What's new

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

Sean Bryan

Sean Bryan
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
5,938
Real Name
Sean
to do with the force of gravity keeping us on the ground.
Yikes! I sincerely hope that the person you are addressing was joking. I hope. Please?
I realize that some people do have this misconception (about gravity being related to the Earth's rotation), but I figured it was typically the very old (not good education) or sometimes the very young (not much education yet). That an adult in our western civilization (even a business major or artsy type) actually thinks this makes me sad. So I hope it was just a joke or misunderstanding of the "because we all would have gone flying off into space" statement.
Besides, everyone knows we stay on the ground because the Earth's core is a big magnet. ;)
 

Robert Anthony

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Messages
3,218
The Donner version completely dismisses his powers of perception
Well why can't I apply your "characterization" reasoning to this scenario like you did to mine? That he's so imperceptive because he's so thrown by Lois figuring him out, so torn by his subconscious need to let her in on the secret, so blinded by his raw longing to be with the only woman on earth he's ever really pined for? This is essentially the same argument you used to dismiss my "He wouldn't actually psyche himself into being clumsy and falling into a fire at any point" as ridiculous, right? But your analysis of the characters motivation fits just as well into the holes I'm presenting as they do in the holes you're standing over ;)
Which only really goes to cement the idea there's a LOT of bad writing going on in the movie and some rickety implementation of those ideas scattered around, regardless of whatever cut you're watching.
The Lester scene is a lot more poorly written, in my opinion. If I'm gonna use the "Superman is subconsciously screwing himself up" excuse, I find it fits better with what Donner has laid out than with what Lester is gluing together.
 

Dave Mack

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2002
Messages
4,671
My whole thing was once he finished turning the earth forwards again wouldn't the crack in the earth appear under Lois' car again? He didn't go all the way back to stop the missile and prevent the earthquake. Jimmy came running up at the end and said something like, "Thanks Superman. Leave me out on the road in the middle of an earthquake....?
 

Mike_G

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 1, 2000
Messages
1,477
Real Name
Mike
He didn't spin the Earth backwards. He went around the Earth so fast that he passed himself at the same point, but at an earlier time. The Earth spinning backwards was a VISUAL CONSEQUENCE, but it's NOT what he did.
 

Vader

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 19, 1999
Messages
811
Real Name
Derek
He went around the Earth so fast that he passed himself at the same point, but at an earlier time.
Given that Mank, Donner, and even the screenplay say different, I'm curious as to what line of reasoning leads you to this conclusion? Seriously, wer'e talking about an alien that flys around in a blue leotard rescuing cats from trees.... Someone once said: "Don't critisize Bugs Bunny because rabbits don't talk. Just sit back and enjoy the show." Any attempt to put real-world physics (or even pseudo-relativity) to Supes will result in swiss cheese with holes big enough to fly a Star Detroyer through.... Remember, "You will believe a man can fly."
Edit: I just read Grant's interpretation, which makes a lot more sense than trying to invoke relativity. Grant says that the earth reversing rotation is a consequence of Supes travelling backwards in time as observed by an outside observer, not the cause. Time travel is, at present, not possible by our laws of understanding. So, we have no idea what an outside observer would, indeed, see. Yes, I know full well that Einstein predicted, in theory that time could be reversed relative to an object travelling faster than the speed of light, but he also established that it is impossible to even equal that speed with less than infinite mass relative to a stationary object - the Earth. In that scenario, we would have the equivelent of a back hole in orbit around the Earth, with the Earth inside of the event horizon. I think that Dave Mack is spot on when he said that Earthquakes would be the least of our worries. Grant's explanation makes as much (if not more) sense than anything else I have seen.
 

Mike_G

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 1, 2000
Messages
1,477
Real Name
Mike
Vader said:
Given that Mank, Donner, and even the screenplay say different, I'm curious as to what line of reasoning leads you to this conclusion?
My degree in physics.
 

