World Donner Cut = Rubbish. Discuss.

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Andrew!

The whole "trip over a rug" crap from the Lester version was ten times more illogical then this scene. This scene makes Lois look smart by tricking Superman into revealing his secret ID, by catching him off guard. I can suspend my disbelief a whole lot better with that than with Superman tripping over a rug.

Wrong - I already explain how the trip made much more sense.

Firstly Superman could see there was no bullet coming at him when Lois fired. Therefore he could have just fainted. There was no reason to reveal his identity at that point.

Whereas the trip was a subconscious manifestation of his will channelled through the bungling Kent persona. Deep down he wanted to tell Lois (which he more or less says after the fact).

It never had anything to do with biology. As long as he had powers, Kal-El wouldn't be able to fully commit to Lois because he would have so many responsibilities as Superman. He picked one woman over the rest of the whole world. Sex had very little to do with it. Even in the Lester version, I got that from it. Only here, we get Brando instead of Susana York, and it all becomes so much better.

So in the comics Superman hasn't yet fully committed to a relationship with Lois - is that what you are saying?

Rocky seemed to me like he was a regular at that diner, and bullied everyone in there around freely, long before Clark and Lois showed up there. The point of the scene is that Superman is simply putting an obnoxious bully in his place.

Superman had no proof that Rocky was a bully.

1. The scene on the moon with those three astronauts getting slaughtered built up their menace much better, as did them invading the white house and easily crushing the Secret Service and military defenses set up in there to get to the President.

Both of which were in the Lester cut so we lost nothing.

2. The reason for the camera crew being there didn’t change. It was still because of the damage Zod and Co caused.

But they didn't cause any damage (in the Donner Cut prior to the army showing up), so how did the camera crew know to be there!?

It was totally illogical in the Donner Cut.

Only difference is that a bunch of goofy campy nonsense was cut out of the film and we get to the aftermath of it, as well as the more effective slaughter of the U.S military. Zod telling the General that his superior now serves him made him and his two friends ten times scarier than the moronic scenes involving Ursha arm wrestling some hick through a table.

They slowly built up the menace by gradually escalating the violence.

Given that he tricked them by switching the machine that made him human, and used it to turn them human, it sure as hell doesn’t come off to me like he “gave up”.

Zod would not have fell for his capitulation so easily.

Good. Those elements sucked anyway. They belonged in a goofy comedy, not in an Epic Superhero movie. The White House invasion did a much better job showcasing how powerful and destructive Zod and Co were, anyway.

I disagree, those scenes, were fun AND menacing, thats the genius of them. I seem to recall when Zod throws the guy through a wall there is a change in the music that basically tells you that 'playtime is over'.

Given that the ending was now different, that scene no longer had any place in the movie. Directors always cut good scenes from their movies when they don’t fit in with the final cut. And here, Donner is cutting out a scene that wasn’t even HIS to begin with. I’d say that because this is HIS cut of the film, he has every right to do that, just like Lester had every right to reshoot most of what Donner originally shot in order to get credit for directing the movie.

I'm talking about in terms of the gravitas in closing out a movie. Not whether or not Donner has to use one scene or another.

Replacing the flag on the White House is a FAR, FAR more potent image than Lois Lane ordering a ******-******* pizza.

The way Lois figures out Superman is Clark Kent is much better handled, as is that entire sub-plot of Lois suspecting Clark of being Supes. The way Lester handled that plot, and those scenes, really sucked. They were poorly scripted and shot.

I already explain how you are wrong at the top of the post.

The Small Town scenes with the Phantom Zone Villains were overly campy and served to make them less threatening. I am glad most of that crap is gone, because the movie is much better off without it.

Totally disagree, they slowly built up the menace AND gave a plausible reason why a camera crew happened to be there - so wrong again on your part.

The Plastic Candy Wrapper S stuff in the Fortress, as well as all the other “new” powers Lester gave Supes and the villains, were absolutely ridiculous.

Yet Donner still kept in the force ray when Zod levitated the shotgun.

The finale with Lois’s life being threatened was ten times more intense without those bits in there as well.

I disagree again. Without those bits it looked like Superman gave up without a fight.

