Donner Superman 2 SE (merged thread) - Page 8

i cant open the stills in this section, i just get an error.

"SCENES 275 - 307: INT. DAILY PLANET"

i can open the others.

"The first Superman had a good number of gags, too, and the ability to make time move backwards was certainly a newly invented (or, at best, wildly extrapolated) power."

Superman did not make time move backward. He went backwards in time. We sort of see things from his perspective. It creates a massive paradox.

Actress Sarah Douglas who played Ursa in Superman 2, has recorded her first commentary track on Conan The Destroyer region 2 from the UK. She talks about her career including Superman. when the times comes for the superman 2 special edition.. Hopefully they will want to have a commentary with the phantom zone villain cast!

www.angelfire.com/ca4/sarahdouglas

JACOB

Sorted now

So is this just theoretical talk, or are they going to work on this? I assume the former since I'm sure there would be much more chatter if they are going to do. But, I'd be happy to be wrong.

Very nice. Is the article online anywhere?

WB want to do it, but there's a mountain of work to get through. Read for yourself:

DVD REVIEW

It's all theoretical. Seeing the cut footage is one thing (and I'd love to see it too), but this plea to restore "Donner's version of II" is ludicrous because it never fully existed to begin with. I give this group of die-hard fans credit for keeping threads like this going, but it's a pipe dream...like seeing the original versions of STAR WARS on DVD as well

nah, I think everyone's hoping for a "Donner-ish" cut, where Donner or Stuart Baird, or some qualified person reshapes the movie with what does exist, and maybe some new effects. Some Lester footage would be used. S2 already has two directors, and was re-edited already for the tv version, so why not mess with it again? (if the legal issues can be handled).

Except that Richard Donner has confirmed that the opportunity was offered to him once before, though at the time he was still furious over what had happened over the original production and Warner's current treatment on pre-production for the new one. Not to mention the Brando footage was still tied up.

Warner has recently confirmed an interest in either using the footage to present an extended cut of Superman II or as a supplement feature. The ludicrous part is buying into the idea that one director (Lester) can take entire credit for a film that is 30% another's work (Donner), but not the other way around. If the rights are cleared, Donner's version would be 70% his or more.

No, the *possibility* of a restored cut is very real. Whether or not it's likely or that Warner can pull it off is the issue.

I wouldn't call it ludicrous, Mike. Donner shot 90% of the live-action footage for the film. They could easily complete the very small amount of missing sequences featuring returning actors (according to Donner in 1978, this would only include Terence Stamp, Sarah Douglas and Jack O'Halloran), using computer-generated versions of the actors' faces, in the same way the makers of the television programme Virtual History have created astonishingly photo-realistic CG versions of Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill.

http://discoverychannel.co.uk/virtualhistory/

It's also worth remembering that Donner suspected in early 1979 that the Salkinds were considering releasing a version of Superman II containing just the footage he had already shot. So there's no real reason to believe that a more-or-less straight recut of just the existing Donner footage couldn't be turned into a workable film.

It might not be a film that we (and Donner) would be entirely satisfied with, but it would still be a completed version of the film.

Those psychos even used Donner Superman II footage for Superman III!!! Anyway, I don't know about CGI face composites, but if Fox can use CGI and rough workprint footage to restore and improve Alien 3, this problem is far from a technical one. Heck, Robert Wise finished Star Trek: The Motion Picture 20 years later...

With Christopher Reeve's passing on Sunday, it's got me wondering what the situation on a potential Superman II SE set is at this point. I'm sure that a lot of the legal hurdles has to do with clearance from both Pueblo Film Licensing (the Salkinds' receivorship) and with the Brando estate, but another clearance issue that I'm thinking must now be considered is with the Reeve family. Would they give their blessings to the project?

I'm not too crazy about a Superman III SE, other than booting it up to a 5.1 mix and adding a few extras, but a restored Superman IV SE would definitely interest me.

I know it's not the ideal time to think about it right now, but it's something that just went through my mind and had to get out there.

You're right.

but we had no problem talking about it when Marlon Brando passed away.

I don't think anyone is being insensitive by talking about it. It is the lost Reeve performance that might or might not surface. If we sweep it under the rug for fear of being disrespectful, then when is the right time to talk about such things?

Miss Randi
who doesn't want to offend. I'm still in disbelief and crying off and on- this was my childhood hero and became the hero for my adult years.

I don't see any reason why they would not. Reeve never seemed to have any beef with the series unlike Brando and the Salkinds. Also, a re-release would be a great opportunity to promote any Christopher Reeve foundation and other foundations devoted to spinal cord research.

I'm sure Reeve supported or would have supported a recut or extended edition of Superman II that would bring the film closer to Donner's vision.

