PeterDavid.net

Donner also missed the opportunity to cast William Shatner in the first movie as the pilot who sees Superman holding up the wing of the airplane.

I think I read somewhere that the reversing-time-by-flying-really-fast-around-the-planet scene was originally supposed to be the ending for Superman II, but because they were running out of time with the first movie and needed to get it in theatres ASAP, they just borrowed that ending from the sequel, which, as we all know, they were filming at the same time.

So that left Richard Lester to come up with a new ending to the second movie, because he couldn't use the reversing time thing.

Which still doesn't explain why Superman would beat up the trucker when their initial fight never took place, but it kind of explains why Superman and The Richard Donner Cut have the same ending.

I heard the same thing, dave g.

Dave G,

Yeah, that's basically what Donner said in the commentary for the first film. Except they didn't steal it from the second film because they ran out of time. He said they used it in the first film because they felt it was the strongest gag they had, and you never know if there's going to *be* a second film or not.

Yeah, heard the same thing. It's unfortunate because every single review I've read has had the exact same reaction that PAD did.

So out of curiosity...how was Superman 1 supposed to end? How did he bring Lois back to life?

Question:

I haven't seen the revised film, but did it have anything new? I don't mean Christopher Reeve scenes, obviously, but anything at all, like new special effects driven scenes?

If this movie was built entirely out of existing material, then that would mean he either stuck with the date-rape kiss or he put back in the ending that he wanted originally. It might be that he'd never have gone with this ending if he'd been allowed to finish the movie the first time around, he just didn't have much to work with for this special cut.

Well to be fair to Dick, he didn't have anything to do with this re-edit except providing comentary. I believe it was his AD or editor from the time who reassembled what they could of the original shooting script. And based on the fact they made this new cut off of what was at the time the shooting script Dick was working from, the severely bad ending isn't really his fault. The Salkines took the ending from 2 and slapped it on 1 leaving Dick if he had had the time to come up with a new ending for 2. But they canned him before the script was rewritten by him and hence if you are following the original shooting script, well you are stuck with the reverse rotation again...

That said, I nearly destroyed my DVD player when this horrible resolution came on screen. As far as I care the movie ended when Lois was dropped off on her balcony. Then to explain Superman Returns I just figure she went inside,tripped and knocked herself senseless and lost her memory of the last week. Yes it's poor excuse but no worse so than what they actually wrote and i like mine better.

That said this was a far superior version of the movie up until it got stupid in the last 5 minutes. Either way whether this ending was originally supposed to be used for 2 and got tacked onto 1 due to limitations, it was a poor ending to begine with!

Superman II was the last decent live-action Superman movie that I saw. I haven't seen Superman Returns yet(I'll get around to it, JEEZ, people, I'm BUSY!) and as intrigued as I was by the idea of the Donner cut of the movie, from everything I heard I figured that it would be about as much fun as any of the OTHER Donner Parties I've heard about.

I also had trouble with the whole turning-the-world back thing when I first saw it, I remember saying to my dad in the theater in New York(it was a family thing, my mom and my sisters saw Man of La Mancha, while the men folk, well, man and boy-folk went to the movies) that if he spins the world backwards, wouldn't the gravity stop? I was an obnoxious little twerp. Not much changes, really. But I have to admit, I always kinda liked the memory-removing kiss. I thought maybe, just maybe, Superman had some telepathy that I didn't know about, so I was okay with that.

One thing I do kinda like about having them back in the Phantom Zone, though, is it DOES open the possibility of another escape. Yeah, another Zod appearance. I think that could be really cool. I mean, now Zod will be REALLY ticked off. Wouldn't want him ticked off at ME, I'll tell you that for nothing.

Holy sh*t, he did WHAT to the ending!?

*jaw drop*

I am truly saddened by this. I was really looking forward to the Donner cut. I guess I'll just not watch the last five minutes.

This reminds me of the Superman entry in the Super Friends cartoon parody/attack at www.seanbaby.com where they point out that, in the cartoon, whenever Superman encountered a tough problem the writers would just have Superman spin in a circle and make up some new power that that would solve. The time travel thing is a lot like that. How fast do you have to go to travel back in time, let alone drag A WHOLE PLANET back in time? Why would Superman remember the former time when no one else could? (Heck, the original Doctor Who had a theory why people didn't age or forget everything due to time travel.) And if he can reverse time whenever he wants, couldn't he just erase any mistake by reversing time? I know it can be dangerous applying logic to someone who can fly and (in the words of Full Frontal Nerdity) whose eyes come with an extra-crisp setting, but the time-travel element never made sense.

Of course, the brain sucking may have inadvertently foreshadowed the DC Comics Identity Crisis storyline -- except that here Superman (who had no part of the semi-lobotomy in IC) would have used it on an innocent. Blah.

I suppose circling the Earth would be the lesser of the two evils here.

"One thing I do kinda like about having them back in the Phantom Zone, though, is it DOES open the possibility of another escape. Yeah, another Zod appearance."

Except we're talking about a re-edit of a 26-year-old movie, not a new movie that's going to have a sequel. I mean, yeah, Bryan Singer could very well bring back Zod in the next movie (although I hope not), but it wouldn't be because someone went back and changed the ending to Superman II and put Zod back in the Phantom Zone. The Lester version is still canonical.

But anyway, I was curious about this new version, but now that I know it revisits the worst deus ex machina in movie history, I think I'll pass.

I don't see how bitch-slapping the bully is beneath Clark, though. Clearly, he wasn't the most popular kid in school, so it makes sense that he's going to harbor some resentment against bullies. And if he picks a fight with him in the first scene (remember, it was Clark who asked him to step outside), when he has no powers, he's obviously not going to back away when he does have powers. I've always rather enjoyed that scene.

Honestly, I've also always enjoyed the scene with the bully at the end of "Superman II" -- I mean, this was a guy who needed to be taught a lesson before somebody else got beat up. And when I saw the movie in the theater, the audience cheered and applauded when Clark came back to the diner, so clearly the crowd loved it too.

(The counter-argument to the "audience loved it" thesis, though, is when I saw "Spider-Man" in the theater. When Peter let the crook go, then told the wrestling promoter, "I missed the part where that's my problem," my audience cheered and applauded. That remains the freakiest "Oh you people don't EVEN know what's coming" moments of my moviegoing life.)

That does sound infinitely dumber than Clark just wiping Lois' memory at the end of Superman II, which I agree was very dumb.

My question is, who deserves the blame for the "turning back time" thing in the first movie? Donner, or Mario Puzo? Puzo wrote the first two movies after all, right?

"I don't see how bitch-slapping the bully is beneath Clark, though. Clearly, he wasn't the most popular kid in school, so it makes sense that he's going to harbor some resentment against bullies. And if he picks a fight with him in the first scene (remember, it was Clark who asked him to step outside), when he has no powers, he's obviously not going to back away when he does have powers. I've always rather enjoyed that scene."

In the original cut when he goes back for a rematch after getting his powers back, I'd say the bully got what was coming to him.

But in this new cut, Superman reverses time so that the first time the bully beat him up never even happened...and then he goes to get revenge on the bully when the bully hasn't even DONE anything to deserve a beating (at least not yet). I don't think that's right.

Yuck.

Well, I guess I should thank you for saving me the $20. That ending would definitely have cheesed me off and then some. Rent it is.

"...Superman reverses time so that the first time the bully beat him up never even happened..."

Well, if nothing else, we now know what side of the fence Donner's Superman is on in the geek classic time travel debate of whether or not killing Hitler as a child is the right thing to do or not. Beating the snot out of a guy in retribution for something that he hasn't yet done and may now never do seems to tilt towards "yes."

