The first time I saw the Donner cut of SupermanII I thought, " Wow! This is a great episode of Lois and Clark". This version is more character driven than the theatrical cut. It’s not as epic as the Lester version, but that’s okay because it’s still a very good movie. How unique, two wonderful versions of the same film. CBM fans are a lucky lot.
1 Like
Richard Donner FTW. Hes still alive and kicking, Warner should let him be “DC’s Fiege” and then stay out of the way.
2 Likes
I honestly can’t remember either version much because I haven’t seen them in years. I remember loving Terrence Stamp’s Zod but that’s about it.
I respect Donner’s first Superman movie because it was the first major comic book movie and because it was revolutionary for the time, but I always felt like it was missing something. I remember liking Lester’s cut of Superman II more than the first one as a kid because Zod was a physical threat to Superman. I haven’t seen the Lester cut since I was seven and I saw the Donner cut when I was 14 so I can’t really remember the differences, though I guess Lester’s cut was a little cheesier and had that stupid “amnesia kiss” ending. One flaw I can remember with the Donner Cut was Donner essentially reusing the ending to the first movie and simply erasing everything from history. It’s a cop-out. Still makes more sense than Lois Lane’s random amnesia, though.
Anyway, I’m glad both cuts were released in the end. I wish they’d do that for more directors (like the Snyder Cut of Justice League or the original version of Dark Phoenix). Both versions have their strengths and both have their flaws.
I’m not a huge fan of the old Superman movies because I wasn’t there when they first came out and by the time I did see them, well… Comic book movies, movie effects, the character of Superman himself even, had evolved and the movies were a bit outdated. I still love Christopher Reeve’s Superman and Terrence Stamp’s Zod and John Williams’ score is iconic.
1 Like
*Me at 11 years old in the theatre…“What the heck was that super plastic wrap thing from his chest?”
5 Likes
I have to go with the Donner Cut. I wish that Donner & friends would make a Superman Deluxe film where they recut part 1 & 2 into one mega movie because originally Superman 1 & 2 were supposed to be one film. That, I’d love to see.
1 Like
I think that after the Lester Cut getting a 26-year head start to build a loyal following of its version before The Richard Donner Cut got its chance in just over ten years to prove its case, it’s kind of difficult for either film to have a fair shake at getting called better than the other. So I think to title this thread as a “VS.” contest, a competition between them, oversimplifies of the situation.
People will have built up a lot of nostalgia for Lester’s version these past nearly forty decades while others may just want to support Donner’s version purely on principal, i.e., they think he never should’ve been fired. Lester got to make his version with the full $upport of the Salkinds, albeit having to piecemeal a film using another director’s footage. Meanwhile, Donner got to “finish” his original version but with some awkward concessions, including using audition footage and deciding to use the original scripted ending rather than invest the time to write and film an entirely new one.
I know, a Lester VS. Donner cut comparison is inevitably a discussion that will happen again and again. But after reading some of the posts here first before starting mine, I think it’s cool that each version has their passionate fans. It was enlightening to read some of reasons why folks liked their version.
I prefer the Donner Cut. But Lester Cut fans, I’m glad you’re happy too!
1 Like
Donner was very protective of this project and the Salkinds kept getting in the way and forcing their views and opinions on him. Obviously thus royally pissed him off. Things got extremely heated, things were said by both parties and then Richard eventually got the axe. Thats all the detail I’ve ever heard on the matter. Though I side with Donner, it was Alexander & Iyla Salkind’s money and desire that made the movie possible in the first place. So it’s hard for me to say they should’ve completely stayed out of the way and kept their mouths shut.
Bottom line is it’s just a very unfortunate situation. But hey, at least we’ll always be able to talk about the “what if’s.”
1 Like
The Donner cut took out the best line in the original, that being “General, would you care to step outside?”
Ergo, my vote lies with the Lester Cut.
In principle, I stand with the Donner Cut as it took itself more seriously, had great scenes such as Lois with the gun blank and more Marlon Brando as Jor-El. It also eliminated much of the silliness that Lester injected into the theatrical cut, and it was more in line with the original vision of a 2 part saga. With the missile that Superman throws into space shattering the Phantom Zone.
