movie and SII will still happen after Donner's death- and, if so, what side will be chosen? That'll be interesting to see.... that I think we can agree on!

[Metallo]

Jul 20, 2021 2:39:30 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Jul 19, 2021 9:33:14 GMT -5 Metallo said:

I never said they did themselves. I said they knew how to hire good talent that could. They always had good talent. They just got in the way with their own idiocy. They did try to go with the big hot name at the time but lots of independent producers tried that when they didn’t have the kind of experience to make the right choice off the bat. Dino DeLaurentiis was the same way. So were Peter Davis and Bill Panzer.

The problems with Santa Clause the movie were the same issues that plagued the Superman movies. I’d imagine the same is true for their Columbus project. Superboy was a new experience for them. They’d never done television on that level before as far as I know. It’s a different beast from film. But compare it to other superhero that shows and it was way beyond anything that came before it as far as ambition even if the results were sometimes mixed.

Supergirl wouldn’t have turned things around because where would they have gone? What would they have done to make that a possibility? The Salkinds were never going to do the things that needed to be done to make that happen. You’ve laid out the case why yourself. You’ve said yourself words like happy accident.

It would have taken a good clear plan to turn the franchise around back then. They weren’t capable of coming up with that and by that point the damage had been done. All the while the industry around them was changing and evolving for the 80s while the Salkinds films were looking old hat. The money was there but they had some incredible looking fresh and cool competition against Supergirl in 1984 alone.

I think with Supergirl, if it had a good script- you had a lot of the other elements going for it- I like some of the casting- particularly Helen Slater of course & it had the money behind it to have a decent product. I don't know if they would have had the box office of a STM or SII- but if it wasn't a complete disaster box office wise and content-wise, I would have been pleased to have seen a sequel. But without a good enough script..... well, the flying scenes are nice & I enjoy the Jerry Goldsmith music. I do find it interesting that there was enough still for some young fans to love the whole decades later- particularly at the Supergirl panels at comicon. I guess the age you see something has a big effect, too- as well as how critical one can be.

You’d have to get to a good script first. The Salkinds never got it to that point. Even if someone good came in they’re still in charge and desperate to pull the franchise out of a death spiral.

I think a Supergirl movie COULD be good if everything was in place and good smart people with a vision were in charge. The movie we got didn’t really have that. The Salkinds were more interested in squeezing one last drop of milk out of their cinematic cash cow. Because of the circumstances the movie we got just didn’t stand a chance.

[crazy_asian_man]

Jul 20, 2021 15:28:55 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Jul 20, 2021 2:39:30 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

I think with Supergirl, if it had a good script- you had a lot of the other elements going for it- I like some of the casting- particularly Helen Slater of course & it had the money behind it to have a decent product. I don't know if they would have had the box office of a STM or SII- but if it wasn't a complete disaster box office wise and content-wise, I would have been pleased to have seen a sequel. But without a good enough script..... well, the flying scenes are nice & I enjoy the Jerry Goldsmith music. I do find it interesting that there was enough still for some young fans to love the whole decades later- particularly at the Supergirl panels at comicon. I guess the age you see something has a big effect, too- as well as how critical one can be.

You’d have to get to a good script first. The Salkinds never got it to that point. Even if someone good came in they’re still in charge and desperate to pull the franchise out of a death spiral.

I think a Supergirl movie COULD be good if everything was in place and good smart people with a vision were in charge. The movie we got didn’t really have that. The Salkinds were more interested in squeezing one last drop of milk out of their cinematic cash cow. Because of the circumstances the movie we got just didn’t stand a chance.

I think with the Salkinds, they couldn't TELL what a good script was. That's a whole other thing.

Like Tom Mankiewicz pointed out- WB could have made a Superman movie anytime- but at the very least the Salkinds had the idea and the desire to make it happen.

I think there's some truth to the idea of: "Nobody sets out to make a bad movie"- but not everyone (bizzarely) can tell a good script from a bad one in Hollywood=== just look at the Highlander sequels!

[atp]

Does anyone remember how abruptly Gandy's enthusiasm and attitude changed after 2006 when the Donner Cut of S2 was released?

[crazy_asian_man]

I wonder if the Donner cut would have been better received if the marketing were more accurate or re-labeled: ‘the poorly edited at times incomplete Donner deleted scenes cut’?

[Metallo]

Jul 20, 2021 23:49:39 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Jul 20, 2021 15:28:55 GMT -5 Metallo said:

You’d have to get to a good script first. The Salkinds never got it to that point. Even if someone good came in they’re still in charge and desperate to pull the franchise out of a death spiral.

I think a Supergirl movie COULD be good if everything was in place and good smart people with a vision were in charge. The movie we got didn’t really have that. The Salkinds were more interested in squeezing one last drop of milk out of their cinematic cash cow. Because of the circumstances the movie we got just didn’t stand a chance.

I think with the Salkinds, they couldn't TELL what a good script was. That's a whole other thing.

Like Tom Mankiewicz pointed out- WB could have made a Superman movie anytime- but at the very least the Salkinds had the idea and the desire to make it happen.

I think there's some truth to the idea of: "Nobody sets out to make a bad movie"- but not everyone (bizzarely) can tell a good script from a bad one in Hollywood=== just look at the Highlander sequels!

The thing is they could have hired good people that did know what it was and could deliver it. But they had no interest in that because they thought they knew better. If they listened to the people that worked for them on Supergirl they could have pointed out a lot of the problems but again they had no interest in that. But you look at Superboy and they agreed to bring in writers like Cary Bates which shows they could make proper decisions on things like that.

The producers of the Highlander series were very much like the Salkinds. Bill Panzer certainly fancied himself a Cubby Broccoli type as well. Like Ilya he tried his hand and developing the stories but made them worse. Peter Davis seemed to be more interested in the business side than the creative side of making movies.

