Talk:Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fan Cuts Need a Separate article[edit]

Surely Superman II deserves a separate article in relation to the fancuts. I don't think any film in history has had such fierce re-editing, both officially (3 times) and unofficially (dozens). Surely this movie now has rocketed into extrodinary territory since unofficial edits have turn themselves into official ones because of the involvement of top-class editors and sites like YouTube. This has started a chain reaction. I think any talented writers should possibly capitalise reproducing this information on wikipedia.

Too many quotes?[edit]

The story of this film is so subjective, full of accusations and vitriol that the only way to tell it objectively is by enabling the various players to express their viewpoints. Without them, the entry would be either full of 'he said although she said something else' or would simply not be objective.

It can still be done in a more appropriate way than a quote every few lines. Rhindle The Red 15:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to help remove some of the quotes on the page, But how do you know Which ones matter the most that are important. Nathen

"Continuity problems" section[edit]

Do we need an unsourced and mostly original research section that of its own admission is unconfirmed? Anyone care to defend this stuff?Rhindle The Red 00:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superman II Merge[edit]

  • It'd be extremely difficult to merge this quantity of content into the already-large Superman II--and the content here is of a quality that merits its keeping. As it stands, the two editions of the film sound dramatically different enough such that each requires its own article. Keep it here. Tom Lillis 06:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should be seperate because they are 2 tottaly differnet movies almost will loads of never before seen footage leave them seperate.

Of course not. They are fundamentally separate entities.Rhindle The Red 02:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge--would make single article entirely too long. Willerror 17:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut should continue to have its own article, as the planned re-edit will feature 70% never-before seen Donner footage. NeoSuperBlissey 11:59, 7/7/2006 (UTC)

I think these two articles should stay as they are for now. Perhaps when the official Donner Cut DVD is released they could be merged. Tagging it on to the main Superman II content now would somehow diminuish this article I think.

  • Are you kidding? When the DVD comes out, there will be a lot more information. I expect it will be solidified quite a bit, with a breakdown of all the changes. —EatMyShortz 09:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they should be kept apart. because it seems to me that they're pretty much two different movies. Spookyadler 15:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A metric ton of the information in this article belongs in the Superman II article. Most of the production section belongs there, and should be replaced with a much shorter summary (which should probably stress the breakup between Donner and the producers- in fact, I'd say you should NOT summarize the information regarding the fallout between them.). What should be especially be summarized is everything about Lester's shoot- very little of it remains in Donner's cut anyway. What should least be summarized is the information about Donner's shoot- but, then again, I'm betting that a portion of that information actually belongs in the article for the first film, as it was a double shoot. All that being said, a summary of the assembly of this cut belongs in the Superman II article. - MajorB <talk> <contribs> - 04:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Version You've Never Seen?[edit]

The lead sentence states "Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut, also known as The Version You've Never Seen" - I've never seen the title "The Version You've Never Seen" anywhere but here, and it isn't mentioned on any of the links at the bottom. I'm removing this statement. If anyon wants to add it back, please cite sources. (I expect that if it does have an official source, it's just a tagline as opposed to the actual title of the film). —EatMyShortz 09:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, OK, I found the mention in "A tale of two dicks" [8]: "Tentatively dubbed 'The Version You Never Saw'". I still don't think it's relevant as the title of the film. —EatMyShortz 10:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It hasnt been out yet, but...[edit]

It already has a perfect score in IMDB of 10.0, im amazed since its the first time i see such score in IMDB (its rather obvious its all from fans though).

Destroy the Fortress of Solitude?[edit]

Don't you think that would destroy the continuity of Superman Returns? Art1991 20:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares about Returns, Superman III is the TRUE continuation of II as it was originally. Sorry you can't just decide the film doesn't exist in the timeline, cause it does.--12.72.30.5 07:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try telling that to the fans of The Highlander who hate the second film. 70.108.65.167 23:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that were true,then Superman 4 could never be the sequel as Superman is seen back in the fortress seeking guidance.I personally prefer the original Superman 2.The Richard DOnner cut was way too short.The deleted footage should have just been added to it that's all.Nadirali 22:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali[reply]

Actually if someone later reinvents the chronology (retcons it), then the film no longer applies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.190.92.205 (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Now that I've seen the film, here's the real answer to my own question! Superman turns back the world, in the process rebuilding the Fortress of Solitude! Case closed. Dilemma solved. Good night. Art1991 04:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

