The decline of the Chris Reeve series.

[C. Lee]

Oh that’s cool, never even considered moving scenes from one film to the next.

I do have a pretty good SII fan edit called the Frank Reynolds cut. It doesn’t have the Paris scene though and there’s 1 or 2 bits I would have used the alternate cut but right now I can’t remember what they are.

I would love to see a full cut of Selutron’s SII. That guy had some amazing ideas what to do with the footage and I know the ending for that aswell as other clips can be found on YouTube (although nowhere near finished).

Since you like fanedits, here's a link to a fanedit site you'll like http://www.fanedit.org/ ....I haven't had time to read much there the last few years, but I used to go there a lot. I helped the faneditor slark do his Doc Savage: Detarnished edit. There are several Superman fanedits there.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I sort of always wanted to see what Superman IV would have looked like with the deleted Nuclear Man 1 scenes re-insterted in. Would be even more hilarious

 

[C. Lee]

I sort of always wanted to see what Superman IV would have looked like with the deleted Nuclear Man 1 scenes re-insterted in. Would be even more hilarious

I took the scenes of him from the DELETED SCENES extras and added them back in where it seemed appropriate for them.......the problem is, they had overlaid some pretty bad music on them and the quality of the picture wasn't too good.

The fanedit I did was a combination of scenes from 2,3, and 4. I haven't re-watched it in years now, but here's a description from what I remember I did. It left in all scenes from 4 (it was the shortest Superman film, so adding things to it helped it). It had the Paris scene from 2....added in the Superman v Clark scene from 3 (made it appear that after Nuclear Man scratched him with his long fingernails, instead of just getting "sick"...he changed into evil Superman)....added in deleted scenes of first Nuclear Man. I think that's it.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I took the scenes of him from the DELETED SCENES extras and added them back in where it seemed appropriate for them.......the problem is, they had overlaid some pretty bad music on them and the quality of the picture wasn't too good.

The fanedit I did was a combination of scenes from 2,3, and 4. I haven't re-watched it in years now, but here's a description from what I remember I did. It left in all scenes from 4 (it was the shortest Superman film, so adding things to it helped it). It had the Paris scene from 2....added in the Superman v Clark scene from 3 (made it appear that after Nuclear Man scratched him with his long fingernails, instead of just getting "sick"...he changed into evil Superman)....added in deleted scenes of first Nuclear Man. I think that's it.

Oh, I remember the music in those scenes well, LOL!!!! I still want to see that trainwreck

 

[BH/HHH]

Since you like fanedits, here's a link to a fanedit site you'll like http://www.fanedit.org/ ....I haven't had time to read much there the last few years, but I used to go there a lot. I helped the faneditor slark do his Doc Savage: Detarnished edit. There are several Superman fanedits there.

Nice one, thanks mate

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

We laugh about it now but the Superman/Nuclear Man fight actually blew my mind as a kid.

I wasn't even a kid and I still thought it was pretty darn cool!

 

[BH/HHH]

When I was a kid IV was my favourite because of Superman fighting Nuclear Man. I never even noticed the bad FX, tbh I think when my dogs old enough that will be the first one I shiw him. It's a shirt film, despite the poor FX it has plenty of action too. Plus it's got Superman throwing nuked into the sun. Whether it not it looks bad us irrelevant that is cool as ****.

 

[ouroboros]

I especially think that removing Jor-El lost a lot of the heart and emotion from SMII. The scene where Clark gets his powers back was sorely missing from the Lester Cut.

I also much preferred Donner's version of how Lois exposes Clark as Superman (despite being taken from screen-tests) than the clumsy Lester version.

While I'll admit that Lois shooting Clark to expose his Superman ID sounds like something the sixties Lois might have done, I didn't buy Donner's idea that it would work. They call Supes the Man of Steel, but he's not so much like steel that he wouldn't notice that no actual shells had struck him, and thus he would have tipped to the fact that the lady reporter was firing blanks.

 

[Mandon Knight]

For all the 'hoo-hah' over the Lester v Donner scenes and change of director and I am firmly in the Donner was treated badly camp, the actual comparative 'Clark reveals who he really is scenes', the way it's handled in the scene with the rug trip in II at the hotel is really well done and Reeve as ever is excellent.

 

[Batmannerism]

When I was a kid IV was my favourite because of Superman fighting Nuclear Man. I never even noticed the bad FX, tbh I think when my dogs old enough that will be the first one I shiw him. It's a shirt film, despite the poor FX it has plenty of action too. Plus it's got Superman throwing nuked into the sun. Whether it not it looks bad us irrelevant that is cool as ****.