[dejan]

Jul 20, 2021 2:54:52 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Jul 19, 2021 9:29:41 GMT -5 dejan said:

Actually the digital bits , to commemorate SII's 40th anniversary theatrical release , and in conjunction with CapedWonder, published a series of contemporary reviews from 81'......many of which I personally had not seen before.

And it reinforces the notion that SII was indeed perceived to be better than(or at the very least as good as)   it's predecessor at the  time of it's theatrical release.

thedigitalbits.com/columns/history-legacy-showmanship/superman-ii-40th




“Superman II may be the ultimate summer entertainment movie for those of us who had a debilitating time with Raiders of the Lost Ark. Is it better than Superman I? Better, indeed—far better. The new movie, directed by Richard Lester, is gleefully lighthearted. It snaps, crackles and pops with thrills, spills and all manners of general excitement.
Carol Olten, The San Diego Union

“It is that rarity of rarities, a sequel that readily surpasses the original.”
— Richard Schickel, Time Magazine

“’How better to say it than simply… Superman II is purely super. Smashing. Sensational. And, just as indicated in press reports from Europe where the film has been in release for some months: It’s considerably more entertaining than Superman I.”
— Tom McElfresh, The Cincinnati Enquirer



“This sequel is clearly superior to the original. Under Richard Lester’s action-packed direction, Christopher Reeve’s Man of Steel grows up. It’s faster than a speeding bullet and sure to please the summer escapist crowd.” —
Bruce McCabe, The Boston Globe


“Superman II has a slight edge over the original, an amazing feat considering the relative merits (mostly demerits) of sequels, and the improvement comes from Richard Lester, who replaced Richard Donner as director. Lester has a fine touch with comedy, and it comes through, in a very campy manner, in many situations. Some of it descends into silliness, but then, so comic strips…
Joe Pollack, St. Louis Post-Dispatch


“Now that it has been proven that a movie like Superman can fly, the chief interest in Superman II is can it rise above the curse of being a sequel? Almost without exception, follow-up films have been a letdown. The Godfather Part II and The Empire Strikes Back are among the few exceptions. Add Superman II.” — George Anderson, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette




“Lester has given the film more than consistency in style and tone. He is a filmmaker whose comic gifts protrude even when the subject at hand is quite serious
Desmond Ryan, The Philadelphia Inquirer


For all the production halts, setbacks, personnel changeovers and legal wrangling that paved its way to the screen, Superman II emerges as a solid, classy, cannily constructed piece of entertainment.” —
“Step,” Variety



“The first Superman played like the promising first half of a good movie. Superman II fulfills the promise, but it still seems like the second half of a good movie. It’s a pleasant diversion but hardly a galactic sensation.” —
Philip Wuntch, The Dallas Morning News


And just to be fair here are couple of reviewers who preferred STM to the then new SII.....but even here.....the critics still concede that SII is good.....just not quite as good as STM:


“The only thing really wrong with this film is that it’s not the first one. Part of the amusement of the first feature was discovering how the filmmakers were going to handle this great icon of American popular culture. We watch them take the first giddy step onto the high wire, see them approach decision points and grin with pleasure and admiration both as, time after time, things were done dead right. You can’t go home again. We can’t wait again to see how the filmmakers are going to handle the phone booth schtick, because it’s been done. We can’t discover whether or not the filmmakers have solutions, because we know they do. II is quite good, but I expected it to be, and I’m greedy. Superman II pleases, but it doesn’t delight. This is not in censure of its makers, who are talented, but simple recognition to temporal law. There’s only one first time.” —
Jeff Millar, Houston Chronicle



“They just couldn’t leave super enough alone. The first Superman film, with its whammo charm, stunned modern audiences with such shock of wholesome, naïve, good-humored virtue that all that was required for a sequel was more of the same…. [T]he thrust of the film is to escalate the Superman idea to the point where the charm is no longer visible. A snide and knowing viewpoint has left a cloud of smudge over the original clean satire…. This is a sad spectacle for audiences waiting to cheer virtue triumphant. If Superman has succumbed to sleaze, who’s going to save the world?” —
Judith Martin, The Washington Post

It begins to make sense as to why Donner and Mank felt pissed off................the fact is that Lester's SII was being hailed as better than their own.
It would take 20 years for them to get their revenge........but it should  never have been at the expense of erasing history(or at the very least, trying to obfuscate it) .

First: Respectfully- we're never going to agree on this topic, but that's cool. I think we can still agree that we'd both love an extended SII tv cut on blu ray and letterbox- or more deleted scenes by Donner to be released, but more and more unlikely with the streaming taking over and physical media disappearing...

With regards to those review-

I read a number of these reviews back in the day- and they irritated me then as they do now-

Tom Mankiewicz wrote back against a noted critic that praised how well Lester brought out better performances out of Gene Hackman- explaining that Donner shot all the Hackman footage for STM and SII- but the critic ignored it and the letter never got published--- so, that's the best indicator of how deep the research is or how much I take into account critics' praise of Lester over Donner in these reviews.

I don't consider SII to be 'Lester's SII' when the best stuff is from Donner in SII. I was HOPING Lester would have matched the quality of Donner- I remember the newspaper article mentioning that Lester of "Three Musketeers" was taking over & I thought it was a perfect choice at the time.... but I had no idea that it was going to be pushed into tones that poked holes into the reverence for the character and the story.

The final movie is undeniably good overall- and rewatchable- but the extra pain I think is feeling like the world of critics didn't do the extra homework to know who directed what and/or didn't care to give proper credit.

In any case- all the critics in the world wouldn't matter anyhow- it's down to our individual tastes and what we experienced and what script versions we feel are superior.

I do wonder if the dramatization of the behind the scenes with Superman the movie and SII will still happen after Donner's death- and, if so, what side will be chosen? That'll be interesting to see.... that I think we can agree on!

Always nice to hear your points of view cam.

A couple of points which I think are worth addressing.

It's not so much that you disagree with all those critics. You are perfectly entitled to do so. But to behave as if those conclusions reached by the critics never existed......that's another ball game entirely. At least for your part , you acknowledge the existence of those reviews........but Donner and Mank had a different approach altogether.   