¶ As I recall, the Fortress of Solitude was not used in Superman III (or IV), so maybe those movies were written while the memory of a scene in which the Fortress was destroyed was still fresh, but Superman Returns was done after a full generation (and by another team) which had not seen this Donner scene so it made sense to have the Fortress still available. However, the Donner ending, with Superman making time run backwards was a rehash of the end of the first movie (and more improbable because, instead of only a few minutes, time runs backward for 3 or 4 days' worth) -- however the original climax with both Superman and Lois killing the villains by shoving them into an Arctic crevasse may have also rubbed audiences the wrong way. Sussmanbern (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First film's title[edit]

I've been through and amended all instances of Superman: The Movie to the correct Superman. The former was only used in pre-release advertising, but has since made its way on to various DVD covers, which serves to keep the misconception alive. Chris 42 19:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plot holes[edit]

Would it be worth discussing these in the body of the article?

  • In the scene where Lois pretends to shoot Clark to prove he's Superman there is NO WAY Superman wouldn't have known the gun was firing a blank. It's already been established in film I that he can catch a bullet, so he'd certainly be aware that in this case there was no bullet to catch.
  • Last time we see Luthor he's in the Fortress of solitude. No explanation of what Supe does with him. (Yeah, it's explained in the deleted scene, but not in the movie.)
  • When Superman turns time backwards some events are reversed but not others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lee M (talk • contribs) 04:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Without citation of someone else pointing out plotholes, it's original research and doesn't belong. WesleyDodds 14:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to add the Luthor item in the trivia item about whether or not Superman killed the Kryptonians. I did a further revision of my original so it removed a bit of speculation re:Luthor, though it isn't POV or OR to state his fate is left "an answered question". The first plot hole cited isn't really one. Even if Clark knew the gun was firing a blank, there really was nothing he could have done that would have protected his identity at that point. There was no excuse for Superman-in-disguise to allow himself to fall into the fireplace in the Lester version, either. 23skidoo 23:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The gun could either contain lead, which superman can't see thru anyway, or even the bullet. And in the short amount of time given he may not have thought to even look to see what was in the gun. It's not like he always has his x-ray vision on.--Iamstillhiro1112 03:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB[edit]

Some where in the article you can read, that the Richard Donner Cut has a much better rating than the "original" Superman II has on the IMDB. But that's not the hole thruth: while about 20.000 people voted for the normal version, just about 2.000 people voted for the latter. So while the normal film has the votes of all kind of people, the Donner Cut just has ratings from fans. One have to say something about this, because it makes a big difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.15.169 (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity with series[edit]

I have commented out this section since it is completely unsourced and seems to be nothing but original research. If it can be sourced, fine. If not, it should be removed completely. Rhindle The Red 03:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be removed because it discusses whether the film matches the continuity of the Chris Reeve series or Superman Returns but this point is moot as Bryan Singer has stated that Superman Returns is not a true sequel to the original series although it does use some ideas from the first 2 movies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.195.70 (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given Superman destroys the Fortress of Solitude completely in the Donner cut (something that doesn't happen in the original) and Superman Returns hinges on Lex going back to the Fortress of Solitude I can't really see how any one COULD argue it has a continuity with Superman Returns.TheoGB (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inasmuch as it was established that Luther escaped from prison, it is entirely logical that he was returned to prison by Superman at the movie's end. Sussmanbern (talk) 01:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New DVD Cover[edit]

The DVD cover has changed. I would appreciate if someone would upload the new DVD cover. Thank You! Limetolime 23:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

