This Cut Reminds me What's Important in Movies

The Donner Cut gets unfairly slammed, although I do agree with some of your logic as to why the Lester version could be considered superior.

I think the one major mistake WB made was in releasing the restored print as "The Donner Cut". Why? Because it's not the Donner Cut. Richard Donner didn't assemble the film; Michael Thau did, and rather poorly at that. Sure, Donner sat in and made suggestions and sort of helped guide Thau in the right direction, but for all intents and purposes this was Michael Thau's vision of what Richard Donner might have done. We'll never know, because Donner himself has said that he has grown both as a person and director in the 30 years that it took to get the film "completed", and there were many things that he did 30 years ago that he simply wouldn't do today.

Additionally, there can never be a "Donner Cut" because the film was never completed. For example, the excised Niagara Falls footage that was replaced by the screen tests. It was an interesting concept, inserting the test footage of the scene into the film, but because of the unfinished nature of the footage it stands out like a sore thumb. Is the Donner scene better than the Lester scene? It's hard to tell, although to the naked eye the Lester scenes will always win because they were finished and just flowed better within the film's narrative. Donner's scenes are sort of just thrown together haphazardly, and some of the scenes that worked in the Lester print are excised, whether fairly or unfairly, because they were not Donner's. It may seem petty, and perhaps it is, but it also hurts Donner because it creates a disjointed narrative that can never be fixed because the footage to fix it simply does not exist.

IMHO, I always felt that the title of the documentary "Superman II: Restoring the Vision" is what the finished product should have been called. Maybe something like:

Superman II: Restoring the Vision
The Richard Donner Workprint Revisited

would have worked better, as it is a more accurate representation of what the finished product really was. Certainly there is precedent for calling a finished product a "workprint version", and WB has done it themselves; they included a workprint version of Blade Runner as part of their massive boxset.

So...yeah. Big plastic Ss are silly but a lack of character development, disjointed story, and poor editing are far greater detriments to an enjoyable movie.

I think if viewed as a workprint, The Donner Cut can then be judged on its merits as opposed to a film-to-film comparison to the Lester version, which was a true finished product. In that context, the Donner Cut will almost necessarily have to be viewed unfavorably as an inferior product because of the disjointed nature of the film. But if viewed as a workprint and a film in progress, in comparison to the Lester version the Donner film would have been the FAR superior version.

I also get curious when people seem to think that Donner never did anything campy. Lois jumping out of the Daily Planet, Superman's "freedom of the press" line, and a ton of other bits are very campy. For that matter, as much as I like the first Superman film; most of the scenes when the movie shifts to Metropolis are very campy and the film really doesn't get any sense of seriousness back until Luthor launches the missles and Lois dies.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this comment, if only because I don't think you quite understand what camp, or being campy, really is. "Campy" is defined as "having deliberately artificial, vulgar, banal, or affectedly humorous qualities or style". If most people are to define camp, the first thing they think of is purposefully over-the-top, ridiculous, "wink-wink" type of humor. And the first thing that pops into their heads is the 1960's Adam West "Batman" series.

In that respect, you would be extremely hard-pressed to point out anything in either Donner's Superman I or II that is campy. Comic relief? Absolutely, Donner infuses both films with comic relief, and essentially I believe that everything that you point to in Donner's films as "campy" is comic relief. Comic relief is defined as "the inclusion of a humorous character, scene or witty dialogue in an otherwise serious work, often to relieve tension." That definition far more accurately describes Donner's infusion of humor in those 2 films than the definition of camp. The seriousness of Lois jumping out a window to force Clark to reveal himself as Superman, then having Clark rescue her without revealing himself is balanced with the comic relief of having Lois land in the fruit stand in front of the Daily Planet, then look up and faint when she sees Clark looking down at her from the window.

Additionally, if you have ever listened to the Donner/ Tom Mankiewicz commentary on Superman I, you begin to realize that the original script that the Salkinds presented them with would have made Adam West's Batman seem Academy Award worthy in comparison. Mankiewicz relates a story about how when he first read the script, he was shocked to see a scene where Superman is looking for Lex Luthor and sees a bald man walking on a street in Metropolis. He swoops down to apprehend him, only to have the man turn around and reveal himself to be Telly Savalas playing Kojak, at which point Kojak says "who loves ya, baby?" before Superman swoops off to continue his search for Luthor. That right there? That is CAMPY. And Mankiewicz had to essentially re-write the entire script to remove scenes like that, scenes with which the Salkinds were enamored. If anything, Donner and especially Mankiewicz were the two people most responsible for turning Superman I from a campy sure-to-be-box-office bomb into the respected classic it eventually became.