And that approach, post 90s, was pretty reprehensible----because not once did either of them address the fact that SII was more critically acclaimed than STM from a contemporary perspective.

I just re-watched the 2001 STM DVD documentaries ,the 2006 Making Of A Saga and Bryan Singer's History Of Superman docs.
BTW, at the time of release I loved all these docus, I still do , they are beautifully made.......but they are institutionalized propaganda, that Lester knew he had no chance of combating.

Lets break it down.
With the making of STM, Ladyhawke, The Goonies, Lethal Weapon 1-4 ,Scrooged,  Maverick and Assassins , Donner had practically become a pillar of the WB establishment by the late 90s.

His henchman , Thau had worked on several of Donner's projects , as an editor on Ladyhawke to a 2nd unit director on Scrooged.
As for Mank , he too carved out a lucrative career at WB fixing scripts , from Gremlins to Batman. And even though Mank would eventually leave WB for Universal.....it's safe to say he had connections with the old studio.

So come 2001 , this WB(be it ex or current) cabal, so to speak, had tremendous power......the result of which were those technically proficient DVD docus to accompany the newly digitally revamped STM.
And when you watch them , there is no mention of the fact, and it is a fact, that Lester's SII met with greater acclaim, from a critical perspective, than STM.
Which confirms the bias(in favour of Donner) that exists in these documentaries.
Instead the DVD commentaries were replete with anti Lester rhetoric.
Hardly impartial and objective analysis, I would say.

Lester knew that Thau would portray the whole story from Donner's perspective. That would be my best guess as to why he never responded to Thau's request for an interview.
If I am not mistaken , Ilya says in the DVD commentary, that he too tried to contact Lester circa 2005 , to participate in the new DVD productions......but got nothing.
Fact is that Donner and his gang were now simply too powerful to be mitigated. Hence, Lester's reaction(or lack thereof).
  
 But at least in 2006 ,  Salkind and Spengler were allowed to participate and get their side of the story(and in doing so ,Lester's too) across, but the way Thau edited The Making Of A Saga documentary , the implication was that the producers were the bad guys and Donner was the victim.
Bryan Singer did likewise with his otherwise excellent History Of Superman docu too.

But it's all fluff......because all Singer or Thau had to do was just confirm the fact that SII was lauded more than STM at the time of release.
Instead nothing. Nil . Nada.
It's it is as if it never happened.

And for Singer to take pot shots at Lester is pretty low.
I was there in 2006 , when a soporific audience simply walked out of the cinema , uninspired by what they had just seen in SR.
And I was there in 1981 and 1982 when an exhilarated audience simply could not get enough of Lester's SII.

Massive difference.

And these differences need to start being acknowledged.

  




 


 

[atp]

Jul 23, 2021 12:50:45 GMT -5 dejan said:

Jul 20, 2021 2:54:52 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

First: Respectfully- we're never going to agree on this topic, but that's cool. I think we can still agree that we'd both love an extended SII tv cut on blu ray and letterbox- or more deleted scenes by Donner to be released, but more and more unlikely with the streaming taking over and physical media disappearing...

With regards to those review-

I read a number of these reviews back in the day- and they irritated me then as they do now-

Tom Mankiewicz wrote back against a noted critic that praised how well Lester brought out better performances out of Gene Hackman- explaining that Donner shot all the Hackman footage for STM and SII- but the critic ignored it and the letter never got published--- so, that's the best indicator of how deep the research is or how much I take into account critics' praise of Lester over Donner in these reviews.

I don't consider SII to be 'Lester's SII' when the best stuff is from Donner in SII. I was HOPING Lester would have matched the quality of Donner- I remember the newspaper article mentioning that Lester of "Three Musketeers" was taking over & I thought it was a perfect choice at the time.... but I had no idea that it was going to be pushed into tones that poked holes into the reverence for the character and the story.

The final movie is undeniably good overall- and rewatchable- but the extra pain I think is feeling like the world of critics didn't do the extra homework to know who directed what and/or didn't care to give proper credit.

In any case- all the critics in the world wouldn't matter anyhow- it's down to our individual tastes and what we experienced and what script versions we feel are superior.

I do wonder if the dramatization of the behind the scenes with Superman the movie and SII will still happen after Donner's death- and, if so, what side will be chosen? That'll be interesting to see.... that I think we can agree on!

Always nice to hear your points of view cam.

A couple of points which I think are worth addressing.

It's not so much that you disagree with all those critics. You are perfectly entitled to do so. But to behave as if those conclusions reached by the critics never existed......that's another ball game entirely. At least for your part , you acknowledge the existence of those reviews........but Donner and Mank had a different approach altogether.   

And that approach, post 90s, was pretty reprehensible----because not once did either of them address the fact that SII was more critically acclaimed than STM from a contemporary perspective.

I just re-watched the 2001 STM DVD documentaries ,the 2006 Making Of A Saga and Bryan Singer's History Of Superman docs.
BTW, at the time of release I loved all these docus, I still do , they are beautifully made.......but they are institutionalized propaganda, that Lester knew he had no chance of combating.

Lets break it down.
With the making of STM, Ladyhawke, The Goonies, Lethal Weapon 1-4 ,Scrooged,  Maverick and Assassins , Donner had practically become a pillar of the WB establishment by the late 90s.

His henchman , Thau had worked on several of Donner's projects , as an editor on Ladyhawke to a 2nd unit director on Scrooged.
As for Mank , he too carved out a lucrative career at WB fixing scripts , from Gremlins to Batman. And even though Mank would eventually leave WB for Universal.....it's safe to say he had connections with the old studio.

So come 2001 , this WB(be it ex or current) cabal, so to speak, had tremendous power......the result of which were those technically proficient DVD docus to accompany the newly digitally revamped STM.
And when you watch them , there is no mention of the fact, and it is a fact, that Lester's SII met with greater acclaim, from a critical perspective, than STM.
Which confirms the bias(in favour of Donner) that exists in these documentaries.
Instead the DVD commentaries were replete with anti Lester rhetoric.
Hardly impartial and objective analysis, I would say.