In fact it paralleled the earlier line "No one who rules so many would kneel so quickly".

He needed the fights in the Fortress to make his ploy believable.

The only good thing Lester added was the “Care to step outside Zod” line. Everything else about the movie that was “his” sucked, and I am glad most of it is gone in this new cut. Adding those Donner scenes to the Lester cut wouldn’t make it better, because most of the Lester crap would still be in there dragging it all down.

Well thats your opinion which I have objectively shown to be wrong.

The bottom line is this. You can say you prefered the Donner cut - thats fair enough. What you can't say is that it was more entertaining, more fun, more action packed or more logical - because it was simply none of those things.

 

[Fried Gold]

Both of which were in the Lester cut so we lost nothing.

False. There was no Zod gunning people down in the Lester cut.

 

[FreeRadical]

Donner cut...rubbish? The film is disjointed, but Donner did actually film 70% of SII during the filming of Superman. His version was darker, especially with Supes disagreeing with his father.

If you want rubbish, watch the deleted scenes from Superman IV....

 

[Upper_Krust]

False. There was no Zod gunning people down in the Lester cut.

I said the attack on the White House scene (in general) was still in the Lester version, not that it had every individual moment of shot footage included regarding the White House.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi FreeRadical!

Donner cut...rubbish? The film is disjointed, but Donner did actually film 70% of SII during the filming of Superman.

I find the Lester version to be a far superior entity.

I'm only criticising the changes Donner imposed, not the movie itself.

His version was darker, especially with Supes disagreeing with his father.

I agree Donner's version is 'darker', but its not more entertaining.

If you want rubbish, watch the deleted scenes from Superman IV....

If you offered me the choice I would rather watch Superman IV (simply because I haven't seen it in quite a while).

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Hi Andrew!

Wrong - I already explain how the trip made much more sense.

Firstly Superman could see there was no bullet coming at him when Lois fired. Therefore he could have just fainted. There was no reason to reveal his identity at that point.

Whereas the trip was a subconscious manifestation of his will channelled through the bungling Kent persona. Deep down he wanted to tell Lois (which he more or less says after the fact).

Whatever. The other scene is better because it makes Lois actually work at finding out his secret. If Clark wanted to tell Lois, he probably would have JUST TOLD HER instead of tripping over a rug. If Lester did it that way, it would've been a lot better replacement of what Donner originally planned than what he created.

So in the comics Superman hasn't yet fully committed to a relationship with Lois - is that what you are saying?

Ummm. This movie came out in the early 1980s. It was filmed in late 1970s. Back then, there is no way in hell Lois would've married Superman. This was still pre-chrisis Superman, long before John Bryne came in and rebooted him.

It is absolutely weak for you to use what happened in a 1990's comic (ten years or so after Supes II) to try and invalidate my point. Absolutely weak. Come on, you can do better than that.

Superman had no proof that Rocky was a bully.

Ummmm... if it was obvious to me, I am sure it was obvious to Superman.

Both of which were in the Lester cut so we lost nothing.

I don't think you understand how film editing works. Even good scenes get cut when they don't flow with the rest of the movie, and this was a stupid scene that deserved to be cut. It was a British director's take on what a small american town was. It didn't belong with the rest of the movie. It didn't fit the tone of what Donner wanted the movie to be, so he cut it.

But they didn't cause any damage (in the Donner Cut prior to the army showing up), so how did the camera crew know to be there!?

It was totally illogical in the Donner Cut.

They did cause damage there. You just didn't see it because it now happened off screen. That works a lot better then those stupid scenes anyway, so I am glad they went with that idea.

They slowly built up the menace by gradually escalating the violence.

We got that aspect of it on the moon, followed by the scene with the cops. That was enough. We didn't need those scenes in that bar at all.

Zod would not have fell for his capitulation so easily

He fell for it the same way in Lester's cut too. Only difference is now we don't have that stupid Plastic Wrap S being thrown at the villains or Superman suddenly gaining teleportation powers. No big loss to me.

I disagree, those scenes, were fun AND menacing, thats the genius of them. I seem to recall when Zod throws the guy through a wall there is a change in the music that basically tells you that 'playtime is over'.