Alas though, because the cut was never totally finished, the released Richard Donner Cut is not without its flaws. I guess I can deal with the clip show at the beginning that feels like “Previously on Superman…”, but the ending is borked. Originally, the time travel was supposed to ONLY happen at the end of “part 2”. We’d see Lois get killed at the Fortress of Solitude, and then Superman would go back in time to undo it. And when that plan was scrapped, it ended up in “part 1” or Superman: The Movie. And you would have her dying during the encounter with Zod, Ursa, and Non. Thus making Superman for the FIRST time break the rule about interfering with human history. But because Superman: The Movie was already done and released, seeing the Richard Donner Cut reconstruction without all the scenes actually filmed means we’re greeted to seeing Superman go back in time a SECOND time, which feels very lazy.
And in reality, to be fair, if Richard Donner got his way, we would have only seen that at the end of “Superman part 2”, not twice. And to be fair, you can only do so much with a DVD re-cut. But since it is merely a rough reconstruction based on existing footage and some CGI, yeaaaahhhh, there’s only so much it can do to live up to the original vision.
As a result, I guess the Lester Cut still has merit insofar as that it is a finished version without questions of what might have been. Mind you have, I still think that going back in time is better than kiss that somehow wipes your memory. And the Paris missile scene does nothing for me. I think Lester could have easily worked in the “Previously on Superman…” idea into his cut without problem.
I watched the Donner Cut last night, probably for the first time since it came out on disc, and I have to say it’s far superior to the theatrical version. I grew up loving Lester’s cut, probably watching it more times as a kid than Superman: The Movie. But as I’ve gotten older, the comedic bits and liberties Lester takes with Kryptonian powers in that version have bothered me more and more (especially the fight in the Fortress of Solitude).
Watching the Donner Cut now, it’s pretty amazing to think this wasn’t the version they wanted as the follow up to Superman. Of course, this version wasn’t really cut together at the time – Donner was fired and Lester was brought in to use some original footage and shoot a bunch of his own stuff (terrorists take the Eiffel Tower!) to meet director’s guild guidelines on how much of the movie had to be his to get director credit. I’d like to think that if given the choice between Donner’s cut and Lester’s, the producers would have seen that this was a much stronger movie, but they still might have gone with Lester’s because it had more action and felt bigger than Donner’s which is very character driven.
My one complaint is with the ending. I’ve never been a fan of the amnesia kiss from the theatrical version. And I understand that Donner’s original plan was to have Superman turn back time at the end of Superman II before he decided to use it as the finale for Superman: The Movie. But I wish he’d just ended his restored version with Lois on the balcony, knowing Superman’s secret, while Kal-El flies off to help people. Because the rushed version of the spinning Earth, combined with cheap visual effects and newly shot footage, really ruins the ending of what is otherwise a really excellent film (I could also do without the ‘Clark goes back to the diner’ scene, which felt very much like a Lester contribution).
This opens a whole can of worms in terms of what events from the movie actually happened, and how much of time was changed by Superman. In the first film it’s very clear that he flies back in time and changes one thing: Lois’ death. Everything else that we saw happened still happened (Jimmy confirms this). But with the Donnor Cut it’s really hard to understand what effect Superman’s time travel has. Did Zod and the others never escape from the Phantom Zone? Did Kal-El ever become human? The events of Superman Returns suggest he did, but the Donner Cut doesn’t do a very good job of explaining any of this.
In the end, the Donner Cut is the better movie for sure. But it can’t stick the landing, which keeps it from completely taking the Lester Cut’s place in my personal Superman filmography. (Plus, it is lacking the “General, would you care to step outside line” which automatically drops it a full letter grade.)
1 Like
I was thinking about the Donner Cut the last few days while listening to the Superman Movie Minute podcast.
After the Phantom Zone Villains and Lex have been dealt with, Superman flies Lois a short distance from the Fortress. puts her down. Turns around and uses his heat vision to destroy/melt the Fortress back down into the Ice.
He then takes her home and they have a break up without actually saying that it’s a break up…
Then Superman takes off and redoes the Turning back time trick. undoing all of the damage and effectively putting the Phantom Zone criminals back in the Phantom Zone.
Here’s the thing though, By undoing the entire movie and setting it back to as if nothing ever happened, doesn’t that include his destruction of the Fortress? Essentially, His melting it into the Arctic was reversed the same way everything else was.
So A.) Why do it in the first place if you’re just going to undo it anyway?
B) if he really wanted it destroyed, shouldn’t he have turned back time first so everyone stays unaware of it and then melt it down so someone can’t come across it later?