I deleted the Trivia section, but I'm placing what was there here, so that it can be saved until there is a way to figure out how to incorporate the information into the article. Anakinjmt 15:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Body Doubles
    • Margot Kidder: Lois falling from the window of the Daily Planet and bouncing off the awning.
    • Christopher Reeve: Clark Kent looking out the window of the Daily Planet and several shots when Kal-El/Superman is inside the depowering chamber.
  • The title "The Richard Donner Cut" is not used in the film's main titles. The opening credits simply title the movie as just Superman II.
  • The film is dedicated to the memory of Christopher Reeve.
  • A shot of editor Michael Thau's hands was used for Clark picking up the green crystal in the Fortress of Solitude. The green cyrstal prop in that scene is the same one used in Superman Returns.
  • There is a new live-action shot of the White House before the super-villains attack, as well as several new live-action shots during the time-reversal sequence.
  • This is the only Superman film to utilize the famous comic book line, "up, up, and away", although it is not Superman who says the line but Lois Lane, saddened at the thought that her relationship with him is over by stating: "There he goes. Up, up, and away."
  • According to the website Supermancinema.co.uk, the Donner cut breaks down thus: 75% is the original Donner shoot, 8% is newly filmed or CGI material, scenes from the first film and also the Niagara Falls Donner-filmed screen-test, and 17% is Lester footage edited to reflect Donner’s vision of the film, specifically removing many of Lester’s trademark sight-gags. About 50 percent of the film is brand-new to the audience.
  • Christopher Reeve's first day of filming Superman and Superman II was April 5, 1977. His first scene was for Superman II as Clark Kent (shot against a blue screen to be inserted into the Fortress of Solitude), with Marlon Brando as Jor-El.
  • Marlon Brando received $3.7 million, 11.75% of the domestic gross and 5.65% of the foreign gross for thirteen days of filming on Superman: The Movie and Superman II.
  • Gene Hackman received $2 million to play Lex Luthor in both Superman: The Movie and Superman II.
  • Christopher Reeve received $250,000 for Superman: The Movie and $500,000 for Superman II.
  • There are about 200 new special effects in the film, according to editor Michael Thau.
  • It took 8 months to restore Richard Donner's Superman II footage.
  • Margot Kidder was asked to reloop some of her scenes but she declined because her voice has dropped in pitch over the years.
  • The footage of Zod kicking Superman into the torch of the Statue of Liberty, and Superman punching Non into the Empire State Building was shot by Richard Donner for a Superman II trailer.
  • The time-reversal ending was the original intended ending for Superman II, but it was used for the first film to give it a more exciting conclusion. Richard Donner has stated that he and writer Tom Mankiewicz would have come up with an alternate ending for Superman II if given the opportunity.
  • Richard Donner is anti-fur. After the end credits, there is a note by Donner stating that because he was not involved in the original project of the film, the scenes containing any use of fur was not his doing. The note also states that he does not endosre tobacco use as depicted in the film at the time.

Reeve & Kidder did test together[edit]

In the section, The Mankiewicz script / original Donner shoot, well down we find this:

Niagara Falls bungalow interiors:....This scene was never filmed, but the original Donner-directed Reeve and Kidder screen tests, which played out this scene, have been edited together and feature here....Reeve and Kidder did not test together...."

Yes, they did, as seen in the last VHS and first DVD release of the 1978 film, with Lynn Stalmaster presenting several screen tests. Or, more accurately, when the would-be Loises tested, the already-hired Reeve played opposite them as Holly Palance had with him, doing the same scenes that they'd done for his tests, including this one. Now I have yet to see this version of II, so don't know if we do see Holly here or not, but I can't imagine why we would. I request that anybody who has seen this film inform us as to what the reality there is. Thanks. (By the way, this scene is stupid, as there's no way Superman can't tell the difference between a bullet bouncing off him and nothing whatsoever hitting him {or a blank's wadding hitting him}.) --Ted Watson (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It says that? That's totally wrong. I know the scene you mean, and Kidder and Reeve are in the same shot. What they did was take two different screen tests and put them together: one with Kidder and Reeve, and one of Reeve with Palance. You can tell because the glasses and hair are different on Reeve's closeup. Anakinjmt (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So they did use some of Reeve's test with Holly. Since you say the difference is detectable in Chris' appearance, I assume that Holly isn't visible, and they just wanted the close-up from the Kidder test. I'll rewrite the passage according to you; what's there isn't sourced itself, so nobody can complain on that ground. --Ted Watson (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reality is quite different from what this article claims[edit]

In the process of dealing with this article's inaccurate description of the Niagara Falls bungalow scene/screen test situation, I saw a few other things that are impossible to believe.