They threw me right out of the movie when I saw them. Any value that scene had was already there in other places in the movie, and done much better in those scenes. An easy cut.

I'm talking about in terms of the gravitas in closing out a movie. Not whether or not Donner has to use one scene or another.

Replacing the flag on the White House is a FAR, FAR more potent image than Lois Lane ordering a ******-******* pizza.

Keeping Lester's ending would've meant keeping the Amnesia Kiss of Death. Turning back time itself so Lois never found out he was Superman is a hell of a lot better than making her forget it by kissing her to me. Of course, if Donner had been able to go back and finish II, the ending would've been different completely because he wound up using the Earth Spin to Reverse Time Flow ending in the first movie.

I already explain how you are wrong at the top of the post.

Not really.

Totally disagree, they slowly built up the menace AND gave a plausible reason why a camera crew happened to be there - so wrong again on your part.

They were there because of the strange sightings of superpowered beings in the area. The reporter said that when he opened his mouth in front of the camera. You really didn't pay much attention to the film did you?

Yet Donner still kept in the force ray when Zod levitated the shotgun.

They had to keep SOME of Lester's crap to make the picture flow. Thankfully they eliminated as much of it as possible, aside from scenes like that. I am not sure Donner planned on having these villains destroy a small town anyway. I believe was planning of having them destroy an actual large city. He just never got to film it, so he had to use the small town stuff Lester created (but kept the best bits from it and removed the crap).

I disagree again. Without those bits it looked like Superman gave up without a fight.

He fought them all over Metropolis. When he realized that he couldn't beat ALL THREE OF THEM with his powers alone, AND that he was putting Metropolis in danger, he went back to the Fotress, knowing Zod and Co would find him there. That doesn't sound like giving up to me.

In fact it paralleled the earlier line "No one who rules so many would kneel so quickly".

He needed the fights in the Fortress to make his ploy believable.

Lester's idiotic Plastic S throwing crap didn't make Superman's ploy any more or less believable. It just lessened the whole scene and made it campier.

If Lester wanted a fight in the Fortress, he should've just had Supes use the powers he actually had on them. But it wouldn't have lived up to the Metropolis Brawl anyway.

Well thats your opinion which I have objectively shown to be wrong.

The bottom line is this. You can say you prefered the Donner cut - thats fair enough. What you can't say is that it was more entertaining, more fun, more action packed or more logical - because it was simply none of those things.

I can sure as hell say it's more logical. It sure flows better for me than Lester's cut. It fits the tone of the first film a lot better, which makes it a better sequel right off the bat.

The action that took place was enough to satisfy me. And it was sure as hell a lot more entertaining for me to watch.

I just wish Donner could've finished filming the whole movie, so Lester and his crap wouldn't have been an issue at all.

 

[C. Lee]

Hi C.Lee! What you fail to recognise is that I ain't joking.

And what you fail to realize is....I know you weren't joking....which is why I made my comment in the first place. If I had a dime for every post I read where someone on here stated that they could make a better movie than this or that established director, writer, actor, whatever.... then I wouldn't have to worry about how I was going to pay for my kids to go to college.

 

[Fried Gold]

I said the attack on the White House scene (in general) was still in the Lester version, not that it had every individual moment of shot footage included regarding the White House.

You were talking about menace earlier on... in my (and everyone else's opinion back here on planet Earth), Zod gunning down a bunch of dudes in the WHITE HOUSE is infinitely more menacing than Ursa arm wrestling some guy in bar.

This is a fact, by the way.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Andrew - I'll reply to you a bit later. I appreciate the response dude.

Hey C.Lee!

And what you fail to realize is....I know you weren't joking....which is why I made my comment in the first place. If I had a dime for every post I read where someone on here stated that they could make a better movie than this or that established director, writer, actor, whatever.... then I wouldn't have to worry about how I was going to pay for my kids to go to college.

The fact of the matter is that Singer made some schoolboy errors when he made Superman Returns. The very idea of a Superman "chick flick" (Singer's own words lets remember) is idiotic right from the start.

As for me doing a better job, as far as I can see that wouldn't be too difficult at all.