I was one of those people that voted on the "Warner Brothers SE thread . I think that the disc NEEDS a new version as well as a new vision . I recently bought a dlp projector and the first disc I wanted to watch projected was Superman 2 . The transfer is really bad i knew this from watching it on my 52 inch tv and blowing it up to 150 inches made matters waaaaaaay worse , I could'nt even finish the movie ....The transfer sucks so bad that i was constantly re-focusing the film and after awhile i gave up . I would think that no matter what "Legal" problems Warner might have the fans would definetly pay them back . Put the SRP of the disc at $39.99 I would pay it as well as many others for any hurdles you may have to deal with . I just recently paid 50 bucks on ebay for DVD copies of extended Superman 1 (runs over 3 1/2 hrs) and 2 that aired on tv in the 80's Both are FULL FRAME But its the only way i can see what could have been !!!! So i think your fan base is set fellas . I too belived that a man could fly. And fly he did .

Am I the only one that believes a so-called Donner version of Superman II that is significantly better than the version we have now may be a myth or a fantasy?

Don't get me wrong, I love both Superman I and II, and independent of the Superman movies, there are films I love by both Donner and Lester, and with the exception of the defective Kryptonite turning Superman bad subplot, I despise Superman III. And I feel the Salkinds royally screwed Donner (I've often joked to myself that he made a far better film for them then they deserved.) By all means he should not have been fired.

However, my problem is that while I love the first film, I have mixed feelings about the portrayal of the villians. They almost seem to be from another film. They seem a little too light and breezy. That has its strong suit in that on the surface, Luthor is a light and charming person, but underneath, he's plotting to kill millions of innocent people, but what about Tesmacher and Otis, not to mention the rather silly "March of the Villains" theme. I enjoy them in the movie to a degree, but can't help feeling ambivalent about how the film could have benefited from more seriously portrayed villains. Despite being enjoyable, they come across as too campy.

Now with Superman II, (like a the first one, a film I mostly love, but there are things I'm mixed about), the scenes that make me wince most are the Luthor/Otis prison scenes (ie: "I want my Liberace record back tonight" "There's a scratch on it" and the slapstick involving the hot air balloon). And we all know that for the most part, all scenes with Hackman were done by Donner.

There's some scenes of Lester that I don't like like some of the silly scenes in the small town, or the slapstick after the big Metropolis battle (the toupee, the guy in the phonebooth). However, as much as I don't like these, they aren't really that more out of place, inappropriate, or wince-inducing than the Luthor stuff.

Also, there's some things that Donner shot that were not included in the theatrical cut (but on the TV cut) like the Artic Police coming and taking the Luthor (while he tries to bargain with Superman saying he'll be his boxing manager. WTF?!) and the Phantom Zone villains away. Whether Donner would include those or not in his final cut is beside the point; he shot some silly campy stuff.

So put simply, I love the first two Superman films almost equally (more or less, though I still think the first one is a little better) but I have mixed feelings that there are elements from both of them that are campy. But with Superman II, it's clear that some of those campy elements come from scenes Donner shot, and some come from scenes that Lester shot.

And also, there are some scenes that Lester did to replace Donner's footage that may (or may not) have been better or more appropriate, or at lest neutral. Is the Niagara falls scene with Lois any better (in concept) than her jumping out of the Daily Planet? Or the scene where she finds out his true identity? Doesn't it seem kind of silly that Superman would fall for that? What about how the Phantom Zone villains escape? Is the version in II (the Eiffel Tower Terrorists) any better than how it would have been if one of the missiles from the first movie caused their escape?

Also, I thought that Superman fighting the Phantom Zone villians in Metropolis was an amazing sequence and took my breath away back in 1981 when I first saw it, with plenty of awesome cheerworthy moments. Sure there's some shots that don't hold up well nowadays, but you can say the same thing about the Earthquake sequence from the first one and it doesn't end with a rather lame dues ex machina with Superman flying around the world to change how things went.

One thing I dislike about Superman II that had nothing to do with Donner or Lester (though Donner's firing is what caused it) is not having John Williams back but instead tracking his music from the first one (ie, one that particularly bugs me is playing the music from Superman's journay to Earth over shots of him picking flowers for Lois Lane. Know this is only something that bugs me due to repeat viewings, but the more I watch it, the more it bothers me.

Also, it would have been nice to have seen Brando again (and keeping in continuity with the first one), especially in place of his mother or some unknown Kryptonian talking about trees), but I kind of like Superman's resurrection as how it was handled in the finished film. I like that you don't see what happens, and don't know for sure if he was able to regain his powers or not until you see him fly to the Daily Planet to challenge Zod. Having Brando come out and basically say "here's your power back, goodbye" which, while dramantically resonant, would have ruined the effectiveness of the later scene.

