My weekly notes on the Puzo STM-SII script (2nd draft)

[dejan]

Feb 9, 2023 3:01:21 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Feb 8, 2023 16:20:24 GMT -5 dejan said:

@cam

Hmmm - the dead civilians in the streets of Metropolis does sound a touch dark.

Having said that, we did get the destruction of Krypton,Pa Kent's demise aswell as the poor cop being jettisoned under the train in the final draft of STM. 

So for all it's uplifting elements-STM still had some pretty dark undertones.

There's also another bit of Superman saying that he needs to kill all of the PZ criminals- a far cry from what had been established in comics- Superman had a longtime code of never killing.... so I would be suprised if DC didn't sasy anything-- (Though some fans have said they were totally convinced that Supes killed off the villains in SII at the end to this day).

I do wonder at the tone Puzo had imagined.... something like the Dark Knight? If Donner had directed Puzo's version, I do think Donner could have made it work- but definitely not the fun romantic version that had come out. With the (intentional) different tones in the STM-SII movies, though- from Mank's script, I do imagine that the final battle wold have been more intense and certainly not as ridiculous as what Lester did- but but probably the streets wouldn't be 'littered with dead civilians' or such as the Puzo version.

But- great point... if there was the destruction of Krypton- with its seriousness, we could have easily had the same seriousness with the destruction of Metropolis.

With the serious/dark undertones of STM........

It's actually interesting when you think about it:

Pa Kent's demise is the only death where Supe(allbeit an immature Supe) is present.
The destruction of Krypton and the cop being thrown under the train occured without Supe's being in the scene!

The minute you put Supes slap,bang in the middle of death and destruction.....seemingly helpless(or careless/not caring) to prevent said death and destruction is where you end up with........................Man Of Steel!!!!!! 

Again, I am not a comic expert.....so can't defer to those as refererences for analogous situations(Supes unable to prevent a lot of death and destruction) that did occur in the canon.

I would say that for whatever faults we may attribute to Lester and Furie.......they never lost sight of that aspect.....Supe's ability to save people/the day.

With regards to Puzo.....it looks like the residue of his bloody/violent imprints on the Godfather......found their way into his drafts for Supes.

[crazy_asian_man]

If I recall right- the comics code got DC to have the heroes NOT kill- I don't think Superman killed ever, but I think I'd read Batman did- but the code made sure no DC hero did for the longest time... and there was a code of no killing (explicit with the Legion of Superheroes)-

But back to what we could have (and in my mind should have) got- the final Metro battle I've always felt didn't need to have deaths, but the extreme danger of it- not comical like Lester- so that the heroism would shine and be intense.... much like how Endgame was intense, because you felt there was a real threate to characters on screen dying (maybe because of the Widow death).

Mank's script didn't have bodies, but it did have cars fall off freeways- so there were suggested fatalities- but I love the Mank script the best for how it handled the story (except for the reversing time- never was a great idea I thought).

Also.... I think there was a way to do a 'family friendly-enough' intense tragedy. Look at Star Wars with all the pilots with closeups at the Death Star run going up in flames over and over again... :0

[atp]

In the comics, Superman killed the phantom zone villains with Kryptonite. It was a huge deal at the time.

[crazy_asian_man]

Feb 10, 2023 3:12:56 GMT -5 atp said:

In the comics, Superman killed the phantom zone villains with Kryptonite. It was a huge deal at the time.

Yup... that was the 'first' (sorta/kinda) giant cross-titles reboot for Superman, by John Byrne, who I thought had mixed results with his writing/drawing on the Superman titles.

Prior to that- I think the reboots were unofficial and not exactly organized, but pretty sure Superman never killed.... so, yeah, a big deal in the reboot when he did.

[Kamdan]

The Superman film series is a clear example of the phrase “in hindsight, everything is 20/20.” I’m of sound mind to say that there was much improvement on Lester’s II as opposed to Donner’s II. Again, this is from a scripting standpoint. We can only imagine what changed they could have made during shooting, which occurred for the first film.