I absolutely, positively, without a shred of doubt agree with PAD on this one. I actually got the DVD to review for my column, and I had low expectations, since "Superman II" is probably my favorite superhero film of all time. Yet, as PAD states, many of the bits did seem to have more "bite" or "oomph" or make more sense. the extended "sentencing" scene with the Kryptonian Villains (hereafter referred to as KV) was intense and made a lot of what was to follow have more impact. The vote to "condemn" the KV had to be unanimous and Jor-El cast the deciding vote? Cool! No wonder they hate him so much! Lois Lane figures out that Clark Kent is Superman at the Daily Planet office, teases him about it, even draws "glasses" on a newspaper photo of Superman and then decides to "prove it" by risking her life by jumping out of the Daily Planet building rather than at Niagra Falls and Clark saves her in another, more believable way? Awesome! Lois going to extreme and clever lengths - at Niagra Falls - to confirm he is Superman? Priceless! A missile from Luthor's attack on California in the first movie causing the Phantom Zone villains to escape instead of a bomb on the Eiffel Tower? Well it solidified the connection between the films and had a "no good deed goes unpunished" kind of feeling. Jor-El warning his son instead of his mother made more sense - since he never again mentions his mother and when told by Lois "You didn't know" says "He did" not "she did".
Jor-El being the instrument of giving his son his powers back and the emotion in that scene was pretty awesome, far superior to just finding a green crystal.
Even one scene I found annoying - when Luthor now wants Cuba on top of Australia - I can justify by it showing Luthor as being ever greedy and scheming.
There were other little parts that annoyed me - especially the less effective "Haven't you ever heard of freedom of the press" Superman spouts upon first meeting Zod - but I was prepared to pronounce this film as at least equal and possibly superior to the "canonical" version.
Especially with no amnesia kisses or giant S weapons.
Until I saw Supes spinning the world around again, which means...nothing really happened.
Which SUCKS! Because it is a copout of the worst kind. As others have stated, if Superman can do this at will, why did he bother fighting them and de-powering them? Why not fly around the earth once he got his powers back?
And now, the movie ends without Superman reassuring the President he'll be there from now on, but with the attack on the diner bully. I LOVED the scene in the "canonical" version. Loved it. But here, as others have said, it makes NO SENSE and makes Clark/Superman look like the petty bully instead.
As I ended my column with:
"Bottom line: Is the Donner version worth watching? Absolutely. Should it have been released to theaters? Absolutely not."

Normally I don't comment here, but I felt compelled to this time, if only because I just happened to get through listening to the commentary on the Donner Cut before I read this.

First of all, the comment about the Clint Eastwood movie you refer to was actually made by Tom Mankiewicz not Donner, who in fact agreed that you can't really compare the two. And whilst I agree that the final scene makes no sense after the world has been turned back (and neither Donner nor Mankiewicz really offered an explanation as to why this scene should still be there with the original/new ending in place), I don't think it's as catastrophic as you make out, and the only reason the world-turning happens again in the Donner Cut is because it was originally meant to happen in film 2. They even explain in the commentary that Lois being killed was meant to happen in 2, hence the "desperation" (as you put it) to turn the world back. It was supposed to be a one-time thing, and Donner re-used it here because, quite clearly from the interviews and commentaries on the DVDs, he still holds something of a grudge against Richard Lester and wanted to use as little of his material as possible. And I think Donner made the right call.

Except for the absence of the "Would you care to step outside?" line to Zod, everything about the Donner cut is an improvement on the Lester version. Zod is more sinister, Non is shown more like a destruction machine and less like a simpleton, Luthor has more to do... and best of all, Brando as Jor-El unites the two films the way they were meant to be.

The irony, really, is that after Bryan Singer was so indebted to the first two films with Superman Returns, and to Donner in particular, the Donner Cut of Superman II now presents continuity problems with Returns that weren't there originally. Bust as someone said above, it's the Lester version that's canonical, not Donner's new cut.

"One thing I do kinda like about having them back in the Phantom Zone, though, is it DOES open the possibility of another escape. Yeah, another Zod appearance"

We did sort of get another Zod appearance in "Smallville." In this year's season opener (which I finally caught in rerun) I thought it was brilliant that in the brief instant where we saw Zod as he really was, it was either Terrance Stamp or someone made up to look just like Terrance Stamp.

"And whilst I agree that the final scene makes no sense after the world has been turned back (and neither Donner nor Mankiewicz really offered an explanation as to why this scene should still be there with the original/new ending in place), I don't think it's as catastrophic as you make out"

I didn't think the final scene was catastrophic. I thought the decision to have him reverse time and cancel out the whole damned movie (an even more egregious action than in the first film where he simply undid the last ten minutes) was--from a storytelling view--catastrophic. To my mind, it then took the final scene...which to me had always been annoying (Superman is supposed to represent the best that we can be as a species; so his best response to a bully is to become a bigger bully? No.) and make it utterly pointless since he's punishing someone for an offense that never took place.

PAD

I'd like to address something here: Superman NEVER turned the earth back. Not once, not twice, not ever.

What we were seeing are things from Superman's point of view as he cracked the time barrier and traveled to the past...from his POV, things moved backwards (including the earth's rotation). Presumably, he fixes whatever needs fixing (going too fast to be perceived), then cracks the time barrier again (from his POV, the earth now starts revolving in its normal fashion, but fast enough that the viewer can see it, signifying that Superman is time traveling again) to return to the revised present (whereupon the earth stops turning).

Since Superman isn't actually spinning the earth, it's no more nonsense physics than any other time travel movie (Star Trek IV, Time After Time, etc.).

Having said that, I'll simply chime in that Donner indeed says in the Special Features section that the time travel was supposed to be the ending for Superman II. I also agree that this ending dramatically undercuts the movie (the Phantom Zone criminals are still out there, all the great scenes of Jor-El's sacrifice are rendered moot, and Superman is now more of a bully than he ever was in the Lester cut).

Even with these problems, it's still a better movie than the theatrical cut as released. Those scenes of Reeve in the Fortress with Brando just SING. The Lester cut may make slightly more sense, but I had a better time with the Donner cut.

You have to remember that Donner was bound by the footage he shot 25 years ago and what little he could use of Lester's footage.
I read that the time travel bit was originally supposed to be for part II, but was scrapped and used in part I (though they obviously shot the sequences). I think the justification was in the killing and the destruction of the monuments. The phantom zone villains were much harsher villains here and Superman wanted to undo the needless deaths.
I have no idea what he had planned for the ending when he decided to throw the time travel into the end of the first film, but he obviously never got a chance to shoot it. leaving him stuck with either super-kiss or time travel. i can forgive him on it then as he made the best of a bad situation.

I always personally liked the bully scene at the end. To me that's classic Superman by going in and teaching the guy (who was an established jerk at that diner) some humility. I always felt it was less about Superman getting personal revenge than it was discouraging the bully from harassing the next innocent guy to come in to the diner.

I always personally liked the bully scene at the end. To me that's classic Superman by going in and teaching the guy (who was an established jerk at that diner) some humility. I always felt it was less about Superman getting personal revenge than it was discouraging the bully from harassing the next innocent guy to come in to the diner.

It's been a year or two since I saw the movie and of course I haven't seen this cut so I don't remember what was said, or even the order of events in that scene, very well.

If he went back and the bully got in his face again and he kicked the bully's ass, that's one thing. If, on the other hand, he went back and kicked the bully's ass without being provoked and without telling the bully to clean up his act, that's something very different.

I haven't seen the revised film, but did it have anything new? I don't mean Christopher Reeve scenes, obviously, but anything at all, like new special effects driven scenes?

There are several significant scenes of different footage, which have been alluded to above. Not new, in that they were just filmed, but they've been sitting on the cutting room floor for twenty years.

And despite the ending, the rest of the changes make the film well-worth it.

Finding out that the turning back time thing was in RD-S2 has been the single reason I haven't bothered with it. Yes, the original had weaknesses, but nothing this weak.

The other thing about the bully scene is everyone acts like a fight had happened before. The owner says they just fixed up the place. Clark telling him that he's been working out only makes sense if he'd seen him before. Now it just reads like a strong young guy with glasses beats up an old man.

What I did like was the sacrifice of Jor-El. Clark loses his father for a second time which makes all the trash talking Zod does about his father actually have some weight. When Zod's slamming Jor-El, to Superman he's talking about the father he just lost a few minutes ago.

Yes, the original had weaknesses

Speaking of which...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPiJFpljwUo

>Superman reverses time so that the first time the bully beat him up never even happened...and then he goes to get revenge on the bully when the bully hasn't even DONE anything to deserve a beating (at least not yet). I don't think that's right.

