A decade ago, the late Tom Mankiewicz watched a fan's video of how Superman II might've ended if Richard Donner was still directing. Instead of Superman turning back time in The Richard Donner Cut, Jor-El's ghost miraculously turned everything back to normal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dujwOUa1mLU
No offense to the fan who made this video, but I'm not a huge fan of this interpretation. You have Superman feeling guilty over the damage that Zod and company had caused thanks to Supes not being there earlier to stop them, but like in the Donner cut, the consequences count very little if everything is reset.
This is why I prefer Lester's cut to Donner's. It's one thing for Superman to do some time-travel gimmick to save Lois Lane's life like he did in STM. But time-travel to erase everything that happened in the whole world so that he won't have to face the consequences of his actions... I'm sorry but I question the fandom of anybody who prefers that ending over Lester's, where Superman stoically chooses to suffer in silence while Lois gets to avoid the lifetime of heartbreak she'd face otherwise. He has to live with his stupid decisions while she doesn't. He learns something at the end of Lester's cut and it's something that he'll carry with him for the rest of his days.
Donner's ending is one big copout.
What intrigues me about this video - and the RDC of SII - is it was envisioned that Zod, Ursa and Non's fate is left ambiguous at best, until time was reset. Because nowadays there are some people out there who insist the deleted scene where they get arrested is canon.
If that's the case, wouldn't Mankiewicz have corrected this video for excluding this piece of detail? Yet, he didn't.
If Richard Donner wanted to, he could've added that scene into his final cut of Superman II. After all, he had access and total control to all of his original footage. But he didn't. It's clear to me that Lester and Donner's decision to exclude that scene meant they never wanted it in their versions of the movie.
But I still see some people argue for its place in continuity, despite both directors demonstrating otherwise.
If you add in Donner's stuff, it just doesn't make coherent sense. And it's a rehash. The memory kiss is straight from the comics and it's something DIFFERENT. Colors explains why it works better than just repeating the world spin in his post too. So throw Donner's sour grapes in the garbage can and accept reality. Facts are, Lester came on board and it's his film. From my point of view, there is no such thing as 'the Donner cut'. The irony is that they can't turn back time and reshoot the film, but they claim this cut and paste edit is the definitive version. Sorry, it's not. Superman II, as it was released, was already a good film.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 19 Dec 2016, 03:51
What intrigues me about this video - and the RDC of SII - is it was envisioned that Zod, Ursa and Non's fate is left ambiguous at best, until time was reset. Because nowadays there are some people out there who insist the deleted scene where they get arrested is canon.
If that's the case, wouldn't Mankiewicz have corrected this video for excluding this piece of detail? Yet, he didn't.
If Richard Donner wanted to, he could've added that scene into his final cut of Superman II. After all, he had access and total control to all of his original footage. But he didn't. It's clear to me that Lester and Donner's decision to exclude that scene meant they never wanted it in their versions of the movie.
But I still see some people argue for its place in continuity, despite both directors demonstrating otherwise.
I brought up this point on another forum a month ago, and most people agreed with me. Except for one guy. This is what he said:
Quote
I think fans do the Reeve Superman a grave disservice by actually asserting he coldly let the powerless Phantom Zone villains die at the climax of SII. With or without the Arctic police add-on, that version of Superman at that time would never let even a bitter enemy slide to his death if he could help it. More than likely, Zod and his crew ended up at the bottom of the Fortress a little bumped and bruised but still alive to eventually end up back into the PZ. That's my personal head canon anyway because if Reeve Superman didn't kill anyone while under the influence of knock-off kryptonite in SIII then why would he let beings who couldn't harm him anymore die?
This guy completely bypassed everything I said about the producers would've made it clear that the villains survived if they wanted to. After all, if BR only took one second to show us that Catwoman was still alive by the end of the film, I see no reason why SII couldn't have done the same for Zod. Sorry, but I think you're only deluding yourself if you have to re-imagine events to satisfy your preferred continuity.
Besides
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 19 Dec 2016, 10:54
Superman II, as it was released, was already a good film.
I don't think it holds up very well nowadays, but I too prefer the original Lester version over Donner's. The only scenes I think Donner did better was Jor-El speaking to Clark.
You are right. Deleted scenes are NOT canon. Big blue dispatched these killers and had no trucks to give. The last we see of these terrorists they are sliding down into an icy abyss. That's that. I dig it, along with the rude slob in the diner getting owned.