Superman III got more comedic thanks to the praise they all received on Superman II, which the Salkinds felt the humor of the first film carried over into Lester’s direction. They thought Pryor’s involvement would cross promote audiences for a maximized profit so that these films could continue to be made like the Bond films were that had a similar approach to humor. Nowadays we can obviously point out the fallacy in this mentality, but as William Goldman once said:

“ Nobody knows anything...... Not one person in the entire motion picture field knows for a certainty what's going to work. Every time out it's a guess and, if you're lucky, an educated one.”

The Salkinds, the Newmans and Lester all succeeded in delivering a Superman sequel that wasn’t the most expensive production of all time like the first two films were being dubbed as and their sincere hope was to make money on it to continue with something more grand for a follow up. I know Donner and Mankiewicz said they were interested in continuing the series, but that always another “I could have” statement, emphasizing how they could have righted the wrongs of III and IV. Their unwillingness to participate in IV displayed their true thoughts of the time, believing that all they had to offer was in those two films, whose scripts were handed over to them to revise.

[crazy_asian_man]

Feb 11, 2023 6:41:57 GMT -5 Kamdan said:

The Superman film series is a clear example of the phrase “in hindsight, everything is 20/20.” I’m of sound mind to say that there was much improvement on Lester’s II as opposed to Donner’s II. Again, this is from a scripting standpoint. We can only imagine what changed they could have made during shooting, which occurred for the first film.

Superman III got more comedic thanks to the praise they all received on Superman II, which the Salkinds felt the humor of the first film carried over into Lester’s direction. They thought Pryor’s involvement would cross promote audiences for a maximized profit so that these films could continue to be made like the Bond films were that had a similar approach to humor. Nowadays we can obviously point out the fallacy in this mentality, but as William Goldman once said:

“ Nobody knows anything...... Not one person in the entire motion picture field knows for a certainty what's going to work. Every time out it's a guess and, if you're lucky, an educated one.”

The Salkinds, the Newmans and Lester all succeeded in delivering a Superman sequel that wasn’t the most expensive production of all time like the first two films were being dubbed as and their sincere hope was to make money on it to continue with something more grand for a follow up. I know Donner and Mankiewicz said they were interested in continuing the series, but that always another “I could have” statement, emphasizing how they could have righted the wrongs of III and IV. Their unwillingness to participate in IV displayed their true thoughts of the time, believing that all they had to offer was in those two films, whose scripts were handed over to them to revise.

Love ya (in a non-creepy way)Kamdan.... but I've of sound mind to say that there was NOT imporovement on Lester's II as opposted to Donner's II- ..... that it was the editing and the lack of footage that makes it seem that way. But, good we can all disagree here and not go nuts.

On a more serious note- I guess it does depend on version what you prefer scriptwise. Maybe it is apples and oranges. I like the tightness of Mank's and how every scene (like STM) was done in a way that was far more serious. Having a movie with two directors' footage with different styles makes it a bit of a Frankenstein monster.

But- I'm glad there seem to be a zillion fan cutters and special fx fans that offer up different versions.

[Kamdan]

The fan edits have the advantage of not having Donner over their shoulders criticizing Lester’s material. He was just too honorary to admit that Lester did an adequate job with his follow up. It still annoys me to ends that they killed the super kiss ending on the count of Mankiewicz saying “Clark shouldn’t kiss Lois, only Superman should.” Again, they act completely oblivious to the fact that his glasses were off when he did and the fact that the whole scene deals with the emotional turmoil of Lois struggling to deal with knowing Superman’s identity. Sacrificing that for a repeat of the turning the world backwards scene forfeited a lot of what they changed.

It was a good decision to open the movie with a scene of Superman doing something heroic than just waiting for him to appear in Niagara Falls. I get that this was designed to be a two part story but they forfeited that notion in the first when they decided to change the ending of the first where Lois‘ death motivates Superman to turn the world backwards. It’s such a brilliant idea that I can’t believe no one thought of in the writing process, but it further proved that necessity is the mother of invention. Coincidentally, this was Richard Lester’s idea.

I get that Donner felt betrayed by Lester, who told him that he was only there to be a liaison between him and the Salkinds, but he really should have been more observant that obviously Lester was there to observe production so that he could ease into finishing when Donner had a reason to be excused. Donner thought he could do no wrong and freely talked down to the Salkinds when the first movie was released and that was enough grounds for them to let him go.

