Donner Superman 2 SE (merged thread) - Page 3

Mike said:



I mean that his signature style hampered the film, he is known for visual gags rather than telling the story.



I kinda agree, but Superman is considered to be king, and defined the serious approach and blueprint for future films. Any comic book film-maker will always cite the first hour of Superman as the best comic book adaptation yet. Not even Spider-man could touch the humanity of the first film.

Margot Kidder was going through personal problems at the time, hence why looked OFF when Lester was directing. Margot would not have done Superman III if Lester hadn't begged her.

Chris Reeve was not universally liked amongst the cast and crew.

I must admit, when I first went to see Superman II at the cinema in the UK on its initial release, I much preferred it to the first one - I preferred the story and I thought it was better paced (always thought the Krypton sequence, while great in and of itself, dragged teribly). As a twelve-year old, that was definitely my feeling - and I was none too crazy about the ending of the first one either.

When I bought Superman-The Movie on DVD, as a thirty-four year old, I have to admit that I found it much better than I remembered - and I certainly think that the commentary by Donner and Mankiewicz is really great and made their grandiose intentions very clear.

Lester is a very different filmmaker than Donner, and personally I think a finer and more intelligent one - he's also made a very wide variety of films - musicals (A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE FORUM), historical romps (3 MUSKETEERS films) an absolutely first class disaster movie/thriller (JUGGERNAUT) as well as his comedies (HARD DAY'S NIGHT, THE KNACK etc). But he is mainly an ironist, albeit a clever and stylish one - which is about the last thing you can say about Donner, whose output, after the terrific movies of the 70s like Superman and The Omen, has been been rather a disappointment (Lethal Weapon is stylish, but basically very empty to me). They're both talented and I've enjoyed both of their films over the years.

But they are clearly not a good match - Superman II to me is now clearly a hybrid movie that falls between two stools - I watched half f it on TV last weekend here in London and I still think it has the better story and better action scenes, but the first one has a unity of style and intent that clearly makes it a more satisfying experience, no question about it -

To see a special edition of Superman II with Donner's original footage included as extras or branching doesn't seem very likely (especially if the law suit is pending) - but I would love to see it - it would probably be a better movie - on paper it certainly seems like it, although that is often the case lets face it - The second film is clearly a smaller, more concise, less epic movie and I think i would rather see what Donner had in mind than what lester had to rush to make under clearly very trying circumstances - incidentally, Steven Soderbergh's interview book with Lester (GETTING AWAY WITH IT) is a blast!

I'm not totally disagreeing with you Sergio, but it's amusing to note that one of the chief criticisms of the original SUPERMAN is that the tone DOES vary all over the place: the Krypton scenes resemble a serious sci-fi fantasy, then it becomes a nostalgic growing up picture when the location shifts to Smallville. It heads to Metropolis and becomes a contemporary romance as much as an adventure film, and then Lex Luthor appears with liberal doses of campy comedy like the original Batman TV series. Throw in Irwin Allen-like disaster special effects at the end and you do have a little bit of everything. It IS a mesh of styles, IMHO, but a great film nevertheless.

Exactly. Superman: The Movie may not have defined the genre, but it should have. Batman is a far inferior movie and while perhaps the best live-action adaptation yet, is still a far cry from what could be done with the character and a movie. There have been alot of great superhero movies since the original Superman, particularly in the last few years, but none will go down as a classic of American cinema like Superman: The Movie has.

Upto the end of the big Fortress of Solitude sqequence, the film is perfect. The special effects are fantastic for the most part, only the awful minature dam sequence (NOT photographed by Derek Meddings, but some American f/x house) hurts the film.

Guys, the photography, someone did a comparison between Superman and Spider-man, the results were an eye opener:

Spider-man looks AWFUL, no life at all. Superman is pure eye candy, strong foreground colours against a hazy background. Anyway back on topic:

Brando was paid for 2 films plus he was entitled to a % of the profits. I think at the time he was not paid the profits for ONE, so he got a court order, or threatened to, if they went ahead and used Jor-El footage in 2. The profit percentage was too high for the Salkinds, so they decided not to use him in Superman 2, anyway.
Brando was paid off later for his work in ONE.