Superman II has aged but it's still a good movie. I wouldn't undersell its value, given the first two Reeve flicks are, in my opinion, the only two worthwhile entires in the original series. Superman III has its moments, but as a complete package it comes up short. Superman II is a sequel done right, to the point Spider-Man 2 copied it. The hero loses his power and realises he needs to use it for the greater good. This is his life now.
I really enjoy Superman III. The flying effects are the best the Reeve franchise ever did and the story is pretty much in line with the comics of that time. Very underrated movie. Very enjoyable.
It's a movie I used to basically blacklist, but there's more going on than people give credit for. The hero gone bad angle is terrific and I dig the Clark Kent scenes. I'm learning to appreciate the film these days, let's put it that way. I'm not as dismissive about it anymore as my Superman fandom has grown.
My favorite representations outside of the comics are:
Fleischer's Superman
Superman: The Movie
Superman II
Superman TAS - JL - JL: Unlimited
Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman
Man of Steel
BvS: Dawn of Justice
As said, Superman 3 has its moments. But it just doesn't do enough for my liking - YET!
Superman IV is an abomination.
Superman Returns wasn't my thing.
I need to explore Smallville better, but see it as honoring the brand.
But honestly, apart from those three films, I like what the studios have done. The DCAU Superman is probably the best of the lot. It's incredibly consistent. Tim Daly is the Kevin Conroy of Superman. I like that they depowered Superman to make the fights more interesting, gave him specialty suits and explored his rogues gallery. Justice League's Superman is a total badass leader. George Newburn evokes Daly but his voice does reflect this older warrior. It's great.
Dean Cain is severely underrated in my view. He's the most charismatic Clark, being a smooth operator. I grew up with this guy, so I may be biased. But watching YouTube clips here and there lately, it still holds up to me.
Cavill impressed me straight away.
The comics speak for themselves. All Superman needs now is a great video game.
Fleischer is amazing. And perfect, really. Nothing needs to change with them. I used to think an injection of character development would be nice but now I realize they're perfect as time capsules but also in terms of what the Golden Age was really like.
Dean Cain... he was okay. He's one of those actors who never knew wtf to do with his hands so he would gesture with his hands for no reason whatsoever. When you see it, you can't unsee it. Or I can't anyway.
Smallville is incredible. It told the most textured, nuanced story of how Clark becomes Superman that we'll probably ever see. It did it with style most of the time. But what I really enjoy is how the tone of Smallville shifted a little bit each season. If you watch the pilot and then watch the finale, it's almost hard to believe it's the same show because the tone of the show had changed from "vaguely grounded and realistic" to a Silver Age science-fairy tale type of thing. Amazing!
As time goes by, Snyder's Superman seems more and more Post-Crisis to me. I really dig Cavill as Superman and also Snyder's whole approach to the character. Magnificent!
The Fleischer cartoons were my first introduction to Superman. They're fun little action shorts featuring giant robots, mad scientists, mummies coming to life, Japanese soldiers and voodoo cults with Superman beating them up without a care in the world. That, and fast talking dialogue. What's not to like?
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 23 Jan 2017, 07:55
Superman II is a sequel done right, to the point Spider-Man 2 copied it. The hero loses his power and realises he needs to use it for the greater good. This is his life now.
Spider-Man 2 definitely copied the idea from Superman II, but in my opinion, the Raimi film did a much better job. Peter Parker was suffering stress because being Spider-Man deprived him of having a normal life, but then he later realised that such a great responsibility can't be forgotten. My biggest problem with Superman II is how Clark gave up being Superman. Unlike Peter, Clark never saw being Superman as a burden; as a matter of fact, he enjoyed helping people. But then that suddenly changes when he gets together with Lois. Of course, he learns from his mistake in the end, but I just could never believe he'd make it in the first place.
He made the choice because he became selfish. He put his needs above humanity. That's enough for me. He also didn't foresee three escaped Kryptonians flying out of nowhere to terrorise the world. When it happened, he realised the magnitude of his mistake. He can't live a normal life. He now had to expect the unexpected.
I see Superman, Lois and the issue of children from two perspectives:
I like Superman and Lois UNABLE to have children because it adds another level of 'weakness' and mental burden upon the character. He loves Lois but he will never be able to fully complete the union.
I like Superman and Lois ABLE to have children because it strengthens their bond and like Rebirth, reinforces the friendly, nurturing side of the character.