There are a ton of really great human touches that he brought to the film which I don't think it's very good without. I agree that there are a lot of silly bits that he brought as well but I'll always accept them if it means better realized characters.

If you want a more accurate portrayal of how Lester envisioned Superman, you need look no further than Superman III, with a script by David and Leslie Newman (the screenwriting couple who were the "masterminds" behind the Kojak gag in Superman I), and Lester's slapstick, campy intro and tone throughout the film. If there was any gravitas infused into the character(s) by Lester in Superman II, it was because he had the superb direction of Donner with which to guide him.

Know this about Lester: The wonderfully dramatic bully diner scene in Superman II? Donner filmed that, yet Lester was the guy who claimed sole credit for that scene. To this day, despite it having been definitively disproved as being Lester's scene (the actor's appearances mirror those from Superman I, as well as the fact that Donnerappears in the scene for crying out loud), Lester still insists that the footage is his. So for all the praise that Lester gets with his direction of Superman II, he was working off the Donner and Mankiewicz shooting script for II, in at least one instance claiming responsibility for work that wasn't his.

I will give you this, though: The Lester version DOES have better realized characters, if only because (1) Lester was working off the script that Donner was shooting from, and (2) Donner never had a chance to complete his film.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

i for one enjoy the Donner version over Lester's film. and having seen both of them back to back recently. its really apparent how different in tone they are.

But it's odd that no one seems to give him credit for doing something the Donner Cut completely fails in: developing Superman and Lois Lane as characters.

i disagree with you on the character development. the 2 films were meant to be seen as 1 long film. i saw plenty of what i needed to see between Lois and Superman in the first installment. even by the end of that film it is well established that Superman cares a great deal about Lois. and that Lois is head over heels for Superman.

All the scenes that were excised in the Donner Cut served to actually make it feel like these two people might have an actual relationship. No, they weren't the best love scenes ever filmed but they created a much better foundation for the characters than flat-out cartoony stuff that we see in the Donner Cut (Lois jumping out of the Daley Planet, shooting Clark with blanks). When watching the destruction of The Fortress of Solitude, I couldn't help but feel that the romance between Clark and Lois totally didn't feel earned, (her line "I got the man I love to love me" rang especially false). As annoying for the plot as the magic kiss might have been, it felt far more emotionally honest than ANY of the romantic section in the Donner Cut. Donner himself seems to think so too since he mentions in the commentary wanting to reshoot certain scenes (like that one) for the performances.

i was very entertained seeing Lois jump out the window and shooting Clark with blanks.. i mean thats very much in character to what was depicted in the first film.
those lines are what work for the sincerity of the relationship. it may not feel earned to you solely on the fact that Donner's film is unfinished. had he not been fired we probably would have seen their relationship flourish throughout the film.

On that note, I really think Reeve always gives a stronger performance in the bits Lester chose to reshoot. There's a great confidence in lines like "I love her," or his "Care to step outside?" and the help make Superman feel like more of a three-dimensional character and less just like a comic-book.

Speaking of the line "care to step outside;" it's a much stronger moment because it recalls the scene where Clark was beaten up and also is another way in which the Lester cut gets something important right which the Donner Cut didn't. IT FEELS LIKE A WHOLE MOVIE.

again i disagree. i prefer the original dialogue because it just fits better with the tone of the film. the 'care to step outside' line really bothers me when Superman is at the window. it seemed just a bit corny and a little beneath him. because now its like hes almost feeding his ego. because now he can say that line now that he has his powers back. it just always bothered me. the way its done in the Donner version flows a lot easier because hes dead serious and not really making a joke.

Really, it's amazing how little continuity there is in the Donner Cut. It feels like a collection of self-contained scenes rather than a film. The attempts to get rid of every bit of Lester's stuff really make for a weak film. Considering some bits of Lester's were used anyway; why not try to make the best film possible? Superman apologizing to the President at the end was sorely missed for closure and I think most people agree that the new ending (time travel...AGAIN) is incredibly disapointing

theres little continuity in the Donner Cut because it isnt finished. it is in fact like you say, a collection of self contained scenes that dont flow well together because theres still a lot more that needed to be filmed. as you know in flims scenes are rarely shot chronologically.
Lester still used the script that Donner was using , except unlike Donner, Lester had the opportunity to film them. not only film them but film them HIS way.

i imagine they used very little of Lester's stuff because they werent shot the way Donner would have done them. which would also go against the title of THE RICHARD DONNER CUT. they used a few scenes for the sake of giving the film a sense of a pacing that still moves the story along. even then it feels very disjointed because the fact that Lois jumped out the window is completely gone. instead its like theyve forgotten all about it. while in the scene where she shoots him with blanks , its all revisited that she jumped out the window.

the White House ending is more patriotic but i didnt necessarily miss it. on top of that the scene points out that Superman screwed up in making the hasty decision of becoming mortal for Lois. so i didnt need that reminder since we have the diner scene.it feels less thrown together without the White House scene.

the reversing time thing was as i recall always the ending for Superman II but it was used for Superman I due to a rushed schedule. so doesnt seem wrong to include it here. moreso because they didnt use that after Superman launched the rockets into space. had they used it then and then at the end...would be over the top.