Ah, but ... as Mr. Boothby points out: "everyone acts like a fight had happened before. The owner says they just fixed up the place" which suggests the bully didn't restrict his beating people to just Clark. It is, in fact a reasonable assumption. In which case, just because he hadn't punched out clark in this revised version of history didn't mean he didn't need to be taught a lesson nonetheless. Of course, whether violence is the best way to deal with such an individual is another matter.

So, OK, time travel is possible.

Enter the Time Patrol wielding Gold K and warning Supes that his tampering with the time stream goes against every rule they have and he's to stop it. Or else.

Works for me.

Mark Patterson at December 17, 2006 07:38 AM

I'd like to address something here: Superman NEVER turned the earth back. Not once, not twice, not ever.

What we were seeing are things from Superman's point of view as he cracked the time barrier and traveled to the past...from his POV, things moved backwards (including the earth's rotation). Presumably, he fixes whatever needs fixing (going too fast to be perceived), then cracks the time barrier again (from his POV, the earth now starts revolving in its normal fashion, but fast enough that the viewer can see it, signifying that Superman is time traveling again) to return to the revised present (whereupon the earth stops turning).

Very nice. I never considered that scene as him actually reversing the rotation of the Earth, but rather it was just a visual shorthand they used to present the time travel. Any more than I thought he was really flying past a bunch of dates in the comics when he went back in time.

Donner has said that if he had been allowed to finish the film he would have reworked the ending and come up with something different so it wouldn't be the same as the first one. I think that the reason they went with this ending was because Donner hated the Lester ending so much. Even though this ending was also lame, and a bit of a letdown from the rest of the film. I also thought the part about going back to beat up the bully was pointless if he had turned back time. On a side note the part I never got about turning time back is wouldn't there already be a Superman in that time still? A bit of a hole in the plot that always bothered me about the first movie. Someone above suggested ending the movie with Superman flying off from the balcony when he drops off Lois. That would almost make more sense as an ending to tie into Superman Returns. Anyways I even though the ending was repetetive on the whole this movie was a superior film to the Lester version. The Donner Cut in spite of it's flaws may actually now be my favorite Superman movie.
SPOILER ALERT FOR THOSE THAT HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE YET!!.. The part where General Zod mistakes Jimmy Oleson for the Son of Jor-El is hilarious: "This is the Son of Jor-El?"

I am actually glad that circumstances made it so that Donner had to include the time travel scene in the first film not the second. In the first, it is basically Superman choosing his humanity (Pa Kent's "you are here for a reason") over his Kryptonian heritage ("it is forbidden for you to interfere in human history"). It's unfortunate that people perceive Superman's "going back in time" as "turning around the world" but alas.

Time travel in the first film makes sense. In the second, it doesn't make any -- why wouldn't he just do it far sooner rather than bothering defeating the KVs?

Also, this might be rumor, but I'd heard that one plan was for Superman to lose his powers because he defied his father's warning about interfering in human history. I would have preferred this to Superman willingly giving up his powers. Thus, the second film could have begun with Superman trying to live a normal life with Lois and then discovering that he must find a way to restore his powers since the KVs are loose. It would have been more dramatic, I think, because in the current SUPERMAN 2 (either version), he is human for what seems like an hour and a half.

And, yes, "General, would you care to step outside?" is a great line that is much missed. "Haven't you heard of freedom of the press" is, well, something Spider-Man would say.

I've heard that idea before, that Superman isn't reversing the Earth's rotation he's just going back in time and the Earth *looks* like it is spinning backward. I thought it was a very good idea.

Then my roommate explained why that can't be the case. In the movie we see him spinning around the Earth until it starts turning backwards. If he just stopped there and time started flowing normally, then the theory would make sense. However, he doesn't, instead he flies against the rotation, *then* he starts flying in the direction of the proper rotation. After he does that the Earth starts spinning the right way again.

So what's show to happen is that he spins the Earth back to move time in reverse, then he spins it the right way to start moving time forward again. He wouldn't need the second set of rotations if he was just going back in time.

I suppose you could get really fancy and say that he went too far back in time and had to go forward a bit. At that point we're not really talking about what happened at the movie, we're just writing our own little stories to justify everything.

"I'd like to address something here: Superman NEVER turned the earth back. Not once, not twice, not ever.

What we were seeing are things from Superman's point of view as he cracked the time barrier and traveled to the past...from his POV, things moved backwards..."

YES YES YES

I have been championing this almost since the day the first film came out.

Oh, and does anyone get the feeling that "your" perfect Superman I and II will never see the light of day, where the best bits of each version are combined? I get that feeling. Got it with the first Star Wars trilogy too...

Peter, Peter, Peter, Peter.

Well, yeah, you're right about all that. However, you have to take into account that they didn't really have any other options with the ending. They were reconstructing Donner's footage of "Superman II" without any of the reshoots that Donner would have done had he not been fired. This version of "Superman II" is what they could produce from what had been completed. Lester's footage and the ending there are present because they had *nothing* else. No getting around that. (It disappoints me too.)

I'm totally with you on the revenge scene, though. The movie should have simply never gone back to the diner and had Superman soaring above the Earth following the final Daily Planet scene.

I think there's a certain irony in how Donner's "Superman II" was the movie that never happened, and with the ending, didn't happen within itself, either. The slate is cleared entirely for whatever led up to "Superman Returns."

Donner *was* involved in editing as a consultant, so anyone who wants to blame editor Michael Thau is misinformed. Donner was there to give his take on how the cut ought to be put together, and while he didn't personally edit the sequences, he provided input on what should stay and what should go. He and the screenwriter decided on the "turn back time" ending over the "magic kiss."

A few weeks ago, I watched Superman and Superman II the Donner cut back to back. And I enjoyed them. But I have to agree there are major problems with Supes reversing the flow of time or going back in time, as the case may be (I favor the second interpretation, for the record). Yes, according to the information provided on the DVD commentary, that was the original ending of Superman II; and yes, Lois' death originally occured in Superman II (which was the impetus for Supes to try to change what happened); but his going back in time- in and of itself- wouldn't have changed Lois' knowledge about Clark and Supes.

Even if the Phantom Zone villains had never existed- much less broken free of the Phantom Zone- Lois and Clark would still have been in Niagra falls, and Lois would still have pulled her bluff with the gun. The only way Lois would not remember (short of an "amnesia kiss" of course) is if at some point off camera Supes visited his past self and said, "the gun has blanks. Don't fall for it." (Presumably he also diverted the runaway missile, so it didn't intersect with the Phantom Zone, off camera.)

But since they didn't see Supes take any action to warn his past self, I think the average person watching that whole sequence will be confused as to why Lois doesn't remember.

Of course, the "turn back time" ending of the first movie also raises questions. O.K., Supes goes back in time and goes to Lois before her car falls into the crevice that opens up beneath her. She gets out; they talk; Jimmy shows up; and Supes flies away (presumably to finish repairing the Earthquake damage). All well and good, but as a friend said as we were watching the movies, he'd have liked to have seen that crevice open up. Only now, of course, Lois is already out of the car. It doesn't make sense that that didn't happen. After all, the earthquake still took place. We know because Jimmy complained about being left in the middle of one.

So, yeah, in both films the turning back time/going back in time ending wasn't too well thought out. But at least it's not an amnesia kiss. Actually, here's a better ending. Well, teeny bit better, at any rate. Picture this: Supes goes back in time and prevents the Phantom Zone villains from escaping, by diverting the missile once it's in space. He can't do anything about Lois knowing his secret because the only way to do so would be to visit his past self, and that would cause paradoxes (More so than his preventing Zod, Ursa and Non from escaping in the first place). He doesn't want to do that.

And truthfully, he doesn't really _want_ to do anything about Lois knowing, either. In some ways, it makes things easier for him. He loves her, therefore he trusts her; and it's good to have an ally.

Of course Lois won't have any memory of the Phantom Zone criminals (nor will anyone else) because the events concerning them now never happened. Or so Supes thinks. He doesn't realize that Lois' time in the Fortress exposed her to some Kryptonian Thingamacallit that allowed her to remember the timeline that had been. But here's the thing, Lois deals with the concrete, observable universe. From the evidence of her own senses (as well as statements from everyone she'd talk to) there was no attack by super-powered Kryptonians. The Daily Planet is undamaged, as is the rest of Metropolis, the White House, and the Washington Monument. And those astronauts on the moon are just fine, thanks for asking.