I would rather watch Superman IV than Batman v Superman.

The concept behind Superman IV is brilliant, just terribly executed. When Supes makes the speech at the U.N. I still get choked up, because it's all about what makes Superman who he is, that he's not Superman because he has great power, but he's Superman because he has great power and tries to do the right thing.

That alone makes Superman IV better than Batman v Superman.

 

[Lantern Venom]

I would rather watch Superman IV than Batman v Superman.

The concept behind Superman IV is brilliant, just terribly executed. When Supes makes the speech at the U.N. I still get choked up, because it's all about what makes Superman who he is, that he's not Superman because he has great power, but he's Superman because he has great power and tries to do the right thing.

That alone makes Superman IV better than Batman v Superman.

 

[BH/HHH]

I would rather watch Superman IV than Batman v Superman.

The concept behind Superman IV is brilliant, just terribly executed. When Supes makes the speech at the U.N. I still get choked up, because it's all about what makes Superman who he is, that he's not Superman because he has great power, but he's Superman because he has great power and tries to do the right thing.

That alone makes Superman IV better than Batman v Superman.

I just don’t get this, can people stop using other threads to poke and prod at the DCEU. Its like you’re trying to antagonise people. I saw someone do this with a thread I made lately and it pissed me off. We’re talking about the Chris Reeve series of movies here.

The rest of your post was fine there was just no need for that comparison which it was barely that.

 

[batdude]

Pretty cool. I might get around to watching that next year.

That line, as cool as it was, was from the Legends of Tomorrow part of the crossover. Both it and Supergirl at cool shows though.

 

[Batmannerism]

I just don’t get this, can people stop using other threads to poke and prod at the DCEU. Its like you’re trying to antagonise people. I saw someone do this with a thread I made lately and it pissed me off. We’re talking about the Chris Reeve series of movies here.

The rest of your post was fine there was just no need for that comparison which it was barely that

No intent to antagonize anyine or rubbish the DCEU, as Man of Steel is still my 2nd favorite Superman film, I liked Wonder Woman and bits of Justice League ( mostly the Superman bits).

Here's the thing - yes Superman IV is a crappy film, poor special effects, some awful performances etc almost everything about it is bad.....except one, that somehow Chris Reeve manages to shine as Superman, he's the only thing that makes that film watchable. Maybe his film series declined into self parody and unwatchable crap, but he didn't .

If we're going to discuss the decline of his series I think the comparison with contemporary Superman films is justified - to remind ourselves of the things that were great about them, the most important of which is Reeve himself.

Sadly I believe that Henry Cavill could do a great job as Superman, but isn't given good material or good direction to work with. I've seen the guy on chat shows, he's really funny - and it was Reeve's warmth and humour that made him so amazing, and still widely regarded as the definitive Superman portrayal - if not the best Superhero portrayal this far.

I feel that if we're going to rubbish the Reeve films that a comparison with today's Superman films provides context and IMO, is also fair and warranted.

And on that note, I'm a little sad to hear that you get so upset when people criticize DCEU films - I am a massive DC fan, Supes and Bats all the way, but let's be honest here, DC/WB haven't delivered anything great ( and certainly delivered some rubbish) since the Dark Knight, while the MCU has made some really enjoyable stuff and gives it's heroes the treatment they deserve. Hopefully WW is a sign that someone has realised that if you make the hero likeable, the movie gets a better reception ( and JL picked up on that to some extent).
Once upon a time it bugged me too, that DC films were poorly received, but once I got over that I realised that the criticism was warranted - and just started enjoying good movies. Fingers crossed for a better DCEU for tomorrow.

 

[unholyrevenger]

it started with the character assassination of Supes at the end of the first movie.

 

[Vader's Fist]

Just a thought about Hackman's Lex. For as much as he's dismissed as being campy, he's without a doubt the one villain whose actions caused Superman the most emotional pain on screen:



In a lot of ways, I feel like he was intentionally created as a deconstruction of the Sixties-Batman style villain.

 

[Deck Rickard]

I would rather watch Superman IV than Batman v Superman.

The concept behind Superman IV is brilliant, just terribly executed. When Supes makes the speech at the U.N. I still get choked up, because it's all about what makes Superman who he is, that he's not Superman because he has great power, but he's Superman because he has great power and tries to do the right thing.

That alone makes Superman IV better than Batman v Superman.

Yeah. I mean, it’s kind of a dumb concept (ridding the world of nuclear weapons is a great idea but the way everyone just goes along with it is laughable), but Superman should be about taking charge and standing up for what he believes in. He should be a leader. Snyder just decided he was the world’s silent punching bag in BvS.