  • As I indicated by way of a parenthetical aside in the above rewrite, Lester's hand-in-the-fireplace version of Clark's "coming out" is far more sensible than Donner's blank cartridge, as even though the bullet bouncing off Superman's chest would not hurt him at all, he'd still feel that impact; no doubt this is why that version never went beyond the screen test stage, and should not have been included in the Donner cut. I think the only reason it does appear there is the fact that dialogue in Lester's scene mentions Lois' Niagara River stunt, rather than her Planet building jump that Donner filmed and needed to include. Somebody should have said as much on that DVD.
  • One particular plot hole...involves the transition from a powerless Clark Kent finding the green crystal at the...Fortress of Solitude to a restored Superman's return to The Daily Planet to fight the supervillains. Lester shot a workaround scene where Superman shows the green crystal to Lois Lane, who absentmindedly places it aside, without returning it to its chamber; this explains its survival when the Fortress is destroyed, allowing Kent to reverse his loss of Superman's powers. Nevertheless, this assumption of exactly how Superman regained his powers is inadequate to fans of the Donner version who aware that a major expository scene featuring Marlon Brando as Jor-El was excised from the film....
Nope. At the time we were told in no uncertain terms that the scenes with Susannah York as Superman's mother Lara replaced the prohibitively-expensive Brando footage, so we were angry that we see her categorically tell her son that the power-removal process absolutely cannot be reversed—and in fact the device is destroyed—then see him having inexplicably regained his powers offscreen! The above quote gives an explanation of how the crystal survives the destruction of the device rather than the Fortress, but with the device destroyed, what use is it? No amount of Brando/Jor-El lines are going to satisfactorily get around that! We simply have no idea why he makes the excruciatingly difficult trip back to the Fortress with no sane hope of success (BTW, we also have no idea how he and Lois initially returned to civilization without his powers that took them up there in the first place). That is what is "inadequate" to fans.
  • It is stated several times here and in the main release version's article that Hackman worked on only the original Donner shoot. So why is it in scenes with him that don't directly tie in to the main scenario (e.g., the prison break and consequential balloon trip) Luthor's voice is clearly not Hackman's, but in scenes that do so (e.g., interacting with the Phantom Zone escapees) it is? Looks to me like Donner had the actor loop only whatever was needed for the first film, and then Gene did only principal photography for the second, where the production tracks were quite useable, but somebody had to dub those leftover Donner-shot scenes.
  • "Turning back time"—This is the clincher. How could it be possible that Donner intended this to happen only at the climax of II, when all of Lois Lane's participation in this film would be impossible if her death at the climax of the first movie wasn't undone then? The fact that Donner shot the "Clark's revenge on the bully" scene, which is admitted to make no sense in the context of time having been turned back here, corroborates Donner having no such intention (at the very most he did initially, but very early on the concept was moved to the first film, and regardless of rather or not he liked the decision, what he filmed was shot on that basis, and his cut of the second movie should reflect that).