I actually prefer the first option more, even though I really love Rebirth. I like the concept Superman and Lois can't have children. And in the future, after Lois' death, Superman and Wonder Woman have a child just like in Kingdom Come. There's something about that scenario which works for me.
Grant Morrison split the difference between those two approaches with All-Star Superman by establishing that Superman and Lois aren't biologically compatible... but then a solution gets figured out and the story ends on a very hopeful but ambiguous note. I highly recommend checking out those two trades, they're awesome.
All Star is probably my favorite Superman comic of all time.
It's so good because it's coated in doom but totally inspirational and selfless. It's where I prefer All Star over Kingdom Come, even if I can appreciate both stories for different reasons. In All Star, Superman knows he's dying but chooses to keep fighting and achieve miracles. Kingdom Come Superman abandons the superhero scene and chills in the Fortress for a decade. All Star has it all. It present Superman as the most powerful he has even been, but at the same time the most vulnerable he has ever been. It's genius.
This is my Superman comic collection as it stands.
I've read Rebirth online, but I'll pick up those paperbacks soon. I'm also keen to get both volumes of the Greatest Superman Stories Ever Told, of which What's So Funny About Truth Justice and the American Way? features.
(http://i63.tinypic.com/jt6qyq.jpg)
I found a couple of YouTube videos explaining why Superman in the Reeve films was a moron. I got to admit, I laughed hard when the guy claimed Lois nearly died of hypoxia during the 'Can you read my mind?' scene. ;D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8l-fhVATSr8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tfoc9ezWwY
Some of my points against the video:
1. Superman giving Lois an interview
Superman is just too honest for his own good at times. That's one of his weaknesses. And that also doubles as a public service announcement for the younger generation. Don't lie. Tell the truth. Be good no matter what. I don't have a problem with that. It's not a lapse of judgement on his part at all. He knew what he was doing. The character is built on trust.
2. Taking Lois for a flight in her pyjamas
This stuff happens in the comics all the time. I don't see the big deal. It's nitpicking.
3. Throwing stuff into space
What did he want Superman to DO with the nuclear bomb? Throw it down on the ground and let it destroy Paris? And besides, how could Superman even know the Phantom Zone criminals were in space anyway? As for damaging the tower itself by flying straight up? That's just a pathetic complaint. Time is of the essence. If Superman didn't get the job done quick enough, he would've complained the bomb went off and destroyed the tower altogether. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Again, just more nitpicking.
4. Giving up his powers
I've defended this plot point recently so I won't devote much time to it. But I will add that Clark gave up his powers to be a man. To fully satisfy Lois. He became selfish and it cost him. I get people will either like this plot point or they won't. That's their business.
I won't bother addressing the Donner cut issues because I don't recognise that as *the* film. And a lot of the other issues in III and IV can be attributed to their budgets.
The paradigm the Reeve movies operated under required Superman to be completely committed to being Superman or else being completely committed to other things. Superman, as an identity, isn't to be done halfway.
I find that argument persuasive given the iteration of Superman we're discussing here. The Byrne Age Superman viewed being Superman as more of a part time job so it's logical that someone who thinks of himself as Clark first and foremost would be more open to having a relationship.
Of course, with Superman II we're required to believe that Superman would forsake his powers just to get some lovin' from Lois. And I categorically reject that.
The time travel thing from STM has always bothered me too. Did the missile strike California? If so, Lois dies. Did Superman travel back in time to prevent the missile from striking California in the first place? If so, Lois was never in peril to begin with. Either of those leaves the movie a total mess.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 15 Feb 2017, 15:20
The time travel thing from STM has always bothered me too. Did the missile strike California? If so, Lois dies. Did Superman travel back in time to prevent the missile from striking California in the first place? If so, Lois was never in peril to begin with. Either of those leaves the movie a total mess.
The time travel finale is the film's biggest weakness, no doubt about it. I've never liked it. It's a lazy mess and opens up a can of worms. I much prefer the memory kiss in Superman II but that's hokey as well. Both of these scenes
DO have grounding in the comics. But that doesn't mean they're infallible or above debate. I'm a fan of consequences remaining consequences...at least for a good while. And that's something Snyder has delivered.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 15 Feb 2017, 15:20
Of course, with Superman II we're required to believe that Superman would forsake his powers just to get some lovin' from Lois. And I categorically reject that
That's cool and I do understand where you are coming from. I acknowledge the reasons behind his decision to forsake his powers are rather flimsy, but I enjoy the fallout which follows his decision. I'll take it. I'm primarily a Batman fan, and dismissed all the Superman films as mediocre for years. So it's interesting for me to defend them now. But really only the first two featuring Reeve and Cavill's run. I'm now holding onto anything that I deem remotely decent featuring the character. However, I'm also a little hesitant to shower the Reeve films with too much praise too - because they get enough fawning already, and in my opinion, at the detriment of the greater franchise.