Personally I would have had:

#1: Lex and Metallo.

Premise: Lex uses the kryptonian tech (stolen from the Fortress of Solitude) to create Metallo (the first soldier of many). But of course, as with the crystals, Metallo starts to grow exponentially absorbing metal (in the first encounter he could be 6 feet tall, then 60 and finally 600 in the climax).

#2: Lex and Brainiac.

Premise: The kryptonian tech which Lex has been selling is (unknown to him) self-aware (Brainiac). So we get to see what would happen if technology turned against mankind.

#3: Lexiac and Doomsday.

Premise: Brainiac, thought destroyed in #2 had 'interfaced' with Lex, possessing him (Lex now resembles the classic 3-nodes alien Brainiac). We get to see a mental struggle between Lex and Brainiac akin to the Evil Superman vs. Clark Kent battle in Superman III. Brainiac has used Earths satellites to locate and summon the prison cubicle to Earth (for the purpose of defeating Superman). Doomsday lands in the mid west (similar to Supermans original crash landing). The military are the first to go up against the (boiler-suited) Doomsday. Superman goes toe to toe with the beast and we get the classic Death of Superman battle.

#4: Darkseid and Mongul (Apokalips)/Cyborg and Bizarro (Earth)

Premise: Superman's spirit wakes up in Apokalips (ie. Hell). While on Earth an evil 'Superman' (Cyborg) is running rampant (a sort of what if Superman was evil). Lex is called in to deal with Cyborg, he breaks out his Superman clone before its fully developed (resulting in Bizarro). Superman find's that he cannot escape Apokalips and is forced to fight in the arena, here his mentor could be Mongul. Who teaches him to be a better warrior. On Earth Bizarro fights Cyborg, but is ultimately defeated due to his kryptonite weakness.

#5: Cyborg (briefly) and Gog and Parasite.

When we begin the movie Cyborg is actually ruling the Earth. But his reign is ended when he is killed by Gog. In effect Gog becomes the new 'Superman' (saving the world from the evil Superman). The real Superman finally journeys back to Earth using the mother-box. But on the way has been latched onto by a small parasitic microbe.

#6: Darkseid (invades Earth) and Doomsday (released from stasis).

Darkseid invades Earth, after a Metropolis shattering battle he defeats Superman, but Lex releases Doomsday to deal with Darkseid. Doomsday appears to kill Darkseid just as Superman is recovering. He takes Doomsday out of the city to avoid anymore casualties, while there Lex (the president) orders a nuclear strike on them. But this only stuns the two, although it destroys a chunk of the midwest killing the parents of the boy who would become Gog. Superman is then forced to use the motherbox given to him in #4 to place Doomsday at the end of time.

The End.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey F G!

You were talking about menace earlier on... in my (and everyone else's opinion back here on planet Earth), Zod gunning down a bunch of dudes in the WHITE HOUSE is infinitely more menacing than Ursa arm wrestling some guy in bar.

This is a fact, by the way.

That was a great snippet, but I still say it is infinitely better to build the menace slowly (which the Donner cut simply doesn't do) than the illogical (and rather ham-fisted) approach of the Donner cut (where the camera crew are already there for no reason whatsoever).

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Andrew!

Whatever. The other scene is better because it makes Lois actually work at finding out his secret.

But its the illogical resolution of her 'gun ploy' that I have issues with, not that Lois was working at uncovering the secret (which she also attempts in the Lester version).

If Clark wanted to tell Lois, he probably would have JUST TOLD HER instead of tripping over a rug.

I said he subconsciously wanted to tell her.

If Lester did it that way, it would've been a lot better replacement of what Donner originally planned than what he created.

If you replace something you have to make it better, not illogical.

Ummm. This movie came out in the early 1980s. It was filmed in late 1970s. Back then, there is no way in hell Lois would've married Superman. This was still pre-chrisis Superman, long before John Bryne came in and rebooted him.

Irrelevant. What we are discussing is the feasibility of Superman living with and/or marrying Lois Lane.

I say it is feasible, you say it wasn't before the 90's.

