Dear Ðìçk:
No, I’m not being insulting. In the intro to SUPERMAN II: THE RICHARD DONNER CUT, you say that your friends call you Ðìçk. So I’m speaking to you now, as a friend.
You blew it.
I mean, so much of your version of S2 was vastly superior to the original theatrical, Richard Lester release, that it’s staggering. Ill-timed humor was removed, scenes with the Kryptonian villains that went on endlessly were quite correctly trimmed. The revise of the Niagra Falls reveal of Clark’s dual identity was a vast improvement. Everything was better, better, and–to use, shocking, the double comparative–more better The sequences with Brando, the explanation (at last!) of how Clark regained his powers after tossing them away. I had a minor quibble when Superman’s defiant “General…would you care to step outside?” was replaced with a different and much less effective line, but as I said…minor.
And then…then, God help us…came the end. Which I will now blow below because there’s no other way to address it:
In the first film, the one moment that infuriated me beyond all measure was when Superman turned the world back.
In the second film, the one moment that infuriated me beyond all measure was when Clark literally sucks Lois’ memory out of her head.
So what did you do?
You removed the brain sucking from the second film…AND REPLACED IT WITH A REPLAY OF SUPERMAN TURNING THE WORLD BACK?!?!?!
WHAT KIND OF A ÐÍÇK THING WAS THAT TO DO?!?
Yet again Superman reverses time. Not only is all damage by the Kryptonians undone, not only does Lois now once again forget his ID, but you actually show the Kryptonians being hurled back into the Phantom Zone and sent hurtling back off into outer space…which means, as you yourself admit in the commentary, “they could return.”
How does this make sense on ANY level? No, I’m not talking about the nonsense physics of reversing the Earth’s rotation. I’m talking about the fact that if this is Superman’s routine MO, why in God’s name did he bother with the entire sequence in the Fortress to remove their powers? The first time he was unable to defeat them, why didn’t just say “Screw it,” reverse time, and be done with it? This is even MORE lame than when he did it the first time, since presumably it was a desperation move and he didn’t know if it would work or not. But now, it’s apparently how he handles every inconvenience. Plus, now Superman–who had depowered the criminals and made them helpless–has now put them back into the predicament from which they could quite possibly escape again and, re-empowered, create more chaos. This is an improvement how, exactly?
It also makes the scene at the end when Clark comes back and avenges himself on the bully even MORE annoying to me. I always felt it was beneath Clark, once he was reempowered, to bìŧçh slap the bully. But you said in the commentary that you felt it was necessary because you didn’t like that, in a Clint Eastwood movie, he didn’t come back and take down a bullying sheriff who threw him out of town. HOW IS THAT RELEVANT? This isn’t Dirty Harry; it’s Superman. But putting that aside, the sequence now makes even less sense since the bully now has NO IDEA WHO CLARK IS, BECAUSE–since Superman turned back time–THE BULLY NEVER BEAT HIM UP. So basically a sequence which was annoying to begin with has now become senseless because here’s how it plays: A trucker is sitting there minding his own business, and some guy with glasses walks in, trash talking him, starts a fight and ends up throwing him into a pinball machine. WTF?
You really had me until the last five minutes, is all I’m saying, and then you let me down. You let me down, Ðìçk. And worse…you let down Superman.
Your pal,
Peter David
• 
Donner also missed the opportunity to cast William Shatner in the first movie as the pilot who sees Superman holding up the wing of the airplane.
I think I read somewhere that the reversing-time-by-flying-really-fast-around-the-planet scene was originally supposed to be the ending for Superman II, but because they were running out of time with the first movie and needed to get it in theatres ASAP, they just borrowed that ending from the sequel, which, as we all know, they were filming at the same time.
So that left Richard Lester to come up with a new ending to the second movie, because he couldn’t use the reversing time thing.
Which still doesn’t explain why Superman would beat up the trucker when their initial fight never took place, but it kind of explains why Superman and The Richard Donner Cut have the same ending.
I heard the same thing, dave g.
I heard the same thing, dave g.
Dave G,
Yeah, that’s basically what Donner said in the commentary for the first film. Except they didn’t steal it from the second film because they ran out of time. He said they used it in the first film because they felt it was the strongest gag they had, and you never know if there’s going to *be* a second film or not.
Yeah, heard the same thing. It’s unfortunate because every single review I’ve read has had the exact same reaction that PAD did.
So out of curiosity…how was Superman 1 supposed to end? How did he bring Lois back to life?
Question:
I haven’t seen the revised film, but did it have anything new? I don’t mean Christopher Reeve scenes, obviously, but anything at all, like new special effects driven scenes?
If this movie was built entirely out of existing material, then that would mean he either stuck with the date-rape kiss or he put back in the ending that he wanted originally. It might be that he’d never have gone with this ending if he’d been allowed to finish the movie the first time around, he just didn’t have much to work with for this special cut.