 

[STARMAN]

Otis and Miss Tessmacher were camp. Hackman's Lex had his own ruthlessness. He had the FBI guy shoved in front of the train. Dropped a megaton bomb. Callously talked about watching innocent people die.

 

[Dr.]

While STM has its flaws, I consider it vastly - vastly! -superior to SII. And I’m frankly perplexed by the opinion that the two movies are equivalent in quality (or, even more perplexing, that the latter is better than the former ).

Now, since Donner seemed to be the key variable, I was long-convinced that a hypothetical “Donner cut” would greatly improve SII. However, when the actual “Donner cut” was released, it showed that much of the goofiness was baked into the screenplay – and that Lester’s influence was only a small part of the problem. For instance, all the wacky Lex Luthor stuff in SII was shot by Donner, not Lester.

 

[Deck Rickard]

Otis and Miss Tessmacher were camp. Hackman's Lex had his own ruthlessness. He had the FBI guy shoved in front of the train. Dropped a megaton bomb. Callously talked about watching innocent people die.

Yeah, aside from the stupid wig thing, I liked Lex in STM. I wish he would have stayed more ruthless in the sequels. He was funny in S2 but it may have been a mistake making him more comic relief than anything else. By the time S4 rolled around, the character had become a joke.

 

[AverageMan]

While STM has its flaws, I consider it vastly - vastly! -superior to SII. And I’m frankly perplexed by the opinion that the two movies are equivalent in quality (or, even more perplexing, that the latter is better than the former ).

Now, since Donner seemed to be the key variable, I was long-convinced that a hypothetical “Donner cut” would greatly improve SII. However, when the actual “Donner cut” was released, it showed that much of the goofiness was baked into the screenplay – and that Lester’s influence was only a small part of the problem. For instance, all the wacky Lex Luthor stuff in SII was shot by Donner, not Lester.

I wasn't that impressed with the Donner Cut of S2 either. I think I watched it once & haven't bothered since.

 

[STARMAN]

Count me in as someone disappointed with the Donner Cut. Before it had come out, I made notes about the various missing sequences and ideas planned from info gathered over the years. This can happen when building something up and envisioning incredible material out there just waiting to be seen. A mythology builds around it. Sometimes more gratifying than the actual results.

 

[Deck Rickard]

Yeah I never made it all the way through the Donner cut. Some scenes are just awful, like when Zod and the other Kryptonians break out of the Phantom Zone and he says “Freeeeeeeeee.” Just cringey.

 

[Batmannerism]

While STM has its flaws, I consider it vastly - vastly! -superior to SII. And I’m frankly perplexed by the opinion that the two movies are equivalent in quality (or, even more perplexing, that the latter is better than the former ).

Now, since Donner seemed to be the key variable, I was long-convinced that a hypothetical “Donner cut” would greatly improve SII. However, when the actual “Donner cut” was released, it showed that much of the goofiness was baked into the screenplay – and that Lester’s influence was only a small part of the problem. For instance, all the wacky Lex Luthor stuff in SII was shot by Donner, not Lester.

I wasn't that impressed with the Donner Cut of S2 either. I think I watched it once & haven't bothered since.

Count me in as someone disappointed with the Donner Cut. Before it had come out, I made notes about the various missing sequences and ideas planned from info gathered over the years. This can happen when building something up and envisioning incredible material out there just waiting to be seen. A mythology builds around it. Sometimes more gratifying than the actual results.

Yeah I never made it all the way through the Donner cut. Some scenes are just awful, like when Zod and the other Kryptonians break out of the Phantom Zone and he says “Freeeeeeeeee.” Just cringey.

Time for me to weigh in again on the Donner cut.
I had a bit of free time one weekend earlier this year and watched both the cinematic and Donner cut of Superman II.

Simply put, the cinematic version is a complete film with sensible transitions and a better narrative flow.
The Donner cut feels exactly like something that was edited quickly from disparate scenes without a lot of thought or care towards maintaining the flow - the little differences add up to a lot. It feels unfinished.

The way in which Superman regains his powers is better explained in the Donner cut, but that doesn't make it a better scene. In the cinematic version he simply finds the green crystal, and the audience's imagination fills in the rest - IMO that's better storytelling.

Overall, IMO the cinematic version is the superior film experience by a wide margin.

 

[Deck Rickard]

Yeah. Now, to be fair, if Donner had been able to finish his film, it might have turned out a lot better. But as is, it’s pretty tough to sit through. The Lester version, in contrast, isn’t as great as STM but still holds up pretty well and has one of the best conclusions to a CBM ever (even if Supes does kinda kill Zod in cold blood).