To anyone who is figuring on posting a simple dismissal of the above as "original research" and "synthesis," please understand that I am assailing the credibility of the account given in the article (which is largely unsourced, BTW) and recommending that anyone with access to a large library, etc., try to find citable sources to these realities. I myself live 35 miles away from the nearest town large enough to have a Wal-Mart store! Forget about a decent library. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the "Donner cut" of Superman II is an interesting artifact, as a film it's inferior to the Lester version, in part because of the various things you bring up. It's basically a hodge-podge of different footage that has a variety of continuity problems. The Salkinds are really the ones to blame for all this, though, as they lost faith in the project. If you think about what might have been, if they had used the cliffhanger to the 1978 film, if they had done things differently, it's a real shame. And that's the "reality". I can't blame Donner too much for this alternate version of Superman II, because it was done almost 30 years later, and it would be hard for anyone to recall the details of something they worked on that long ago. The article already has a fair amount of "analysis" going on. The safest thing is to stick with what the DVD commentary says about things, with corrections as needed for anything than be verifiably determined to be false or misleading. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah. That's what I meant by coming here and asking for people to "try to find citable sources" instead of making changes myself. However, I am going to make some changes: I'll fix the "controversies and plot holes" section's incorrect reference to the destruction of the Fortress related to the survival of the crystal, as that's not what was in either version, and as the unsatisfactory nature of the "explanation" of the restoration of the super-powers in both versions is indicated there, I'll add the fact that both versions state that the depowering is irreversible (the plot synopsis section attributes "permanently" to Jor-El's statement about that process, admittedly not a direct quote). Please don't anybody suggest that all they meant was that it would not simply wear off on its own.
A new point: In the "Donner shoot" section's description of Fortress interiors:
Superman gives up his powers and becomes a mortal. Lois appears in this scene wearing only Superman's shirt and socks.
What exactly does this mean? In the released version, he enters the cabinet as Superman, costume and all, and exits wearing conventional, but not typically Clark Kent, clothing. In Donner's version does he undress first? And just what do "Superman's socks" look like? Admittedly, the article states twice that they make love before the de-powering, so he could easily be undressed. But wouldn't he have put his clothes back on to talk with "his father"? Can somebody tell me exactly what happens here? Then we can clarify the article. So much of this article is unsourced that I think I'll add a tag about that, too. --Ted Watson (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a last resort, one could go back and watch the DVD and its making-of special, which are the best sources. I don't recall exactly what Lois was wearing, but I feel safe in saying that in none of the movies have we seen what Superman's socks look like - he's always wearing the red boots. As far as Clark's clothing, normally he's wearing a suit as the reporter. Here we see him in casual attire. One other point: If the plot hole about getting his powers back seems fuzzy, how about the bit about him kissing Lois and making her forget? Although backwards time travel is preposterous, it makes more sense than the "kiss of forgetting". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my question concerning the socks was intended to be essentially rhetorical to that point. As for the last, I admit to finding both requiring a significant suspension of disbelief, but I did not complain about the time reversal in and of itself; I merely pointed out that at the time of filming Donner could not possibly have (no longer?) intended to have it at the end of the second movie, despite placing the sequence in this version. As for "the plot hole about getting his powers back" it doesn't merely seem fuzzy—it's a huge chasm! Lara has stated categorically that Superman can't ever get them back, the device that took them away has been destroyed (f*** the crystal surviving that; was he supposed to deep-throat the thing and suck his powers out of it?) so there's no hint of any way he could possibly regain them. This article is the first account I have ever encountered that indicated that an explanation of how he got his powers back in spite of all that was filmed (as a matter of fact, it sounds a lot like something that happened on Smallville a few years back). And mind you, in those days and up into the mid 90s I read every issue of TV Guide magazine and the newspaper's entertainment section thoroughly, and many issues of Starlog and similar magazines and books. By the way, I never heard about TV showings of II being "extended." I certainly did hear of such for the first film, and saw them. I probably would have watched this one that way if I had heard it was being done, but having fought a gag reflex in the theater and groaned and moaned watching on premium cable, I was not inclined to watch it cut for commercial breaks and possibly censored a bit, but otherwise unaltered. Was this outside the USA? --Ted Watson (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superman I and II both had extended cuts for their TV debuts, as I recall. I think the Superman I debut even had stuff that was not shown in the extended DVD. Remember in the extended DVD that an armored policeman is dispatched to go to Jor-El's hangout and see what's cookin'. And that's the last you hear from him. In the TV debut they had an additional scene showing the guy as he was heading for Jor-El's (at remarkably slow speed) and then goes wide-eyed when the planet starts to fall apart. Meanwhile, yes, I understand your point about the time travel stuff. The question becomes, though, where did the time-reversing footage (like Perry White's toothpase going back in the tube) come from? Would that originally have been from I? Hard telling. Like I said, it's a hodge-podge. Meanwhile, in the "original" II, Lara said he would lose his powers, but somehow he got them back, so either she was lying or didn't know. In the "Donner" II, Jor-El is somehow able to re-infuse Kal-El with Kryptonian powers. I thought that whole deal was kind of weak in any case. Now, off a tangent, if you want to go down the Freudian road, think of this: Kal-El loses his powers in order to gain his woman, but in so doing, she loses interest in him, and he becomes a laughingstock. He gains his powers back, so all is as it was - and Lois loses Kal-El. A rather misogynistic theme going on there, it seems to me. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to belabor Superman I too much here, but the music soundtrack was missing a snippet in the extended DVD, after Superman drills down and lands in the cave or whatever leading toward Luthor's hideout. Which reminds me - how did Superman drill down without stirring up a mound of dirt? Well, it's easy when you're being lowered on a little platform, but that's beside the point. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...where did the time-reversing footage (like Perry White's toothpaste going back in the tube) come from? Would that originally have been from I?
