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

[Daryl L]

No, according to Mank, he turns the earth backwards.

Maybe it's like the rim of a car. When the tire rotates so fast the rim looks like it's turning backwards. Maybe applied the same visual principle when Sup turns back time. He starts to fly so fast that it looks like the earth changed direct as he turned back time. Or maybe having the earth change directions was just the way Donner thought of getting the point accross visually to the audience (the average joe) of time going back.

 

[James@R]

There was probably a way to do it that stayed true to the tone of the movie without getting that unneccessarily goofy.

True, but the film does open with Brando putting people in a little shiny album cover. So right away, the film establishes that ideas will be thrown out and liberties will be taken, much like in a comic.
I love that those films were just serious enough...that they got the audience to accept whatever outlandish element the filmmakers thought up.
And he definitely turned the earth backwards, but I always enjoy watching people try to explain it.

 

[Robert Anthony]

LOL. That's one of the better descriptions of the Phantom Zone I've read, actually, I like that. I also remember thinking it was like a world of mylar in there, just like Superman's Bed in Superman II. Mylar is big in Krypton.
And I'm with you..I like the fanwank rationalizations, and they DO make more sense, but the writer and the director of Superman both envisioned, wrote, and shot the scene so that Superman reverses the Earth's direction, causing time to go backwards, too. I think I remember Mank on a documentary somewhere blatantly saying that and then admitting it doesn't make sense, but it made a POETIC sense.

 

[Scott Calvert]

I dunno. I thought it was pretty obvious Superman was flying so fast he travelled back in time. The earth turning backwards was because of time reversing, not the other way around.

Maybe Mank did not explain it well enough in the interview, but I thought it was pretty clear onscreen.

 

[James@R]

just like Superman's Bed in Superman II. Mylar is big in Krypton.

Oh man, that bed...
Just what was he doing with something that swanky in the fortress of solitude?

 

[Robert Anthony]

Maybe Mank did not explain it well enough in the interview

Scott: No, he explained it very clearly: He's spinning the world backwards. That's what Superman is doing. Its' cool if you watch it and would rather think of it as him going so fast it appears the world is spinning backwards. Like I said, that makes more sense. But according to the filmmakers, that's not what's happening in the scene. Superman is reversing the rotation of the earth, thus reversing time.
James: I remember that bed almost freaking me out as a kid. Sleeping on it didn't seem cool or anything like that. I was just thinking "It's gotta be NOISY and scrapy to sleep on something that shiny and crinkly. Superman's weird. And Lois is kinda gross. I don't know about this movie."
And then he starts throwing plastic-wrap S's at people and I gave up, even at age 8 or 9. I embraced the silliness.

 

[Sean Bryan]

I dunno. I thought it was pretty obvious Superman was flying so fast he travelled back in time. The earth turning backwards was because of time reversing, not the other way around.

That doesn't really hold with the way it was presented, though. I mean, as he is flying around and the Earth is rotating in the wrong direction they actually shows the events that happened going backwards. Visually, that tells us that time is being "rewound" not that he is going back in time.
Plus, after he spins it backwards, doesn't he then fly in the opposite "correct direction" to get it rotating the right way again (and get time moving forward). Don't they show this (or am I just imagining that since I haven't seen it in a while)?
But either way, visually the audience is shown something that says "time has been turned back", not "Superman time traveling to the past".
My biggest wish would be for this idea (which I never liked) to be removed from Superman and not put in Superman II either. Now I get it TWICE. CRAP!

