World An Idea about the Ending of SII: DC

[treeringralph]

The Moviehole review said this:

The finale – incorporating the ‘turn back the time’ element – is also quite touching. Knowing they can’t be together, a weepy Lois agrees to let Superman turn back the clock so that the next day, everything will be back to how it was…before she knew his secret identity. It’s actually quite touching. Kidder is especially excellent in the scenes (Donner says in the commentary that the waterworks were real – she didn’t need anything to help her cry).

We've all taken that to mean that Superman does the same thing from the ending of STM, but if you carefully check the wording, I don't believe that necessarily MUST be the case. Therefore, I was wondering, would it change anything to anyone if Superman essentially reversed the effects of the movie's plot "accidentally?"

What if Superman flies back to the Fortress once he's talked to Lois and realizes that he should've never told her his secret, given up his powers, and so on. He THEN realizes that the Fortress poses a threat to him: Luthor knows about the Fortress' location and the "depowering" machine found there. Supes knows he can be forced to enter the chamber again by merely threatening those he loves. Also, Superman might someday dream of becoming a "mere mortal" once again, and he can't allow himself to have that option.

So, he destroys the Fortress.

Remarkably, as he destroys the Fortress, he unknowingly reverses the effects (or time, if you will) of his decision to depower and tell Lois his true identity. This is when we would see things like Perry brushing his teeth and other footage played in reverse. Of course, this would not negate the appearance of the Phantom Zone Villains.

What do you think?


It is most likely that he just turns back time like the ending of STM, but perhaps they tweaked the concept a bit to make it a bit fresher.


-trr

 

[bond 007]

dont forget donner originally said that the turn back time ending was shot for SM:II and when it looked like there wasn't enough money to finish both they changed the ending of SM to incorporate it. So the new beginning of SM:II is probably the original ending to SM

 

[treeringralph]

Judging from the sound captured from the Comic Con panel on SIIC, I believe the beginning of the film will be a recap of the kryptonian trial (with Brando reinstated).

I've often wondered what the original ending of STM was going to be before they tacked on the "back-in-time" ending from II.

Still, the question is, does anyone think that something similar to what I originally described could be what we get on November 28? Clint from Moviehole seemed pretty set on not "ruining" SIIC for us.

-trr

 

[buggs0268]

The Moviehole review said this:

The finale – incorporating the ‘turn back the time’ element – is also quite touching. Knowing they can’t be together, a weepy Lois agrees to let Superman turn back the clock so that the next day, everything will be back to how it was…before she knew his secret identity. It’s actually quite touching. Kidder is especially excellent in the scenes (Donner says in the commentary that the waterworks were real – she didn’t need anything to help her cry).

We've all taken that to mean that Superman does the same thing from the ending of STM, but if you carefully check the wording, I don't believe that necessarily MUST be the case. Therefore, I was wondering, would it change anything to anyone if Superman essentially reversed the effects of the movie's plot "accidentally?"

What if Superman flies back to the Fortress once he's talked to Lois and realizes that he should've never told her his secret, given up his powers, and so on. He THEN realizes that the Fortress poses a threat to him: Luthor knows about the Fortress' location and the "depowering" machine found there. Supes knows he can be forced to enter the chamber again by merely threatening those he loves. Also, Superman might someday dream of becoming a "mere mortal" once again, and he can't allow himself to have that option.

So, he destroys the Fortress.

Remarkably, as he destroys the Fortress, he unknowingly reverses the effects (or time, if you will) of his decision to depower and tell Lois his true identity. This is when we would see things like Perry brushing his teeth and other footage played in reverse. Of course, this would not negate the appearance of the Phantom Zone Villains.

What do you think?


It is most likely that he just turns back time like the ending of STM, but perhaps they tweaked the concept a bit to make it a bit fresher.


-trr

Superman already destroys the Fortress in Donners cut of S2. After he and Lois have a talk in the Arctic, he flies her to a distance, and then uses his heat vision and destroys the Fortress as it is pretty much destroyed, his Dad is dead and he no longer needs to go to it to talk to him, and it is a sign that he truly is grown up and on his own. That stuff was in the 1982 two night ABC showing. So this already takes place. So Superman actually does go ahead and fly around the earth again to turn back time.

 

[House_of_El]

The Moviehole review said this:

The finale – incorporating the ‘turn back the time’ element – is also quite touching. Knowing they can’t be together, a weepy Lois agrees to let Superman turn back the clock so that the next day, everything will be back to how it was…before she knew his secret identity. It’s actually quite touching. Kidder is especially excellent in the scenes (Donner says in the commentary that the waterworks were real – she didn’t need anything to help her cry).

We've all taken that to mean that Superman does the same thing from the ending of STM, but if you carefully check the wording, I don't believe that necessarily MUST be the case. Therefore, I was wondering, would it change anything to anyone if Superman essentially reversed the effects of the movie's plot "accidentally?"

What if Superman flies back to the Fortress once he's talked to Lois and realizes that he should've never told her his secret, given up his powers, and so on. He THEN realizes that the Fortress poses a threat to him: Luthor knows about the Fortress' location and the "depowering" machine found there. Supes knows he can be forced to enter the chamber again by merely threatening those he loves. Also, Superman might someday dream of becoming a "mere mortal" once again, and he can't allow himself to have that option.

So, he destroys the Fortress.

Remarkably, as he destroys the Fortress, he unknowingly reverses the effects (or time, if you will) of his decision to depower and tell Lois his true identity. This is when we would see things like Perry brushing his teeth and other footage played in reverse. Of course, this would not negate the appearance of the Phantom Zone Villains.

What do you think?


It is most likely that he just turns back time like the ending of STM, but perhaps they tweaked the concept a bit to make it a bit fresher.


-trr

You have a good thought there.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

As the 'turning back time' sequence was originally the climax to Supes II, how did Superman originally deal with Lois' demise in the first movie? Did she just not die?

 

[House_of_El]

As the 'turning back time' sequence was originally the climax to Supes II, how did Superman originally deal with Lois' demise in the first movie? Did she just not die?

Yeah the original ending to the first film was for Superman to just go and save Jimmy & Lois after the nuclear rocket went off on the fault line. Personally I would've preferred what it originally should've been.

 

[buggs0268]

As the 'turning back time' sequence was originally the climax to Supes II, how did Superman originally deal with Lois' demise in the first movie? Did she just not die?

He gets there to save Lois just in time, and makes some joke about flipping the car or something with Lois. Mankelweitcz talks about it while that scene is playing during the commentary.

 

[BatFitz]

I would've liked it better had he not disobeyed his Father....but then again...he does sleep with Lois

 

[House_of_El]

Didn't Donner say that there is going to be a new ending?

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Didn't Donner say that there is going to be a new ending?

From what I gathered, he did reportedly state that he and Michael Thau wanted to do an ending that could potentially tie the Donner Cut to "Returns". No word yet on the result of that statement; the celebs and the press from the screening seem rather tight-lipped on the subject. But the DVD comes out in 10 days, so I guess we'll see at that point.

 

[captain_jimbo]

He gets there to save Lois just in time, and makes some joke about flipping the car or something with Lois. Mankelweitcz talks about it while that scene is playing during the commentary.

That'd be great to see too.