Well to be fair to Ðìçk, he didn’t have anything to do with this re-edit except providing comentary. I believe it was his AD or editor from the time who reassembled what they could of the original shooting script. And based on the fact they made this new cut off of what was at the time the shooting script Ðìçk was working from, the severely bad ending isn’t really his fault. The Salkines took the ending from 2 and slapped it on 1 leaving Ðìçk if he had had the time to come up with a new ending for 2. But they canned him before the script was rewritten by him and hence if you are following the original shooting script, well you are stuck with the reverse rotation again…
That said, I nearly destroyed my DVD player when this horrible resolution came on screen. As far as I care the movie ended when Lois was dropped off on her balcony. Then to explain Superman Returns I just figure she went inside,tripped and knocked herself senseless and lost her memory of the last week. Yes it’s poor excuse but no worse so than what they actually wrote and i like mine better.
That said this was a far superior version of the movie up until it got stupid in the last 5 minutes. Either way whether this ending was originally supposed to be used for 2 and got tacked onto 1 due to limitations, it was a poor ending to begine with!
Superman II was the last decent live-action Superman movie that I saw. I haven’t seen Superman Returns yet(I’ll get around to it, JEEZ, people, I’m BUSY!) and as intrigued as I was by the idea of the Donner cut of the movie, from everything I heard I figured that it would be about as much fun as any of the OTHER Donner Parties I’ve heard about.
I also had trouble with the whole turning-the-world back thing when I first saw it, I remember saying to my dad in the theater in New York(it was a family thing, my mom and my sisters saw Man of La Mancha, while the men folk, well, man and boy-folk went to the movies) that if he spins the world backwards, wouldn’t the gravity stop? I was an obnoxious little twerp. Not much changes, really. But I have to admit, I always kinda liked the memory-removing kiss. I thought maybe, just maybe, Superman had some telepathy that I didn’t know about, so I was okay with that.
One thing I do kinda like about having them back in the Phantom Zone, though, is it DOES open the possibility of another escape. Yeah, another Zod appearance. I think that could be really cool. I mean, now Zod will be REALLY ticked off. Wouldn’t want him ticked off at ME, I’ll tell you that for nothing.
Holy sh*t, he did WHAT to the ending!?
*jaw drop*
I am truly saddened by this. I was really looking forward to the Donner cut. I guess I’ll just not watch the last five minutes.
This reminds me of the Superman entry in the Super Friends cartoon parody/attack at http://www.seanbaby.com where they point out that, in the cartoon, whenever Superman encountered a tough problem the writers would just have Superman spin in a circle and make up some new power that that would solve. The time travel thing is a lot like that. How fast do you have to go to travel back in time, let alone drag A WHOLE PLANET back in time? Why would Superman remember the former time when no one else could? (Heck, the original Doctor Who had a theory why people didn’t age or forget everything due to time travel.) And if he can reverse time whenever he wants, couldn’t he just erase any mistake by reversing time? I know it can be dangerous applying logic to someone who can fly and (in the words of Full Frontal Nerdity) whose eyes come with an extra-crisp setting, but the time-travel element never made sense.
Of course, the brain sucking may have inadvertently foreshadowed the DC Comics Identity Crisis storyline — except that here Superman (who had no part of the semi-lobotomy in IC) would have used it on an innocent. Blah.
I suppose circling the Earth would be the lesser of the two evils here.
“One thing I do kinda like about having them back in the Phantom Zone, though, is it DOES open the possibility of another escape. Yeah, another Zod appearance.”
Except we’re talking about a re-edit of a 26-year-old movie, not a new movie that’s going to have a sequel. I mean, yeah, Bryan Singer could very well bring back Zod in the next movie (although I hope not), but it wouldn’t be because someone went back and changed the ending to Superman II and put Zod back in the Phantom Zone. The Lester version is still canonical.
But anyway, I was curious about this new version, but now that I know it revisits the worst deus ex machina in movie history, I think I’ll pass.
I don’t see how bìŧçh-šláppìņg the bully is beneath Clark, though. Clearly, he wasn’t the most popular kid in school, so it makes sense that he’s going to harbor some resentment against bullies. And if he picks a fight with him in the first scene (remember, it was Clark who asked him to step outside), when he has no powers, he’s obviously not going to back away when he does have powers. I’ve always rather enjoyed that scene.
Honestly, I’ve also always enjoyed the scene with the bully at the end of “Superman II” — I mean, this was a guy who needed to be taught a lesson before somebody else got beat up. And when I saw the movie in the theater, the audience cheered and applauded when Clark came back to the diner, so clearly the crowd loved it too.
(The counter-argument to the “audience loved it” thesis, though, is when I saw “Spider-Man” in the theater. When Peter let the crook go, then told the wrestling promoter, “I missed the part where that’s my problem,” my audience cheered and applauded. That remains the freakiest “Oh you people don’t EVEN know what’s coming” moments of my moviegoing life.)
That does sound infinitely dumber than Clark just wiping Lois’ memory at the end of Superman II, which I agree was very dumb.
My question is, who deserves the blame for the “turning back time” thing in the first movie? Donner, or Mario Puzo? Puzo wrote the first two movies after all, right?
“I don’t see how bìŧçh-šláppìņg the bully is beneath Clark, though. Clearly, he wasn’t the most popular kid in school, so it makes sense that he’s going to harbor some resentment against bullies. And if he picks a fight with him in the first scene (remember, it was Clark who asked him to step outside), when he has no powers, he’s obviously not going to back away when he does have powers. I’ve always rather enjoyed that scene.”