Lester knew that Thau would portray the whole story from Donner's perspective. That would be my best guess as to why he never responded to Thau's request for an interview.
If I am not mistaken , Ilya says in the DVD commentary, that he too tried to contact Lester circa 2005 , to participate in the new DVD productions......but got nothing.
Fact is that Donner and his gang were now simply too powerful to be mitigated. Hence, Lester's reaction(or lack thereof).
  
 But at least in 2006 ,  Salkind and Spengler were allowed to participate and get their side of the story(and in doing so ,Lester's too) across, but the way Thau edited The Making Of A Saga documentary , the implication was that the producers were the bad guys and Donner was the victim.
Bryan Singer did likewise with his otherwise excellent History Of Superman docu too.

But it's all fluff......because all Singer or Thau had to do was just confirm the fact that SII was lauded more than STM at the time of release.
Instead nothing. Nil . Nada.
It's it is as if it never happened.

And for Singer to take pot shots at Lester is pretty low.
I was there in 2006 , when a soporific audience simply walked out of the cinema , uninspired by what they had just seen in SR.
And I was there in 1981 and 1982 when an exhilarated audience simply could not get enough of Lester's SII.

Massive difference.

And these differences need to start being acknowledged.

  




 


 

Everything you say here is true, and gels with my own memory of 1981/1982.

It's really interesting though. With age, STM is clearly the superior film. But at the time, yes, everyone was crazy about Superman 2.

Maybe it was because of the sheer spectacle and scope of the fantasy. Having three villains flying and fighting Superman had never been done before.

[dejan]

atp

As I said before , I too prefer STM to SII these days.
And also , to reiterate , I love Donner and everything he brought to STM(and SII).

Having said that , I have seen both flicks so many times now , that it's almost impossible for me to react to them the way I once did.

Check out this young chap who is watching     SII for the first time though.









 Just seeing his reaction to some of the little things that I had long since forgotten about is really cool.

This reaction vid is also intriguing from another perspective because this kid has already been exposed to a lot of the CG drivel that has saturated fantasy cinema over the last 25 years or so.......yet that does not seem to detract from his ability to enjoy SII.
Also ,for the record, this kid prefers Lester's SII to STM.......although he tempers his conclusion with the fact he is concerned that his opinion maybe unpopular.
But if reads those 1981 reviews......he would realize that his 2021 opinion actually reflected the general consensus at the time(1981)!

[atp]

Just to be clear though, I do suspect that if Donner had been able to finish S2 properly, it would also have been fantastic. Sadly, we will never know.

It is pretty amazing that S2 turned out as well as it did, considering that Lester's attitude seems totally wrong for Superman.

My main complaint about Lester's S2 is making the villains into parodies of how they were in STM, and adding stupid slapstick in the Metropolis battle.

He did have a good sense for building up to audience pleasing moments. His "General, would you care to step outside" is better than the Donner version. And the ending is better too. So perfect to go from the diner to the White House carrying the flag.

[crazy_asian_man]

Jul 23, 2021 12:50:45 GMT -5 dejan said:

It's not so much that you disagree with all those critics. You are perfectly entitled to do so. But to behave as if those conclusions reached by the critics never existed......that's another ball game entirely. At least for your part , you acknowledge the existence of those reviews........but Donner and Mank had a different approach altogether.   
.....
And when you watch them , there is no mention of the fact, and it is a fact, that Lester's SII met with greater acclaim, from a critical perspective, than STM.
....

But it's all fluff......because all Singer or Thau had to do was just confirm the fact that SII was lauded more than STM at the time of release.
Instead nothing. Nil . Nada.
It's it is as if it never happened.

And for Singer to take pot shots at Lester is pretty low.
I was there in 2006 , when a soporific audience simply walked out of the cinema , uninspired by what they had just seen in SR.
And I was there in 1981 and 1982 when an exhilarated audience simply could not get enough of Lester's SII.

Massive difference.

And these differences need to start being acknowledged.

Dejan... With all due respect-
#1: I'm entitled to do whatever I want, after I passed a certain age. You can do whatever you want, just don't step on my foot or make me wear a dress. '
#2: You meant "Donner-Lester's SII"--- but you forgot to mention that and keep calling it "Lester's SII". You keep forgetting, Dejan, so I'm always happy to help remind.
#3: SII was lauded by a press who was under the impression that Lester directed the majority of scenes- so, yea, it was better.... because of Donner!
#4: I was there in 1981 working at the movie theatre SII was played in, so I got to see the movie and particular scenes MANY MANY times in the theatre for FREE.... so I'm pretty sure that I've seen it with audiences more than anyone else here has, as I always came early to my work shift to see scenes from SII and stuck around after my work shift to see the audience reactions each time. Was anyone else working in the theatre with SII's opening in two screens of a three screen Cinedome? Possibly.... but....
#5: I love that we're both passionate about our positions, but this is getting dangerously close to an argument. Let's just agree we disagree, would that work?

[crown]

#5: I love that we're both passionate about our positions, but this is getting dangerously close to an argument. Let's just agree we disagree, would that work?

I don't think so CAM... time to go take sides, the Donner v Lester full-scale war is about to begin!

Anyone knows that even "Lester's" SII isn't really his.... a third of it is Donner footage and the rest is either Donner concept or a worse version of what Donner would have done. Once your average viewer finds out what is Lester footage vs the Donner footage and what Donner would have shot the movie is scene for what it is... a sometimes great film peaking out of an otherwise average film.

There is no debate that had Donner finished SII in 79 it would have been leagues better than "Lester's" SII... the Donner cut we got in 2006 was just a work-print of a movie only 1/2 finished 20 odd years prior.. Donner's completed SII would have been an entirely different movie.

Donner began shooting SII, but Lester had the advantage of actually finishing the movie with 70% of it already completed by Donner. Plus Donner never had the luxury of focusing solely on SII.. he had to shoot the 70% he did while also shooting STM.