There were some legit criticisms in those videos, but a lot of the examples were used as cheap shots, as TDK had already mentioned. Complaining about Jor-El and Lara should've left Krypton is something can easily apply against the mythos in every interpretation.
The ironic thing is, the narrator of those videos is a fan of the Snyder's Superman films, which had faced its share of nitpicking over the years. Mind you, those videos criticising the Reeve films were published in 2010, so he's definitely not retaliating against the critical backlash towards Snyder.
Another thing that bothered me about Superman II was during the fight against Zod and co in Metropolis, Superman notices the battle is putting the entire city in danger, so he flies away to spare further harm and lure the Phantom Zone villains back to the Fortress of Solitude. Fans love to say this was better than the fight in MOS, because Superman eventually saved people while fighting the villains and making them follow him afterwards.
To which I pose the question: if all it took for Superman to remove the danger out of the city by taking the fight elsewhere, then why the hell didn't he do that in the first place? If he had done that, none of the damage done to the city would've happened.
I'm inclined to believe Superman was willing to try his luck against the three villains, just to see how he'd fare. He was somewhat overconfident like that - case in point asking the rude diner to step outside while he was depowered. In both occasions it soon became apparent he wasn't going to beat his enemy. He had bitten off more than he could chew.
From what I understand, Richard Donner didn't meticulously oversee The Donner Cut. It was more or less spearheaded by the cut's editor, Michael Thau, and Donner basically just signed off on it. Of course, it's not really a definitive version of what Donner's Superman II would have been if he hadn't been fired. The ending would have been changed. Different scenes would have been shot. Different editing choices. John Williams might've even come back, who knows?
As the film stands now, I kinda want an amalgamation of both cuts. The ham-fisted triumph of Superman flying the flag returned with the Jor-El scenes, Lester's main title sequence, Donner's opening sequence, the gun scene at the hotel, and the Metropolis fight being a combination of the two versions.
It's interesting to see Donner's footage... but ultimately the vision and the execution are both deeply flawed.
After all these years, I think WB missed an opportunity by not commissioning an animated Superman II using the STAS voice cast to give Donner and Mankeywhatsis full creative freedom to do whatever they want rather than be restricted to stuff they wrote and shot decades ago. Considering all the time that's passed, that or something like it is probably the best we could've hoped for.
Now, with Mankeywhatsis gone, we can't even hope for that. :(
I like the Donner scenes. Well, the major ones at least. I just don't like the editing work on that cut as a whole. For example, I always felt the placement (or even the inclusion of) the Washington Monument scene was very off-beat and many of the "new" scenes required tighter editing. Also, the few moments of additional CGI (which I believe was single-handledly done by the editor, Michael Thau) weren't very good.
I see this cut as more or less an experiment. Better yet, a time capsule that captures the hazy image of what Superman II could've been had the original intent prior to the decision to move the ending.
I was looking back at Lois Lane's death in S78, and I was curious to know if her demise was originally planned in the shooting script. I was surprised to find out that it wasn't. As a matter of fact, it was originally planned that Superman saved Lois from the crushed car before rescuing Jimmy.
Quote
48 EXT. DESERT - DAY - CLOSE ON LOIS
LOIS speeds across the desert in her car which shakes from the impact of the quake.
248A EXT. SKY CLOSE ON SUPERMAN
SUPERMAN, flying at top speed, looks down, spots LOIS. A crack in the earth erupts behind the car, almost seems to chase it, overtaking the car from behind.
248B CLOSER ANGLE
LOIS' car topples into the crack in the earth, falling down some fifteen feet.
248C CLOSE ON LOIS
LOIS is pinned inside her car by the double walls of earth. The crack now starts to close
again, squashing the vehicle as the metal groans and LOIS screams.
248D ANGLE FROM BELOW
SUPERMAN shoots up from the earth below, pushes the car up and out, lifts it into the air.
He looks down.
248E ANGLE ON CRACK - SUPERMAN' S POV
The crack slams shut with a sickening sound.