In the original cut when he goes back for a rematch after getting his powers back, I’d say the bully got what was coming to him.
But in this new cut, Superman reverses time so that the first time the bully beat him up never even happened…and then he goes to get revenge on the bully when the bully hasn’t even DONE anything to deserve a beating (at least not yet). I don’t think that’s right.
Yuck.
Well, I guess I should thank you for saving me the $20. That ending would definitely have cheesed me off and then some. Rent it is.
“…Superman reverses time so that the first time the bully beat him up never even happened…”
Well, if nothing else, we now know what side of the fence Donner’s Superman is on in the geek classic time travel debate of whether or not killing Hitler as a child is the right thing to do or not. Beating the snot out of a guy in retribution for something that he hasn’t yet done and may now never do seems to tilt towards “yes.”
I absolutely, positively, without a shred of doubt agree with PAD on this one. I actually got the DVD to review for my column, and I had low expectations, since “Superman II” is probably my favorite superhero film of all time. Yet, as PAD states, many of the bits did seem to have more “bite” or “oomph” or make more sense. the extended “sentencing” scene with the Kryptonian Villains (hereafter referred to as KV) was intense and made a lot of what was to follow have more impact. The vote to “condemn” the KV had to be unanimous and Jor-El cast the deciding vote? Cool! No wonder they hate him so much! Lois Lane figures out that Clark Kent is Superman at the Daily Planet office, teases him about it, even draws “glasses” on a newspaper photo of Superman and then decides to “prove it” by risking her life by jumping out of the Daily Planet building rather than at Niagra Falls and Clark saves her in another, more believable way? Awesome! Lois going to extreme and clever lengths – at Niagra Falls – to confirm he is Superman? Priceless! A missile from Luthor’s attack on California in the first movie causing the Phantom Zone villains to escape instead of a bomb on the Eiffel Tower? Well it solidified the connection between the films and had a “no good deed goes unpunished” kind of feeling. Jor-El warning his son instead of his mother made more sense – since he never again mentions his mother and when told by Lois “You didn’t know” says “He did” not “she did”.
Jor-El being the instrument of giving his son his powers back and the emotion in that scene was pretty awesome, far superior to just finding a green crystal.
Even one scene I found annoying – when Luthor now wants Cuba on top of Australia – I can justify by it showing Luthor as being ever greedy and scheming.
There were other little parts that annoyed me – especially the less effective “Haven’t you ever heard of freedom of the press” Superman spouts upon first meeting Zod – but I was prepared to pronounce this film as at least equal and possibly superior to the “canonical” version.
Especially with no amnesia kisses or giant S weapons.
Until I saw Supes spinning the world around again, which means…nothing really happened.
Which SUCKS! Because it is a copout of the worst kind. As others have stated, if Superman can do this at will, why did he bother fighting them and de-powering them? Why not fly around the earth once he got his powers back?
And now, the movie ends without Superman reassuring the President he’ll be there from now on, but with the attack on the diner bully. I LOVED the scene in the “canonical” version. Loved it. But here, as others have said, it makes NO SENSE and makes Clark/Superman look like the petty bully instead.
As I ended my column with:
“Bottom line: Is the Donner version worth watching? Absolutely. Should it have been released to theaters? Absolutely not.”
Normally I don’t comment here, but I felt compelled to this time, if only because I just happened to get through listening to the commentary on the Donner Cut before I read this.
First of all, the comment about the Clint Eastwood movie you refer to was actually made by Tom Mankiewicz not Donner, who in fact agreed that you can’t really compare the two. And whilst I agree that the final scene makes no sense after the world has been turned back (and neither Donner nor Mankiewicz really offered an explanation as to why this scene should still be there with the original/new ending in place), I don’t think it’s as catastrophic as you make out, and the only reason the world-turning happens again in the Donner Cut is because it was originally meant to happen in film 2. They even explain in the commentary that Lois being killed was meant to happen in 2, hence the “desperation” (as you put it) to turn the world back. It was supposed to be a one-time thing, and Donner re-used it here because, quite clearly from the interviews and commentaries on the DVDs, he still holds something of a grudge against Richard Lester and wanted to use as little of his material as possible. And I think Donner made the right call.
Except for the absence of the “Would you care to step outside?” line to Zod, everything about the Donner cut is an improvement on the Lester version. Zod is more sinister, Non is shown more like a destruction machine and less like a simpleton, Luthor has more to do… and best of all, Brando as Jor-El unites the two films the way they were meant to be.
The irony, really, is that after Bryan Singer was so indebted to the first two films with Superman Returns, and to Donner in particular, the Donner Cut of Superman II now presents continuity problems with Returns that weren’t there originally. Bust as someone said above, it’s the Lester version that’s canonical, not Donner’s new cut.
“One thing I do kinda like about having them back in the Phantom Zone, though, is it DOES open the possibility of another escape. Yeah, another Zod appearance”
We did sort of get another Zod appearance in “Smallville.” In this year’s season opener (which I finally caught in rerun) I thought it was brilliant that in the brief instant where we saw Zod as he really was, it was either Terrance Stamp or someone made up to look just like Terrance Stamp.
