Donner Superman 2 SE (merged thread) (1 Viewer)

[Carter of Mars]

But is that in line with the controversial ending of the Richard Donner cut?

 

[Robert Anthony]

I don't think the ending is controversial, and both "Turning back the worlds" are full of inconsistencies and nonsense anyway. But if you had to use the movie's internal logic, such as it is

Since everything that is NOT Superman is going back in time, but Superman himself isn't (otherwise there'd be two of him on earth once he was done turning back time) then since the super-sperm attaching to her ovum IS part of him, it can't go back in time either, thus impregnating her

Hokey, yeah, but then again, so is the concept. the real problem with allowing the direct linking between Donner's Superman II and Superman Returns is this:

according to the wiki, Superman destroys the fortress at the end

Which sorta directly contradicts some key parts of Superman Returns, but then again, I think Superman Returns works best if Superman II is pretty much ignored.

 

[Brian W.]

There was speculation a few weeks back that Donner had altered the ending of his extended cut of Superman: The Movie. Has it been confirmed that he did not?

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

So is Region 1 getting the 3-disc Superman II set? I would prefer that to having to go to the trouble of buying "Superman II: 2 Disc Special Edition" and "Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut" separatedly which would probably cost more cumulatively than a three disc set including both would.

I on the other hand, am quite happy with the single-disc original release, since I couldn't give a shit less what the Salkinds think about things. That being the case, I only want to pay for the Donner Cut.
And to answer your question, it looks like I'm going to be the happier camper in R1

 

[Adam Santangelo]

Which sorta directly contradicts some key parts of Superman Returns, but then again, I think Superman Returns works best if Superman II is pretty much ignored.

From the sound of all this, I'm expecting Lester's Superman II to be the one that works with Superman Returns... although, like you say, I'm glad Returns doesn't force us to think too much about II at all.

 

[Carter of Mars]

What good is destroying the fortress
if again he turns back time
?

 

[Fabien Renelli]

There was speculation a few weeks back that Donner had altered the ending of his extended cut of Superman: The Movie. Has it been confirmed that he did not?

I really would like to know that.

 

[Adam Santangelo]

at all?

 

[Carter of Mars]

I've never understood the need to do that. Hopefully the new cut will clear this up.

 

[AndrewWickliffe]

I've never understood the need to do that. Hopefully the new cut will clear this up.

Because he never, ever, ever gets to take a day off. He shouldn't even get to be Clark Kent, much less have a love life.
(SIII totally ignores that conclusion, one of the handful of things I like about it)

 

[Carter of Mars]

I'm still confused. If the conclusion is that Superman can no longer be Clark Kent, then why does he destroy his own home? You would think it would be because there is no more energy in the place after he regains his powers and that he's truly on his own now, except he used some sort of energy in there to defeat the villains. None of it makes any sense. That's probably why it's cut from the Lester version.

 

[Robert Anthony]

I doubt the new cut will clear it up as it's what we like to call round these parts "BAD WRITING"
The Donner movies are fun, but they're CHOCK FULL of really bad writing at times. And this is a decent example. Honestly--there's no reason for him to destroy the fortress. His father has relinquished his essence to give Superman his powers back (which by ITSELF is a bit of bad writing, since it's been established Superman's powers come from his exposure to a yellow sun, not from a magic powers fairy giving and taking away) so it's not like he'll be tempted to fly there and try and de-power again.
The only real reason would be to ensure that in the off chance Luthor gets out of prison, he can't go back there and pervert it. But then he goes and Turns the World Backwards thus reversing what he did anyway. Which is in itself a pretty crappy piece of writing.
See, there's really no way to explain it. So it's one of those "Do I let it go or not" things.
These movies don't make much sense, honestly. The internal logic is all over the place. You can't dig too deep. The surface is great, and the emotion that washes over it is VERY well done, but the story underneath is rickety, and the logic pinning that rickety story together is EXTREMELY shaky at times. The Lester Version leaves it out but I doubt it was because Lester wanted things to make more sense. He's got plenty of his own "Wha-huh?" moments in his cut.

 

[AlexCosmo]

That Donner stuff makes sense to me. He's making a clean break from Krypton and his dad. His dad created a method to give and take away his son's powers, tells him not to interfere with history, don't marry earth girls, don't have your own life, blah blah. At the end of it all, he becomes his own man. The cellophane "S" on the other hand, I don't get.

 

[Larry Sutliff]

Actually, in the new cut, there will be a good reason for him to destroy the Fortress:

After Superman regains his powers, he'll never be able to converse with the spirit of his father again.

 

[AndrewWickliffe]

I'm still confused. If the conclusion is that Superman can no longer be Clark Kent, then why does he destroy his own home? You would think it would be because there is no more energy in the place after he regains his powers and that he's truly on his own now, except he used some sort of energy in there to defeat the villains. None of it makes any sense. That's probably why it's cut from the Lester version.

No. I meant he never, ever gets to take a break from being Superman. That's what I hate about Superman II, it kills him as a character. He becomes all-the-time policeman of the world (or at least that what he vows to the president)

 

[Dharmesh C]

I doubt the new cut will clear it up as it's what we like to call round these parts "BAD WRITING"
The Donner movies are fun, but they're CHOCK FULL of really bad writing at times. And this is a decent example. Honestly--there's no reason for him to destroy the fortress. His father has relinquished his essence to give Superman his powers back (which by ITSELF is a bit of bad writing, since it's been established Superman's powers come from his exposure to a yellow sun, not from a magic powers fairy giving and taking away) so it's not like he'll be tempted to fly there and try and de-power again.

This is the my explanation:
Kal-El is exposed to the rays of the red sun (maybe not explained in the Donner cut), which changes his body molecules so the effect of the yellow sun becomes ineffective.
When Jor-El zaps with his own energy, the body molecules are reversed so that the yellow sun becomes effective.

 

[Robert Anthony]

It's as good a comic-book explanation as any. Seriously, to make these movies work, you sorta HAVE to do that. Even if you recognize the explanation is pretty hokey, as long as it gets you from point a to point b so that the film can do what it's trying to do, you're okay. If you can't do that, the movie (Both Superman and Superman II) will only work intermittently for you. But you have to be open to some silly comic-book convention gobbledegook to get it to work.
In a movie where Superman rotating the earth backwards turns back time, that explanation holds a LOT of water I think I'll adopt it myself, actually.

 

[James@R]

you have to be open to some silly comic-book convention gobbledegook to get it to work.

This is pretty much true of ANY Superman (or even comic-book) film- not just one in which time is reversed by flying really fast. After all, when your main character is an invincible flying alien in blue tights, that should be a signal to the audience that some things will need to be taken on faith.

 

[Scott Calvert]

In a movie where Superman rotating the earth backwards turns back time, that explanation holds a LOT of water I think I'll adopt it myself, actually.

Yes, simply rotating the earth in the opposite direction will not turn back time. But that is not what Superman does. Superman flies faster than the speed of light in order to travel back in time. Kind of the opposite of Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

 

[Robert Anthony]

No, according to Mank, he turns the earth backwards. The other explanation is fanwank that's grown to be accepted because it sounds better than what Donner and Mank came up with
And yeah, there's some suspension of disbelief that needs to go on with EVERY comic-book movie, but Superman and Superman II make it harder because even in the rules of reality they set up for their movie, some of the decisions are pretty outlandish. If you set some ground rules for your movie and then launch over them to get your movie to work, that's asking something from the audience
Luckily, most people in a movie about Superman are willing to go there, but the people who aren't DO have a point. There was probably a way to do it that stayed true to the tone of the movie without getting that unneccessarily goofy.