248F EXT. MOUNTAIN TOP
SUPERMAN deposits the squashed car with LOIS inside on a mountain top, rips the door
off, helps her out.
SUPERMAN
Sorry about the car ...
LOIS
Forget it, it's a Hertz.
Source: https://www.supermanhomepage.com/movies/superman_I_shoot.txt
This confirms that Lois's death was added later on for dramatic effect, together with moving Superman's turn back time ending for the first film. Without it, Superman saves the day without any tension at all. I wouldn't mind this, but once again, it goes to show that killing off Lois and then bringing her back to life is a cop out. Ironically, I bet this would get ridiculed in today's 'damn if you do and damn if you don't' attitudes towards the character.
Can you imagine if they had the balls to kill off Lois permanently back then?
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 23 Jan 2017, 11:52
I really enjoy Superman III. The flying effects are the best the Reeve franchise ever did and the story is pretty much in line with the comics of that time. Very underrated movie. Very enjoyable.
Looking back at this again, am I wrong to assume this is the only Reeve Superman film where he isn't selfish or impulsive? Admittedly, I haven't seen the film in a long time, but I don't remember him doing anything as consciously selfish as turning the world back in time to save one life and giving up his powers to be with Lois. Even in The Quest for Peace, he ignored the ghosts of the Kryptonian council and went out of his way to disarm the nuclear missiles around the world. He might've thought he was doing a noble thing to protect the world from nuclear war, but it was still selfish.
I think a sense of naivety works well with Superman, but it has to be done carefully. If it's overdone he can appear too dumb. I think Peace on Earth showcases this balancing act rather well. Superman has the noble intention of feeding the world, but his mission eventually backfires, and it's not all his fault. Generally speaking, being the last survivor of Krypton puts him into a unique position. Sure, the Kryptonian council ghosts can have their say. But ultimately Superman lives in the present day and has to make a decision. He's a living person who has freewill and free thought. Is that being selfish? I don't really think so. It's a judgement call. We're always working within the parameters of whatever situation we find ourselves in at the time.
I saw a fan edit that combined both endings from the Donner cut and the theatrical cut.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZ0ggWsVi88
I'm not a fan. The combination of the two endings simply doesn't flow.
While I'm on the subject of fan edits, I saw this other edit of Clark relinquishing his powers, using Jor-El and Lara together. Apart from the awkward swapping of Clark's normal clothes with the Superman costume in that line of dialogue from the Donner cut, I think the whole scene works quite well. But I prefer the Jor-El sequence untouched as it is.
https://youtu.be/MYfgeqDBUF8
Here is a fan edit of Superman fighting TIE Fighters and the Death Star. Makes me believe a more action packed Superman film back in the day could've been possible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uMK1hvkmy8
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 8 Apr 2018, 10:52I was looking back at Lois Lane's death in S78, and I was curious to know if her demise was originally planned in the shooting script. I was surprised to find out that it wasn't. As a matter of fact, it was originally planned that Superman saved Lois from the crushed car before rescuing Jimmy.
...
This confirms that Lois's death was added later on for dramatic effect, together with moving Superman's turn back time ending for the first film. Without it, Superman saves the day without any tension at all. I wouldn't mind this, but once again, it goes to show that killing off Lois and then bringing her back to life is a cop out. Ironically, I bet this would get ridiculed in today's 'damn if you do and damn if you don't' attitudes towards the character.
It is my understanding that Donner made the decision to abandon filming on Superman II about 3/4's of the way through the process. At some point along the way, somebody realized that if the first movie doesn't succeed, there won't be a second movie.
Lois was originally slated to "die" in Superman II. Then Superman reverses time (or something) such that the villains never escaped from the Phantom Zone, thereby saving her life. Obviously, that time travel ending was shot for SII but the time travel concept got repurposed for STM. My understanding is that her death in SII was never filmed but obviously elements of the time travel bit that "resurrected" her did get shot for SII.
Honestly, time travel is a crutch anyway. But if it must be used, it belongs in STM. Because in SII, Superman makes some very difficult decisions and time travel allows him to largely skip out on his responsibility for those decisions.
Obviously, Donner never got a chance to finish Superman II. But the plan was to develop a new ending for SII that didn't involve time travel.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 8 Apr 2018, 10:52Can you imagine if they had the balls to kill off Lois permanently back then?