“And whilst I agree that the final scene makes no sense after the world has been turned back (and neither Donner nor Mankiewicz really offered an explanation as to why this scene should still be there with the original/new ending in place), I don’t think it’s as catastrophic as you make out”
I didn’t think the final scene was catastrophic. I thought the decision to have him reverse time and cancel out the whole dámņëd movie (an even more egregious action than in the first film where he simply undid the last ten minutes) was–from a storytelling view–catastrophic. To my mind, it then took the final scene…which to me had always been annoying (Superman is supposed to represent the best that we can be as a species; so his best response to a bully is to become a bigger bully? No.) and make it utterly pointless since he’s punishing someone for an offense that never took place.
PAD
I’d like to address something here: Superman NEVER turned the earth back. Not once, not twice, not ever.
What we were seeing are things from Superman’s point of view as he cracked the time barrier and traveled to the past…from his POV, things moved backwards (including the earth’s rotation). Presumably, he fixes whatever needs fixing (going too fast to be perceived), then cracks the time barrier again (from his POV, the earth now starts revolving in its normal fashion, but fast enough that the viewer can see it, signifying that Superman is time traveling again) to return to the revised present (whereupon the earth stops turning).
Since Superman isn’t actually spinning the earth, it’s no more nonsense physics than any other time travel movie (Star Trek IV, Time After Time, etc.).
Having said that, I’ll simply chime in that Donner indeed says in the Special Features section that the time travel was supposed to be the ending for Superman II. I also agree that this ending dramatically undercuts the movie (the Phantom Zone criminals are still out there, all the great scenes of Jor-El’s sacrifice are rendered moot, and Superman is now more of a bully than he ever was in the Lester cut).
Even with these problems, it’s still a better movie than the theatrical cut as released. Those scenes of Reeve in the Fortress with Brando just SING. The Lester cut may make slightly more sense, but I had a better time with the Donner cut.
You have to remember that Donner was bound by the footage he shot 25 years ago and what little he could use of Lester’s footage.
I read that the time travel bit was originally supposed to be for part II, but was scrapped and used in part I (though they obviously shot the sequences). I think the justification was in the killing and the destruction of the monuments. The phantom zone villains were much harsher villains here and Superman wanted to undo the needless deaths.
I have no idea what he had planned for the ending when he decided to throw the time travel into the end of the first film, but he obviously never got a chance to shoot it. leaving him stuck with either super-kiss or time travel. i can forgive him on it then as he made the best of a bad situation.
I always personally liked the bully scene at the end. To me that’s classic Superman by going in and teaching the guy (who was an established jerk at that diner) some humility. I always felt it was less about Superman getting personal revenge than it was discouraging the bully from harassing the next innocent guy to come in to the diner.
I always personally liked the bully scene at the end. To me that’s classic Superman by going in and teaching the guy (who was an established jerk at that diner) some humility. I always felt it was less about Superman getting personal revenge than it was discouraging the bully from harassing the next innocent guy to come in to the diner.
It’s been a year or two since I saw the movie and of course I haven’t seen this cut so I don’t remember what was said, or even the order of events in that scene, very well.
If he went back and the bully got in his face again and he kicked the bully’s ášš, that’s one thing. If, on the other hand, he went back and kicked the bully’s ášš without being provoked and without telling the bully to clean up his act, that’s something very different.
I haven’t seen the revised film, but did it have anything new? I don’t mean Christopher Reeve scenes, obviously, but anything at all, like new special effects driven scenes?
There are several significant scenes of different footage, which have been alluded to above. Not new, in that they were just filmed, but they’ve been sitting on the cutting room floor for twenty years.
And despite the ending, the rest of the changes make the film well-worth it.
Finding out that the turning back time thing was in RD-S2 has been the single reason I haven’t bothered with it. Yes, the original had weaknesses, but nothing this weak.
The other thing about the bully scene is everyone acts like a fight had happened before. The owner says they just fixed up the place. Clark telling him that he’s been working out only makes sense if he’d seen him before. Now it just reads like a strong young guy with glasses beats up an old man.
What I did like was the sacrifice of Jor-El. Clark loses his father for a second time which makes all the trash talking Zod does about his father actually have some weight. When Zod’s slamming Jor-El, to Superman he’s talking about the father he just lost a few minutes ago.
Yes, the original had weaknesses
Speaking of which…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPiJFpljwUo
>Superman reverses time so that the first time the bully beat him up never even happened…and then he goes to get revenge on the bully when the bully hasn’t even DONE anything to deserve a beating (at least not yet). I don’t think that’s right.
Ah, but … as Mr. Boothby points out: “everyone acts like a fight had happened before. The owner says they just fixed up the place” which suggests the bully didn’t restrict his beating people to just Clark. It is, in fact a reasonable assumption. In which case, just because he hadn’t punched out clark in this revised version of history didn’t mean he didn’t need to be taught a lesson nonetheless. Of course, whether violence is the best way to deal with such an individual is another matter.
So, OK, time travel is possible.
