Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut

[mirth]

Yesterday, I bought DVDs of  the original 1978 Superman and Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut. Mainly, I got them for my kids who hadn't see the Christopher Reeve Superman movies.

The disc set for the 1978 Superman came with the theatrical release and a more recent version with some added footage. I popped in the newer cut to watch. Other than some extended scenes, it was pretty much what I remembered from the theatrical version.

This morning we watched Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut. It is a very different film from the theatrical release. There are entire scenes added or removed. Major plot points are changed. The pacing is very different. It's very good and on par with the theatrical release, but I was surprised at how different the two versions are. Now I'm thinking I have to get the theatrical version  to show the kids because it so different from what we just watched.

If you're a fan of the two Christopher Reeve Superman films (in my brain they stop after Superman II), it's worth checking out the Richard Donner Cut.

More info and SPOILERS:

http://www.amc.com/talk/2010/04/superman-ii-richard-donner-cut

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_II:_The_Richard_Donner_Cut

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/movies/movies.php?topic=s2donnercut-review

[MetalDog]

Christopher Reeves will always be the Superman I think of.  The first two were SO awesome when they came out!  I find them to be just as good as I remember them when I re-watch them.  Would be really interested to see the Donner cut.

[mirth]

The first two hold up remarkably well. TBH, the first Superman movie is my favorite super hero movie ever. It was way ahead of it's time. Great origins story. Excellent cast.  Just the right mix of humor and drama. And a kickass score. It totally nailed it, decades before the MCU.

[mirth]

Love this scene

[BanzaiCat]

This one makes me laugh EVERY time. Great movies.

I even thought III was okay...definitely nowhere near the first two, but not terrible. IV, on the other hand...I saw IV in the theater and that one was just a gigantic WTF from beginning to end.

[mirth]

3 was okay. It was mostly an excuse to put Richard Pryor in a Superman movie. I must have watched it a couple dozen times as a kid. No desire to watch it now, even to show it to the kids.

[Gusington]

I HATED III but I & II are beyond classic to me for many reasons.

[MetalDog]

If you really dig Christopher Reeves movies, try Deathtrap.  He's with Michael Caine and Dyan Cannon.  Awesome movie!

[mirth]

Seen Deathtrap several times. Very good flick.

[JasonPratt]

Not a fan of the Richard Donner cut for Super2 at all.

I can appreciate the edit for sake of artistic respect and film history. But I also know it was commissioned primarily so that a plot point in Superman Returns would make sense; and that plot point made less than no sense in how it happened (in Super2), which is why it was rightly re-edited for the theatrical release. That's problem #1.

2.) The turn-back-the-world solution for the second movie naturally fits the original conceit of the two movies having been originally only one plot. But as the end of an actual second movie, not only does it make time travel the obvious solution to all Superman problems (instead of a one-time dare-to-defy-his-Dad solution), it also breaks the story fundamentally. Granted the end of the first movie doesn't convey what (probably was supposed to have) happened clearly, but the idea there was that Superman only went back in time to save Lois -- everything else happened (as Jimmy affirms, there was a big earthquake etc.). NOTHING IN THE SECOND MOVIE HAPPENED AT ALL, in the Donner cut (except for maybe a few things the writers wanted to have happened, such as the bully. Because if that also didn't happen anymore, it makes the revenge sequence vastly worse.) Come to think of it, it basically undoes the ending of the first film, too! The super-kiss in the theatrical cut at least ties into the idea that being romanced directly by Superman as Superman is dangerous. (Plus the raw acting in that scene is ace.)

3.) Lois outing Clark is much sloppier in the Donner cut. He ought to be able to verify she's bluffing, easily. The attempt to out him in the theatrical cut (which whole sequence is completely missing, having been added when Lester came on board) is a thrilling if silly puzzle, which rightly fails: a classic Superman/Lois plot from the comics. Clark's trip into the fireplace, as a subconscious desire to be with Lois after all, makes sense at an internal character level. (I'll add that I enjoy that whole extended subplot, which has great comic timing and acting and writing across the board; but setting aside my fondness for it, it just works better at the level of the story per se.)

4.) Related back to problem #1, there is less clear reason in the Donner cut for why his parents would agree to give him back his powers. He and his mother have a loving and respectful disagreement in the Lester cut, over a real dilemma respected by each side, so one last burst of magic (essentially) makes sense. He and his father have a highly insulting outright rebellion fight in the Donner cut -- over what turns out to be a non-problem anyway! Why doesn't Jor-El want Kal to marry Lois? Apparently just because, that's why! There's literally no downside to it; he agrees to be depowered after the fact for no clear reason (since he's already in rebellion against his dad's wishes). If his dad had wanted him to continue as Superman, there wouldn't have been an insistence on depowering, so why repower him? -- his Dad (in the Donner cut) already knew the threat to the Earth was at least likely, and insisted on it anyway. There's an actual woman-of-kleenex problem in the Lester cut, which is why the dilemma is real, which everyone respects. It really is a choice of one or the other way, not an arbitrary rejection of having it both.