 

[Grant H]

I never really had a problem with the time warp Superman creates at the end of STM, but I agree that if Donner really wanted to put it at the end of Superman II, he should have amended the ending to STM too. But perhaps that isn't possible. It just seems an embarassment to have 2 films with your name on them end the same way when it's obviously not true to the original intent.
Better the amnesia kiss, but I'm still anxious to own this, even if, as I suspected years ago, a patchwork of the best of the Lester version and the best of the Donner version would be the true ideal.
I suspected that as soon as I heard about the Lester "General, would you care to step outside?" (which ironically goes so well with Donner's truck stop subplot) compared with the Donner funny "Haven't you heard of the freedom of the press?" (a lame joke in itself, made even lamer considering Superman is talking to an alien new to Planet Earth. Then again, perhaps his Kryptonian education taught him Krypton had similar freedoms that the villains WOULD know about. Still...bleh.)
And, yeah, I rather like the Eiffel Tower opening and actually like the "I believe this is your floor" bit. A wonderful charming moment. The Donner newsroom scene is fine up until the window jump. I agree the Niagra Falls jump is better, far less silly. They should have only used part of that scene and used the Lester jump later in the film. Would have allowed tension to develop too. Should probably trim some of Lois's dialogue too since it's verbatim the end of STM, again due to the change in the ending to the first film. But leave her drawing Clark on Superman to build to the confrontation in Niagra Falls later. Like she's really been chewing on it.
I'll likely prefer the Lester reveal scene to Donner's too. I prefer Clark subconsciously wanting to reveal himself to suddently not being able to notice that no bullet is fired from a gun.
Oh well. Put me down for one of those fan edits. WB still doesn't have to worry though. Looks like I'll still be buying Superman on home video for a long time.
This kind of thing really shows you how a bunch of people fighting each other over the production of a film can really net the best end product. Collaboration, whether everyone's happy or not, is most often a good thing.
Lester and Donner together might have made a good Spielberg-Lucas partnership.

 

[MattKoz]

Besides Brando being cut, the slapstick humor (Metropolis citizens and the "super-wind"), and a few other things (like a small Texas town where little boys have British accents), the story aspects that Lester brought to the table haven't really bothered me all that much over time. The major thing (besides the Brando cuts) that's always bothered me the most about Superman II and brought me out of the movie's story while watching it is the change in appearance of Margot Kidder, which has been widely discussed on this board. That is the #1 reason I'm welcoming the Donner Cut, even with some of it's unrealistic plot points. To have Brando back, the wacky bald, ice cream eating, rollerskating, phone talkin' citizens of Metropolis out, and to have Margot looking healthy and pretty again and matching her appearance in Superman I is worth all of the time travel endings and window falling scenes they can throw at me.

 

[Adam Santangelo]

I suspected that as soon as I heard about the Lester "General, would you care to step outside?" (which ironically goes so well with Donner's truck stop subplot) compared with the Donner funny "Haven't you heard of the freedom of the press?" (a lame joke in itself, made even lamer considering Superman is talking to an alien new to Planet Earth. Then again, perhaps his Kryptonian education taught him Krypton had similar freedoms that the villains WOULD know about. Still...bleh.)

Grant, I have a feeling I'll agree with you on this, at the end of the day. I didn't realize "General, would you care to step outside?" would be gone from the Donner Cut. That's pretty much my favourite thing in the whole film, as it currently stands anyway.

 

[Grant H]

Grant, I have a feeling I'll agree with you on this, at the end of the day. I didn't realize "General, would you care to step outside?" would be gone from the Donner Cut. That's pretty much my favourite thing in the whole film, as it currently stands anyway.

I can't confirm it's gone, of course, but if they used every bit of Donner footage they could, they'll use the "freedom of the press" line the way he shot it.
Unless, of course, it was misinformation posted a while back. For all I know, DONNER could have shot both versions of the line, or there is no alternate version, but most folks here seem to know their Superman II.

 

[Ethan Riley]

Superman did not spin the earth backwards; how the hell would he do that? Grab hold of the North Pole and spin the planet like a grammar school globe? Sheesh! Even if he could have 'spun the earth,' he'd never have done it, because we all would have gone flying off into space, and that wouldn't have solved his problem with Lois, now would it. What he did--and what he used to do in the comics--is fly faster than light and somehow break the time barrier, by physics we Earthlings are too dumb to understand. Actually, it's more-or-less the same time travel principal that they used in Star Trek IV...Captain Kirk there explained it far better than Superman ever did.

