Post by crown on Sept 11, 2024 6:59:40 GMT -5
Looks like Lester has finally come out of hiding and given us his thoughts on the Donner cut.
Figures he'd slither out of the woodwork like a poisonous snake once Donner was no longer around to defend himself. Though I'm sure dejan feels "vindicated" now...
Review of the Donner Cut by Richard Lester
As the director who took the reins of “Superman II” after Richard Donner’s initial vision, I feel compelled to express my thoughts on the so-called “Donner Cut.” While it is often hailed as a restoration of Donner’s original intentions, I must assert that this version ultimately falls short in several critical areas.
First and foremost, while Donner indeed crafted an exceptional first installment with “Superman: The Movie,” he seemed to run out of steam when it came to “Superman II.” His inability to maintain momentum is evident throughout the film. My involvement was not merely a matter of stepping in; it was a necessary intervention to salvage what could have been a lackluster sequel. The result was a film that resonated with audiences and became a commercial success—something that cannot be said for this cut.
One glaring issue with the Donner Cut is the performance quality of the newly added scenes featuring Christopher Reeve. These moments come across as poorly acted, lacking the charisma and depth that Reeve brought to his role in both films. It feels as though these scenes were hastily stitched together without consideration for their overall impact on character development or narrative coherence.
Furthermore, Marlon Brando’s scenes, which were reinserted into this version, are nothing short of cliché. They do not add any meaningful substance to the story but instead serve as tired tropes that detract from the film’s pacing and emotional weight. The inclusion of Lois Lane shooting a gun mid-movie is particularly egregious; it strikes me as being in poor taste and undermines her character’s integrity.
Moreover, Lois wearing Superman’s shirt raises significant concerns regarding appropriateness for younger audiences. This moment feels more like an adult fantasy than something suitable for children—a demographic that has always been central to the Superman franchise.
Lastly, we must address the repeated time-reversal ending—a concept that has become synonymous with creative bankruptcy. This overused plot device indicates a lack of innovation and imagination on Donner’s part. In contrast, my version of “Superman II” offered fresh storytelling elements and an engaging narrative arc that resonated with viewers.
In conclusion, while I respect Richard Donner’s contributions to cinema, I firmly believe my version of “Superman II” stands superior in terms of execution and audience engagement. The Donner Cut may appeal to some die-hard fans seeking nostalgia, but it ultimately fails to deliver a cohesive or compelling cinematic experience.
Figures he'd slither out of the woodwork like a poisonous snake once Donner was no longer around to defend himself. Though I'm sure dejan feels "vindicated" now...
Review of the Donner Cut by Richard Lester
As the director who took the reins of “Superman II” after Richard Donner’s initial vision, I feel compelled to express my thoughts on the so-called “Donner Cut.” While it is often hailed as a restoration of Donner’s original intentions, I must assert that this version ultimately falls short in several critical areas.
First and foremost, while Donner indeed crafted an exceptional first installment with “Superman: The Movie,” he seemed to run out of steam when it came to “Superman II.” His inability to maintain momentum is evident throughout the film. My involvement was not merely a matter of stepping in; it was a necessary intervention to salvage what could have been a lackluster sequel. The result was a film that resonated with audiences and became a commercial success—something that cannot be said for this cut.
One glaring issue with the Donner Cut is the performance quality of the newly added scenes featuring Christopher Reeve. These moments come across as poorly acted, lacking the charisma and depth that Reeve brought to his role in both films. It feels as though these scenes were hastily stitched together without consideration for their overall impact on character development or narrative coherence.
Furthermore, Marlon Brando’s scenes, which were reinserted into this version, are nothing short of cliché. They do not add any meaningful substance to the story but instead serve as tired tropes that detract from the film’s pacing and emotional weight. The inclusion of Lois Lane shooting a gun mid-movie is particularly egregious; it strikes me as being in poor taste and undermines her character’s integrity.
Moreover, Lois wearing Superman’s shirt raises significant concerns regarding appropriateness for younger audiences. This moment feels more like an adult fantasy than something suitable for children—a demographic that has always been central to the Superman franchise.
Lastly, we must address the repeated time-reversal ending—a concept that has become synonymous with creative bankruptcy. This overused plot device indicates a lack of innovation and imagination on Donner’s part. In contrast, my version of “Superman II” offered fresh storytelling elements and an engaging narrative arc that resonated with viewers.
In conclusion, while I respect Richard Donner’s contributions to cinema, I firmly believe my version of “Superman II” stands superior in terms of execution and audience engagement. The Donner Cut may appeal to some die-hard fans seeking nostalgia, but it ultimately fails to deliver a cohesive or compelling cinematic experience.