Donner wasn’t exactly strung out to dry since he was given an office at Warner Bros. for the remainder of his life and maintained predominance in the business while his peers eventually got out of it by their own choice or by design. I continue to get irked when people like Jack O'Halloran condemn Lester’s direction, yet he talks about how he liked the child-like qualities Non possessed, likening his performance to Jackie Gleason in Gigot. There’s nothing of that sort of characterization in Donner’s footage where he’s simply the big, destructive member of the trio, folding his arms like he’s a bouncer. Non under Lester’s direction is the only case where that characterization exists so there’s obviously some revisionist history on where he received that direction for the sake of Donner.

Everyone continued to praise Donner because he was still in the business and nobody wanted to be condemned because of it. I believe Donner and Mankiewicz said no to Reeve when he asked them to come back to IV because they bore ill will over his unwillingness to say that he wouldn’t return unless they did. Of course, his accident happened and all was forgiven at that point.

Superman II maybe a Frankenstein’s monster of a movie, but like the creature itself, what matters is that “IT’S ALIVE!”

[dejan]

Feb 12, 2023 5:49:33 GMT -5 Kamdan said:

The fan edits have the advantage of not having Donner over their shoulders criticizing Lester’s material. He was just too honorary to admit that Lester did an adequate job with his follow up. It still annoys me to ends that they killed the super kiss ending on the count of Mankiewicz saying “Clark shouldn’t kiss Lois, only Superman should.” Again, they act completely oblivious to the fact that his glasses were off when he did and the fact that the whole scene deals with the emotional turmoil of Lois struggling to deal with knowing Superman’s identity. Sacrificing that for a repeat of the turning the world backwards scene forfeited a lot of what they changed.

It was a good decision to open the movie with a scene of Superman doing something heroic than just waiting for him to appear in Niagara Falls. I get that this was designed to be a two part story but they forfeited that notion in the first when they decided to change the ending of the first where Lois‘ death motivates Superman to turn the world backwards. It’s such a brilliant idea that I can’t believe no one thought of in the writing process, but it further proved that necessity is the mother of invention. Coincidentally, this was Richard Lester’s idea.

I get that Donner felt betrayed by Lester, who told him that he was only there to be a liaison between him and the Salkinds, but he really should have been more observant that obviously Lester was there to observe production so that he could ease into finishing when Donner had a reason to be excused. Donner thought he could do no wrong and freely talked down to the Salkinds when the first movie was released and that was enough grounds for them to let him go.

Donner wasn’t exactly strung out to dry since he was given an office at Warner Bros. for the remainder of his life and maintained predominance in the business while his peers eventually got out of it by their own choice or by design. I continue to get irked when people like Jack O'Halloran condemn Lester’s direction, yet he talks about how he liked the child-like qualities Non possessed, likening his performance to Jackie Gleason in Gigot. There’s nothing of that sort of characterization in Donner’s footage where he’s simply the big, destructive member of the trio, folding his arms like he’s a bouncer. Non under Lester’s direction is the only case where that characterization exists so there’s obviously some revisionist history on where he received that direction for the sake of Donner.

Everyone continued to praise Donner because he was still in the business and nobody wanted to be condemned because of it. I believe Donner and Mankiewicz said no to Reeve when he asked them to come back to IV because they bore ill will over his unwillingness to say that he wouldn’t return unless they did. Of course, his accident happened and all w(as forgiven at that point.

Superman II maybe a Frankenstein’s monster of a movie, but like the creature itself, what matters is that “IT’S ALIVE!”

Agree with pretty much all you are saying there Kamdan.

Ofcourse Mank's script has Supe saving the fox in the English countryside(would be curious if that particular sequence is in Puzo's original draft).
It's a nice, touching,soft opening and a quasi prelude to the real drama at the Daily Planet when Lois pressures Clark.

It also gives a chance for the SPFX to shine and enhance the geographical pallette(i.e Supes flying abroad).