Absolutely, as that's where the sequence was intended by the time shooting was underway, as I said before. It's my understanding that, chronologically speaking, filming (principle photography) went this way—In Alberta, Canada (for Smallville), in the Southwest US (for scenes related to the earthquake, especially involving Lois), New York City (for Metropolis) {these last two might have been the other way around, but considering the geography, I doubt it}, the huge UK sound stage built specifically for this movie (for Krypton, the Fortress, Luthor's underground lair, Lois' apartment, and God knows how many other interiors). Given that much of Lois's death and non-death would have been shot during that second stage, any idea of putting the time-reversal sequence in the sequel had to have been reversed itself by that time. I suspect that I overly-simplified that situation earlier. Before any studio or effects work (post-production, by definition) started, much of Lois' death in the earthquake and resurrection therefrom was in the proverbial can, so the time-reversal was committed to be in the first film fairly early. Period. And therefore Donner's putting it in his cut of II is wrong; even when he was shooting, it wasn't planned that way. As I see it, Donner decided to approximate not the Superman II that he had shot most of, but the one he had wanted to make and, for whatever reason(s), he not only did not film, but had in fact invalidated with what he did shoot for Superman I. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said before, this ersatz version of II is a hodge-podge. It has actual Donner footage, test footage, newly-invented effects, and Lester footage used where they didn't have the Donner footage. It would have made more logical sense to isolate the Donner footage and simply build a "special" into the conventional II DVD that would have a lot of these segments. There's the one of Lois jumping out of the building, for example, which is pretty effective stuff. But some of Donner's stuff is lame. Consider the scene where Superman appears outside White's office. In the Donner version, it's a distant shot, with an obviously looped line of (presumably) Reeve saying with a bland expression, "Hey, you never heard of freedom of the press?" Very funny, ha-ha. The Lester version shows Reeve more close-up, with an angry expression and voice - "General, would you care to step outside?" Much more dramatic. Or at least better. However, they went to all this trouble, so I reckon they decided they could make more money by marketing it separately. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One thing people forgot, about these "director's cuts" or "extended" versions of films, is that there's a reason why stuff was cut for theatrical presentation. In The Wizard of Oz, they famously cut the "Jitterbug" number, simply because it didn't work. Reviewers would say decades later that it would "date" the number. But it just wasn't appropriate for the terrifying scene to have the actors suddenly start doing the jitterbug. And some of the other musical numbers cut, such as the "triumphant return", would have weighed the picture down. Once they vanquished the witch, they needed to wrap it up quickly. Also, for the network debut of Superman I, a lot of extra footage was thrown in that was maybe OK on commercial TV with its many breaks, but would have made for a 3-hour movie in the theater. I'm speaking especially of two things that come to mind: Trevor Howard's comments about the Phantom Zone which sounded like he was reading it for the first time; and the stuff about Lex Luthor's "babies", some unseen fearsome animals in a pit. They also added back the "fire and bullets" stuff on Superman's walking toward Luthor's lair. That footage was probably OK, but not necessary, so it was trimmed. It goes on and on. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something about the theatrical version of II, though - when the nuclear bomb explodes in space and shatters the Phantom Zone "cage", it's done by some sort of cheap animation that looks like something taken from the George Reeves TV series. Very lame. So the Lester version is not perfect either. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this now, including listening to the audio commentary and watching the extras, and the situation gets worse. In the commentary, Donner and Tom Mankiewicz repeat the assertion from the Fantastic Films magazine interview quoted and cited in the "Percentage..." thread below, that he'd shot all he needed with the main cast "except the villains," as they put it here. In the on-camera introduction he describes the search for his unused footage, capping it off with the strangely phrased, "Everything that was found I shot." In context, it's impossible to think he meant anything but, "Everything that I shot was found," yet that's just not what it means; whatever his intent he's actually saying, "Nothing that was found was shot by anybody other than me." As has been said already, the Niagara Falls honeymoon suite scene is 100% screen test footage. Also, the sequence out by the falls themselves (culminating in the rescue of the falling boy) is Lester's; this is revealed by Lois' double take when she removes Clark's glasses to wipe off mist from the falls. As she had just a few minutes earlier (by running time, I mean) drawn Clark's suit, glasses and hat onto a picture of Superman, the resemblance would come as no surprise here. If the assertion that he'd filmed everything necessary for his cut except some shots with Stamp, O'Halloran and Douglas was true, why are these Reeve & Kidder screen test footage and Lester-shot scenes here? Did Donner say in the introduction what he really meant to, that some of his footage was not found (and he therefore had to jury-rig parts), but he wanted us to believe otherwise? Or, as I suggested above, what Donner attempted to assemble here was the film he originally conceived rather than the one in the script that he had filmed most of, leaving some of his footage still unseen? In the commentary, he attempted to justify Lois' blank cartridge trick exposing his identity by pointing out that Chris shifting from Clark pose to Superman persona without changing clothes was such a great bit of acting, but Reeve had done that in I, when Clark was picking her up at her apartment for a date and almost told her the truth, but chickened out when she returned from her bedroom. And, of course, he shot that! Also, as the "gets the powers back scene" begins, he claims to have seen it done with Susannah York in Lester's version, which is totally untrue; as has been pointed out, there is no such scene at all there. Willful misrepresentation or something along the lines of senility? --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Continuity with series" section[edit]