It is absolutely weak for you to use what happened in a 1990's comic (ten years or so after Supes II) to try and invalidate my point. Absolutely weak. Come on, you can do better than that.

I fail to see what the chronology has to do with it? We are talking about marriage here, not whether Lois will have Superman's child out of wedlock.

Ummmm... if it was obvious to me, I am sure it was obvious to Superman.

He acted without proof.

I don't think you understand how film editing works. Even good scenes get cut when they don't flow with the rest of the movie, and this was a stupid scene that deserved to be cut. It was a British director's take on what a small american town was. It didn't belong with the rest of the movie. It didn't fit the tone of what Donner wanted the movie to be, so he cut it.

I do understand it, and I understand what Donner was trying to do in sidelining some elements. However, his vision in no way makes for a better movie...and thats the bottom line.

They did cause damage there. You just didn't see it because it now happened off screen.

Thus interupting the flow of the movie for the worse.

That works a lot better then those stupid scenes anyway, so I am glad they went with that idea.

I disagree.

We got that aspect of it on the moon, followed by the scene with the cops. That was enough. We didn't need those scenes in that bar at all.

Yes we did, we needed it to better establish the characters of the three krytonians, to slowly build the menace and to explain why a camera crew was there in the first place.

Thats three boxes ticked for the Lester version.

He fell for it the same way in Lester's cut too. Only difference is now we don't have that stupid Plastic Wrap S being thrown at the villains or Superman suddenly gaining teleportation powers. No big loss to me.

In the Lester version Superman puts up a fight so that when he plays the 'switcheroo' its more believable.

They threw me right out of the movie when I saw them. Any value that scene had was already there in other places in the movie, and done much better in those scenes. An easy cut.

Again I strongly disagree. The contrast between such scenes better highlights the menace.

Keeping Lester's ending would've meant keeping the Amnesia Kiss of Death. Turning back time itself so Lois never found out he was Superman is a hell of a lot better than making her forget it by kissing her to me. Of course, if Donner had been able to go back and finish II, the ending would've been different completely because he wound up using the Earth Spin to Reverse Time Flow ending in the first movie.

Well I admit I am not a fan of the 'Super-kiss' but they could have had Lois know Clark was Superman in the third movie. The only thing he had to give up was the notion of giving up his powers. He didn't need to give up Lois at all.

They were there because of the strange sightings of superpowered beings in the area. The reporter said that when he opened his mouth in front of the camera. You really didn't pay much attention to the film did you?

If I didn't pick up on it you can bet your boots the average cinema goer wouldn't have either.

You can also bet they would prefer the Lester version.

They had to keep SOME of Lester's crap to make the picture flow. Thankfully they eliminated as much of it as possible, aside from scenes like that. I am not sure Donner planned on having these villains destroy a small town anyway. I believe was planning of having them destroy an actual large city. He just never got to film it, so he had to use the small town stuff Lester created (but kept the best bits from it and removed the crap).

It made far more sense for them to destroy a town initially then have the fight with Superman in the city - see how you 'build' the menace and up the threat level.

So that would have been another lame idea from Donner.

He fought them all over Metropolis. When he realized that he couldn't beat ALL THREE OF THEM with his powers alone, AND that he was putting Metropolis in danger, he went back to the Fotress, knowing Zod and Co would find him there. That doesn't sound like giving up to me.

In the Donner cut he capitulates as soon as they arrive at the Fortress. There is no way Zod would have fell for that trick so easily.

Lester's idiotic Plastic S throwing crap didn't make Superman's ploy any more or less believable. It just lessened the whole scene and made it campier.

I thought it was cool. You would like to think Superman has some kryptonian defenses in the Fortress of solitude.

One alternative might have been Superman throwing his cape around Non.

If Lester wanted a fight in the Fortress, he should've just had Supes use the powers he actually had on them. But it wouldn't have lived up to the Metropolis Brawl anyway.

Well it was an enclosed space so there was less you could do. However I think the reason for that fight was to better lull Zod into a false sense of security (which Donner doesn't do).

I can sure as hell say it's more logical. It sure flows better for me than Lester's cut. It fits the tone of the first film a lot better, which makes it a better sequel right off the bat.