Seen in that context, then the DP sequence when appended to the fox saving scene gives Donner's SII a spectacular opening.
But shorn of the fox saving stuff(as seen in the Donner cut) ,we have to wait until Niagra for Supes to do something in costume , which is simply too long.
It's no one's fault ofcourse.......it is what it is because of happenstance.

As an aside I often wondered if the brief clip of Supes flying over what we thought was the French countryside on his way to Paris and rescue Lois in Lester's SII.......is in fact the English countryside for that saving the fox scene......therefore implying that Donner(or his SPFX team) did actually lens some of that footage:

Goto @ 2:32 in video below-



What leads me to believe that it's England ,is that there appear to be the famous white cliffs of Dover....at least that is what I think they are --lol!

Anyways-

As I said in another thread, perusing through Mank's script for SII, the climactic battle in Metropolis is very Supes Vs Non top heavy.
Ursa only throws the bus and Zod and Supes exchange blows just the once.
Now it could be that if Donner had filmed it as scripted.......it still could have played out as a more uniform(i.e all 3 villains having things to do) battle perceptually speaking..........if it had been shot with a lot of skill and nuance.....something Donner was absolutely capable of doing.
If ,on the other hand,Donner had shot  that climax in a perfunctory and workman llike manner........then I think it would have fallen a bit flat.......with Supes and Non battling it out with Zod and Ursa rendered to effective bystanders for a majority of the fight.

Lester and his team realised that there was an imbalance in the chemistry of that fight and gave Zod and Ursa more playtime with Supes.
And that definitely resonated in the theaters - I saw it twice in 81' and 82' and the audience couldn't get enough of that battle in/over Metropolis sequence!(me included!).


Maybe Donner would have done the same(equilibrating the battle) had he been allowed to finish, making more adjustments to Mank's script..
It's all hypothetical ofcourse!

As far as Non is concerned-I distinctly remember the audience laughing when Non tries to feebly zap the scorched snake and the wooden crate on the back of the truck in Houston. Ditto also for when he tries to hand over the red siren to Zod after ripping it off the sheriff's car.

And then the biggest roar was when he finally torches the Army Jeep and exchanges glances with Zod.
And the crowd were definitely laughing with the character , not at him.
So credit Lester and O' Halloran there for the execution, and as you say......it's a bit of a shame there has been a bit of revisionism with regards to who was was responsible for the evolution of the character's profile-from script to screen. 

[crazy_asian_man]

Feb 12, 2023 5:49:33 GMT -5 Kamdan said:

The fan edits have the advantage of not having Donner over their shoulders criticizing Lester’s material. He was just too honorary to admit that Lester did an adequate job with his follow up. It still annoys me to ends that they killed the super kiss ending on the count of Mankiewicz saying “Clark shouldn’t kiss Lois, only Superman should.” Again, they act completely oblivious to the fact that his glasses were off when he did and the fact that the whole scene deals with the emotional turmoil of Lois struggling to deal with knowing Superman’s identity. Sacrificing that for a repeat of the turning the world backwards scene forfeited a lot of what they changed.

It was a good decision to open the movie with a scene of Superman doing something heroic than just waiting for him to appear in Niagara Falls. I get that this was designed to be a two part story but they forfeited that notion in the first when they decided to change the ending of the first where Lois‘ death motivates Superman to turn the world backwards. It’s such a brilliant idea that I can’t believe no one thought of in the writing process, but it further proved that necessity is the mother of invention. Coincidentally, this was Richard Lester’s idea.

I get that Donner felt betrayed by Lester, who told him that he was only there to be a liaison between him and the Salkinds, but he really should have been more observant that obviously Lester was there to observe production so that he could ease into finishing when Donner had a reason to be excused. Donner thought he could do no wrong and freely talked down to the Salkinds when the first movie was released and that was enough grounds for them to let him go.

Donner wasn’t exactly strung out to dry since he was given an office at Warner Bros. for the remainder of his life and maintained predominance in the business while his peers eventually got out of it by their own choice or by design. I continue to get irked when people like Jack O'Halloran condemn Lester’s direction, yet he talks about how he liked the child-like qualities Non possessed, likening his performance to Jackie Gleason in Gigot. There’s nothing of that sort of characterization in Donner’s footage where he’s simply the big, destructive member of the trio, folding his arms like he’s a bouncer. Non under Lester’s direction is the only case where that characterization exists so there’s obviously some revisionist history on where he received that direction for the sake of Donner.