"one of the chief criticisms of the original SUPERMAN is that the tone DOES vary all over the place"

I agree with you on this Mike - Lester is fairly stinging about it in the Soderbergh book as well - I suppose I should have said "of intention" - it does fell episodic, like three different films (or "episodes"), although in terms of visuals and performance I think that they tend to be all of a piece, irrespective of the content - but I may be wrong - either way, it works in giving it an epic sense of scale throughout, which is what Donner does so well (and which conflicts with the minimalist approach of Lester in II)

I like III quite a lot now (didn't then), but it is basically an "anti-Superman" film, which i think is clever and funny but which I can understand why it pissed so many people off.

As a teen, I preferred Superman II to Superman. As an adult, I have so much more admiration for the original film. To me, Donner found exactly the right balance between realism and fantasy, and his film had a much more epic, dramatic feel. But it seems to me like Lester dumbed down Superman II a bit. The moon scene, for example, borders on silly.

As for the variances in tone within Superman, well, in a real sense it IS three different films in one, so why would that be a bad thing? I think it works fantastically.

Kidder got on the Salkinds bad sad when she publicly criticized them for dumping Donner- this was while or even before the pickups for II were going on.
she may have been stressed out, but her appearence in the Lester scenes for II is mostly just poor costuming, poor make-up, and poor lighting.

look at her in the scenes that Donner shot
-the diner scene (always thought she actually looked pretty here)
-certain inserts in the end Fortress sequence- anytime you see Hackman in the same frame, thats a Donner sequence.
-certain inserts in the Daily Planet- like when she goes to punch Ursa.

to me, she looks great in these-and considering here performance and what she had been competeing against, i'd go so far as to say perfect.

even if Lester 'didn't have it in for her' the fact they didn't bother to match something as simple as her hairstyle (for pete's sake, it looks like shes wearing a hag-wig in the re-shoots), is indicitive of general slip-shodiness that is emblematic of the whole finished product to me.

as much as i loathe and despise this film now, i still own a copy (even went so far as to replace an LD copy with the dvd), and i would still buy a super-deluxe SE of it.

Shot by Donner, all of it. I love the moon action, but the flag and the spacecraft carnage should've floated away!!!



Kidder wears a bold red lipstick in the Donner scenes.

Just on a technical note, since it is generally acknowledged that Donner was something like 70% done with the shooting of Superman II, what exactly would a Donner re-cut look like? Would title cards be used to describe the missing sequences? Would he have to use some of the Lester footage (which would seem to defeat the purpose of the thing)? I don't have a problem with the idea in concept, I'm just curious as to what exactly we are asking for here.

Anyway, once everyone agrees that it is a good idea, all we need is for two directors, Warner Brothers, Marlon Brando, and the Salkinds to all agree to terms.

Hope springs eternal, though.

Regards,

Luna, or "The Moon," has 1/6th of Earth's gravity, so things don't just "float away."

I totally agree that the entire Moon sequence was badly done, no matter who directed it.

This sort of thing is right up Criterion's ally, a recut would have to use Lester footage, but for this example, I'll highlight all the Donner scenes, which could be used, not including the extended tv versions:

XK101 rocket blows up in space, sending shockwaves causing the phantom zone to crack, villains freed! SHOT

Superman saves Fox from hunters - Not sure if shot

Clark and Lois at the planet:
--Lois figures out Clark is Superman
--Clark and Lois handed Niagara Falls assignment
--Lois jumps out of window convinced Superman will save her, instead Clark does, by blowing her down slowly, so she floats like a leave.

Clark and Lois at Niagara:
-Interiors shot, Lois shoots Clark with blanks.

Lex and Eve at the Fortress:
-Watching and listening to Brando

Villains taking over the world
- partly shot

Clark at the Fortress with Lois:
- Note that Kal-El is dressed as Clark Kent, not Superman!
- Everything was shot, including de-powering and shagging.

Clark returns to the Fortress
-Everything shot with Brando - f/x needs to completed

Superman arrives in Metropolis for the fight, dialogue is different "Ever heard of Freedom of the Press, General?" instead of "General, care to step outside".