The one area where I think the Donner Cut works better emotionally are the scenes with Jor-El which do have a lot of weight and I really wish the Salkinds hadn't been such cheap SOBs and not wanted to include them (though Lois wearing Superman's shirt it beyond silly).

to me thats the heart of the film. is that father/son relationship being shown. thats what i felt was missing from the first film. and we get it here..so it works.

The bottom line is, I do prefer Richard Donner as a director but I really don't understand why people act as though Lester is the anti-Christ (anyone ever scene Hard Day's Night or A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum?). There are a ton of really great human touches that he brought to the film which I don't think it's very good without. I agree that there are a lot of silly bits that he brought as well but I'll always accept them if it means better realized characters. I also get curious when people seem to think that Donner never did anything campy. Lois jumping out of the Daily Planet, Superman's "freedom of the press" line, and a ton of other bits are very campy. For that matter, as much as I like the first Superman film; most of the scenes when the movie shifts to Metropolis are very campy and the film really doesn't get any sense of seriousness back until Luthor launches the missles and Lois dies

i think people are still unforgiving of Superman III. all in all Lester has too many comedic bits whereas Donner used subtle humor for the sake of comic relief in what would otherwise be a serious dramatic atmosphere.

not sure what ur idea of campy is but again i disagree with you.

bottom line is that Lester got to work on a film that was unfinished. but had to reshoot a lot of things in order for him to get full credit as director. so things were changed up and done HIS way. thats not to say if Donner could have finished the film he would not have had the stuff you are demanding. but again the man didnt get to finish filming his movie. which is why it feels poorly paced. not only that but he didnt put the footage together. it was Thau that oversaw the project of restoring what he could.

this isnt the same scenario as Exorcist Dominion and Exorcist The Beginning. where he have 2 directors shooting the same movie but doing each their own style,completing them, and having them released.

what we have here is an unfinished film that got finished by another director who has a different take on things. so its an unfair comparison that you are making here.
the Donner Cut is great but its not a directors cut that got pulled out of a box. its various forms of old footage that has gotten meshed together to resemble a film.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Lester's scenes, all of the campy humour are incredibly cringe-worthy. I thought that as a child. I am so glad they are gone.

I didn't miss anything from Lois & Clark's relationship - what did Lester add? Nothing special. And the simple little scene of Lois wearing Superman's shirt post-coitus was much more subtle and touching.

'Care to step outside?'is a fine line. But I prefer the 'freedom of the press' one, because it's cleverer, rather than just Supes being bad-ass. How is it campy, as you suggest? Or Lois jumping out of the window? They are not campy, like some idiot chatting on the phone laughing as some super-villains blow the phone-box over is...

Bottom line, you dismiss the rubbish bits Lester added (admittedly down to the Salkinds, not just him)... the plastic S, Non being a joke because he can't use his powers well, the amnesia kiss, the unexplained way Clark gets his powers back - but these are, to me and many, HUGE issues that really detract from the movie, and their removal is a thing of beauty. Not to mention the addition of Brando, Lois doodling glasses on the photo of Superman, Zod gleefully machine-gunning white-house guards, so many extra bits of greatness.

I just don't understand how anyone would prefer the Lester version, or even suggest he added anything of worth - maybe I'll give him the bit where Superman gets Lois a flower - but that's about it.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Very well said. I just picked up the Donner cut standalone Blu-Ray in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart (I'd always resisted the 3-pack with Superman, Superman II: The Donner Cut, and Superman Returns because Superman Returns was an abomination).

The Lester version is superior in almost every way. I have a new appreciation for how many things a director might have to change to make the theatrical release better or more memorable.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I will say--the Clark/Lois friendship is developed beautifully in Lester's cut. We can see that the two have developed into a best friends relationship. I love the scene in Lois' office after the Paris scene where she talks to him like a big sister giving a lecture. And at the end of the scene - "Clark-you know I wouldn't say these things if I didn't care" .... and at the end, after the super kiss - 'Isn't he a nice guy?!" - I loved that. Donner's S2, as much as I enjoy it, didn't have the same feel to the Clark/Lois relationship.

reply share

add reply

formatting help