I don't think they were contractually allowed to do it. WB attached all sorts of limitations on what the Salkinds were and were not permitted to do in the films. They had a lot of leeway. More than you might think. But certain characters were not allowed to be permanently killed off.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 17 May 2018, 12:30Looking back at this again, am I wrong to assume this is the only Reeve Superman film where he isn't selfish or impulsive? Admittedly, I haven't seen the film in a long time, but I don't remember him doing anything as consciously selfish as turning the world back in time to save one life and giving up his powers to be with Lois. Even in The Quest for Peace, he ignored the ghosts of the Kryptonian council and went out of his way to disarm the nuclear missiles around the world. He might've thought he was doing a noble thing to protect the world from nuclear war, but it was still selfish.
I see Superman IV as the one where Superman learned that he can't do the heavy lifting for mankind. "It is forbidden for you to interfere in human history. Rather, let your leadership stir others to their own capacities." He's supposed to be a good and example; not a dictator.
In Superman IV, he became a dictator. A
benign dictator, but a dictator nevertheless. And he learned that mankind will have to solve some problems on their own. Artificially enforcing peace upon them is just as immoral as forcing anything else upon them.
Frankly, I don't think nuclear disarmament was a very pressing concern in 1987. But whatevs, it's on point for the character to recognize and accept that there are social limitations on his abilities as well as practical limitations. He may have the physical capability to rid the world of nuclear weapons. He may have the social currency to do it. But he doesn't have the moral right to impose his will upon others.
Years ago, I skimmed a fanfic where Superman takes on a more activist role. Rather than rid the world of nuclear weapons, he instead publicizes the USA and USSR's respective missile ranges, deployments, nuclear capabilities and other technical information. The idea is that the whole world would know what each country is and is not capable of. Publicizing that information was intended force both nations into knowing all of the other side's secrets at the same time their own secrets are known as well. The thinking goes that revealing that information would force both sides to abandon their posturing and blusters.
I don't know if the second part was ever published. But in the fanfic, relations between Washington and Moscow became completely destabilized because the USSR had far more missiles overall while the US had missiles that were more powerful overall. Neither side understood those things and so the entire worldwide balance of power had gotten thrown up into the air. The NATO countries began quietly developing nuclear programs of their own to counter Soviet firepower since, it seemed, the Americans weren't getting it done.
Far from eliminating the nuclear threat, Superman had increased it as more countries began acquiring nukes, either through their own development or through sales by international arms dealers.
In the fic, western Europe became a bigger thorn in everybody's side since they (understandably) were sick of living in the potential USSR/USA nuclear crossfire and they were determined to blow the crap out of everybody if things ever went sideways.
The writer was trying to make the point that a lot of international situations with which Superman involves himself are unspeakably volatile and could result in the very problems he's attempting to correct getting worse. He said that the object of his fic was to show Superman ultimately settling into a role of perfect moral leadership rather than heavy-handed tactics of personally ridding the world of nuclear weapons or activist tactics of publicizing everybody's nuclear secrets.
It was sort of a boring fanfic, really, but the moral premise of it is intriguing.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 24 May 2020, 05:25
Honestly, time travel is a crutch anyway. But if it must be used, it belongs in STM. Because in SII, Superman makes some very difficult decisions and time travel allows him to largely skip out on his responsibility for those decisions.
Time travel can be fascinating to me from a storytelling perspective, especially if a full arc is devoted to that plot. It can be haunting, complicated and very rewarding. I prefer there to be consequences, but I'm usually okay with a clean resolution if the journey to that place is harrowing and at times in doubt. The ending of Superman (1978) is on the simplistic side and thus I've never been much of a fan. Superman can fly, lift huge weight and blast heat from his eyes - I'd prefer time travel powers relegated to the Flash.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 24 May 2020, 05:25
It is my understanding that Donner made the decision to abandon filming on Superman II about 3/4's of the way through the process. At some point along the way, somebody realized that if the first movie doesn't succeed, there won't be a second movie.
According to what Tom Mankiewicz said on the Making Superman featurette (which you can see on the video below on 17:24), it wasn't Donner who made the call. He says WB made the decision to put SII on hold, so everyone could focus on finishing the first film. This was in the midst of all the panic that was happening behind the scenes i.e. the producers couldn't get more money, the petty dispute and lack of communication between themselves and Donner, and stupid studio politics. Evidently, shooting both films simultaneously turned out to be far more trouble and expensive than anyone could've guessed.
https://youtu.be/5jmuhcosiis?t=896
Mankiewicz said he believed had S78 flopped, the Salkinds would've made Donner finish the sequel as punishment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qASlOahE_o8&ab_channel=HollywoodArchive
There might be two sides of the story, as Ilya Salkind says, but history does tend to paint the Salkinds as the bad guys, for better or worse.
