Quote:

Jason E. Perkins said:
According to my craziest comic book friend, Donner's cut is "like a whole different movie." Whether that means what it really says, or something closer to what Rob expects, I dunno.



i just bought and watched the new superman II tonight, and its pretty much like a whole different movie.

the basic plot is the same, many scenes and dialog are the same, but there's so much new content and so much reworked content that it feels entirely different.

significantly better, too, i'd say.

Quote:

Pig Iron said:
All the goofy stuff is cut out... {snip} no stupid celophane "S" being thrown



the best part about the donner version is what was left out from lester's.

(THPOILERTH!!)

the entire, awkward "battle scene" that ended the lester version, with the ... teleporting... duplicating people, and giant "S"aran wrap, and ability to "force" lasers with hands, its all gone.

lois doesn't nearly drown by the falls, weird crystal tv's don't appear in the fortress, supes mommy is nowhere to be found, and even the weird skeleton/melt effects of the power booth... thing are no more.

whats left is a film significantly more true to the first film, true to the characters, and true to the established lore, enhanced by all of the "new" aspects; the farewell lois / superman scene, jor-el's interaction with his son, luthor's quips, etc. fantastically done.

Quote:

Pig Iron said:
It also makes Superman Returns make more sense--because "the son becomes the father the father becomes the son" kryptonian prophecy is played up in the donner cut and makes Returns more fluid to follow... i now like Superman Returns better because of this version of II.



agreed.

Quote:

Pig Iron said:
The original ending to movie 1 was meant to not happen as such, and i think the lois death was added at the last minute. The going back in time ending for 2 was the way in which II was supposed to end-not 1.



aye.

in the dvd extras, they explain in better detail that superman 1 & 2 were shot at the same time, not sequentially, and that the "around the earth" part was meant to end the second film.

however, with time limits at hand, and a stronger rush to get the first movie out on time, WB opted to use the "big finale" to end the first movie. donner figured he could always go back and create a new ending to superman II with the extra year before it was in theaters, however he was fired before getting the opportunity.

Quote:

the G-man said:
Yes, but if Clark uses time travel to erase everything that came before, then he never lost his powers, he was never actually in the diner and the guy never actually beat him up. So Clark is taking revenge on a guy who didn't assault him.



thats the only part i didn't really care for.

for starters, i'm against the whole "go back in time" notion, as its just too easy of a fix. i take a strong stand against such a travesty! i didn't like it in the first film or in the donner version of the second.

but mostly... i just didn't understand what superman undid in this film. he went back in time to just before zod arrived? earlier? and why? wont they still be knocking at the door soon enough? did the diner guy remember him? did the chief sorta remember his desk was fucked up?

why couldn't superman have just gone back in time during the manhatt...polis street fight, to undo things then?

and what was even the motivation for going back in time here? he saved the day, re-imprisoned luthor, got rid of the phantom zone folks, and could have easily helped rebuild whatever was destroyed. the only thing that "needed" to be undone was the fact that lois knew his ID. ...which ... is a lame reason.

i know that it had to be completed in that fashion, because it was the only available footage to tell the story, but... i still didn't like how it completed the tale.

however, minor nerdy gripes aside, it was still a very kick ass flick.

giant picture