But she remembers all the damage and destruction. But it never happened. So she must have imagined it. She must have imagined "shooting" Clark with blanks and getting him to admit he was Superman, as well. After all, he didn't save her when she jumped out the window at the Planet. In fact, he was still standing in the window, looking down at her in that pile of fruit. If he was Superman, he would have saved her.

Like I said, a teeny bit better. Deep down, Lois would still have her doubts about what really happened and what didn't, and sooner or later would probably once again try to determine if her suspicions of Clark were correct. Right about the time Superman III would come out (In a universe where Richard Donner went on to direct Superman III and Margot Kidder was in the film (beyond a cameo), that is).

Of course a _much_ better ending than any of the above would this: Supes cleans up the damage (as he did in the Lester version), Lois retains her memory of his dual identity, and their relationship develops from there. Yeah, I know, it would never have happened in the comics world of the 1970s and early 1980s, but it would've been more real.

On another matter, the last time we see the (now depowered) Phantom Zone villains, they are thrown (or fall in Non's case) into crevices in the Fortress of Solitude. For all we know, they're dead, Jim. Have Superman and Lois killed them? Looks that way, since we never see them again. But wait, there's a deleted scene showing them being hauled off to waiting Jeep-like vehicles. Now, why was that scene deleted? Did they _want_ the audience to think Supes and Lois had killed Zod and Ursa, and that Non had brought on his own death?

Finally, I direct your attention to the comicbook _Best of DC Blue Ribbon Digest #1- Superman_, Sept./Oct. 1979, pages 42-43. No writer is credited, but Murphy Anderson did the artork. The scene is on par with Rick Jones' "man, you're nasty when you're drunk, Superman" joke from PAD's run on _Incredible Hulk_. Clark Kent sits as his desk as Lois Lane trips and falls out the nearby open window (don't they believe in screen windows at the Daily Planet?).

"Great Scott" Lois tripped and fell out the window", Clark thinks. Though why he invokes the name of a supermarket remains a mystery. He leaps out after her. "No time to change into my Superman costume." And so Clark dives after Lois and catches her in mid air.

"Aha! I always thought you were Superman, Clark. That's why I only pretended to fall out the window!" (said the woman who was plummeting toward the ground; good job of "pretending" there, Lois).

In the final panel, we see Clark at his desk again. Morgan Edge walk in. "Say, Clark... where is Lois?"

"Lois? She fell out the window."

Rick

I've never had a problem with the amnesia kiss. At least there had been nothing previous to this scene to indicate that he COULDN'T do that, as opposed to the turning-back-time thing, which is contradicted by the fact that he couldn't fly fast enough to stop two missiles earlier in the movie. And, as Jason indicated, the evidence seems to point to him actually reversing the Earth's rotation, which makes it even dumber. And how exactly does this fix the problem, anyway? To quote Family Guy, "No, no, nothing about this adds up at all!"

Incidentally, it's Niagara Falls, not "Niagra." Normally I wouldn't say anything, but when three different people make the same mistake, it starts to bug me.

"Well, yeah, you're right about all that. However, you have to take into account that they didn't really have any other options with the ending."

Yes, they did. Lois is left remembering his identity. The "your secret is safe with me" scene is perfect as it is. Cut to the bully scene (if it MUST be there), he flies over earth, roll credits.

That's the real killer, you know. The first time around, Superman turns back time because he wants to save Lois. This time around, he does it because--let's face it--he DOESN'T trust her. It wasn't like the original theatrical release where she's clearly suffering. In this instance, Lois very maturely and capably handles the information and obviously has her act together. There's nothing in that scene to indicate she's going to come unravelled.

I don't care about the history of the sequence. I care about this version of the movie, the one they're selling on DVD. And this version was great up until the last five minutes, and then they flushed it away.

PAD

Peter, at least Supes did NOT impregnate Lois and THEN wipe her memory of the conception.

Right?

-- Ken from Chicago (who's really starting to like SUPERMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES a lot more, almost as much as BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES)

1
Peter I completely agree with you WRT the ending of the movie.
However, I disagree with you about the rest of it. For the most part, I felt the Donner cut was inferior to Superman 2's theatrical release.

And that sucks; because I really wanted to like this movie.

The added scenes with Lex and Otis trying to escape from jail were completely unnecessary and merited staying on the cutting floor. As was the inane conversation between Lex and Ms Teschmacher on the hot air balloon (and I'll say it again, what kind of escape plan involves getting out of jail in a hot air balloon to begin with? It's asinine. The cops could have shot the friggin' balloon down, or even tracked it. The guards come across as completely inept since they don't appear to even try tracking Lex once he's "up, up and away").

While I have no problem with Lois trying to discover Superman's identity, I think it goes beyond the realm of determination and into stupidity to fall out of a window to make a point. I also question the idea of even an unloaded gun being pointed at Clark. Even if she knew for certain before he told her...she's still pulling a gun on a friend to prove a point! How disturbed is she??!!

I'd hoped they would have corrected Zod's conclusion on how the PZ'ers had super powers, as it's a tremendous leap to simply assume that a different star gives them superpowers, but they kept that in.
They also had the opportunity to eliminate Ursa getting bit by the snake. I'm still not quite certain how bullets and bombs explode harmlessly off them, but a lil' ol snake can bite her. If that's all it took, Superman could have tossed a few copperheads their way and be done with them.

The change in dialogue, while minor, was still annoying (the scene you spoke about, as well as Zod's comments to Superman at the start of the battle).

As you say, they also had the chance to eliminate the diner scene, but opted to leave that in; the resolution of which, is so Un-Superman like.

I do think the biggest gripe is once again turning back time. Didn't like it in the first one (how did he even discover he could do that?) and hate it even more in this cut.

The only things I liked were the addition of Brando's Jor-El talking to Clark (though I hate how they've added that to the comics) and the linking of the missile from S1 to the escape of the PZers.

God, I wasted 19.99 on this piece of crap. I'd rather go watch Batman & Robin. At least with that movie, I have *no* hopes that it will be good.

Tony

Over all, I liked Donner's Superman II a lot better. Even the duplicate ending didn't bother me because the movie STARTS with the end Superman: The Movie was supposed to have-- the missle being launched in to space without the need for Clark to reverse time.

Keep rationalizing, folks. It's obvious that Supes turned time back by reversing the Earth's rotation, because he then had to reverse course and start the planet on its normal rotation. You can rationalize all you want, but that's what the movie shows.

I always hated the bully scene at the end, also. If I was rewriting it I would have Clark go into the diner, confront the bully, wait for him to swing, then lift him up high by his shirt collar and say something like, "The next time you decide to pick on somebody weaker than you, remember there's always somebody stronger than you." Then set him down nicely, maybe dust off his shoulders, and leave.

"They also had the opportunity to eliminate Ursa getting bit by the snake. I'm still not quite certain how bullets and bombs explode harmlessly off them, but a lil' ol snake can bite her. If that's all it took, Superman could have tossed a few copperheads their way and be done with them."

I always just assumed that the snake didn't pierce her skin or hurt her, but she reacted the way she did out of instinct, because she's not used to being invulnerable.

The best version is the one you rewrite in your own mind. Sometimes it's the only way to enjoy a movie. Somebody should open a company for rewriting disappointing movies. If your imagination is good enough you can gradually remember the movie the way it was supposed to be. You already have the memories in your mind, all that's requires is some re-editing.

I may be an extreme minority here, but I have always enjoyed the scene where Clark goes back to teach the diner bully a lesson. Granted, it's a useless scene if he's turned back time, but it worked for me in the original version.

I have never liked how Clark has been portrayed as a weakling, simply to keep his Superman identity secret. I always preferred the Lois and Clark Dean Cain version of Clark, as that portrayal was done so that Clark was the real person, and Superman was the disguise. The revenge scene witht he diner bully is the closest the movies have ever come to making Clark more than one dimensional.

I had hoped that they would do that again with Superman Returns, but no, we have the weakling, unconfident Clark-as-disguise again.

Other than the portrayal of Clark, I have enjoyed all of the movies and TV shows.