WB couldn't make that decision tho. It sounds insane in today's world but WB sold the film rights to Superman to the Salkinds as part of a negative pickup deal. So ultimately, the bosses were the Salkinds (and Spengler). Assuming Mankey's recollection is accurate (and who knows?), WB could've simply been making a suggestion. But generally speaking, they would've lacked the authority to shut down production on a film (i.e., Superman II) to which they had sold the rights.
I perhaps inaccurately attributed the decision to Donner. But one thing is for sure, very few parties could've made that decision. WB is not one of those parties under the type of negative pickup deal it sounds like was made with the Salkinds.
As a general thing, as good a job as Donner might've done on STM, my sympathies with his termination ultimately are with the Salkinds. When your director insults you to the international media and jeopardizes the franchise you're attempting to create, you've got no choice but to fire him with extreme prejudice. And the Salkinds fired him with extreme prejudice.
I think history should have vindicated the Salkinds at the same time it should have implicated Donner. The Salkinds went on to produce Superman III (a conventional Bronze Age Superman story if ever there was one) and the Superboy TV show (which, 90's syndicated cheesiness aside, was a highly reverent take on the material) while the Donner cut of Superman II would still be clearly inferior to Lester's cut even if Donner had been able to finish it properly (which he wasn't).
And yet, a lot of fans still have a rather simplistic view of Donner The Hero Vs. Salkind Family The Villains and I just think the historical record tells a very different and far more complicated story.
When Warners sold the screen rights to the Salkinds, that was a sign of the total lack of faith they had in this being the success it turned out to be. Once they saw what Donner was handling this, he was led to believe Warners was gonna buy out the Salkinds' and let him continue with them. That led him to make statements about if Spengler was the producer, he wasn't going to be returning. The Salkinds weren't selling and they obliged Donner's statement.
Ilya Salkind had accused Donner of calling the producers "assholes" in public.
Quote
After the first movie opened, Salkind recounted that Donner told the Press that "'I'll do 'II' but it's my conditions; if not I won't do it'.... Then he called us a**holes publicly. We can't work with this guy if the guy hates us so then we said let's go and see Lester."
Salkind responded to Donner's insistence in interviews over the years that no one ever contacted him to let him know he wouldn't be returning to finish "Superman II". According to Salkind, Spengler actually tried to call Donner "two or three times to try to say Dick, let's work together, let's bury the hatchet." Salkind remembered that Donner "actually disappeared" during this time and that no one could find him. "That's when, finally, we said 'OK, let's make the film ['II']" with Lester.
Source: https://www.supermanhomepage.com/movies/movies.php?topic=interview-salkind
If Donner said those comments because he thought WB was going to buy the rights from the Salkinds, then I'm afraid to say he only has himself to blame for his lack of professionalism. Even if WB wasn't getting involved, it's still unprofessional to say such things.
I do understand he felt frustrated with the producers, and going by what many actors and crew members have been saying, the Salkinds aren't exactly innocent. But come on, you can't make disparaging comments in public and not expect any consequences.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 25 May 2020, 09:42
And yet, a lot of fans still have a rather simplistic view of Donner The Hero Vs. Salkind Family The Villains and I just think the historical record tells a very different and far more complicated story.
I don't think Donner's ideas for SII were great either, and for all their faults, the Salkinds were still instrumental in getting Superman adapted on film and TV for modern times.
But when you have people who worked on those two films showing their support for Donner, and expressing their own grievances for not getting compensated properly, it's not really hard to understand why the fans would perceive the producers as the villains. It should be noted that Donner was praised by the cast and crew for making a friendly atmosphere on the set. Some go far to say they felt like they were part of a family. I can imagine how distressing it would've been when it was announced that Donner was fired.
Once again, I agree that Donner really put his foot in his mouth. But I do see why people would resent the Salkinds from an emotional point of view.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 26 May 2020, 02:58
Ilya Salkind had accused Donner of calling the producers "assholes" in public.
Quote
After the first movie opened, Salkind recounted that Donner told the Press that "'I'll do 'II' but it's my conditions; if not I won't do it'.... Then he called us a**holes publicly. We can't work with this guy if the guy hates us so then we said let's go and see Lester."
