I have seen the original Superman 2 and the Richard Donner's cut and have notice that there are some problems with both of the films. Do you think they would have Superman 2 would have been better if they had just finish the first Superman movie instead of filming both Superman and Superman 2 back to back?
sharePerhaps. Don't get me wrong I love Superman II but there are some weird parts of the script where bits of information are awkwardly repeated. Like you have the scene where the President tells Zod there is someone who can stop him and Zod says "Who is this imbecile? Where is he?" and the President says "I wish I knew." That's fine. But then later when the President is giving his TV speech and mentions Superman, once again Zod is required to ask who this person is. Either do one scene or the other, it just seems redundant.
Not that I'm saying either scene should really be cut because in the end both are enjoyable. :)
"Starscream cookies are more than meets the icing!" --Nostalgia Critic
I was thinking about this after I had a conversation with some people on facebook and at first we were talking about Man of Steel and somebody brought up Superman and Superman 2 and had said that they were perfect and we disagree because there were some problems with both of the movies.
the part I don't get is why have Superman go back in time to stop Zod from breaking out of the Phantom Zone, but still goes back to the diner. I can understand for the original Superman 2 he was looking for revenge, but the Richard Donner's cut, it made no sense because he went back in time, so how is the guy that beat him up is suppose to remember him??
I feel like when people say a movie is perfect they're more speaking from their emotionally reaction to the movie, not whether it has plot holes or not. All movies have plot holes. You're right that in the Donner cut the diner scene doesn't make sense. I get the impression they just figured no one would be paying that much attention.
"Starscream cookies are more than meets the icing!" --Nostalgia Critic
From my understanding is that they were gonig to usse Superman going back into time for Superman 2. If Lois Lane was to die in the first Superman movie, what would the ending for that be?
shareI heard that originally Lois wasn't going to die in Superman I, they introduced the idea because they thought she needed more to do at the end.
"Starscream cookies are more than meets the icing!" --Nostalgia Critic
why am I not surprise because you could tell the character needed something more to do. They were so focus on doing a love story and forgot the fact that Lois lane character needed to do something more.
shareBoth movies would be different. I heard the spinning the planet idea was originally intended for part 2, but I don't like the inclusion of it in the DONNER CUT because it still feels tacky and unnecessary.
I'm glad they filmed them back to back, because both SUPERMAN II's have a lot of Donner influence. Had they waited for SUPERMAN II, and Donner had been fired before that, chances are part 2 would be just another SUPERMAN III. Part 3 is Lester's and Salkinds' true SUPERMAN film.
http://www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/
Lester's version isn't as dark and gloomy, but Donner's vision was so well conceived, taut, and gripping, and successful as the first movie had shown, so to be cut at the 11th hour seems to have been a more costly move for the franchise in the long-term. Superman III wasted what little potential it had, and it being a disaster led to Superman IV trying to reclaim what was lost but by then it was too little, too late, and a retread of Superman II.
Culling Donner hurt the franchise far more in the long-term, even if they thought they were saving money. They probably lost out on a lot more as a result, and Donner's vision really gave the punch the Kryptonian criminals the sense of threat that's completely missing in Lester's cut. Lester's cut of II is good, but mostly because Donner had already done the bulk of the work. Donner's complete vision is so much better, and Superman III shows just how badly the franchise went off course.
They didn't film them back-to-back but both at the same time. For instance, both Brando's and Hackman's scenes for the two films had to be shot at the beginning of production. They only had Brando for a short time so there was a rush to get his scenes for both 1 and 2 at once. Hackman was also costing quite a bit everyday he was on the production so they also tried to get all of his II scenes done ASAP. And with The Daily Planet and The Fortress being the only sets to appear in both films, they strived to film scenes on those sets from both films at once. They made it with The Planet. But when the decision was made to stop work on II and concentrate on finishing 1, completing the Lois & Superman Fortress scenes was put on hold. A LOT of Superman II was shot *before* most of Superman the Movie...
share