The section "Continuity with series" is loaded with poor syntax, grammar, etc. I've just fixed one instance ("diswayed" should have been "dissuaded"), but too much requires familiarity with this version to understand exactly what was intended, what should be written. As I haven't seen it (yet), I can't be the one to fix it. Somebody please.... --Ted Watson (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A 1980 film or a 2006 film?[edit]

Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut is the only director's cut to have its own article. I've noticed that there's no category at the bottom to identify it as 1980 film or a 2006 film. I think we should put it in one of these categories. Which one? 220.244.198.109 (talk) 06:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Percentage of II done in original shoot?[edit]

How much of Superman II did Donner shoot concurrent with Superman I? This article says "80%" (at the top of the section "History") while those for the regular II and I say "75%" (these latter two both in the intros). None of these statements are sourced, although the one in the other II article claims the 75% figure to be Donner's "own estimation." If that comes from this version's DVD's audio commentary or documentary featurette, why does the article say 80%? And in any event, which is correct? We should be consistent. --Ted Watson (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just found an interview with Richard Donner (a transcript), by James Delson and Patricia Morrisroe (the intro concludes, "Contributing editor James Delson spoke with Donner just prior to the [first] film's opening," contradicting the byline—but whatever—and dating the conversation itself to late 1978), in Fantastic Films #Vol. 2, #2, June 1979, Blake Publishing Corp., pp. 8-17, specifically this on p. 16:
FF: "How much of Superman II do you have completed?"
Donner: "Over three quarters of picture Two [sic] is in the can. Terrance [sic] Stamp, Jack O'Halloran and Sarah Douglas are the only principals left to be filmed, and the only major portion of the film left to be shot is the special effects area."
I don't see Donner's "over three quarters" justifying rounding 75% up all the way to 80 (wouldn't he have said "four-fifths" in that event?), so how do you people suggest we make all three locations reflect this source? And BTW, how are we to reconcile Donner's statement here with his having to use the screen tests for the honeymoon suite scene in his cut of II? Think about that one! --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced Material[edit]

Article has been tagged for needing citations for several years. Please feel free to reincorporate below material with appropriate references. Doniago (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 2007-10-11.


Sneak Previews[edit]

Before the film had its world premiere at the DGA and was released on DVD, Richard Donner showed the first 12 minutes of his cut at San Diego Comic-Con in July of 2006. Spike TV showed 2 minutes of this footage at their first Annual Scream Awards in October, calling it a "World Premiere." I feel that this is an important fact that needs to be presented in the article, yet an editor continues to remove it. There is much information on the web to show that these events did, in fact take place. Please return it to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.7.106 (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there is so much information, then it should be easy to cite a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are, say, 10 so-called unreliable sources, each independent of each, that verify at least that these events happened, would that be sufficient to at least mention it in the article? Funny how the majority of the article has NO citations and remain for years, but things that are marked as having an "unreliable source" are immediately removed. Kind of a double standard.

Also, If you are going to remove an entire section, at least have the common courtesy of moving it to the talk page. Deleting hours of writing and research, regardless of the reason is hostile and unnecessary.

