Superman II Donner Cut

David Jimerson

David Jimerson

Administrator
Staff member
I wouldn't say it's a entirely different movie. The essential story is the same, even though the beginning and ending are completely different.

It's fascinating to watch, because though many of the scenes are the same, they're cut from the original footage differently, so you'll see different takes, and definitely a different editing approach. So, even moreso than "Apocalypse Now Redux," it's a re-edit of the entire film from beginning to end, with many instances of completely different footage being used.

The ending is mildly lame, but it's tempered somewhat from knowing that it's what the original ending was conceived to be when Superman I and Superman II were intended to be a two-part, single story.

An interesting study for editing and storytelling decisions. I suggest reviewing the Richard Lester/theatrical release cut before viewing the Donner cut.
 
Out of all the superhero movies, I bypassed the superman trilogy...just never got around to seeing them.

When I finally watched the old ones with C. Reeves I literally sat there and laughed my way through them. The effects (circa what 79?) ruined it for me, as you can see right through them.

Guess Im spoiled in the digital age I find myself in today- either way, I couldnt really get into this movie. Im sure in the early 80's watching superman fly all over was pretty amazing, unfortuantly I wasnt watching it circa 1980's-

That being said, it is a very interesting difference between the cuts. I wished they did this more often....make the "indie" cuts of movies. Indie in this way meaning outside of studio control, as referenced by a similar post in the cafe recently.
Interesting to see a movie cut differently.
 
It was an achievement for its day and for its budget.

But, that aside, I'd much rather have the best miniature photography/bluescreen work than the best CGI work. It has more heart, more soul, and feels much more real (mainly, because it IS much more real.)
 
s4manturbo said:
Out of all the superhero movies, I bypassed the superman trilogy...just never got around to seeing them.

When I finally watched the old ones with C. Reeves I literally sat there and laughed my way through them. The effects (circa what 79?) ruined it for me, as you can see right through them...
Click to expand...

:huh:You friggin' kidding me?!:huh:

I put Superman in the top 5 films of all time for special effects break-troughs for their time. (I have Star Wars at #1; King Kong (1933) at #2; and Jurassic Park at #3...none of which have lost their status as unbelievably great poo pooin' films!)

Not to mention that Superman remains the best superhero film of all bloody time...something that I don't see changing anytime in the (cringe) CGI-dominated future.​
 
I am NOT a big Superman fan myself... while the first film has somewhat of a nostalgia with it... it's a pretty lame film IMHO... Returns was OK at best... one of those I won't see again... I am curious to see Superman 2: The Donner Cut though...
 
if dick donner cut that stupid bit with the rollerskater and the guy getting an ice cream cone in the face, that's really all i need to know. even as a kid those scenes always stuck out as (how would a prepubescent version of me put it?).... ah, yes. dumb! :)
 
Last edited:
I've always thought the Superman film franchise was sophomoric. Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor isn't scary - he's lame. Beatty's performance is embarrassing bordering on nearly unwatchable.

Like many films produced in the 1970s, the entire first installment felt too improvisational. Did they come up with the ambulance bit during an all-morning on-set cokefest? How many rails did someone rip before that scenario became plausible?

Today's films, though overdone from an SFX perspective, have much more weight and conflict within them. I'm not saying they're necessarily more plausible, but I never took Superman seriously based on the films with Christopher Reeve. Loved Superman comics, liked him, but thought he could have really shined under less campy, tongue-in-cheek direction and writing.

Say what you will about Returns, but at least Singer put a little more drama and a little less camp behind his. Something tells me that Singer feels the same way about everything that came before his own interpretation of Superman.

e
 
singer put more formula than anything else into superman. Singer is a hack when it comes to super hero films.... hes made like a one movie that got him notable... what has he truly made that made you say Fantastic since.
 
Saw it. It was pretty. On the whole, both versions are kind of lame, but only in a 70's way. Just a bit too much corn and cheesey lines.

My biggest beef is that the new one seem too loose. If I were going to spend that much time on a new edit, I would take some of the air and potholes out of the show.

Superman 2 seems to remain what it is, and that's OK. It was cool to see a new aproach.
 
David Jimerson said:
... I'd much rather have the best miniature photography/bluescreen work than the best CGI work. It has more heart, more soul, and feels much more real (mainly, because it IS much more real.)
Click to expand...