 

[Adam_ME]

Grant, I have a feeling I'll agree with you on this, at the end of the day. I didn't realize "General, would you care to step outside?" would be gone from the Donner Cut. That's pretty much my favourite thing in the whole film, as it currently stands anyway.

Ditto. That's a terrible move taking out that line. I don't care who shot the damn thing. Please WB, release both versions on HD-DVD!

 

[Dharmesh C]

The problem with Turning Back The World is that there's no consequence, this is something I put up on the website a while back as a bit of fanfic:

SUPERMAN THE MOVIE REPRISE

The trial of the villains and their sentence by Jor-El.

BEGIN CREDITS

Briefly introduce characters.

End with Superman redirecting the XK101 missile into the stratosphere.

END CREDITS

EXT. SPACE

A miniscule spot in the black vastness becomes larger…LARGER. It's the XK101 missile, it thunders past, revealing in the B.G. Earth rotating backwards, sending out intense, rippling shockwaves across the --

-- GALAXY

Seismic waves catch the XK101 missile and hurls it like rag doll on a collision course with meteorites.

BOOOOOM!!! The XK101 missile explodes furiously sending cataclysmic shockwaves across the neighbouring galaxies.

-- ELSEWHERE IN THE VOID OF SPACE

The Phantom Zone wanders aimlessly and silently. The grotesque heads of the villains trapped flat in the prison.

Then…

Seismic ripples of the gigantic nuclear explosion strike the Phantom Zone into a frenzied spin, shattering it into smithereens. ZOD, NON and URSA are flung out. Their flat bodies take their 3 dimensional shapes.

 

[Robert Anthony]

I'll likely prefer the Lester reveal scene to Donner's too. I prefer Clark subconsciously wanting to reveal himself to suddently not being able to notice that no bullet is fired from a gun.

Here's my problem. Superman doesn't accidentally trip, and if he did, he'd FLY. It doesn't make sense that he'd not only lose control, but lose control into a fireplace and not stop himself. He's SUPERMAN. I can buy that he didn't feel a bullet bouncing off of him because bullets just bounce off. If a fly hit me through 3 layers of clothing I don't know if I'd feel it either. Besides, I don't think Clark's wrestling with revealing himself is subconscious. It's pretty overt, even in the first Superman. The reveal in Superman II was clumsy as hell, both physically AND scriptwise.
I don't think a Lester/Donner collabo would be in any way comparable to Spielberg/Lucas. That just feels like a really bad comparison, to me. It's hard to put my finger on, but it just sounds VERY wrong.

 

[MattKoz]

Superman did spin the Earth backwards. Even if you discount the fact that Donner and Mank confirmed this on the commentary and making-of documentaries for the 2001 Superman DVD, even if you discount the script for Superman II (courtesy of Supermancinema and other sites) before it was adopted for Superman I's ending (Superman II Shooting Script, Page 102, Scene 529 , "EXT: WORLD IN SPACE The blue ring around the Earth has grown wider now, swirls in a rapid current like a circular galactic storm, headed in the reverse direction to the planet's axis. For a moment the Earth seems to stop. Then, almost imperceptibly, it begins to revolve in the opposite direction." Page 103, Scene 535, "EXT: WORLD IN SPACE Superman continues his dizzying whirl around the Earth, which now can visibly be seen rotating in the wrong direction."), you can clearly see while watching the film itself that Superman flies fast around the Earth, makes the Earth spin the other way, and then after everything has been rewound, he flies fast around the Earth again making it spin back the other way it was spinning to begin with. If he was just "flying faster than light and breaking the sound barrier" to travel through time, why would making the Earth spin two different ways have anything to do with that? Why would he reverse the Earth's direction again after he had just travelled through time to arrive at that moment. I'm going to have to agree with Donner, Mank, the shooting script, and the film itself on this one. He spun the Earth backwards.