Everyone continued to praise Donner because he was still in the business and nobody wanted to be condemned because of it. I believe Donner and Mankiewicz said no to Reeve when he asked them to come back to IV because they bore ill will over his unwillingness to say that he wouldn’t return unless they did. Of course, his accident happened and all was forgiven at that point.

Superman II maybe a Frankenstein’s monster of a movie, but like the creature itself, what matters is that “IT’S ALIVE!”

The Donner cut ultimately (imo) suffered from an editor who might have been in over his head with the limited resources - or - just a REALLY bad editor. (I think the latter)- Donner also was not really involved - saying he was too emotionally charged to be objective, and just suggesting Thau axe the Lester material (where there was no substitute coverage unfortunately by Donner)- which only made the Donner cut feel like the theatrical SIV at the end.

Lester did some adequate fill-in, but more damage imo. But the fan cuts seem to save the best of both worlds. (Again, agree to disagree with all due respect on our judgements of Lester's raising/destroying the material).

As far as Lester (and the producer's) responses by the rest of the cast--- I think everyone can agree.... the separation wasn't handled well. Worse-so, because of Lester's derailing of the tones (not necessary) so that Donner washed his hands of it.
I agree that O'Halloran is incorrect- but if the Salkinds and Lester had worked something out with Donner, and Donner blessed the passing of the torch- there wouldn't have been the animosity generated.... but, then again, who knows? Maybe there was no way to go forward well- but, the end result made it worse.

Also note: Reeve did not seek out Lester for SIV.... if he did and it wasn't publicized, then--- His publicized comments on SIII are not the best (I remember a newspaper article that was a bit- unhappy even with the producers). And that he only lists STM and Somewhere in Time in his filmography as the ones for the vaults in an interview shows he doesn't have THAT high an esteeem for SII's theatrical.

It's not impossible that Donner and Mank held a little resentment towards Reeve for not holding the line- but then again, they knew he was only 25 at the time and it was show biz and Reeve was a newbie. If I were in Donner's position, I could see forgiving him right off, but it's not impossible that there was some resentment.

From Donner and Mank's side- I could also see material also already ruined by Lester- the Lois relationship was done, the Lana Lang/Smallville material was turned into bad comedy, it would have been hard to keep the movies in canon and have to address what was going on with that as well- so that's why SIV I thought was a noble attempt to try that- but I could also see Donner and Mank also look at the ages of the actors at the time and feel it was a no-win scenario to try to restart something with all this baggage at this point.

At the end, SII arguably could have been worse under another director than Lester- but in my eyes, remembering my giant disappointment in bits and fits on first view (Coincidentally most being Donner footage I liked) ..... hard to imagine.

But- the Donner stuff imo saved the other material, hence, why it was a big hit.

SIII was pure Lester. And, not so much...

[crazy_asian_man]

Feb 12, 2023 17:10:37 GMT -5 dejan said:

Feb 12, 2023 5:49:33 GMT -5 Kamdan said:

The fan edits have the advantage of not having Donner over their shoulders criticizing Lester’s material. He was just too honorary to admit that Lester did an adequate job with his follow up. It still annoys me to ends that they killed the super kiss ending on the count of Mankiewicz saying “Clark shouldn’t kiss Lois, only Superman should.” Again, they act completely oblivious to the fact that his glasses were off when he did and the fact that the whole scene deals with the emotional turmoil of Lois struggling to deal with knowing Superman’s identity. Sacrificing that for a repeat of the turning the world backwards scene forfeited a lot of what they changed.

It was a good decision to open the movie with a scene of Superman doing something heroic than just waiting for him to appear in Niagara Falls. I get that this was designed to be a two part story but they forfeited that notion in the first when they decided to change the ending of the first where Lois‘ death motivates Superman to turn the world backwards. It’s such a brilliant idea that I can’t believe no one thought of in the writing process, but it further proved that necessity is the mother of invention. Coincidentally, this was Richard Lester’s idea.