Larry Sutliff

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2000
Messages
2,861
Dave Mack said:
My whole thing was once he finished turning the earth forwards again wouldn't the crack in the earth appear under Lois' car again? He didn't go all the way back to stop the missile and prevent the earthquake. Jimmy came running up at the end and said something like, "Thanks Superman. Leave me out on the road in the middle of an earthquake....?
Maybe Supes can rearrange the events the way he wants, too. That would explain the bully still recognizing him at the end of the Donner cut of II. ;)
 

Scott Calvert

Supporting Actor
Joined
Nov 2, 1998
Messages
885
Mike_G said:
He didn't spin the Earth backwards. He went around the Earth so fast that he passed himself at the same point, but at an earlier time. The Earth spinning backwards was a VISUAL CONSEQUENCE, but it's NOT what he did.
Thank you. Geez, I didn't know this was such a disputed point. It's like the old argument whether or not Palpatine was Sidious. Duh.
Of course the filmmakers can use verbal shorthand and say "Superman spun the Earth backwards". That doesn't necessarily translate to "Superman physically grabbed the earth and turned it in the opposite direction, and the earth turning in the opposite direction caused time to go backwards."
Superman flew so fast he broke the known laws of physics and caused time to reverse. Of course if time is reversing, the world would rotate in the opposite direction...because of time reversing, see?
He had to stop and fly the opposite direction to cause time to fast forward because he went too far and didn't want to have to do all that other saving the world shit again.
 

Robert Anthony

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Messages
3,218
LOL. Superman spun the earth backwards. It's all there. Script, Film, Editing, Sequential images, common sense, director commentary, interview.
I can't believe people are whipping out PHYSICS DEGREES to explain some silly fluff in a Superman movie.
I have no problem with people saying "Well, I like it better if, for me, he's going so fast it just LOOKS like the worlds going backwards" and that's cool, but some of you guys are flat out trying to say it's FACTUAL that he's not spinning the earth backwards. And it is. I don't mind if, while enjoying your work of fiction, you mold it. None of it actually happened. But for the purposes of this argument, to say that he's NOT spinning the earth backwards and then present it as fact is wrong.
He spun the earth backwards. That's what he did. It's silly and it makes no sense but comic-book sense. It's bad writing. It happens in the movies sometimes. It's cool to fanwank, yes, but you can't present that fanwank as WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED ONSCREEN, DEFINITIVELY. You can say "Well, this is what I've chosen to go with so I don't go "Duh" every time I watch the film" but Superman REVERSED THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH, THUS REVERSING TIME. That's how it was concieved, written, shot, edited together and presented visually.
Wow.
 

Dave Mack

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2002
Messages
4,671
Think back to 28 years ago when some of us old dudes here saw this in the theater for the first time... Could you have in your craziest dreams imagined that we all as grown men would be arguing about the plot specifics of this film all this time later?!?!?
:)
 

Scott Calvert

Supporting Actor
Joined
Nov 2, 1998
Messages
885
Robert Anthony said:
LOL. Superman spun the earth backwards. It's all there. Script, Film, Editing, Sequential images, common sense, director commentary, interview.
I can't believe people are whipping out PHYSICS DEGREES to explain some silly fluff in a Superman movie.
I have no problem with people saying "Well, I like it better if, for me, he's going so fast it just LOOKS like the worlds going backwards" and that's cool, but some of you guys are flat out trying to say it's FACTUAL that he's not spinning the earth backwards. And it is. I don't mind if, while enjoying your work of fiction, you mold it. None of it actually happened. But for the purposes of this argument, to say that he's NOT spinning the earth backwards and then present it as fact is wrong.
He spun the earth backwards. That's what he did. It's silly and it makes no sense but comic-book sense. It's bad writing. It happens in the movies sometimes. It's cool to fanwank, yes, but you can't present that fanwank as WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED ONSCREEN, DEFINITIVELY. You can say "Well, this is what I've chosen to go with so I don't go "Duh" every time I watch the film" but Superman REVERSED THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH, THUS REVERSING TIME. That's how it was concieved, written, shot, edited together and presented visually.
Wow.
How does flying around the Earth make it rotate in the opposite direction?
 