A bit off topic, but my two cents.

All of the Superman movies (and, to some extent the TV shows) have let down Superman. At the very least they could have Superman look like Superman but, instead, they hire skinny guys who can't act.

But the other problem is that Superman is far too perfect. Just once I want to see a Superman who can, at least, make mistakes and suffer from them.

If Superman is simply traveling back in time in the first movie, then you have the classic time travel paradox:

Current Superman is doing what he did in the original timeline. Future Superman is saving Lois. With Lois saved, why does Current Superman go back in time? When does he find out he needs to? or does Future Superman create an alternate timeline when he goes back in time to save Lois - in which case, what does one do with two Supermen?

As far as the bully thing goes, I seem to recall that bothering me when i first saw Superman II when it came out. Yeah, I'm sure that with his powers Clark can beat the crap out of the guy. What's his motivation? Petty revenge? Or teaching the bully a lesson, so he'll change his ways? Can't be sure that this'd get the desired effect, in the latter case. If this guy is beating up other people consistently, wouldn't it have been better to keep an ear open for the guy to start bullying someone else, someone clearly weaker than him - and then to secretly use his powers to make it look like some nebbish took the bully down? Always felt like revenge, pure and simple to me - and, yeah, *my* Superman was above that sort of thing.

I guess that's why I don't think I'll watch SUPERMAN RETURNS again. The various moral issues inherent in the new character added to the mythos in the movie (spoilers? not if I can help it) simply made Clark seem like so much less than he ought to be.

RD Francis

I like the beating up the bully scene. Not in the revised version, I mean the original.

It's a flaw. People say Superman is too perfect and is boring, but here he indulges in a little revenge. It's not so bad that the guy is seriously injured, he mainly hurt the bully's pride. The thing that makes it OK for me is that the guy didn't just attack Clark, he did it in front of Lois. So the guy wasn't just someone who hurt Clark, he made him look bad in front of his girl. That makes this little bit of revenge seem very human.

Is the kiss at the end of the Lester version often known as the "date-rape kiss?" If manipulation takes place after sex, can the charge of coercion be made retroctively?

If Superman wanted to teach the guy in the diner a lesson without abusing his power, couldn't he just show up in a rainbow clown-wig and Groucho-glasses, let the guy take a swing, then reveal himself to be Superman and tell him his broken hand is what he gets for indulging in aggression?

There were so many instances of bad writing in both versions of SUPERMAN II that I don't think the movie could have been made passable without a complete overhaul of the script. This was clearly a situation where science fiction concepts were being executed by writers who didn't have the faintest idea of how to handle science fiction. The name of the game is internal logic; having established a fantastic premise, you must work within the rules of that premise. If the rules need to be changed in mid-stream in order to advance the story, then there's a problem with either the premise or the writer.

In fact, the "turning back the world" bit which Donner recycled for SUPERMAN II got me thinking about how the corresponding scene from the first movie could have been made to work better as a time travel stunt, rather than a literal reversal of the Earth's rotation, as is apparently the case. That, to me, was the weakest part of SUPERMAN, as it was an example of the aforementioned inept handling of SF. I'm sure I'm not the first to have come up with this notion, but here it is:

Following the tragic aftermath of the earthquake, Superman launches himself into space and begins flying around the planet at hyper-speed -- but instead of the Earth being shown reversing its rotation, we just see the recent events on the planet playing out in reverse from Superman's point of view, making it clear that he's traveling backwards through time.

THEN, when he reaches the point in time where he sees himself pushing the first missile out into space, Superman breaks out of his time-flight and zips down to California, where he intercepts and diverts the second missile before it can hit the San Andreas fault, preventing the earthquake (and all the attendant destruction) from happening in the first place.

Having thus altered the course of history, Superman fades out of existence as his past self makes his way to the west coast to find that the second missile has somehow disappeared. Superman feels a slight shiver, as though sensing that something unnatural has happened -- but the feeling quickly fades, and with California no longer in danger he heads back to Metropolis to apprehend Luthor, bringing the movie to its conclusion.

- Frank

1
>Keep rationalizing, folks. It's obvious that Supes turned time back by reversing the Earth's rotation, because he then had to reverse course and start the planet on its normal rotation. You can rationalize all you want, but that's what the movie show

--It's not *obvious* at all.
We're seeing Superman's POV as he reverses time. There is no indication that the world _itself_ is rotating in reverse.
It could be possible. Yes. But it's not stated.
Nor is it stated that he simply reversed time without rotating the Earth in the opposite direction.
To my mind, what makes more sense is that he simply flew around the world fast enough to crack the time barrier, went back, changed a few things, and then--as he went back to his present--flew around the Earth clockwise.
Either way works, depending on your mindset.

Peter,

Richard Donner had very little to do with the reconstruction of this cut: he gave his blessing for producer Michael Thau to do what he wanted in the editing of the material. Thau could have just as easily kept Lester’s kiss scene in, but he wanted to restore as much of Donner’s original idea as he could, including using the time-reversing ending.

Superman I was supposed to end as a cliffhanger. After he tosses the first rocket, he turns back to Earth in time to see the second one explode. They’d show the earthquake starting; the dam breaking up; the crack opening up and Lois drowning in the dirt. Then they’d go back in space to show Superman as he races back, but instead of following him, they were going to follow the rocket. It would explode, break open the Phantom Zone, and end with Zod yelling “Freeeeeee!!!!!” To Be Continued in Superman II.

The opening sequence of II would have had him fixing the chaos caused by the earthquake. He would have saved Lois before the crack killed her. Our heroes would go off thinking that all was right in the world, but we’d know that the villains were coming. Lois was supposed to die later, during the fight in the fortress. Then he’d go reverse everything and bring her back to life.

The studio didn’t like the idea of the cliffhanger: they wanted a big, spectacular ending, so Donner moved the sequence to the end of the first movie. The whole scene with Lois dying in the desert was a new one. He and Mankiewicz were going to come up with a new idea for the ending of II, but he got fired before he even had a chance to come up one.

I guess if they had released a Donner Cut of I (with the cliffhanger end) to go with the Donner Cut of II (with the time-reversing end), the whole thing would make more sense (although it still wouldn’t explain the whole paradox thing with the diner).

This version of II is not perfect by any means, but I still enjoyed the heck out of it...

Hmm. Peter thinks that they should have ended the film WITH Lois knowing Clark's secret.

How would we all have felt about that? I really didn't think about it that way. That might be a bit problematic in that there is no Daily Planet scene where we get to see how Lois and Clark interact back at work with her knowing what she does and circumstances remaining as they are. Of course, it wouldn't be any more choppy than the reverse-time sequence.

If they'd used that idea -- well, I guess the movie would put in Superman flying off end-scene immediately after he and Lois say good-bye at her apartment. (I think they could have done without Clark returning to the diner.)

Would we have been happy with that? No blank slate for "Superman Returns." No follow-up film where we see what it's like, Superman going about his business with Lois knowing the secret. Hmm. I wonder.

To those who think that Superman actually reversed the rotation of the earth by flying around it really fast, I must point out that it is, as Peter said, "nonsense physics".

If Superman were really spinning the earth backwards, wouldn't he do it on the ground, where there was something to actually grab onto? (Tom Keller and Jason Bryant take note, please)

I recall a comic from the old days, when Superman had to move the earth, he very carefully chose a remote location, and compressed the ground for a few square miles so that he'd actually have a surface to press against. Silly, I know, but there was at least a nod to something resembling real physics there.

Mr. Bryant writes, "Then my roommate explained why that can't be the case. In the movie we see him spinning around the Earth until it starts turning backwards. If he just stopped there and time started flowing normally, then the theory would make sense. However, he doesn't, instead he flies against the rotation, *then* he starts flying in the direction of the proper rotation. After he does that the Earth starts spinning the right way again.

So what's show to happen is that he spins the Earth back to move time in reverse, then he spins it the right way to start moving time forward again. He wouldn't need the second set of rotations if he was just going back in time."

Sorry, but your roommate's dead wrong. When the earth stops spinning backwards from the audience POV, Superman is in the past. He stays there for a moment, and then (again from the audience POV) the earth starts spinning in its accustomed direction, but at the same rate as the backwards spin, showing that Superman is returning to the present day.