5.) While I do kind of like having the thrown missile from #1 be what sets Zod & Co. free, it ends up hashing the timing of the plot. A minor problem compared to other ones, but still there. (Also, I just like the tension and writing and acting in Lester's Paris plot. But structurally the timing works out better.)

[besilarius]

An original treatise from 1966 on Batman and Superman in one film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QXKzpX5A-I

[mirth]

Not a fan of the Richard Donner cut for Super2 at all.

I can appreciate the edit for sake of artistic respect and film history. But I also know it was commissioned primarily so that a plot point in Superman Returns would make sense; and that plot point made less than no sense in how it happened (in Super2), which is why it was rightly re-edited for the theatrical release. That's problem #1.

2.) The turn-back-the-world solution for the second movie naturally fits the original conceit of the two movies having been originally only one plot. But as the end of an actual second movie, not only does it make time travel the obvious solution to all Superman problems (instead of a one-time dare-to-defy-his-Dad solution), it also breaks the story fundamentally. Granted the end of the first movie doesn't convey what (probably was supposed to have) happened clearly, but the idea there was that Superman only went back in time to save Lois -- everything else happened (as Jimmy affirms, there was a big earthquake etc.). NOTHING IN THE SECOND MOVIE HAPPENED AT ALL, in the Donner cut (except for maybe a few things the writers wanted to have happened, such as the bully. Because if that also didn't happen anymore, it makes the revenge sequence vastly worse.) Come to think of it, it basically undoes the ending of the first film, too! The super-kiss in the theatrical cut at least ties into the idea that being romanced directly by Superman as Superman is dangerous. (Plus the raw acting in that scene is ace.)

3.) Lois outing Clark is much sloppier in the Donner cut. He ought to be able to verify she's bluffing, easily. The attempt to out him in the theatrical cut (which whole sequence is completely missing, having been added when Lester came on board) is a thrilling if silly puzzle, which rightly fails: a classic Superman/Lois plot from the comics. Clark's trip into the fireplace, as a subconscious desire to be with Lois after all, makes sense at an internal character level. (I'll add that I enjoy that whole extended subplot, which has great comic timing and acting and writing across the board; but setting aside my fondness for it, it just works better at the level of the story per se.)

4.) Related back to problem #1, there is less clear reason in the Donner cut for why his parents would agree to give him back his powers. He and his mother have a loving and respectful disagreement in the Lester cut, over a real dilemma respected by each side, so one last burst of magic (essentially) makes sense. He and his father have a highly insulting outright rebellion fight in the Donner cut -- over what turns out to be a non-problem anyway! Why doesn't Jor-El want Kal to marry Lois? Apparently just because, that's why! There's literally no downside to it; he agrees to be depowered after the fact for no clear reason (since he's already in rebellion against his dad's wishes). If his dad had wanted him to continue as Superman, there wouldn't have been an insistence on depowering, so why repower him? -- his Dad (in the Donner cut) already knew the threat to the Earth was at least likely, and insisted on it anyway. There's an actual woman-of-kleenex problem in the Lester cut, which is why the dilemma is real, which everyone respects. It really is a choice of one or the other way, not an arbitrary rejection of having it both.

5.) While I do kind of like having the thrown missile from #1 be what sets Zod & Co. free, it ends up hashing the timing of the plot. A minor problem compared to other ones, but still there. (Also, I just like the tension and writing and acting in Lester's Paris plot. But structurally the timing works out better.)

I don't think the Donner cut is better than the Lester cut. It may not be as good. It is, however, well worth watching if you're a fan of the Christopher Reeve films.

Honestly, I'm not interested in breaking down the two versions down to determine which is "better". I'm pleased that the Donner cut was made so that we have it to enjoy as well as the theatrical release.

[JasonPratt]

[The Donner cut] is, however, well worth watching if you're a fan of the Christopher Reeve films. [...] I'm pleased that the Donner cut was made so that we have it to enjoy as well as the theatrical release.

I can agree with those two statements. :) ("I can appreciate the edit for sake of artistic respect and film history.")

If Warner Brothers hadn't tried to foist the Donner cut on fans as the superior and canonical cut, I'd be less miffed by it. Maybe they'll go back to supporting the Lester cut someday. I understand why they thought they had to go with this as the canonical version (for SuperReturns), of course; and for marketing purposes they could have hardly presented it as a quirky and disjointed oddity missing some good sequences but with some extra fight scene shots added back in.  ::)

Also, I can add that even I find the comedy bits Lester added to the New York battle to be hugely distracting and tonally out of place. I understand it was meant to soften things for kids, but even as a kid I was thinking the equivalent of "what the hell..."

[mirth]

While I was watching the Donner cut, I was thinking that my kids would enjoy the Lester version more. Not necessarily for the comedic bits in the NYC battle scenes (which bordered on camp in Lester's version) but for the overall lighter tone and humor.

Also, I much prefer Lester's version of this scene (one of my favorite moments from the Reeve films)

[Sir Slash]

Was that a picture of Bill Cosby on the wall? Not Politically Correct anymore!