I get that Donner felt betrayed by Lester, who told him that he was only there to be a liaison between him and the Salkinds, but he really should have been more observant that obviously Lester was there to observe production so that he could ease into finishing when Donner had a reason to be excused. Donner thought he could do no wrong and freely talked down to the Salkinds when the first movie was released and that was enough grounds for them to let him go.

Donner wasn’t exactly strung out to dry since he was given an office at Warner Bros. for the remainder of his life and maintained predominance in the business while his peers eventually got out of it by their own choice or by design. I continue to get irked when people like Jack O'Halloran condemn Lester’s direction, yet he talks about how he liked the child-like qualities Non possessed, likening his performance to Jackie Gleason in Gigot. There’s nothing of that sort of characterization in Donner’s footage where he’s simply the big, destructive member of the trio, folding his arms like he’s a bouncer. Non under Lester’s direction is the only case where that characterization exists so there’s obviously some revisionist history on where he received that direction for the sake of Donner.

Everyone continued to praise Donner because he was still in the business and nobody wanted to be condemned because of it. I believe Donner and Mankiewicz said no to Reeve when he asked them to come back to IV because they bore ill will over his unwillingness to say that he wouldn’t return unless they did. Of course, his accident happened and all w(as forgiven at that point.

Superman II maybe a Frankenstein’s monster of a movie, but like the creature itself, what matters is that “IT’S ALIVE!”

Agree with pretty much all you are saying there Kamdan.

Ofcourse Mank's script has Supe saving the fox in the English countryside(would be curious if that particular sequence is in Puzo's original draft).
It's a nice, touching,soft opening and a quasi prelude to the real drama at the Daily Planet when Lois pressures Clark.

It also gives a chance for the SPFX to shine and enhance the geographical pallette(i.e Supes flying abroad).

Seen in that context, then the DP sequence when appended to the fox saving scene gives Donner's SII a spectacular opening.
But shorn of the fox saving stuff(as seen in the Donner cut) ,we have to wait until Niagra for Supes to do something in costume , which is simply too long.
It's no one's fault ofcourse.......it is what it is because of happenstance.

As an aside I often wondered if the brief clip of Supes flying over what we thought was the French countryside on his way to Paris and rescue Lois in Lester's SII.......is in fact the English countryside for that saving the fox scene......therefore implying that Donner(or his SPFX team) did actually lens some of that footage:

Goto @ 2:32 in video below-



What leads me to believe that it's England ,is that there appear to be the famous white cliffs of Dover....at least that is what I think they are --lol!

Anyways-

As I said in another thread, perusing through Mank's script for SII, the climactic battle in Metropolis is very Supes Vs Non top heavy.
Ursa only throws the bus and Zod and Supes exchange blows just the once.
Now it could be that if Donner had filmed it as scripted.......it still could have played out as a more uniform(i.e all 3 villains having things to do) battle perceptually speaking..........if it had been shot with a lot of skill and nuance.....something Donner was absolutely capable of doing.
If ,on the other hand,Donner had shot  that climax in a perfunctory and workman llike manner........then I think it would have fallen a bit flat.......with Supes and Non battling it out with Zod and Ursa rendered to effective bystanders for a majority of the fight.

Lester and his team realised that there was an imbalance in the chemistry of that fight and gave Zod and Ursa more playtime with Supes.
And that definitely resonated in the theaters - I saw it twice in 81' and 82' and the audience couldn't get enough of that battle in/over Metropolis sequence!(me included!).


Maybe Donner would have done the same(equilibrating the battle) had he been allowed to finish, making more adjustments to Mank's script..
It's all hypothetical ofcourse!

As far as Non is concerened-I distinctly remember the audience laughing when Non tries to feebly zap the scorched snake and the wooden crate on the back of the truck in Houston. Ditto also for when he tries to hand over the red siren to Zod after ripping it off the sheriff's car.

And then the biggest roar was when he finally torches the Army Jeep and exchanges glances with Zod.
And the crowd were definitely laughing with the character , not at him.
So credit Lester and O' Halloran there for the execution, and as you say......it's a bit of a shame there has been a bit of revisionism with regards to who was was responsible for the evolution of the character's profile-from script to screen. 