Enter the Time Patrol wielding Gold K and warning Supes that his tampering with the time stream goes against every rule they have and he’s to stop it. Or else.
Works for me.
Mark Patterson at December 17, 2006 07:38 AM
I’d like to address something here: Superman NEVER turned the earth back. Not once, not twice, not ever.
What we were seeing are things from Superman’s point of view as he cracked the time barrier and traveled to the past…from his POV, things moved backwards (including the earth’s rotation). Presumably, he fixes whatever needs fixing (going too fast to be perceived), then cracks the time barrier again (from his POV, the earth now starts revolving in its normal fashion, but fast enough that the viewer can see it, signifying that Superman is time traveling again) to return to the revised present (whereupon the earth stops turning).
Very nice. I never considered that scene as him actually reversing the rotation of the Earth, but rather it was just a visual shorthand they used to present the time travel. Any more than I thought he was really flying past a bunch of dates in the comics when he went back in time.
Donner has said that if he had been allowed to finish the film he would have reworked the ending and come up with something different so it wouldn’t be the same as the first one. I think that the reason they went with this ending was because Donner hated the Lester ending so much. Even though this ending was also lame, and a bit of a letdown from the rest of the film. I also thought the part about going back to beat up the bully was pointless if he had turned back time. On a side note the part I never got about turning time back is wouldn’t there already be a Superman in that time still? A bit of a hole in the plot that always bothered me about the first movie. Someone above suggested ending the movie with Superman flying off from the balcony when he drops off Lois. That would almost make more sense as an ending to tie into Superman Returns. Anyways I even though the ending was repetetive on the whole this movie was a superior film to the Lester version. The Donner Cut in spite of it’s flaws may actually now be my favorite Superman movie.
SPOILER ALERT FOR THOSE THAT HAVEN’T SEEN THE MOVIE YET!!.. The part where General Zod mistakes Jimmy Oleson for the Son of Jor-El is hilarious: “This is the Son of Jor-El?”
I am actually glad that circumstances made it so that Donner had to include the time travel scene in the first film not the second. In the first, it is basically Superman choosing his humanity (Pa Kent’s “you are here for a reason”) over his Kryptonian heritage (“it is forbidden for you to interfere in human history”). It’s unfortunate that people perceive Superman’s “going back in time” as “turning around the world” but alas.
Time travel in the first film makes sense. In the second, it doesn’t make any — why wouldn’t he just do it far sooner rather than bothering defeating the KVs?
Also, this might be rumor, but I’d heard that one plan was for Superman to lose his powers because he defied his father’s warning about interfering in human history. I would have preferred this to Superman willingly giving up his powers. Thus, the second film could have begun with Superman trying to live a normal life with Lois and then discovering that he must find a way to restore his powers since the KVs are loose. It would have been more dramatic, I think, because in the current SUPERMAN 2 (either version), he is human for what seems like an hour and a half.
And, yes, “General, would you care to step outside?” is a great line that is much missed. “Haven’t you heard of freedom of the press” is, well, something Spider-Man would say.
I’ve heard that idea before, that Superman isn’t reversing the Earth’s rotation he’s just going back in time and the Earth *looks* like it is spinning backward. I thought it was a very good idea.
Then my roommate explained why that can’t be the case. In the movie we see him spinning around the Earth until it starts turning backwards. If he just stopped there and time started flowing normally, then the theory would make sense. However, he doesn’t, instead he flies against the rotation, *then* he starts flying in the direction of the proper rotation. After he does that the Earth starts spinning the right way again.
So what’s show to happen is that he spins the Earth back to move time in reverse, then he spins it the right way to start moving time forward again. He wouldn’t need the second set of rotations if he was just going back in time.
I suppose you could get really fancy and say that he went too far back in time and had to go forward a bit. At that point we’re not really talking about what happened at the movie, we’re just writing our own little stories to justify everything.
“I’d like to address something here: Superman NEVER turned the earth back. Not once, not twice, not ever.
What we were seeing are things from Superman’s point of view as he cracked the time barrier and traveled to the past…from his POV, things moved backwards…”
YES YES YES
I have been championing this almost since the day the first film came out.
Oh, and does anyone get the feeling that “your” perfect Superman I and II will never see the light of day, where the best bits of each version are combined? I get that feeling. Got it with the first Star Wars trilogy too…
Peter, Peter, Peter, Peter.
Well, yeah, you’re right about all that. However, you have to take into account that they didn’t really have any other options with the ending. They were reconstructing Donner’s footage of “Superman II” without any of the reshoots that Donner would have done had he not been fired. This version of “Superman II” is what they could produce from what had been completed. Lester’s footage and the ending there are present because they had *nothing* else. No getting around that. (It disappoints me too.)
I’m totally with you on the revenge scene, though. The movie should have simply never gone back to the diner and had Superman soaring above the Earth following the final Daily Planet scene.
I think there’s a certain irony in how Donner’s “Superman II” was the movie that never happened, and with the ending, didn’t happen within itself, either. The slate is cleared entirely for whatever led up to “Superman Returns.”