Salkind responded to Donner's insistence in interviews over the years that no one ever contacted him to let him know he wouldn't be returning to finish "Superman II". According to Salkind, Spengler actually tried to call Donner "two or three times to try to say Dick, let's work together, let's bury the hatchet." Salkind remembered that Donner "actually disappeared" during this time and that no one could find him. "That's when, finally, we said 'OK, let's make the film ['II']" with Lester.
Source: https://www.supermanhomepage.com/movies/movies.php?topic=interview-salkind
If Donner said those comments because he thought WB was going to buy the rights from the Salkinds, then I'm afraid to say he only has himself to blame for his lack of professionalism. Even if WB wasn't getting involved, it's still unprofessional to say such things.
I do understand he felt frustrated with the producers, and going by what many actors and crew members have been saying, the Salkinds aren't exactly innocent. But come on, you can't make disparaging comments in public and not expect any consequences.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 25 May 2020, 09:42
And yet, a lot of fans still have a rather simplistic view of Donner The Hero Vs. Salkind Family The Villains and I just think the historical record tells a very different and far more complicated story.
I don't think Donner's ideas for SII were great either, and for all their faults, the Salkinds were still instrumental in getting Superman adapted on film and TV for modern times.
But when you have people who worked on those two films showing their support for Donner, and expressing their own grievances for not getting compensated properly, it's not really hard to understand why the fans would perceive the producers as the villains. It should be noted that Donner was praised by the cast and crew for making a friendly atmosphere on the set. Some go far to say they felt like they were part of a family. I can imagine how distressing it would've been when it was announced that Donner was fired.
Once again, I agree that Donner really put his foot in his mouth. But I do see why people would resent the Salkinds from an emotional point of view.
Agreed, agreed and agreed again. There was a time when STM-S3 were such a legal quagmire that Spengler refused to discuss them in public anymore because every time he did, he claimed he got sued.
But after WB bought
everything, that simplified the legal swamp and I think it freed Donner up to share his side of the story. I suspect one reason why the Salkinds have been so vilified is because Ilya has never mounted the same kind of full offense against Donner. And Spengler is obviously out of the game now.
In the end, with the Salkinds vs. Donner thing, I think the real explanation is that both sides probably wronged the other in a legitimate way and both sides have a good reason to grind an axe.
But the part of me who has had to handle complex business decisions very much understands why Donner had to be let go.
(And yes, S2 is p00p no matter which version we're talking about but Donner's cut is definitely p00pier than Lester's)
I came across comments by BvS detractors saying Superman telling Lois she is his world before making that noble sacrifice is somehow objectivist. Their reasoning? They reckon he only cares about the love of his life and nobody else. Without her, he wouldn't have been inspired to help anybody.
Let's ignore that BS for a second considering Clark grew up saving people as much as he could long before meeting Lois in MOS, I wonder what EXACTLY do these very same detractors have to say about Clark giving up his powers, and ultimately mankind itself, so he could be intimate with Lois in Superman II?
Stupid people.
I've read through this thread and it is interesting because I've been thinking a lot about this recently and in fact, I've thought about it a lot in the past but I rarely share my thoughts on everything.
The issue here is that the mindset of the creative people (Donner, Mank, the Salkinds, and Lester) insists that the status quo must be reset. Bizarre considering that this project started as and mostly remains a two part serial. Why could it not occur to them that this ought to be a three part love story? You can't play the 'well it was early in superhero movie history' card. Well ahead of the MCU, they knew to treat the story like chapters.
The most obvious solution to the Superman 2 ending problem is that you allow Lois to keep her friggin' memory. Shock of all shocks, right?
As far as I'm concerned, while Superman: the Movie remains incredible and Superman 2 (either version) is a grand follow-up, the best story of the Reeve era had yet to be told. Superman 3 would have excelled if the story were about Superman finally resolving this conflict, understanding that the all or none extreme is wrong. Superman 2 IS WRONG! Superman 3 should have been about Lois and Superman finding the balance. Kidder and Reeve could have sold this like crazy, but then again, they could sell you anything. They were magic.
Imagine the Daily Planet where the secret is now both Lois' and Clark's to hide. Imagine the strain that would place on them, Lois especially, knowing that Superman has decided for them both the terms of their loveless relationship. They end up together in the end after fighting another villain that would tie the loose ends together and allow the story to properly end. They fly into the sunset. The End.