From growing up with the campy Batman series- I was thrilled with Non was taken seriously as a monster- I didn't care for the childlike stuff Lester threw in. There was enough of a balance with Hackman in there for comedy relief. Most of the audience I think were mainly mainstream and not comic fans, who just wanted a good time for 2 hours. SII provides that enough even in theatrical form.

[dejan]

@cam


From a technological perspective in 1980/81, SII was as good as you could get.
Comic book fan or not.

Once we hit the late 90's/early 2000s a lot of fans started looking back at the theatrical SII through the prism of CGI(ie hordes of orcs fighting the Rohirim in LOTR or the clone wars in the prequels....or the sentinal attack on Zion in the Matrix ect ect).

As another example:
The ewoks from Jedi came under attack post Lord Of The Rings with fans claiming they would have prefered legions of  wookies as originally scripted by Lucas.
I was there in 83', and no one complained about the ewoks.
And no one complained about Non being comical/childish/soft  either.

These are all post 90's/00s critisisms made with retroactive cinematic sensibilities.
Which is fine.
But they should not be passed off as contemporary remarks when the films were released theatrically.  




Ironically in 2005 , Lucas caved into fan pressure and gave us the hordes of Wookies that post 90s CG addicted fans craved, in the battle of Kasshyk(Revenge Of The Sith)-and the result was not good.
Give me the battle of Endor from Return Of The Jedi anyday of the week!

[crazy_asian_man]

Feb 12, 2023 18:20:57 GMT -5 dejan said:

@cam


From a technological perspective in 1980/81, SII was as good as you could get.
Comic book fan or not.

Once we hit the late 90's/early 2000s a lot of fans started looking back at the theatrical SII through the prism of CGI(ie hordes of orcs fighting the Rohirim in LOTR or the clone wars in the prequels....or the sentinal attack on Zion in the Matrix ect ect).

As another example:
The ewoks from Jedi came under attack post Lord Of The Rings with fans claiming they would have prefered legions of  wookies as originally scripted by Lucas.
I was there in 83', and no one complained about the ewoks.
And no one complained about Non being comical/childish/soft  either.

These are all post 90's/00s critisisms made with retroactive cinematic sensibilities.
Which is fine.
But they should not be passed off as contemporary remarks when the films were released theatrically.  




Ironically in 2005 , Lucas caved into fan pressure and gave us the hordes of Wookies that post 90s CG addicted fans craved, in the battle of Kasshyk(Revenge Of The Sith)-and the result was not good.
Give me the battle of Endor from Return Of The Jedi anyday of the week!

Well- the internet (as far as I know) wasn't around when these movies came out- my judgement is mainly from:

* My own initial opinions (and yours and anyone else's of course no less valid)
* The local comic book shop geeks who all had opinions during these times the movies came out
* The reactions I got when working (intentionally) at the Century Theatres (the biggest one in the area at the time in my area) of audience members during that summer Superman II came up- where I got to check in on the theatre periodically (perks of the theatre job) during/after shifts when it first came out.

I will say this: I don't recall anyone laughing during all the 'blowing' effects, during all those times I popped in, especially the Metro battle sequence. (Everyone roars when Superman appears, maybe some laughs when there's 'this is gonna be good!'--- but it flattened out each and every time pretty much after that.)

Personally, me and friends hated the Ewoks and the Lester changes then and now. They both seemed like diversions and irrelevent to the main story.

Do people exist that look back with revised feelings? Sure. But I know that's not me. It's not the people I interact with that I hung with who felt this way the first time around and haven't really had changed feelings.

To me, the prequels have SO many other problems that the switchup to Wookies is the least of its issues. (Sadly, the sequel trilogy also have a gigantic set of problems. And the third one had problems!)

But- if Rotten Tomatoes helps show anything - it's that nobody agrees on all movies. Some love some things, some love others.

Apples, Oranges, Prunes, eh.

What's that saying?

"There's no real explaining taste".... but, I think it's still fun to discuss.

I enjoy that you love the heck out of Lester's changes and humor. I don't. And that's ok that we see it differently.