Below is the information that was deleted for those who care to read it, along with cited references:

At 12PM on Friday, July 21, 2006, Donner presented the first twelve minutes from his new film at a panel at the 2006 Comic Con International in San Diego. The hour-long panel, titled "Warner Home Video's Superman Through the Ages" included a Q&A with Donner, Tom Mankiewicz, Michael Thau and actors Marc McClure and Jack O'Halloran.[1] [2][3][4]

On October 7, 2006, a two-minute sequence from the movie was presented as "World Premiere" at the first annual Scream Awards held at the Pantages Theatre in Hollywood. The footage was introduced by hosts Rosario Dawson, Rose McGowan and Marley Shelton. The show was subsequently broadcast on Spike TV on October 10th.[5][6][7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.7.106 (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources are unreliable. So citing ten won't make a difference. Also, if you see anything in the article that's not sourced, feel free to tag it with {{citation needed}} or just edit it. As for the sources above, I'm not familiar with them so I'm not qualified to judge how reliable they are. However, I can say with confidence that the forums aren't reliable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Donner panel DID take place at Comic Con. He DID present the first ever footage of Superman II for the crowd. Spike DID show the footage at the 2006 Scream Awards and it WAS seen on TV by millions of people. One of the tenants of Wikipedia civility is to "assume good faith." Like most editors, in revising this article, I wanted nothing more that to add interesting and relevant information about this subject. While forums do contain conjecture or opinion, the forum that was originally linked included a press release from Warner Home Video. I further added three more sources to clarify and those were removed as well. Remember, I actually did cite sources, which most of the article does not. That information still remains. Should someone re-add it with the unreliable sources removed so the information will remain with the rest of the article?

BTW, If I were to add "citation needed" for all the unsourced information, then the article would literally become unreadable. Perhaps the entire article should be deleted and rewritten.

Citing ten won't make a difference" -- well maybe it's time that Wikipedia should rethink what a "reliable source" is. In the world today, people have started depending on different alternative sources for news and facts, especially since more and more "reliable sources" like the NY Times go behind paywalls and are becoming inaccessible to the masses. Is Wikipedia addressing the way that internet and news reporting have been changing even in the past few years? A live blogger reporting on events as the Comic Con panel for his audience may be, in some ways, MORE reliable than a news organization reporting the same thing after the fact as the reporting in real time and not compromised by the passage of time and afterthoughts. Ten live bloggers reporting independently on the same event may still be considered "unreliable sources", but if they all agree on a single fact, well I would say that the odds are likely that the fact is true.

Conversely, there are plenty of "reliable sources" that say man landed on the moon in 1969, but a good number of people, in the absence of empirical evidence, STILL think that it was a hoax. I don't begrudge them their point of view and I don't remove that unsourced information on Wikipedia. The world is a more interesting place with their POV intact. (That's strictly MY opinion.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.7.106 (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is why reliable sources are required. There are mountains of evidence to support the moon landing. Ten unreliable sources that argue otherwise aren't worth a hill of beans.
Also, wikipedia isn't a place to publish opinions or POV (ie, it's not for self-publishing). It's a place to collate the published works of reliable sources. In this regard, reliable sources are the only way to go.
If you wish to discuss, challenge, defend, etc. the reliability of a source, please take it to the approproate talk page or the the Wikipedia:village pump. DonQuixote (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ [3]
  4. ^ [4]
  5. ^ [5]
  6. ^ [6]
  7. ^ [7]

Destruction of Fortress of Solitude in Superman 1[edit]

The destruction of the Fortress of Solitude by Superman's heat vision (from a distance and with Lois looking on) was in the television edit of the first Superman movie that was aired by ABC-TV. It was filmed while Superman and Superman II were being filmed at the same time. It is completely different from the Superman II destruction scene. --KJRehberg (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He did not destroy the Fortress of Solitude in Superman I. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I suggest we add the thief and the cobbler to the 'see also' section[edit]

The thief and the cobbler is another example of a film that was nearly completed, but had its creator fired from the project right before release. It would make sense to add it to the 'see also' section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.106.235.137 (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Superman and Supergirl Collection Trailer?[edit]

In the trailer section, there is this comment: "On November 21, 2006, Warner Bros. released the trailer for the Ultimate Superman and Supergirl Collection DVD box set". I have not seen nor could find evidence of such a trailer, and recommend the text be removed unless it can be sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.120.146 (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Superman_II:_The_Richard_Donner_Cut&oldid=1202590671"