Parts of the battle were shot, but probably requires f/x to touch'em up. INCOMPLETE

Post battle is virtually complete, but a new ending had to be conceived, since turning back the world had already been used!

Donner said in early 79, that he would re-shoot some parts of Superman 2, to make it bigger and larger than the first one. Peter MacDonald was lined up to see photography duties after the genius, Unsworth passed away making TESS with Polanski.


Then there's the stuff in the extended TV versions, which most have not seen. The complete Lex and Eve in the Fortress is awesome, only seen in parts of Europe and Aussie land. Lex thanks Superman for setting the villains free, he's refering to the XK101 rocket from the first film.

I'm tired now, more to write yet!

I think Kidder looked very drawn, possibly anorexic in the re-shoots. She does look great in the Donner footage, (and yes, chalk me up as another 11 yr. old kid who had a crush on her...) When 2 came out, I didn't notice the continuity inconsistencies, but watching it as an adult, it's pretty obvious that something was awry. Only after finding these sites and discovering the real story did it "click" into place.
Would be interesting to see how a re-edit could be accomplished.
I much prefer Donner's style. I would rather have his "slapstick" then most director's "serious"...
One thing that always bothered me was the pointless slapstick in 2... For ex... During the big fight in Metropolis when the 3 are blowing, the guy's toupee flying off, the guy continuing to talk on the payphone after being knocked over... Any suspense or excitement previously generated by the (at times) threatening trio was completely runined IMHO.

D

Happens all the time. Lucas needed no permission to go and piss all over the films of Irvin Kershner or Richard Marquand (in fact, Marquand was dead and had no say in what Lucas did to his movie).

Besides, Lester could only claim a Director's credit by reshooting the bulk of what Donner had already shot so that more than 50% of the footage was his. If all the Donner footage was restored (replacing the redundant Lester footage where appropriate), it would indeed be a Richard Donner film.

-Lyle J.P.

Actually, Kershner did know about the changes, and wasn't bothered by them.


I'm in the camp that believes that SUPERMAN II would be much improved if Donner could do a recut; the Brando scenes alone would make the film a lot more epic and grander in scope. But I don't hate SUPERMAN II as it is now; as many others have said, I liked it even more than the first film for years. It was only after seeing SUPERMAN and SUPERMAN II in widescreen on laserdisc after so many years of Beta pan and scan did I begin to appreciate the more epic first film.

I still love Superman II. I would love to see a Donner recut but you know what, I think I would still prefer the theatrical release...it is the release I know and have grown up with.

It may not be perfect but it has some great moments. You cannot beat this scene:

>the newspapers flying off the shelves, the music coming in and Superman's return... "General...perhaps you'd like to step outside."

Classic IMO.

Yup, and that scene was awesome on opening night in 1981. The audience went wild. I've never been to a film with a better audience than the one for SII, only RETURN OF THE JEDI opening night in '83 comes close.

Donner being able to do a re-cut still has nothing to do with using Brando's scenes. The actor's law suit is the reason those scenes weren't used, and would still be off limits unless Warner's legal department wants to wrangle with Brando and the Salkinds and whoever else over using them.

Seeing Donner's footage would be great and people have made some great points in this thread on both sides of the issue. Still, Warner ponying up money to RE-CUT the entire movie -- knowing full well scenes weren't entirely or even partially filmed, and necessitating millions in special effects funds to do so -- is so unlikely that even discussing it is just wishful thinking. They had enough of a problem with what they did to the original SUPERMAN on DVD (isn't that law suit still on-going?). And why would they possibly want to go down the path of more legal issues to basically do twice or THREE times as much restoration work on SUPERMAN II, when they know full well what kind of a nightmare it would be?

Richard Donner said this in an interview for Fantastic Films magazine, just before Superman The Movie was released:



So if you take that as fact, there’s not actually very much live-action footage needed to complete the film at all. Just a few minutes, really. The main sequence to be filmed seems likely to have been a scene where the Kryptonian villains General Zod, Ursa and Non encounter some Texas Rangers on a highway, and kill them. So the question is, how can these missing scenes be created today?