Amen!! I haven't seen SUPERMAN RETURNS yet, but the promos I see just don't look "real". All of the shots of Superman flying look like a photorealist painting, not a photograph. Were those done *entirely* as CGI? The 1978 SUPERMAN was promoted with the tag line "You'll believe a man can fly!" SUPERMAN RETURNS should have the tag line "You'll believe we can use computers to draw special effects!"
 
Computer effects are good when they don't do too much. It was [and might continue to be] way over the top to the point of cartoonish.

Superman Returns made extensive use of miniatures. Here's Brian building one all by himself.

co9.jpg


Actually, that's about the most insane model railroad I've ever seen. The more I look at it, the more I understand why they lavished so much screen time on destroying it. The CGI stuff, like collapsing Metropolis, receives much less - probably because it looks squishy.

e
 
CallaghanFilms said:
:huh:You friggin' kidding me?!:huh:

I put Superman in the top 5 films of all time for special effects break-troughs for their time. (I have Star Wars at #1; King Kong (1933) at #2; and Jurassic Park at #3...none of which have lost their status as unbelievably great poo pooin' films!)

Not to mention that Superman remains the best superhero film of all bloody time...something that I don't see changing anytime in the (cringe) CGI-dominated future.
​
Click to expand...

It's understandable that some have a certain nostaglia that they are not willing to relinquish, but there a few things one has to understand: those directors that made those movies don't want to go back and use the old style techniques, they only found creative solutions to limitations of the time. If they stuck with that nostaligic, old school aesthetic, their films would most likely be boring to watch since they are no longer pushing the envelope, etc. Right now the limitations are technical limitations imposed by computers and making the unbelievable real, et al. Most don't know, but old style techniques are used in tandem, with almost equal weight, as newer techniques like CGI and the rest. To "cringe" at the "CGI-dominated future" is to cringe at innovation within filmmaking.

Granted there is lots of bad CGI, but there were lots of bad movies that used forced perspective instead of greenscreens, or minituares instead of 3d models. Yes, it may be overused too, but Humphrey Bogart isn't coming back in black and white, George Lucas isn't going to be hanging any X wings from wire anymore, 3 strip technicolor is a thing of the past; this is the current trend and it's up to the creatives to use that trend to the benefit of the artform and advance it past the "bad CGI" stage or whatever the complaint of the day is, and not remain stagnant otherwise we have failed ourselves as artists.
 
oneinfiniteloop said:
...those directors that made those movies don't want to go back and use the old style techniques, they only found creative solutions to limitations of the time. If they stuck with that nostaligic, old school aesthetic, their films would most likely be boring to watch since they are no longer pushing the envelope...
Click to expand...
boring, eh?

slscr21.jpg

spr82.jpg

DieVerurteilten_2LP_1A_pic2.jpg

3870_5741.jpg
 
Well, believe it or not, those films made use of special effects, and you missed the point, I'm not saying eschew all old style techniques of filmmaking. Embrace the tools that are available. If you can add something that's relevant to the story, then add it, but if it detracts then leave it out, etc. Personally, if I made a movie I would use as much practical effects as possible, but there would be digital effects to augment those. Use all the tools available to make the best damn movie you can. Tools (software, CGI, etc) don't kill a movie, bad directors/artists/etc kill movies. I'll look past bad effects to watch a movie with a good story.

Either way, just my .02.
 
No matter what era you happen to reside in, Everything is about good storytelling.
I have nothing against using special effects. Hell, I have nothing against CGI...Jurassic Park is one of my favorite films because it is a great goddamn story unfolding right before your eyes. Jurassic's CGI is the best CGI ever used...of course it wasn't overdone, and was blended perfectly with Stan Winston's mastery.

What I have a problem with are movies that wear their CGI-driven status on their sleeve & try to bank on it at it alone (storytelling be damned)...which has unfortunately become the rule, not the exception with certain genres.
 
oneinfiniteloop said:
Personally, if I made a movie I would use as much practical effects as possible, but there would be digital effects to augment those. Use all the tools available to make the best damn movie you can. Tools (software, CGI, etc) don't kill a movie, bad directors/artists/etc kill movies.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the point I was getting to.
 
I'd argue that the best looking SFX films of the past 25 years still used plenty of models. Films that rely exclusively on either analog or digital effects seem to suffer from their own inflexibility.

Some pictures that are almost entirely miniature / live action or a good blend of analog and digital:

The Abyss
LOTR
Blade Runner

There are lots...

e
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top