How the heck can you say it flows better!?

The action that took place was enough to satisfy me.

Let me guess - you loved Superman Returns...right?

And it was sure as hell a lot more entertaining for me to watch.

I fail to see how.

I just wish Donner could've finished filming the whole movie, so Lester and his crap wouldn't have been an issue at all.

I'm glad now he didn't because the direction he took the movie was pants.

 

[Fried Gold]

You can also bet they would prefer the Lester version.

LOL Except that you're the only one who prefers the Lester cut.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi F G!

LOL Except that you're the only one who prefers the Lester cut.

Have you even read this thread? There are many more than me who prefer the Lester version.

The Donner cut was an interesting 'What If' but markedly inferior in so much of the changes it makes.

I do like some of the missing scenes and snippets that were added to the Donner cut (Lois falling out the window, Zod with the gun). But with only two exceptions (The Brando material and the buffoonery of the mob vs Kryptonians) I think the elements removed/replaced were far superior.

 

[Kid_Kaos]

Funny thing is, I like neither cuts entirely.
Lester f'd up the end with the "Superkiss" and some weird scenes where Zod and his crew had like magic powers.
Donner did it right with the beginning and the unmasking of Clark. It's very funny and Kidder just nails Lois in that scene.
What I didn't like was that Donner's version had barely any brutality you would expect from 3 evil Kryptonians. Just think about what perverted things humans can do without any superpowers. I know it's a kid friendly movie, but Lester at least showed some cruelty against humans. That made them a thread. The Donner Cut is far too short in that department. They're suddenly there and they are EVIL. Boohuhoooo! EEEEEEEEVIL!!!

Also, the whole Kal-El vs Jor-El debate is just stupid. Jor-El told him a dozen times that he can NEVER get his powers back, and Kal selfishly ignores it like "Yeah, Yeah, Yeah .... I know that! Now take my powers away, I want to be with that woman!" *stompsfeet*
Then, a few hours later with a car from nowhere, Clark and Lois run into a bar, Clark gets beaten up and sees Zod. So he WALKS back to the FoS and cries for his powers. -->

Sorry, but the Lester Cut had at least some sort of intelligence, even though it still is just stupid for Supes to give up his powers resp. BEGGING to get rid of them. Lara didn't say too much, she just warned him once that it was a one-way ticket and he accepted. Brief scene which gives not too much away. Later it turns out it was a dumb choice and Kal sees his error.

Jor-El nearly begged Kal not to give up his powers, even pointing out any kind of possible threat in the future, and Kal just ignored him like a little boy wanting his cookies. And then, few hours later, he goes back and cries for help like a 5 year old, realizing he made a dumb choice. Guess what, Jor-El made it crystal f'n clear that THAT could happen and there was NO way back! But of course it's Superman, a crystal appears and suddenly everything is good again. LAME

I know the whole Jor-El stuff makes sense with the whole bible crap in it, but I don't care for that, so Superman was suddenly acting out of character for me. The Donner Cut just was too smart for itself in a few scenes to have such a stupid resolution.

Sorry, but that Donner version of Superman is more a Superidiot to me. That, and the reduced villain scenes really bugged me watching it. Let's not start on that turning back time thing ... LAME

 

[Fried Gold]

The Donenr Cut just was too smart for itself in a few scenes to have such a stupid resolution.

No no, it was too smart for you.

 

[Fried Gold]

The Donner cut was an interesting 'What If' but markedly inferior in so much of the changes it makes.

That's fine. I don't really mind that you prefer a version that has Superman with made-up powers, ignores all that has gone before, cuts some fine dramatic acting from Brando and Reeve, negates the fine work by Geoffrey Unsworth and generally doesn't make a lick of sense thematically.

As for me, I believe that a movie is more than the sum of it's parts and doesn't necessarily need to be narratively cohesive in order to be a great movie. 2001 makes about as much sense as a custard pie in a thunderstorm, but that still does not stop it being a one of the most influential films of the 20th century.