Donner *was* involved in editing as a consultant, so anyone who wants to blame editor Michael Thau is misinformed. Donner was there to give his take on how the cut ought to be put together, and while he didn’t personally edit the sequences, he provided input on what should stay and what should go. He and the screenwriter decided on the “turn back time” ending over the “magic kiss.”
A few weeks ago, I watched Superman and Superman II the Donner cut back to back. And I enjoyed them. But I have to agree there are major problems with Supes reversing the flow of time or going back in time, as the case may be (I favor the second interpretation, for the record). Yes, according to the information provided on the DVD commentary, that was the original ending of Superman II; and yes, Lois’ death originally occured in Superman II (which was the impetus for Supes to try to change what happened); but his going back in time- in and of itself- wouldn’t have changed Lois’ knowledge about Clark and Supes.
Even if the Phantom Zone villains had never existed- much less broken free of the Phantom Zone- Lois and Clark would still have been in Niagra falls, and Lois would still have pulled her bluff with the gun. The only way Lois would not remember (short of an “amnesia kiss” of course) is if at some point off camera Supes visited his past self and said, “the gun has blanks. Don’t fall for it.” (Presumably he also diverted the runaway missile, so it didn’t intersect with the Phantom Zone, off camera.)
But since they didn’t see Supes take any action to warn his past self, I think the average person watching that whole sequence will be confused as to why Lois doesn’t remember.
Of course, the “turn back time” ending of the first movie also raises questions. O.K., Supes goes back in time and goes to Lois before her car falls into the crevice that opens up beneath her. She gets out; they talk; Jimmy shows up; and Supes flies away (presumably to finish repairing the Earthquake damage). All well and good, but as a friend said as we were watching the movies, he’d have liked to have seen that crevice open up. Only now, of course, Lois is already out of the car. It doesn’t make sense that that didn’t happen. After all, the earthquake still took place. We know because Jimmy complained about being left in the middle of one.
So, yeah, in both films the turning back time/going back in time ending wasn’t too well thought out. But at least it’s not an amnesia kiss. Actually, here’s a better ending. Well, teeny bit better, at any rate. Picture this: Supes goes back in time and prevents the Phantom Zone villains from escaping, by diverting the missile once it’s in space. He can’t do anything about Lois knowing his secret because the only way to do so would be to visit his past self, and that would cause paradoxes (More so than his preventing Zod, Ursa and Non from escaping in the first place). He doesn’t want to do that.
And truthfully, he doesn’t really _want_ to do anything about Lois knowing, either. In some ways, it makes things easier for him. He loves her, therefore he trusts her; and it’s good to have an ally.
Of course Lois won’t have any memory of the Phantom Zone criminals (nor will anyone else) because the events concerning them now never happened. Or so Supes thinks. He doesn’t realize that Lois’ time in the Fortress exposed her to some Kryptonian Thingamacallit that allowed her to remember the timeline that had been. But here’s the thing, Lois deals with the concrete, observable universe. From the evidence of her own senses (as well as statements from everyone she’d talk to) there was no attack by super-powered Kryptonians. The Daily Planet is undamaged, as is the rest of Metropolis, the White House, and the Washington Monument. And those astronauts on the moon are just fine, thanks for asking.
But she remembers all the damage and destruction. But it never happened. So she must have imagined it. She must have imagined “shooting” Clark with blanks and getting him to admit he was Superman, as well. After all, he didn’t save her when she jumped out the window at the Planet. In fact, he was still standing in the window, looking down at her in that pile of fruit. If he was Superman, he would have saved her.
Like I said, a teeny bit better. Deep down, Lois would still have her doubts about what really happened and what didn’t, and sooner or later would probably once again try to determine if her suspicions of Clark were correct. Right about the time Superman III would come out (In a universe where Richard Donner went on to direct Superman III and Margot Kidder was in the film (beyond a cameo), that is).
Of course a _much_ better ending than any of the above would this: Supes cleans up the damage (as he did in the Lester version), Lois retains her memory of his dual identity, and their relationship develops from there. Yeah, I know, it would never have happened in the comics world of the 1970s and early 1980s, but it would’ve been more real.
On another matter, the last time we see the (now depowered) Phantom Zone villains, they are thrown (or fall in Non’s case) into crevices in the Fortress of Solitude. For all we know, they’re dead, Jim. Have Superman and Lois killed them? Looks that way, since we never see them again. But wait, there’s a deleted scene showing them being hauled off to waiting Jeep-like vehicles. Now, why was that scene deleted? Did they _want_ the audience to think Supes and Lois had killed Zod and Ursa, and that Non had brought on his own death?
Finally, I direct your attention to the comicbook _Best of DC Blue Ribbon Digest #1- Superman_, Sept./Oct. 1979, pages 42-43. No writer is credited, but Murphy Anderson did the artork. The scene is on par with Rick Jones’ “man, you’re nasty when you’re drunk, Superman” joke from PAD’s run on _Incredible Hulk_. Clark Kent sits as his desk as Lois Lane trips and falls out the nearby open window (don’t they believe in screen windows at the Daily Planet?).
“Great Scott” Lois tripped and fell out the window”, Clark thinks. Though why he invokes the name of a supermarket remains a mystery. He leaps out after her. “No time to change into my Superman costume.” And so Clark dives after Lois and catches her in mid air.