But- to be fair, I think Lester's approach on "Three Musketeers" is an absolute classic. And.... I've always said- Initially I welcomed Lester taking over SII- until I saw the results on the big screen.

One reason I never bash SIII over SII is that Lester didn't subvert anyone's creative vision that was already in play. SII could have made Lester a success just as well if he followed more of the original script and tone. Lester is capable of a serious movie (Juggernaut & parts of Three & Four Musketeers)- but he made script changes and tone changes that made SII a lesser film in my opinion.

The reason people loved SII is that they had nothing to compare it to- with the Donner cut, you still don't have a real comparison because of a bad editor and missing footage. So- glad people like it, but..... at this point, I have real love mainly for fan cuts that pull away from Lester's choices, without making it seem like a movie that was shredded to bits like the Donner cut.

[dejan]

@cam

Nice points there and I probably should have prefaced my testimony with the fact that I was refering to people(mostly kids but some older teenagers too) that I knew personally......none of which complained about Non or the Ewoks.....at least that I was aware of.
Having said that,I kinda forgot to mention that my Mum(who is Italian) absolutely hated Star Wars and Superman with a virulent passion(she was/is into Italian/French/ European Cinema-Fellini,Visconti,Risi,Tati ect ect)---so I was used to having to endure excessive critisism of these benchmark fantasy /sci-fi movies-lol!-but she never stopped me from going to watch them at the theater or renting them on home video-bless her cotton socks! 
Interesting how I forgot about that!-I must be in denial - lol.

And she still hates them , now more than ever!

However, I don't want to derail this thread from your excellent insights into the Puzo script so I will pop over to the other thread that you created regarding some of the other Donner and Lester non- Superman flicks and maybe add some of my thoughts there which might be more pertinant to that particular discussion  anyways.

 

[crazy_asian_man]

Feb 13, 2023 17:25:01 GMT -5 dejan said:

@cam

Nice points there and I probably should have prefaced my testimony with the fact that I was refering to people(mostly kids but some older teenagers too) that I knew personally......none of which complained about Non or the Ewoks.....at least that I was aware of.
Having said that,I kinda forgot to mention that my Mum(who is Italian) absolutely hated Star Wars and Superman with a virulent passion(she was/is into Italian/French/ European Cinema-Fellini,Visconti,Risi,Tati ect ect)---so I was used to having to endure excessive critisism of these benchmark fantasy /sci-fi movies-lol!-but she never stopped me from going to watch them at the theater or renting them on home video-bless her cotton socks! 
Interesting how I forgot about that!-I must be in denial - lol.

And she still hates them , now more than ever!

However, I don't want to derail this thread from your excellent insights into the Puzo script so I will pop over to the other thread that you created regarding some of the other Donner and Lester non- Superman flicks and maybe add some of my thoughts there which might be more pertinant to that particular discussion  anyways.

 

Hey Dejan, thanks for sharing. Also, apologies if I reacted a little too strongly on reactions to Lester's stuff. I think I wouldn't have minded so much Lester's version if it hadn't made (as a result) a REAL Donner version impossible- or one even close to the original Mank/DOnner version.

Thanks for sharing the context of your mom's reactions. I hear you- I had a situation where I was ready to go off on how bad "Rise of Skywalker" was in the theatres- but a young one in the family loved it, and I kept my mouth wayyy shut and enjoyed the fact that he could get the same kind of joys I got from a different Star Wars film. I remember when older kids berated my loving the original "Battlestar Galactica" pilot when I was a kid- and feeling lousy from it, so I didn't want to be 'that guy'. *

(*Perfectly free to knock on Bstar 78 now, though. I love it as a guilty pleasure that doesn't hold up to tougher scrutiny. I enjoy it as a kids' show now, but-)

I know I can come off probably too-strong defending Donner's work- that comes from years of wanting a 'perfect' superhero film (to this day, we still have very few that hits that, I think, oddly).... and knowing ALLLLL the little green lights that have to be checked off in order for that to happen- that it's probably always going to be a sore spot that we didn't get the second part as was intended.

It's all good- I actually took a little break from the scripts. Got a new computer (yea!!!) that I have to break in anyhow.

Always good chatting, man.