Backwards into the past, forward to return to the present.

This begs the question of 'what about the alternate Superman who's already in the present, since that version never traveled back through time to change the past?', but I refuse to try to answer that one until someone tells me how Jor-El could have "been dead for many thousands of your years" but still know recent human history. Or have been able to recite "Trees".

Okay, so any version of this film is sort of a mess. But messes can work (see "Wizard of Oz" with Garland, Morgan, Lahr, Bolger, etc.)

I guess Donner should have just re-filmed those scenes with the actors before they re-edited the film....

Oh wait.

Not possible, is it?

As other have mentioned: The ending to #1 was the original ending to #2. Donner never got the chance to do a proper ending to #2, so they had to use the Lester ending for the new edition. Personally, I think they did the best they could when you have 2 of the main actors dead and whatevwer footaqge they could garner was used.

I'd rather have this than nothing....

Is there no way of confirming which interpretation of the time reversal is the correct one?

What is the origin of the interpretation claiming that Superman spun the earth in the reverse direction?

As presented, the reversal of the earth's rotation was literal.

If the reverse spinning was only meant to manifest relative to Superman, he simply needed to slow down to restore the normal rotation to his own perspective. Flying forward should have resulted in a speeded rotation, which was not depicted, and only until he slowed down.

Never mind that approaching the speed of light would increase his mass to where gravity would tear the earth apart.

"What is the origin of the interpretation claiming that Superman spun the earth in the reverse direction?"

I think that would be everybody seeing the earth SPIN BACKWARDS up there on the big movie screen. Not so much an interpretation as a discription of what was actually in the movie.
I do favor the interpretation that this is just a visual metaphor for Supes going back in time.

as for RD-S2. I agree that it worked much better and I give Donner a lot of slack. It is obvious that he got as close as he could with what he had to work with.
A lot of us are very familiar with S2. So it's really a matter of watching this version to spot the differences. If you look at fresh eyes. That this was the only version of S2 and this is how you experienced it for the first time. then I think it's no contest between the two.

Re: Spinning Earth...I think some commentary from Donner has him saying it's the Earth being spun backwards. Anything else is just a rationalization of an irrational movie plot. It's Superman, folks, and not today's somewhat reality based Superman, but the Silver Age Superman, who on a monthly basis displayed some new power...maybe used for only one issue, or even for one panel. His powers are pretty much limited only by the current writer's imagination. So Donner had him fly around the Earth to spin it backwards, reversing time. If that sticks out to you as being impossible, and thus wrong, you're sticking on the wrong point. Before you even get to the idea that reversing the rotation of the Earth has nothing to do with time flow (according to you...prove that you're wrong ;) ) you need to start explaining how a man can fly...

Overall, I think the so-called Donner cut was a neat production. It's his vision as intended, unedited, more or less. Since Donner moved his ending to S1, it would have been interesting to see how Donner would have ended S2. I don't like the time travel in either case. But at least in S1 it makes some sense...Kal is grief stricken, and is acting out of anger, maybe on instinct. I always liked the Jor El warnings about his actions. With the DS2 time travel, it invalidates the whole movie. I consider this to be a cardinal movie sin. It basically says to the audience "the imaginary movie you just saw is now even irrelevant to the characters within the movie." What's different at the end of DS2? A bully learns that he can't pick on everyone. And Superman knows he can't fall in love with Lois without giving up his powers, which he can't ever do because Zod and Co. are still out there. While this would work in a comic format...where the audience has some acceptance of the illusion of change, but really wants things put back the way they were someday...it's not in a movie.

The better, more challenging ending, would be as PAD suggests...leave it at "Your secret is safe with me" and let it go. It creates a much more interesting dynamic, say, when you bring in the plot from Returns. Now you've got the opportunity for some real tension in the Lois/Clark interactions that you didn't have before.

I'm glad we've got the DS2 version, if for no other reason than to give closure to the troubled past of S2. But there's some good reasons why the Salkinds wanted changes made...some were needed.

OK, the deal with the Donner cut was to show how different it was. That was accomplished with this DVD release. The trouble with it is twofold: firstly, he was fired halfway thru the shoot, so he did not have the opportunity to film many of the shots that would have made this able to be released theatrically. Secondly, and most importantly, is Peter's quibble. The ending seen theatrically in the first movie was supposed to be the end of the second, and make them more cohesive. Unfortunately, due to time constraints (and not doing complete back-to-back filing a la LOTR) the first Superman was rushed out into theatres, the ending was as seen, and Donner said, "don't worry, we'll come up with a better ending for Superman II" This cut is not Donner's version of what the film would be because he did not have the chance to make it, this film is rather a hybrid based on what source material is around. And it totally lacks whatever creative changes would have occurred for the ending which they were actively redoing up to the minute Donner was canned. So yes, you're right Peter in saying that the ball is dropped in this cut, but it's all that there is to work with due to Donner's being fired and the filming never having taken place. Some of the shots used in this cut are actually screen tests. So although we will never see exactly what Donner would have completely made, this gives a much better idea of where Donner was taking it.

Chris

My cousin loaned me his copy of the Donner Cut and I have to disagree that the ball was dropped.

This is still in my humble opinion the best Superman movie ever made. Superman Returns while superior in terms of FX is the film that dropped the ball. Singer should be burned in Effigy for making that homage movie. If I want to watch a Luthor land scheme I will watch my Superman DVD.

I think you gentlemen need to take into account the fact that this movie was made in the 1980's and still stands the test of time. Many things were improved but the movie still is tethered by the script and the footage that was created.

My only hope is that Brian Singer spins back the world and removes that human/Kryponian hybrid from the next Superman movie.

Batman Begins should have set the bar for WB movies.

Regards:
Warren S. Jones III

As a kid, I thought that the amnesia kiss was a bit odd. As an adult, I wonder why Superman would risk Lois ending up with the very likely permanant and dehabilitating brain damage that would result by what seems to be him taking her breath away, momentarily losing consciousness all to simply save his identity and end her pain.

So, OK, time travel is possible.

Enter the Time Patrol wielding Gold K and warning Supes that his tampering with the time stream goes against every rule they have and he's to stop it. Or else.

Actually, I think you're onto something there. The movies, after all, seem to have forgotten that the heroes in DC are supposed to share a universe. (The only nod to that I've seen was a throwaway line in one of the worse Batman flicks.)

So, something goes terribly wrong, Supes is about to pull his spin-the-Earth schtick to solve the problem the easy way...

...and Waverider shows up, to show him some of the horrible consequences if he keeps screwing with the timestream. Now, Clark has to figure out some way of solving the problem without temporal transit. Maybe something involving the assistance of a shadowy, batlike figure from Gotham, and perhaps this former forensic police detective in Keystone...

I don't remember whose review it was, but some reviewer or other advised that one must think of this movie as "the ultimate deleted scene". I agree.

Peter, I think you're being too tough on this edition by itself. Given the already stated limitations of time and space (in the real world), this version is an interesting look at how this movie was originally intended to be.

While some of the continuity issues that you point out are definitely serious errors of storytelling (the crooks going back into the PZ, for example), many of the issues of time travel in this movie remain in Superman: The Movie. If Superman could just fly around the earth a couple of times, why not just do that for any major disaster? The ending of S:TM completely undermines any struggles Superman faces in ANY of the other movies. (Why, for example, does he nearly kill himself in Returns to lift the stupid Krypto-continent? Why not just turn back time, stop Luthor from getting into the FoS, and Peeping Tom Lois some more?)

I didn't like the ending to this one, either, but I've argued for some time now that the "turn back the world" ending ruins the entire first movie, too. It doesn't stop me from enjoying all of the great stuff on this DVD.

Eric

The thing that must be kept in mind is that the Donner Cut is not a proper movie. It's a fun little experiment, (put together by someone other than Donner, btw) combining one existing movie with a couple of unused scenes. And that's all it is, fun for people who were curious.

Donner never fully shot Superman II. He likely wouldn't have used the "reverse the earth" ending because the first one already had at that point. He might have shown Lois start to become unravelled. It's impossible to know. All the editor had to work with was 30-year-old footage which for all we know may have been dumped had Donner not been fired after "Superman".