So all in all, while I'm interested in there being a Donner cut, and would love to see all the extra footage included, at least as a supplement, I'm not sold on whether or not it will be significantly better than the film as it is. Not when we know that some of the questionable elements of the finished film are from scenes shot by him and that some scenes he shot that were cut (or replaced by Lester), would seem to be best left that way.

"Having Brando come out and basically say "here's your power back, goodbye" which, while dramantically resonant, would have ruined the effectiveness of the later scene."

I could not disagree more strongly on this point, especially if one reads Brando's dialogue in the shooting script, because it brings full circle his little speech at the beginning of the first movie about "The son becomes the father, the father becomes the son". And it was also the only scene in which Brando and Reeve were ever together on the same set when Jor-El steps out to give Clark his powers back, so that gives it an even deeper significance as well.

You could be right. I still like that in the final version, things are implied, but left vague so it comes as a greater feel good moment when we see Superman in full glory challenge Zod.

However, that original Brando scene sounds more dramatic.

But are you sure about Brando and Reeve being together in that shot? I seem to remember Reeve telling a story in the documentary about how he was disappointed that he never got to do any scenes with Brando (and that only the actor playing him at 18 did) but since Reeve would dub his lines, actually convinced the producers to let him come on the set that day and personally deliver his "who am I" line to Brando. And Brando, knowing this, decided to play a pratical joke on Reeve by tearing into him for such a bad line reading.

They did work together for the end of that scene where before his image disappears forever, Jor-El is seen next to him reaching out to touch him. I actually recall Reeve remembering working with Brando for this scene and being disappointed that it was cut since it meant none of what they did together (apart from the hologram conversation restored to the first film which didn't have them working on-set together) ever was used.

I have to disagree on that. I think the way Hackman played it was brilliant. It kept him from being some cookie cutter villian. He had charm, but could be deadly when he needed to be. Otis may not stand up to that scrutiny, but I think Hackman did it just right. And since Superman is not supposed to be a dark film, I think it suits the film fine.

Dharmesh, I accidently peered in this thread
out of sheer curiosity after avoiding it for
weeks.

You see, I am one of those who believed that
WB would never release the original cut of
Superman 2. While it's just as much
a fantasy project for me (as it is all of you),
I knew that it was a massive undertaking for the
studio to take.

When I finally peered in this thread today, I
was quite surprised by what has been accomplished
thus far. You guys have made a real effort here.
While WB still hasn't promised anything, at least
there is noise being made and articles being written.
I can also see that the studio is at least
investigating what footage they have as well as
looking into the rights issues involving the actors
and directors.

Year after year I saw WB pawn this project off.
Finally, it looks as if the studio is taking a
bonafide interest in putting this together.

Dharmesh, thank you for quoting our site in the
article. We are feeling mighty proud that you guys
were able to use this forum as a tool to get this
project off the ground.

"Also, it would have been nice to have seen Brando again (and keeping in continuity with the first one), especially in place of his mother or some unknown Kryptonian talking about trees), but I kind of like Superman's resurrection as how it was handled in the finished film. I like that you don't see what happens, and don't know for sure if he was able to regain his powers or not until you see him fly to the Daily Planet to challenge Zod. Having Brando come out and basically say "here's your power back, goodbye" which, while dramantically resonant, would have ruined the effectiveness of the later scene."

Now this I agree with 1000%. I remember being 10 years old, and seeing the wind suddenly whoosh down the streets of Metropolis, followed by Chris Reeve appearing in the window of the Daily Planet. "General Zod? Would you care to step outside?" I literally gasped out loud, in a way only a ten year old can -- "SUPERMAN!"

One of the fundamental building blocks of any great story is surprise. Showing Clark regaining his powers is a mistake. It is unnecessary, for one, but the primary reason is that it would lessen the surprise and therefore would weaken what was arguably, for me, one of the best moments in the movie.

I saw SUPERMAN II opening night at a packed Northeast Philly theater(the Budco Orleans, before it went down the tubes), and I've never encountered more crowd cheering or audience clapping than I did at the moment when Supes returns and challenges Zod. This is one of the great movie moments IMHO.

To me, it becomes a development totally out of left field and an indicator of the poor structure that II has overall in comparison to I. And the ultimate reason why the film is cut that way has nothing to do with maintaining suspense but because there was no credible way of redoing the scene without Brando.

To me this missing scene is the *only* thing I want to see above all other things in a new cut of II and anything else could stay on the cutting room floor with no regrets from my standpoint.

The "care to step outside" moment won't be hurt either way. it's still the first time SUPERMAN is back. People didn't cheer out of surpise. Whether he finds the crystal on the ground or his dad gives it to him, what's the diff? The Brando version cetainly sounds more dramatic and interesting.

"Whether he finds the crystal on the ground or his dad gives it to him, what's the diff?"

The difference to me lies in the power of the scene between Reeve and Brando which comes through even from the script and how Brando's dialogue provides the necessary closure to everything from the first movie.