Yes, Gandy sort of retired after the Donner cut was released but can you blame him? We all though that there was a completed fully Donner helmed SII in a vault someone but it wasn't true... there was just the original opening scene the second half of which (blank bullets) was never shot, some very very early Brando stuff, and the original ending which had already been repurposed for STM.

I'm 100% right on this... no one may disagree without my permission!

(sees dejan on a horse)..... I SAID NO ONE DISAGREES!

[crazy_asian_man]

lol- thanks for lightening it up crown!

In a non-creepy way I virtually love dejan and everyone here. I refuse to go to war. cool to have differing perspectives. no matter what nothing will bring richard donner back from the dead and in the larger scheme of things more important issues going on in the world.

if Donner had agreed to sharing credit it would have avoided certain things but i wonder if it would have made the donner cut something that would never happen?

[atp]

If 2006 was supposed to be "The Year of Superman", why are Casino Royale and Rocky Balboa the movie highlights of that year?

[Kamdan]

Jul 24, 2021 19:04:16 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

if Donner had agreed to sharing credit it would have avoided certain things but i wonder if it would have made the donner cut something that would never happen?

If he had accepted, would Donner have received credit with Lester during the opening credits or would he have been listed in the end credits like that Additional Script Material By credit? Donner is also one of those types that use the “A (Director’s Name) Film” credit, which I think is pretentious.

[dejan]

First of all guys, this is gonna be a long post.......but hopefully you will all defintely  find it worthwhile

crown

Woman to Zod/Non.

“But he was just a skeptic!”

Ursa to woman:

“Who will never become a denier!”



@cam

1st)

Apologies from a technical perspective---as I thought Thau directed the excellent(if slightly biased) 2006 Making Of Saga docu series. In fact it was directed by Constantine Nasr ,who did consult Thau during the making of the documentary.

2nd)

That’s pretty cool that you worked in the cinema.


I definitely can’t compete with how many times you saw SII theatrically!

What I do know is, is that my 2 personal theatrical viewings of SII were electric(both late night showings with an adult audience).


One of those of course, was the back to back viewing with STM(which was also fantastic).

As opposed to my theatrical viewings of SR ,in 2006 and MOS, in 2013…….where you could have got more atmosphere in a cemetery.

3rd)

There are no arguments to be had between me and you bud……..as I have absolutely no problem with the fact you don’t like Lester’s(or should I say the Theatrical) SII.

I do have a problem , however, with Donner and Mank(as much as I love those guys) insinuating(or implying) that Lester’s SII was universally disliked(from a critical perspective) from the time of it’s theatrical release.


I like to remind people now, who wax lyrical about how Blade Runner is a masterpiece, that it was panned, big time, at the time of it’s release. I was too young to see it in the cinema in 82’(it had a 15 certificate here in the UK and I was only 9 at the time---I did get the sticker book though----and in that , it looked f***ing awesome!). When I did eventually see it on it’s UK TV premiere in 1986(aged 12), I actually thought it was rubbish.


But post 1992, with the unofficial 70mm work print in circulation, Blade Runner became revitalized…….and the rest is history. Personally, for me, now, I think it’s pretty good(I certainly enjoy it more, than that first viewing in 1986)……but it’s the kind of film with enough ambiguity that you can read into it, what you will.


So , whilst opinions can change, one should never forget what the initial/general opinion was(good-like SII, or bad- like Blade Runner).

So without further ado.......

To the main event of this post:


Way back in the pre-internet era there was the APRANET……which amongst many other things, allowed university academics to communicate with each other, via email.

At some point in 79’/80’ , some folks decided to set up what they called “fantasy /sci-fi-movie digests” where essentially a bunch of people would email each other their thoughts and opinions on the latest movies coming out…….but these were not casual film buffs….but comic book and sci- fi fans(as well as being rigorous academics)…….so if anyone was going to be critical with the Superman flicks…..it’s these guys.


So here it is , buried beneath 40 years of internet script data, the initial and contemporary reaction to SII(but also Raiders Of The Lost Ark ect)!.

LOL—they even had a spoiler warning!

What you will find is that the majority of comments are actually against SII, but not for the slapstick…..but for storytelling incongruencies , like Clark and Lois getting back from the fortress…or how Ursa could pierce her own “super” uniform to apply those prestigious badges she was accumulating:


Goto

mercury.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/sflovers/sflv04.txt


It will automatically download the entire digest in Notepad form to your PC.


Below are just the messages related to SII but thre is tons of other stuff worth reading here too-----history as it happened!:





Date: 2 Jul 1981 05:48:26-PDT

From: decvax!duke!unc!bch at Berkeley

Subject: Science in science fiction vs. fantasy



Having just seen Superman II (I tend to wait to see new films until

the madding crowds have gone on to trendier items) I feel a couple of

comments are in order on previous commentary on the film. Hopefully

this will not itself be a spoiler.



First off, I liked the film but mostly because I am an incurable

romantic and not for any reason defensible in sf-lovers. Second, is

that the film is clearly a fantasy, and not a piece of science

fiction. Criticism based on its scientific flaws is a little like

criticizing a medieval fantasy based on the scientific impossibility

of dragons. (Anyone want to start that one?) It is a myth, set in

contemporary times. No, it is not scientifically correct, but if that

spoils the yarn for you, then you are hoplessly imbedded in reality.



For purists on the powers of Superman based on his D.C. Comics

incarnation, remember that they too are corrupted. The *original*

Superman could not fly...just jump very high and far.



What Superman II has done, it seems to me, is sow the seeds for a more

epic sense of the Superman legend. We now have a tragic, possibly

fatal flaw to play with, and the sense of a personality behind the DC

Comics facade. This isn't exactly a new trend in rewriting myths,

after all, look at the Arthur legends.



------------------------------





MDP@MIT-AI 7/5/81 0:00 Re: SPOILER WARNING! SPOILER WARNING!