The only way I can see being disappointed with the Donner Cut is expecting it to be something it was never meant to be...something it could never be...the definitive version of what Donner would have done had he never been fired. It's just a fun fan edit.

"The only way I can see being disappointed with the Donner Cut is expecting it to be something it was never meant to be...something it could never be...the definitive version of what Donner would have done had he never been fired. It's just a fun fan edit."

I'd be willing to accept that if Donner himself didn't contradict you. Donner's introduction is very specific: He says this is the way he meant the film to be. It's HIS vision of Superman II. It's not a fun little edit, an experiment, or a What If? It's promoted by Donner himself as what the film would have been had he seen it through to completion.

PAD

"I'd be willing to accept that if Donner himself didn't contradict you. Donner's introduction is very specific: He says this is the way he meant the film to be. It's HIS vision of Superman II. It's not a fun little edit, an experiment, or a What If? It's promoted by Donner himself as what the film would have been had he seen it through to completion."

Donner also contradicts himself, though. During the commentary, he states many times that Michael Thau did the best he could with what he had to work with. He even mentioned that he and Tom Mankiewicz never got around to coming up with an ending for the sequel since they were fired right away.

His saying that the film is exactly how he'd conceived it sounds like a mix of gratitude to Thau and, y'know, exaggerated enthusiasm to sell the disc. Perhaps a tiny bit shady, but not much more than any director who's ever said, "Yeah, the studio made me cut this and this and this, but I still think the movie's as strong as can be."

>PAD writes:
>
> It's promoted by Donner himself as what the film
> would have been had he seen it through to
> completion.

Well, I suppose I am so cynical a person I just never took that ad copy seriously and didn't judge the film as harshly.

Hmm. Well, with creative fast-forwarding, I suppose we can all have the version of "Superman II" we want? ;-)

Personally, being a Post-Crisis boy, I never cared for the idea of Superman travelling through time or turning back time at all. It's a very "Silver Age" sort of thing and something I could never really get into.

It's also why I never cared for Zod and company. The whole "other guys survived Krypton" thing never appealed to me.

Jonathan--Batman Forever is one of my favorite Batmovies. Alhough, even I have problems with the neon-wearing tommy guns.

Ibrahim--you may have just developed the next entertainment fad. Choose Your Own Adventure Movies, make 'em the way you want. Sort of an a la carte Hollywood.

I know this was probably addressed but:

The ending always was intended for Superman II, according to Donner. But basically, at one point he was told there may not be a Superman II, even though most was filmed, and he moved it up to the first movie.

Thus, he was supposed to come up with a new ending for Superman II, if made. But he was fired. So he never did. So lester and company did. But that wasn't his ending.

So he used his original ending, (and 25% of Lester's stuff since he never filmed it) even though, had he been around, he would have filmed a different ending once thought up of.

It can never be Donner's Superman II-he never came up with the ending and he used 25% of Lester's film that he never filmed.

In fact, he wasn't even supposed to be that involved with this redo. He didn't want to touch it. but he wound up becoming actively involved.

Gosh, Sean! I like "Batman Forever" too! Although its excesses in camp can be downright grating.

We already have choose your own adventure movies. Admittedly, they're adventures in porn, but...

Tom Mankiewitz (the writer):

NRAMA: So how close is this new cut to what you and Donner had envisioned?

TM: It’s very close. There were scenes we didn’t get to shoot. For instance, Donner did all the scenes with Gene Hackman, Ned Beatty and Valerie Perrine. Those guys never worked a day with Lester. I wrote the scene where Lois shoots Clark as one of the two test scenes and what’s in the movie is the actual test of Chris Reeve and Margot [Kidder]. The scene is in the new cut and it’s almost seamless. Chris is 30 pounds lighter but at least he’s standing there. It works great.
NRAMA: I was very surprised when I saw that it ends up being Luthor’s missile, that when thrown into outer space, was what freed the Phantom Zone criminals. It doesn’t make sense that they changed that.

TM: I don’t really know because I wasn’t there but in this new cut of Superman II he turns the world backwards at the end. That was always going to be part of the second movie. But it was such a spectacular effect that one day when Donner and I were driving out to the studio he said, “Is there any way to get that into one? Because we’ve got to put our best foot forward here.” We put it into one and we were always going to figure out another fantastic thing for two, which never happened. So for the new cut of Superman II we put that back where it was originally intended to be. So because of that my favorite shot is back in the movie which is when Jackie Cooper is brushing his teeth and the toothpaste goes back into the tube.

NRAMA: Do you ever think back about what you would have done for the end of Superman II?

TM: No, because it’s exhausting to think about.

"Ibrahim--you may have just developed the next entertainment fad. Choose Your Own Adventure Movies, make 'em the way you want. Sort of an a la carte Hollywood."

Thy already have those. It's just that it's the fimmakers who choose and they do it within a franchise rather than one movie. Singer pulled a "CYOA" when he came up with Superman Returns and chose to ignore the latter two Superman movies. The new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie will do that by acknowledging the first movie in the original series and parts of the second but forgetting about the third. It seems like a really goofy way of making movies, but that's just my opinion.

"It can never be Donner's Superman II-he never came up with the ending and he used 25% of Lester's film that he never filmed."

Exactly my point, spiderrob8. This is as close as can be with what was available, but we're never gonna take the Wayback Machine and see what Donner and Mankiewicz would have done if they'd written and shot 100% of the movie.

If Superman I and II were made he way Donner wanted, with the time reversal at the end of the 2nd movie it might have been good -- assuming you don't have a problem with the basic idea of the time reversal concept.

If Donner had been able to make Superman II, after making 1 with the time reversal ending, he might have come with an excellent grandiose way to end the movie instead of time reversal or the memory erasing kiss.

But he didn't. Instead, he only was able to make the DVD now in stores. The decision to put the time reversal ending at the end of that version seems to have been a creative mistake for he following reasons:
1) It does not make sense in the context of the rest of the movie.
2) It does not make sense in the context of the previous movie. Instead it seems repetative.
3) It seems that at present, as opposed to the time the original movie was made, the idea of time reversal is less acceptable to the public than the idea of Lois knowing Superman's identity.
4) As PAD demonstrated, other less problematic alternatives were available using the same material.

AdamYJ -- come on. Sean was talking about Choose Your Own Adventure entertainment concepts, not retconning. Surely you didn't need to use that avenue of discussion to sneak in your criticisms of movies you dislike for their retcons.

Micha -- Hmm... the more I think about it, the more I find myself thinking letting Lois *keep* her memory of Superman being Clark would be a great way to give later films in the series a whole new angle. But I guess Tom and Dick were determined that Lois HAD to lose her memory of Superman and Clark being the same guy.

I wonder if they would've done that if Bryan Singer's "Superman Returns" had given us a Lois who knows the secret (and is mad at Superman AND Clark).

I like the whole idea of Superman being able to move planets and I think in the time that the movie was released that this was the closest way that they could do it.

"AdamYJ -- come on. Sean was talking about Choose Your Own Adventure entertainment concepts, not retconning. Surely you didn't need to use that avenue of discussion to sneak in your criticisms of movies you dislike for their retcons."

I don't remember sneaking in anything. It always seemed to me like they were turning the franchises into "Choose Your Own Adventure" books. Sort of like: "If you want Superman to fight Richard Pryor, turn the page to Superman III. If you don't want Superman to fight Richard Pryor, turn to Superman Returns." I've made the "Choose Your Own Adventure" joke before in regards to this on many a website. Though, I understand he was going for something different.

"Batman Forever is one of my favorite Batmovies. Alhough, even I have problems with the neon-wearing tommy guns."

Thanks, Sean. Now I know to ignore any of your posts in the future. ;)

Eeesh, Tom, I thought MOST people ignored my posts.

"I don’t really know because I wasn’t there but in this new cut of Superman II he turns the world backwards at the end. That was always going to be part of the second movie. But it was such a spectacular effect that one day when Donner and I were driving out to the studio he said, “Is there any way to get that into one? Because we’ve got to put our best foot forward here.”

And that, right there, is why Hollywood thinking drives me nuts.