“Aha! I always thought you were Superman, Clark. That’s why I only pretended to fall out the window!” (said the woman who was plummeting toward the ground; good job of “pretending” there, Lois).
In the final panel, we see Clark at his desk again. Morgan Edge walk in. “Say, Clark… where is Lois?”
“Lois? She fell out the window.”
Rick
I’ve never had a problem with the amnesia kiss. At least there had been nothing previous to this scene to indicate that he COULDN’T do that, as opposed to the turning-back-time thing, which is contradicted by the fact that he couldn’t fly fast enough to stop two missiles earlier in the movie. And, as Jason indicated, the evidence seems to point to him actually reversing the Earth’s rotation, which makes it even dumber. And how exactly does this fix the problem, anyway? To quote Family Guy, “No, no, nothing about this adds up at all!”
Incidentally, it’s Niagara Falls, not “Niagra.” Normally I wouldn’t say anything, but when three different people make the same mistake, it starts to bug me.
“Well, yeah, you’re right about all that. However, you have to take into account that they didn’t really have any other options with the ending.”
Yes, they did. Lois is left remembering his identity. The “your secret is safe with me” scene is perfect as it is. Cut to the bully scene (if it MUST be there), he flies over earth, roll credits.
That’s the real killer, you know. The first time around, Superman turns back time because he wants to save Lois. This time around, he does it because–let’s face it–he DOESN’T trust her. It wasn’t like the original theatrical release where she’s clearly suffering. In this instance, Lois very maturely and capably handles the information and obviously has her act together. There’s nothing in that scene to indicate she’s going to come unravelled.
I don’t care about the history of the sequence. I care about this version of the movie, the one they’re selling on DVD. And this version was great up until the last five minutes, and then they flushed it away.
PAD
Peter, at least Supes did NOT impregnate Lois and THEN wipe her memory of the conception.
Right?
— Ken from Chicago (who’s really starting to like SUPERMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES a lot more, almost as much as BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES)
1
Peter I completely agree with you WRT the ending of the movie.
However, I disagree with you about the rest of it. For the most part, I felt the Donner cut was inferior to Superman 2’s theatrical release.
And that sucks; because I really wanted to like this movie.
The added scenes with Lex and Otis trying to escape from jail were completely unnecessary and merited staying on the cutting floor. As was the inane conversation between Lex and Ms Teschmacher on the hot air balloon (and I’ll say it again, what kind of escape plan involves getting out of jail in a hot air balloon to begin with? It’s asinine. The cops could have shot the friggin’ balloon down, or even tracked it. The guards come across as completely inept since they don’t appear to even try tracking Lex once he’s “up, up and away”).
While I have no problem with Lois trying to discover Superman’s identity, I think it goes beyond the realm of determination and into stupidity to fall out of a window to make a point. I also question the idea of even an unloaded gun being pointed at Clark. Even if she knew for certain before he told her…she’s still pulling a gun on a friend to prove a point! How disturbed is she??!!
I’d hoped they would have corrected Zod’s conclusion on how the PZ’ers had super powers, as it’s a tremendous leap to simply assume that a different star gives them superpowers, but they kept that in.
They also had the opportunity to eliminate Ursa getting bit by the snake. I’m still not quite certain how bullets and bombs explode harmlessly off them, but a lil’ ol snake can bite her. If that’s all it took, Superman could have tossed a few copperheads their way and be done with them.
The change in dialogue, while minor, was still annoying (the scene you spoke about, as well as Zod’s comments to Superman at the start of the battle).
As you say, they also had the chance to eliminate the diner scene, but opted to leave that in; the resolution of which, is so Un-Superman like.
I do think the biggest gripe is once again turning back time. Didn’t like it in the first one (how did he even discover he could do that?) and hate it even more in this cut.
The only things I liked were the addition of Brando’s Jor-El talking to Clark (though I hate how they’ve added that to the comics) and the linking of the missile from S1 to the escape of the PZers.
God, I wasted 19.99 on this piece of crap. I’d rather go watch Batman & Robin. At least with that movie, I have *no* hopes that it will be good.
Tony
Over all, I liked Donner’s Superman II a lot better. Even the duplicate ending didn’t bother me because the movie STARTS with the end Superman: The Movie was supposed to have– the missle being launched in to space without the need for Clark to reverse time.
Keep rationalizing, folks. It’s obvious that Supes turned time back by reversing the Earth’s rotation, because he then had to reverse course and start the planet on its normal rotation. You can rationalize all you want, but that’s what the movie shows.
I always hated the bully scene at the end, also. If I was rewriting it I would have Clark go into the diner, confront the bully, wait for him to swing, then lift him up high by his shirt collar and say something like, “The next time you decide to pick on somebody weaker than you, remember there’s always somebody stronger than you.” Then set him down nicely, maybe dust off his shoulders, and leave.
“They also had the opportunity to eliminate Ursa getting bit by the snake. I’m still not quite certain how bullets and bombs explode harmlessly off them, but a lil’ ol snake can bite her. If that’s all it took, Superman could have tossed a few copperheads their way and be done with them.”