 

[Dave Mack]

Thanks for the clarifications, guys! I actually thought too all this time that he was going bain time because to me that made more sense. If the eart suddenly stopped rotating and went the other way I think the results would be WAY more cataclysmic than just an earthquake!

 

[Vader]

...by physics we Earthlings are too dumb to understand.

Speaking of not understanding physics..... The rotation of the earth has exactly nothing to do with the force of gravity keeping us on the ground. The force of gravity at the Earth's surface is directly proportional to the mass of the earth, and indirectly proportional to the radius (altitude above the CM). Whether the earth is spinning East-to-West or West-to-East makes no difference...

 

[Grant H]

Here's my problem. Superman doesn't accidentally trip, and if he did, he'd FLY. It doesn't make sense that he'd not only lose control, but lose control into a fireplace and not stop himself. He's SUPERMAN. I can buy that he didn't feel a bullet bouncing off of him because bullets just bounce off. If a fly hit me through 3 layers of clothing I don't know if I'd feel it either. Besides, I don't think Clark's wrestling with revealing himself is subconscious. It's pretty overt, even in the first Superman. The reveal in Superman II was clumsy as hell, both physically AND scriptwise.

You're forgetting he'd SEE the bullet too, unless you say he blinked while acting all nervous and Clark-like, but by your rationale Superman wouldn't blink.

I don't see a problem with the Lester version. Clark wanted to reveal himself in the first film, but chose not to, and is still choosing to not reveal himself to Lois in SII (it's the unselfish thing to do), although deep down he does want to. I think the scene plays fine, especially with the dialogue and Lois telling him maybe he wanted to reveal himself with his heart (responding to his "I don't THINK I did") even if he didn't with his mind.

Besides, you could argue Superman is trying so hard to throw Lois off his trail at that point that he's acting even more clumsy and Clark-like than usual. Reeve's Clark certainly trips, and Clark certainly would fall, not fly (how ridiculous). Superman's really immersed in the Clark role at that point, so between trying hard to act like a clumsy fool and wanting to reveal himself to Lois deep down he goes over the top in Clark mode and ends up revealing himself. It's much more Superman/Clark-centric and psychological in the Lester version.

The Donner version completely dismisses his powers of perception and puts Lois in the driver's seat. Superman, if he wants to protect his identity, should realize she fired a blank and just faint or jump out of his skin as Clark and then give Lois a stern talking to for scaring a guy like that. So for his perception to be so weak at that moment you could still argue he wanted her to know the truth since he didn't do that. But the scene plays that she pulled one over on him. She outwitted Superman and made an ass out of him, rather than he gave into his human side and let her know.

Advantage Lester scene, but that's just me. Did we ever got confirmation that scene would be selectable via seamless branching?

 

[Grant H]

The time-warp theory vs. the spinning the world backwards bit still works fine. (It's ok to disregard the filmmakers' opinion of a scene. There's no narrator saying "This is how you should interpret this.")
All you have to rationalize is that the physics Superman knows enable him to make time go backwards by flying in one direction at super-super speed (here, triggered only by his intense emotion and desire to resurrect the woman he loves, not something he can do every day, otherwise catching those 2 missiles in time would have been no biggie). We SEE the world spin backwards because time is going backwards. Superman as the causing force of this event exists outside of time. However, to get time moving forward again, he must fly the opposite direction at super-super speed. Otherwise, time would keep going backwards, which wouldn't be good. It's like time has momentum, normally forward, but Superman made it go backward for a while and have backward momentum--it would have stayed going backward had he not re-reversed it. When he sets time going forward again, naturally, we SEE the Earth spin in its normal direction. I don't doubt the filmmakers are dumb enough to have thought spinning the world backwards makes time go in reverse, but, fortunately, you can interpret the scene in a way that makes a load more sense. You don't have to think Deckard is a replicant either, regardless of what Ridley Scott says. It's your perception that matters. What works best for you based on what you SEE on screen.
A screenplay just tells you what happens visually on screen, not how to interpret it.