The following messages are the last in the digest. The reveal details

about the recent movie "Superman II". Readers who have not seen this

movie may wish not to read any further.





------------------------------



Date: 29 June 1981 13:12 edt

From: JRDavis.LOGO at MIT-Multics

Subject: The Message of Superman (spoiler)



I saw Superman II Saturday and I got really upset, and not because of

bogus powers (what's one more impossibility), visible wires, or no

climaxes. To me the movie conveys a very disturbing set of images of

the sexes - the most troubling being the central plot feature.

Superman must give up his powers if he wants to love a woman. Freud

would have loved it. How often I've heard that one must choose

between potent achievement and emotional fulfillment. And what a pair

of lovers: Lois, who never shows any real love for Clark, wins her

(super)Man, but what is he without his powers?



Besides this, we are treated to the True Violent Revenge that any Real

Man must have (Clark vs. rude truckdriver). What kind of role model

is this to set before kids?



Finally, I really wonder about Ursa (Latin for 'bear'). What does it

mean that the only female with much sex interest is a violent mauler?

And what ARE her politics? She seems contemptuous of men, yet she

defers totally to Zod? What WAS her crime, anyway?



You will say that I am too sensitive, or that I can't take a joke. I

say that as long as men believe in Revenge, as long as women exist

only to rob men of their powers, we will continue to raise our own

Zods and Ursas here on the planet Houston.

------------------------------



Date: 4 Jul 1981 1138-THX

From: Mike Peeler <Admin.MDP at SU-SCORE>

Subject: Re: The Message of Superman



There actually is some reason Superman must give up his powers to love

a woman, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with psychology. It's

purely physical. Basically, Supey can't count on being in complete

control of his strength while in the act of love. Larry Niven

analyzed this amusing situation in an article entitled "Man of Steel,

Woman of Kleenex", which appeared in (Help! Larry or Fuzzy or

somebody, it's slipped my mind, where did it appear?).



The revenge bit was certainly out of character, and besides, it wasn't

done nearly as satisfyingly as it should have been.



You have it wrong about women existing only to rob men of their

powers. It's the Reds who are plotting to destroy our purity of

essence by fluoridating our water, thereby contaminating the precious

bodily fluids which are the source of our power.



------------------------------



Date: 29 Jun 1981 13:16:49-PDT

From: CSVAX.upstill at Berkeley

Subject: SF-LOVERS: Super-nits (spoiler warning)



WELL, as long as people are naming names about the holes in SupeII,

I have to mention my biggie too. When Superman decides to give up his

powers for Lois, my wife and I turned to each other and wondered

wordlessly: "How are they going to get out of there?" (The Fortress

of Solitude, that is). Sure enough, the very next scene, they're

pulling up to a truck stop for dinner, having apparently DRIVEN from

the Fortress. Which really shouldn't seem too surprising in light of

the fact that, judging by the traffic through the place, the Fortress

of Solitude is about as inaccessible as K-Mart.

All of which, in artistic charity, you might be willing to forgive

and forget except the next scene rubs it in. How, when Superman

determines to regain his powers, does he get back? Does Lois offer

him a lift? Does he get a snowmobile like Lex Luthor? No, he

hitchhikes, and walks, through the frozen north in his windbreaker and

Hush Puppies.

Mortal indeed!



Steve



------------------------------



Date: 2 July 1981 14:39 edt

From: Templeton.SoftArts at MIT-Multics

Subject: Superman 2 spoiler and answer



I too was not that pleased with the events in Superman II. Aside from

the numerous gaps, (how did Superman and Lois get back from the pole,

anyway) I was not pleased with the two-dimensionality of the

characters involved. Luthor had none of the admirability that his

comic counterpart had; he showed none of the cunning that could of

made him a real character when he 'betrayed' Superman just to do the

evil thing. Perhaps this is what you get when you go for the mass

market audience, but I think they could have pleased as many people by

putting some non-standard things in the plot and characters. It now

appears that the situation at the start and end of each Superman movie

will remain the same. (Time goes backwards, memories erased.) This

is the sort of thing one expects from a cheap TV series, not the

movies.



parc-marx: A story with a duplicating machine plot can be found in

"Rouge Moon", which was written by one of the old Analog book

reviewers. In this story, a person was duplicated so that the

duplicate could go through an almost fatal maze. Duplicates took 50

tries to make it through.







Date: 6 Jul 1981 13:55:52-EDT

From: p-btempl at CCA-UNIX (B. Templeton)

Subject: Superman II



Another interesting error in Superman II was pointed out to me by a

friend (JSGray@UW-TSS). He notes that when the White House is shown,

it is rather obvious we are observing a still - the water in the

fountain is frozen in mid-air!



------------------------------



Date: 6 Jul 1981 19:00:03-PDT

From: CSVAX.upstill at Berkeley

Subject: filming Superman I and II (mild spoiler)



For those interested, here is some more detail about the filming of

Supermans I and II (readers of Cinefantastique needn't read further,

as this stuff appeared in their interviews with Richard Donner and

Pierre Spengler):

The original plan was to economize (?!) by filming I and II

together, from a massive script by Mario Puzo. When Richard Donner

was hired as director, he commissioned massive rewrites, making the

story less campy and more mythic. By the time production stopped,

Supe I was in the can together with, according to Donner at the time,

70 or 80 percent of Supe II, at a cost of $55M. One rumor has it that

in fact Donner took the ending of II and used it in I, which might

safely be assumed to add to the problems of making II.

Anyway, just before shooting commenced on II, Donner was fired in a

flurry of bad feelings, mainly between him and producer Pierre

Spengler. Richard Lester, who had previously served as liaison

between Donner and Spengler, was brought in to direct. Part of the

problem in making II was that Marlon Brando had to be written out--he

had been paid for, and had filmed, performances in both films--as a

result of his suit (with Puzo) for a share of the profits accruing

from the film. (Interestingly, Spengler claims that Superman has yet

to show a profit despite worldwide grosses of $275M). Adding to the

problems were the demises of Geoffrey Unsworth, cinematographer, and

John Barry, art director and set designer, who contributed so

significantly to the 'look' of the first film.