I always just assumed that the snake didn’t pierce her skin or hurt her, but she reacted the way she did out of instinct, because she’s not used to being invulnerable.
The best version is the one you rewrite in your own mind. Sometimes it’s the only way to enjoy a movie. Somebody should open a company for rewriting disappointing movies. If your imagination is good enough you can gradually remember the movie the way it was supposed to be. You already have the memories in your mind, all that’s requires is some re-editing.
I may be an extreme minority here, but I have always enjoyed the scene where Clark goes back to teach the diner bully a lesson. Granted, it’s a useless scene if he’s turned back time, but it worked for me in the original version.
I have never liked how Clark has been portrayed as a weakling, simply to keep his Superman identity secret. I always preferred the Lois and Clark Dean Cain version of Clark, as that portrayal was done so that Clark was the real person, and Superman was the disguise. The revenge scene witht he diner bully is the closest the movies have ever come to making Clark more than one dimensional.
I had hoped that they would do that again with Superman Returns, but no, we have the weakling, unconfident Clark-as-disguise again.
Other than the portrayal of Clark, I have enjoyed all of the movies and TV shows.
A bit off topic, but my two cents.
All of the Superman movies (and, to some extent the TV shows) have let down Superman. At the very least they could have Superman look like Superman but, instead, they hire skinny guys who can’t act.
But the other problem is that Superman is far too perfect. Just once I want to see a Superman who can, at least, make mistakes and suffer from them.
If Superman is simply traveling back in time in the first movie, then you have the classic time travel paradox:
Current Superman is doing what he did in the original timeline. Future Superman is saving Lois. With Lois saved, why does Current Superman go back in time? When does he find out he needs to? or does Future Superman create an alternate timeline when he goes back in time to save Lois – in which case, what does one do with two Supermen?
As far as the bully thing goes, I seem to recall that bothering me when i first saw Superman II when it came out. Yeah, I’m sure that with his powers Clark can beat the crap out of the guy. What’s his motivation? Petty revenge? Or teaching the bully a lesson, so he’ll change his ways? Can’t be sure that this’d get the desired effect, in the latter case. If this guy is beating up other people consistently, wouldn’t it have been better to keep an ear open for the guy to start bullying someone else, someone clearly weaker than him – and then to secretly use his powers to make it look like some nebbish took the bully down? Always felt like revenge, pure and simple to me – and, yeah, *my* Superman was above that sort of thing.
I guess that’s why I don’t think I’ll watch SUPERMAN RETURNS again. The various moral issues inherent in the new character added to the mythos in the movie (spoilers? not if I can help it) simply made Clark seem like so much less than he ought to be.
RD Francis
I like the beating up the bully scene. Not in the revised version, I mean the original.
It’s a flaw. People say Superman is too perfect and is boring, but here he indulges in a little revenge. It’s not so bad that the guy is seriously injured, he mainly hurt the bully’s pride. The thing that makes it OK for me is that the guy didn’t just attack Clark, he did it in front of Lois. So the guy wasn’t just someone who hurt Clark, he made him look bad in front of his girl. That makes this little bit of revenge seem very human.
Is the kiss at the end of the Lester version often known as the “date-rape kiss?” If manipulation takes place after sex, can the charge of coercion be made retroctively?
If Superman wanted to teach the guy in the diner a lesson without abusing his power, couldn’t he just show up in a rainbow clown-wig and Groucho-glasses, let the guy take a swing, then reveal himself to be Superman and tell him his broken hand is what he gets for indulging in aggression?
There were so many instances of bad writing in both versions of SUPERMAN II that I don’t think the movie could have been made passable without a complete overhaul of the script. This was clearly a situation where science fiction concepts were being executed by writers who didn’t have the faintest idea of how to handle science fiction. The name of the game is internal logic; having established a fantastic premise, you must work within the rules of that premise. If the rules need to be changed in mid-stream in order to advance the story, then there’s a problem with either the premise or the writer.
In fact, the “turning back the world” bit which Donner recycled for SUPERMAN II got me thinking about how the corresponding scene from the first movie could have been made to work better as a time travel stunt, rather than a literal reversal of the Earth’s rotation, as is apparently the case. That, to me, was the weakest part of SUPERMAN, as it was an example of the aforementioned inept handling of SF. I’m sure I’m not the first to have come up with this notion, but here it is:
Following the tragic aftermath of the earthquake, Superman launches himself into space and begins flying around the planet at hyper-speed — but instead of the Earth being shown reversing its rotation, we just see the recent events on the planet playing out in reverse from Superman’s point of view, making it clear that he’s traveling backwards through time.
THEN, when he reaches the point in time where he sees himself pushing the first missile out into space, Superman breaks out of his time-flight and zips down to California, where he intercepts and diverts the second missile before it can hit the San Andreas fault, preventing the earthquake (and all the attendant destruction) from happening in the first place.
Having thus altered the course of history, Superman fades out of existence as his past self makes his way to the west coast to find that the second missile has somehow disappeared. Superman feels a slight shiver, as though sensing that something unnatural has happened — but the feeling quickly fades, and with California no longer in danger he heads back to Metropolis to apprehend Luthor, bringing the movie to its conclusion.
– Frank