"A spectacular effect." They weren't concerned about whether it made sense or whether it was dramatically sound or whether it opened up a massive can of worms or whether it was, quite simply, a bad idea. They liked it because it looked cool. On the commmentary track, the one thing they discuss is how cool it is when Jackie Cooper's toothpaste goes back into the tube. The notion that it rendered THE ENTIRE THIRD ACT of the first film and THE ENTIRETY OF the second film pointless never entered into their calculations.

Because it looked cool.

Chriiiiiist....

PAD

PAD: Don't your complaints about the time-travel apply almost equally well to Superman: The Movie? How did the effect in that film not render the entire series pointless?

I agree with what you're saying about the time travel in the Donner cut. I really do. I just don't see how it's any better or worse in II than it is in I (except for the repetition). It might work better in I on a surface level, but it's no more logical and it opens up many of the same cans of worms.

Eric

Eric, when they used the gag in S:TM, Jor El's floating head warns Kal against this use of his power. There's a sense that this is something he's only doing because of his grief, that some part of him recognizes he's breaking the rules, and he shouldn't. And he only turns time back far enough to stop both missiles and save Lois. Everything that happens before that still happens.

It's not a great thing...time travel rarely is...but it's not nearly as bad as when it invalidates the entire movie you just watched.

It's not a great thing...time travel rarely is...but it's not nearly as bad as when it invalidates the entire movie you just watched.

How doesn't it? In S:TM, Superman turns time back to at least before the missles launch, and we are never shown him going and catching them early. Luthor's Kryptonite might still be in the lead box, for all we know. At least the preceding half an hour is invalidated.

More importantly, Superman's every exertion, both past and present, is rendered superfluous. Any time he screws up, he could just call a "do-over". It's particularly bad for the whole movie series for the reasons I argued in my first post waaay up there: why does Superman ever even try to do... anything? Why bother going to Luthor's krypto-continent? Why not just turn time back and stop him from ever stealing the crystals in the first place?

Again, yes, it's bad that the criminals are back in the PZ with powers and all. It opens up the question if Superman didn't just bring Jor-El back from the "dead". I agree that it undoes the whole movie.

What I don't get is why this doesn't bug people in I or in Superman Returns. It's more blatant in the RDC, but the RDC is also what I think of as "the ultimate deleted scene." I guess it didn't ruin my enjoyment of all the cool little Donner moments in the preceding two hours, each of which I took as a separate nugget of improvement over the clumsy Lester changes.

Eric

Eric, for me, the warnings Jor El issue suggest that Kal at some level...maybe in a future movie, or something we don't see on-screen...learns or accepts that time travel is dangerous, and he doesn't do it again. At least with S: TM, there's a sense that this is a desperate, one time event that he'll never do again.

With the Donner S2 ending, Kal actually smiles at one point as he's reversing time. Jor El's gone, so there's no warning against the danger. There's nothing to suggest that he won't be doing this all the time, which to me makes it a much bigger flaw in the movie than when used in S:TM.

I can see what you're saying. I don't see it as the uniquely glaring flaw that you and Peter apparently do, but I see your point about the Jor-El warnings.

Unfortunately, until there are consequences, that argument holds very little water for me, personally.

Eric

I agree with what you're saying about the time travel in the Donner cut. I really do. I just don't see how it's any better or worse in II than it is in I (except for the repetition). It might work better in I on a surface level, but it's no more logical and it opens up many of the same cans of worms.

As I recall, in S:TM, Supes didn't go back in time very far. He'd failed to save Lois and keep the coast from sinking into the ocean, and his only option was to go back and stop it from happening in the first place. All the stuff from prior to that point had still happened.

Whereas here, based on what I've read above, there's no crisis or anything aside from Lois knowing his secret. So he has to turn time back at least to the point where she figured it out, which means somewhere in the first half of the movie, so almost none of what we saw wound up happening at all.

If that isn't a big enough problem by itself, according to Jor-El this is not something Clark should do frivolously. In S:TM he did it to save Lois' life, and other peoples' lives. In SII, the Donner cut, he did it because he was worried about his secret identity, which to me seems pretty frivolous.

"To those who think that Superman actually reversed the rotation of the earth by flying around it really fast, I must point out that it is, as Peter said, "nonsense physics"."

True. That's why most people who believe in the "Reverse Rotation Theory" hate that part of the movie. I get the impression the supporters of the "Reverse Rotation Theory" fall into that category as well (it bugs them).

Eric, for me, the warnings Jor El issue suggest that Kal at some level...maybe in a future movie, or something we don't see on-screen...learns or accepts that time travel is dangerous, and he doesn't do it again.

****

I always saw it differently-that he chooses his earth father's teachings "we are here for a reason" over Jor-El's teachings. By going back in time, he is rejecting Jor-El for his earth father, and his earth feelings. "It is forbidden" but he does it anyway. Because he is human

Reminds me of Byrne's line in Man of Steel. "Krypton may have given me my powers, but it is the Earth that gave me all I am, all that matters. It is Krypton that made me Superman, but it is the Earth..that makes me human."

Or something like that.

I'd always though that part of the reason that Superman had to renounce his powers in Superman 2 was because his parents were still pissed about the whole turning back time thing from the first movie and there was a missing scene where he had to promise never to do it again and renounce Lois' love to get his powers back.

I had, of course, absolutely no reason to believe this, other than some of that residual "I want a no-prize" mentality from reading Marvel comics for so long.

The idea of ignoring certain entries in a film series when making subsequent entries could be called Highlander 2 Syndrome, after the infamous Highlander sequel that angered so many people that everyone pretty much decided to ignore it when subsequent Highlander entries were made.

Mr. David,

Would you like some cheese with your whine?

Oh come on, don't tell me you've never been annoyed by something a writer did in a work of fiction, Alix. To this day I still grumble about what George Lucas did to the characters of Anakin Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi, among other things in the prequels.

I'm also sure PAD wouldn't have made more than the single post about it if all of us others hadn't joined the discussion, so if you're saying he's just going on and on about this endlessly that isn't accurate.

"PAD: Don't your complaints about the time-travel apply almost equally well to Superman: The Movie?"

Pretty much. It's not as if I stated I loved it in the first film and disliked the notion of it in the Donner cut. My point was that I found it incredibly annoying in the first film and now they dropped it into the Donner cut of the second film, which pissed me off even more.

"Would you like some cheese with your whine?"

Well, gee, if you find it so disturbing, feel free to leave.

PAD

When I watched the Donner Cut I assumed that it changed the end of the first film by having him get to both the missiles in time, although it just showed the one. I just wondered how he got Lois pregnant with out her knowing he was Clark. But sometimes you just have to leave what you know behind and enjoy the show.

Um, the only question I have is does this mean in Singer's version, Lois's son is the result of what ... wind pollenation?

I really hate the hold turning back time thing, doesn't matter which film you're talking about it's incredibly weak story telling. (Can't say I found it particulary 'cool' either).

I had to hold off on reading this until I got the chance to watch the movie, which my wife gave me for Christmas.

Several people, including PAD himself, have commented that it would have made a lot more sense to simply have Lois retain her knowledge of Clark's dual identity. While I agree that this would have been the most satisfying outcome, in 1980 such a drastic revision to canon could never have been allowed.

I know how I'd have written it.

During the balcony scene near the end, Superman says, "Well, I guess I'll see you at work tomorrow". And Lois replies tearfully that she'll try to treat Clark a little nicer from now on.

So...go from there. Lois would comment on how terribly hard it will be, sitting next to the man she loves every day and forced to pretend she feels nothing. "I wish now that I'd never found out", she could say.

And Superman pauses, and thoughtfully replies, "Well...if you really feel that way..."

The actual mechanics of her forgetting could be pretty much any deus ex machina. The amnesia kiss, super-hypnotism, a gadget from the Fortress, maybe even that good old reliable staple from the Silver Age, the element Amnesium. They could even bypass the question entirely, and just have her show up for work apparently not remembering Clark's secret...or does she? It would be left up to the audience to wonder.

And the diner scene could then be played out just as it was.

Here's the creepy thing about the Donner ending...Lois and Perry act as though the events still happened...or their memories are somewhere there that the events happened. They've just been repressed. Almost like Superman wiped their memories, and in fact probably the entire world. And Superman just repaired all the damage done.