The net result, according to Spengler, is a film 75% of which was

filmed by Lester. Of the remainder, supposedly 10% is due to

second-unit directors and 15% to Donner, including the title recap

from I. Donner specifically claims credit for the moon sequence and

the White House scenes. Apparently the Metropolis battle, Superman/

Lois interaction and Niagara Falls footage was all shot by Lester,

with the Eiffel Tower thrown in to replace the original route out of

the Phantom Zone, the rocket that Superman threw into space at the end

of I.

The cost of the production is now given by Spengler as $109M for

both films making them arguably the most expensive films ever made

(the Bondarchuk "War and Peace" cost $100M but is 6-1/2 hours long).

The respective comments by Spengler and Donner should be taken with

much of salt, as each has an interest in discrediting the other;

lawsuits are flying, and the two apparently fought continuously during

production of I-cum-II.



------------------------------





MDP@MIT-AI 0:00 Re: SPOILER WARNING!! SPOILER WARNING!!



The following message is the last in the digest. It gives away plot

details of the recent movie "Superman II". Readers who have not seen

this movie may wish not to read any further.





------------------------------



Date: 7 July 1981 23:29-EDT

From: Allan C. Wechsler <ACW at MIT-AI>

Subject: Why I don't like the Superman movies.



The Superman movies are trash because they lie to the viewer. In the

first episode, Superman is forbidden to travel in time. Harsh

penalties and dire consequences are threatened. Superman resolves the

major crisis of the movie by travelling in time. Nothing happens to

him. In part II, Superman's mother tells him in no uncertain terms

that if he gives up his powers, he does so permanently. No loopholes

are given or hinted at. But at the crisis of the film, Superman gets

his powers back with only the feeblest attempt at an explanation. I

felt completely cheated. I could play master-level chess if I didn't

have to follow the rules. Would that be much of an accomplishment?



---Wechsler

------------------------------




Date: 13 July 1981 22:35-EDT

From: Jeff Coffler <JAC at MIT-AI>

Subject: Superman II & ROTLA



Theta Cable, here in LA, runs the "Z" channel, a pay TV company.

Every week, among other things, they show CinemaScore, a show where

they rate current movies. Superman II and ROTLA were rated.



Superman II - Critics: A-

Public: A+

Chances of liking the film: 99%



ROTLA - Critics: A

Public: A+

Chances of liking the film: 98%



Hmm, I thought they were both good movies (despite the problems that

Superman II has), but I think that ROTLA is somewhat better than

Superman. At least the critics agree with me .....



-- Jeff



Date: 18 Jul 1981 1648-PDT

From: Daul at OFFICE

Subject: SF Query and Superman II Flaw



1. Has anyone read TRANSFIGURATIONS by Michael Bishop? What did you

think? Feel free to include SPOILERS. You can send directly to

me, DAUL@OFFICE.



2. The villainess in SII or should it be S2, didn't she pin some of

the metals/pins onto her outfit? How did she get the pin to

puncture the material?





MDP@MIT-AI 08/14/81 00:00:00 Re: SPOILER WARNING! SPOILER WARNING!



The following messages are the last in the digest. They discuss the

movie "Superman II" and its consistency with the comic book legend.

Readers who have not seen this movie may wish not to read any further.



------------------------------



Date: 5 Aug 1981 16:09:05-PDT

From: CSVAX.dmu at Berkeley

Subject: Superman II reactions and spoiler



I just saw SUPE II. You could really tell the difference between the

two sets of special effects. My favorite effect was the breaking up

of the Phantom Zone. Also, it was clear they punted on several

effects (why?). When one of the baddies blew the copter down, it

crashed behind a barn! I wanted to see the copter crash. Also, why

didn't they show Superman's recharging? Did it involve Brando?



More questions? Why didn't they make Jimmy a redhead? Why didn't

Perry White say ``Great Caesar's Ghost''? Why didn't Supe use

Kryptonite on the baddies? Why didn't he use a Superman robot in a

flyby to allay Lois' suspicions? The Superman I know would have

(after tripping over the bearskin) either blown out the fire

(super-breath) or would have made up his hand to look burned (at

super-speed). Since when can Kryptonians levitate objects? Why

didn't they explain how Luthor was wearing a wig all the time? Why is

the one set of effects so grainy and blurred? Also, I like the real

Fortress-of-Solitude much better than the chandelier-store in the

movie. (The real one has a key disguised as an airplane marker.)

Finally, can someone refresh me as to the history of the film?



David Ungar



P.S. As with Supe I, I thought the best character to be Luthor.



------------------------------



Date: 12 Aug 1981 17:52:52-PDT

From: CSVAX.dmu at Berkeley

Subject: Response to my recent Supe II comments.



I relayed my recent comments to a genuine SF/genre/film fan, Mark

Leeper (works at BTL Holmdel). He sent me the following response.

Replies may be sent through me (David Ungar (dmu)) here at Berkeley.

------------------------



I am not sure what you are asking about the history of the film but I

can tell you a few things. The two Superman films we have seen so far

were originally filmed as a single unit. This is a formula that the

Brothers Salkind & Richard Lester started with THREE/FOUR MUSKETEERS.

That was shot as a single unit and when they were done, the producers

told the actors "Surprise, you have just made two films, not just

one." The actors responded, "Surprise, we're suing you." For

SUPERMAN I/II the contracts made very clear that it was two films

being made. It took a VERY LONG time for SUPERMAN I to show a profit

due to the humongous budget, but part of that can be written off as

investment on SUPERMAN II which is doing better at the boxoffice than

its predecessor. Part of the reason SUPE-I cost so much was the cost

of fine-tuning the flying effect, which held up production for a long

time. The effect, incidently, is created with a blue-screen technique

much like those in STAR WARS. Reeve stands tiptoe on a blue screen

while cameras swoop down at him. The blue screen is then keyed out of

the resulting image and background replaces it. You will notice in

the flying sequences that you do not see the toes of Reeve's boots

(since they would show that they are carrying his weight) nor could

they achieve the effect of having Superman fly past the camera, (since

this would entail dropping the camera right through the blue screen).