Grant H

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2002
Messages
2,844
Real Name
Grant H
at all contradicted by what's [I said:
seen [/I]on screen]Quote:
I believe I said as much in my post, that even in the Donner version you'd have to argue he wanted to tell Lois if you didn't want him to suddenly have no super powers of perception and not react Clark-like to the "no bullet" from the gun. I guess I just prefer to think of Superman as a method actor when he's playing Clark and have him reveal himself to Lois out of desire, rather than just allow himself to be duped by her. The subconscious desire is harder to play up in the Donner scene because he's actively telling her in that very moment that he's not Superman, whereas they weren't talking about it in the Lester scene. Sometimes things just kind of pop out of your mouth or happen when you're not actively thinking about it, but it's been crawling around in the back of your mind, whereas I don't think Superman would slip up in that moment in the Donner version because he's quite focused on the matter at hand. This isn't the emotional juvenile from Superman Returns.
I also kind of like the payoff for Lois in the Lester version because she just went through hell trying to reveal him as Superman and you feel a little bad for her. She'd just pressed Clark to turn into Superman and it didn't happen, and she was all upset and embarassed about it. But she gets a reward when he DOES give himself away to her. It's likely he felt bad about what had just happened to her too, likely contributing to the reveal. Gives the film a lot of heart. That scene doesn't play at all the same with the Lester version.
The other interesting thing is when she pressed Clark in the beginning of the Donner version, somehow she still wasn't convinced, and tested him again later with the gun. In Lester's version, Superman managed to convince her. There's a bit of redundancy with the Donner version too.
I'm not the biggest Lester fan, but I wouldn't go so far to say he treats Superman as a two-dimensional character. The Clark aspect gets fleshed out a lot in Superman III, so I doubt I'm making something from nothing in Superman II. We've all run down Lester over the years, but I think we've overhyped Donner too. He's only made a handful of good movies. I'm as anxious as anyone to have the Donner cut, but I'll never be spouting "Donner's God" or dismiss everything Lester did and embrace everything Donner did. I don't think everything of Lester's is crap, nor do I think everything of Donner's is gold. People may be surprised if the Donner cut points out good moments in the original Superman II. There are good moments in Superman III too, but they're easy to spot in the field of manure the rest of the film is.:)
 

Robert Anthony

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Messages
3,218
How does flying around the Earth make it rotate in the opposite direction?
It DOESNT. That's why it's goofy. You act as if Directors have never filmed anything that made zero sense before. It's a goofy comic book movie at times and they didn't think beyond "Wouldn't it be cool if" and then stuck it in their movie--and then ADMITTED it on the DVD.
Grant: Clark wouldn't trip. When he's Clark, he's very highly conscious of the moves he's making. Superman doesn't TRIP. Clark is a persona he puts on in the Donner movies. He's playacting. I don't buy that he really and truly accidentally trips over the rug towards the fire. And because he wouldn't really and truly accidentally trip, then it follows that if he DID, he'd just fly (or hover, think Superman Returns)
The whole scenario is pretty ham-handed, but again, I already sorta pointed out how we can essentially use the same justification to explain why my version works better than your version, and vice versa. :)
 

TheLongshot

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 12, 2000
Messages
4,118
Real Name
Jason
Robert Anthony said:
LOL. Superman spun the earth backwards. It's all there. Script, Film, Editing, Sequential images, common sense, director commentary, interview.
Maybe so, but for the sake of me buying it, I take it more to be a visual representation of moving back in time.
Otherwise, it would go on the list of things that make absolutely no sense. Rotating the earth the other direction wouldn't turn back time.
Also, he'd need more than a couple token spins to get it back in the right direction. Laws of momentum and all that.
I agree, it is a stupid argument in a film where a man can fly, but at least do a little work to make things semi-plausable.
Jason
 

Scott Calvert

Supporting Actor
Joined
Nov 2, 1998
Messages
885
Robert Anthony said:
It DOESNT. That's why it's goofy. You act as if Directors have never filmed anything that made zero sense before. It's a goofy comic book movie at times and they didn't think beyond "Wouldn't it be cool if" and then stuck it in their movie--and then ADMITTED it on the DVD.
Well, your explanation (I'll have to listen to the commentary again as I don't remember the filmmakers exact words) would be the equivalent of being able to travel back in time simply by putting your car in reverse and driving backwards. Of course, that is just stupid. I simply cannot believe that the filmmakers would put something that stupid into this movie. Sure there are parts that are pretty silly, but that is really, really dumb.
Besides, it is pretty obvious it is intended that Superman is flying faster than the speed of light considering the glowing light trail he leaves.
Oh boy I need to get back to work before someone catches me in this supernerd argument ;)
 

Grant H

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2002
Messages
2,844
Real Name
Grant H
Dave Mack said:
My whole thing was once he finished turning the earth forwards again wouldn't the crack in the earth appear under Lois' car again? He didn't go all the way back to stop the missile and prevent the earthquake. Jimmy came running up at the end and said something like, "Thanks Superman. Leave me out on the road in the middle of an earthquake....?
Even as a little kid watching this at home that bothered me.
I guess all we can do to rationalize it is say he did something to prevent the aftershock or repaired some "mini-fault" before going to Lois.
I guess we can forgive it that since he did so many things before turning back time, it's not hard to imagine he'd think of something to prevent that particular crack from happening. And it's a beautiful moment the way it's cut. Putting a scene of him doing something before just showing up when Lois's car doesn't start would ruin it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,808
Messages
5,123,537
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top