Now, I'm sorry that you feel as though you need to have plot spoon fed to you by means of by-the-numbers direction, and that you can only focus on what is on screen at the time. The rest of us, meanwhile, have rather vivid imaginations, appreciate good direction/editing/lighting, and generally prefer films that makes us think and challenge our perceived notions of filmmaking and storytelling.

Is the Donner cut perfect? No. Absolutely not. Is it better than Made-Up-Powers Man? Yes. Totally, though not necessarily in story and narrative, but rather in filmmaking.

I think the difference between you and I is that you prefer to switch your brain off when you watch a movie, whereas I (and many others) can appreciate the fine art and craftsmanship of cinema.

That's pretty much all I have to say on the matter, because there comes a point where arguing on the internet becomes rather tragic. I'm not gonna budge, and neither are you.

 

[bunk]

I haven't seen Donner's cut and I don't really plan to. If you have to do something half assed, don't even bother.

 

[Fried Gold]

If you have to do something half assed, don't even bother.

Then why did you post?

 

[bunk]

That was my message. This is a message board. And thanks to everyone else's messages, my suspicions about the DVD have been confirmed and I no longer have to buy it.

 

[Fried Gold]

That was my message. This is a message board. And thanks to everyone else's messages, my suspicions about the DVD have been confirmed and I no longer have to buy it.

You're so cool.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

I think many of you miss the point of the Donner cut.

The clue is in the title. Donner. Donner footage. This is not trying to be the best version of Superman II, it's simply trying to show as much Donner footage as possible and the least Lester footage possible. Complete narrative logic and flow is willingly sacrificed for a glimpse at Donner's vision.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey F G!

That's fine. I don't really mind that you prefer a version that has Superman with made-up powers, ignores all that has gone before, cuts some fine dramatic acting from Brando and Reeve, negates the fine work by Geoffrey Unsworth and generally doesn't make a lick of sense thematically.

Are you talking about Superman Returns?

As for me, I believe that a movie is more than the sum of it's parts and doesn't necessarily need to be narratively cohesive in order to be a great movie. 2001 makes about as much sense as a custard pie in a thunderstorm, but that still does not stop it being a one of the most influential films of the 20th century.

I thought it was pretty straightforward.

Now, I'm sorry that you feel as though you need to have plot spoon fed to you by means of by-the-numbers direction, and that you can only focus on what is on screen at the time.

Theres a marked difference between 'by the numbers' and ticking all the right boxes.

The rest of us, meanwhile, have rather vivid imaginations, appreciate good direction/editing/lighting, and generally prefer films that makes us think and challenge our perceived notions of filmmaking and storytelling.

But Donner's cut doesn't do that.

Is the Donner cut perfect? No. Absolutely not. Is it better than Made-Up-Powers Man? Yes. Totally, though not necessarily in story and narrative, but rather in filmmaking.

I'll take Made-Up-Powers-Man over Illogical-Man any day.

I think the difference between you and I is that you prefer to switch your brain off when you watch a movie, whereas I (and many others) can appreciate the fine art and craftsmanship of cinema.

Such 'craft' is fine when used intelligently.

Case in point, Singer's muted use of colour and the slightly softer lens was no doubt used to both establish the darker mood of the piece and evoke something of the Fleischer era Superman.

However, you have to question the logic behind making Superman dull and dreary. He made a Superman movie solely for adults, when it should be for kids and adults. He took the fun out of Superman. You may as well say he stole the life from the movie.

As far as I can see Donner did the same thing with his cut.

That's pretty much all I have to say on the matter, because there comes a point where arguing on the internet becomes rather tragic. I'm not gonna budge, and neither are you.

...and you know what, nothing wrong with that at all.

Just two people having a friendly discussion and sharing their points of view.

 

[bunk]

You're so cool.

Being broke and having to carefully choose the DVDs I buy makes me cool? AWESOME!! Dude, you just made my day...I thought there was a lot more involved in being cool. Awesome.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

...and you know what, nothing wrong with that at all.

Just two people having a friendly discussion and sharing their points of view.

HAPPY ENDING.

GROUP HUG, EVERYBODY, GROUP HUG!

Close thread.

 

[captain_jimbo]

Well I just f**king loved the Donner cut, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, I just wish everyone could have enjoyed it as much as I did.