Why did they punt on so many of the special effects in SUPERMAN II?

Money!! In fact it did seem like the special effects in SUPE-II were

several cuts below those of SUPE-I. Matte lines were much more

apparent.



As for why did they make big changes in story from the comic book

mythos, as far as I remember even the comic books weren't faithful to

the comic books. They contradicted themselves a great deal over the

years. In the early comic books SUPERMAN did not make himself known

to the world until he was an adult, yet later there were SUPERBOY

comics. Ever wonder about the phrase "leap tall buildings in a single

bound?" Doesn't that sound like something of an understatement for

someone who can fly through space under his own power? The early

Superman did not fly, but could jump the height of a building. Later

the stories call for higher jumping. Eventually they claimed he could

in one leap jump across the city, jumping from the roof of a building.

Some physics major pointed out to them that the force of such a jump

would crush the building he was jumping from. So the word came down

from on high that he no longer jumped but actually flew.



While you are asking questions, let me ask a few of my own. As far as

I remember the Fortress is pretty far north and is isolated. So how

come Luthor is able to find it on a snow-mobile and when Superman

loses his powers, how does he get back home from it? Do super-powers

include the ability to talk in a vacuum as the villains do on the

moon. Probably the most believable thing about the film is the well

thought-out escape from the Phantom Zone. I found the fact that the

Phantom Zone window just happened to be floating past Earth at the

same instant that Superman was detonating a bomb in space the most

credible part of the film. I can't account for the popularity of

SUPE-II whose action scenes smack more and more of those in Japanese

monster films. Before I'd recommend SUPE-II I'd recommend

DRAGONSLAYER, RAIDERS, BLOW OUT or even CLASH OF THE TITANS.





Date: 16 Aug 1981 2339-PDT (Sunday)

From: Lauren at UCLA-SECURITY (Lauren Weinstein)

Subject: HEAVY METAL / SUPERMAN II / RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK



These days I tend to avoid making public comments about motion

pictures, but tonight I make an exception.



I recently absorbed HEAVY METAL, SUPERMAN, and RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK

over roughly a two day period.



Just a few comments:



HEAVY METAL



1) I am not a HEAVY METAL comics reader. Of course, I've skimmed a

few from time to time, but I am not an expert on the genre. I

found the movie to be tolerable. From me, these days, that is a

high compliment! If I can come out of a film not feeling like I

threw away my money, then I've accomplished something! (Or, in

the case of private screenings, if I felt like I wouldn't have

thrown away my money if I HAD paid!)



2) Perhaps the reason I found HM not too disappointing is that I went

in expecting very little. Persons with super high hopes no doubt

would have received a considerably different impression. The

animation was about at the level I expected, there were occasional

segments which were semi-clever, and I got a few chuckles out of

it. I doubt if the film was supposed to accomplish much more.



3) I would probably not bother to see it again, but if you can get in

fairly cheap, go ahead. Whether you really want to spend $5.00

down at the first-run (even with a good sound system) is another

matter.



SUPERMAN II



1) I found Superman II to be enjoyable. The film was only fair

technically, but since it is very "light" entertainment, it really

didn't detract too much. If they can continue to maintain the

current level of humor in the future SUPERMAN films, they might

manage to put out a couple more decent segments before the concept

fissles out.



2) I really liked the super bad "guys". Zod in particular seemed

like a fun sort of person.



RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK



1) Oh oh. Here we go. Force fields up. Deflectors full intensity.

Arm photon torpedoes. I guess I must be slipping even farther

outside the mainstream of society than I thought! From all the

reviews, reports, statements, and testimonials I saw, read, and

heard, I was expecting a masterpiece. What I got was (in my

opinion) a half-baked adventure film which, if produced by anyone

other than Lucas, would have been mercilessly condemned.



2) Perhaps I was expecting too much. No doubt it was too much to

expect well developed characters, a clearly delineated and

developed plot, and similar niceties. I found the characters to

be at the STAR WARS level (Here is archeologist with white hat.

Here is mean German who represents Darth), and the plot to be more

full of holes than the proverbial Swiss cheese. Yeah, there was

lots of action. That's about all. A true triumph for the

stuntmen. But what was the point? Summer Throwaway

Entertainment? SUPERMAN II was that, but made no pretenses at

being anything else. I could ACCEPT plot inconsistencies there,

but somehow RAIDERS had the potential to be much more, and totally

missed the boat.



3) The ending was pure Lucas. Look! Battle scene! Special Effects!

Bad guys get theirs! Stay tuned for next chapter (RETURN OF THE

ARK?)



4) No doubt I've completely missed the point. No doubt all Lucas

wanted was to produce another comic book. In that case, he

succeeded. STAR WARS was a comic book. EMPIRE started to emerge

a bit out of the genre, but still held on to a large part of its

origins.



?? A QUESTION ??



HEAVY METAL -- A COMIC BOOK

SUPERMAN II -- A COMIC BOOK

RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK -- A COMIC BOOK



Could we be watching the creation of a dynasty of "pulp" movies?

Could the filmakers finally be coming around to the same manner of

thinking as the network television execs, who KNOW that, by and large,

the most successful material to produce is inherently non-thought-

provoking, action-packed, and aimed at the 12-18 year age level?



The massive success of such films, and the comparative failures of

many "other" films, could well lead us into a situation where only the

highly successful (MASS APPEAL) films will be able to achieve the

massive funding required for production in today's environment.



Will we soon find cinema reduced to comic books (both SF and non-SF)

and simple (cretinous) horror films (watch the helpless woman being

terrorized by the man with the axe)? I certainly hope not. But the

writing is clearly on the wall... and on the screen.



--Lauren—