The method I favour is to film the scenes with stand-ins who match the build and facial looks of the original actors, and then to digitally superimpose the faces of the original actors on top of them in post-production. Then bring back Terence Stamp and Sarah Douglas to dub their voices onto these sequences. Since Donner did several takes with multiple camera angles for most scenes, there is surely enough footage available to cover the very few minutes of footage required to complete these scenes.

It worked for Oliver Reed in Gladiator, after all.

According to Christopher Reeve, a lot of his scenes as Clark Kent were re-filmed later in the shooting schedule, because they were felt to be a bit too bumbling and comedic. So I would think it’s probably safe to assume, going by what Donner said, that he filmed a new ending for Superman II during this re-shooting period.

As Dharmesh has already said, Donner did want to make the second film bigger. Bringing Gene Hackman back to enlarge his role as Lex Luthor, etc. But the original shooting script, as written by Tom Mankiewicz, was pretty much completed by Donner back in 1977/78.

So, I would say that a 100% Richard Donner re-cut of Superman II is nowhere near as impossible as many people would assume it to be.

The real question is whether Warner Bros. would be willing to make the funds available to do the job properly. Your guess is as good as mine, but I live in hope.

It’s very difficult to know though, isn’t it Dharmesh. Going by what Donner said, Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder weren’t required to return for additional shooting. Maybe Donner felt he already had enough footage to construct a new ending for Superman II from the footage he already had, or something?

But of course, you’re quite right about the legal problems involved. For those who don’t know, Warner Bros. is currently involved in a legal dispute with a company called Pueblo Film Licensing, who represent the Salkind family’s interest in the Superman films. They’re suing Warner Bros. for re-editing Superman The Movie, and for including supplementary materials on the DVD without their permission.

It’s only when this dispute is resolved that we’ll know if a re-cut of Superman II, or at the very least the inclusion of Donner’s footage in a DVD supplementary section, is even legally possible.

Maybe they could do a hybrid of the usable footage shot by Donner making up the bulk of the DC and what scenes are absolutely impossible to finish be replaced with bits that Lester did.

That's the only possible scenario I see happening.

Dan

i don't necessarily see this appealing to a younger generation weaned from birth on things like the Matrix and CGI used for everything-
any kind of re-do for SII is going to appeal more significantly to 'older' fans .

so

has anyone he seen some of the reconstructions of 'lost' or incomplete films, like Queen Kelly, and London After Midnight?
-where they use stills and title cards to bridge lost sequences?

what about just being upfront about the film being a reconstruction w/ available elements and aiming the finished project squarely at film buffs and Superman fans?
to me, not having a 'complete' film (in the conventional sense), is still viable.
maybe even having someone with a great voice to narratively 'bridge' sequences that can't be fudged digitally (...doesn't Donner have a good speaking voice, himself?).

for all the harsh things i've said about SII, including what Donner shot, i would still buy an SE in a heartbeat.

and with the technology available today, they are ways of getting around a lot of barriers, if all the original footage actually still exists.


hell, i would much rather see this happen, than a Joel Silver 300 million dollar remake.

Chris and Kidder were scheduled to return for pick-ups, and I believe they had to redo the exterior Niagara Falls stuff.
I'm certain that Donner didn't shoot a new ending for 2. Remember, it was Lester who suggested that the end of Superman required an emotional element, he was spot on! Can't remember when they went to Mexico, was it in summer 78?

Yeah, I think they went to Mexico in June or July of 1978. I remember they originally tried filming the scene where Lois Lane’s car sinks into the ground at Pinewood Studios, but abandoned it when Charles Greenlaw said Warner Bros. would stump up the cash to film it on location. But considering that this scene was already being filmed at Pinewood, it’s possible that they made some adjustments to the Superman II script, and filmed a new ending for it.

But I don’t know either way. I’m just going by what Donner said in that interview. :b

weren't the salkinds complaining of cost over-runs on Donners tenure?
i always found it odd that so much of SII looks cheap and tacky and yet they sprung some $$$ for th crew to have a 'vacation' in fiji to film a non-essential throwaway scene (where supes picks the flower for the dinner).