When the Salkinds hired Richard Donner onto the Superman project, the plan was to shoot both Superman I and Superman II at the same time but, as the production dragged on and the budget continued to spiral out of control, the team decided to put Superman II aside and finish the first film, get it out there, and see what they had. In fact, it seems as though the plan was not to finish the sequel if the first one flopped. But, of course, Superman was an enormous hit when it was released in December of 1978 and therefore, the decision was made to finish the sequel... but without Donner. All throughout the production, Donner had clashed with the Salkinds over various issues, from the tone of the movie to how expensive the entire thing was getting (Donner and Tom Mankiewicz maintained that the director was never given a budget or a schedule from day one) and so on, and by the time filming on the first film wrapped, they were pretty much at each other's throats. Besides the reasons listed above, another possible reason for Donner getting canned could have been because, as the film got more and more expensive, Warner Bros. became much more actively involved with it than they had originally intended and, therefore, the studio got more out of the profits from the film than the Salkinds would have if the film had remained a straight negative pickup as it was originally intended to be. As their control and profits got dwindled down, the Salkinds decided to make Donner the scapegoat. Now, to acknowledge their side of the story, producers Ilya Salkind and Pierre Spengler have said that they actually did invite Donner back but that he demanded that Spengler be removed from production and that he wanted final cut, among other supposed demands that they weren't willing to accept. And, to be fair, there are magazine articles from that time where Donner says that he would only return to finish Superman II if he could do it his way. So, whatever the exact reason for Donner's removal was, or if there even was just one and not a bunch that all added up, it's very clear that there was a lot of bad blood between him and the producers and, therefore, it probably wouldn't have been productive for them to try to work together again. In any case, Donner was out and Richard Lester was in.
Lester had actually worked with the Salkinds before and when the relations between the producers and Donner began to go south on the first film, Lester was brought in as a mediator for the two parties (as well as for the role of an uncredited co-producer). Donner, however, did not trust Lester at all, feeling that the Salkinds were already trying to replace him. (The Salkinds even admitted that they brought in Lester in case Donner couldn't, "fulfill his directing duties," claiming that he couldn't make up his mind about certain things.) Donner even told Lester that he didn't trust him but Lester insisted that he was simply there as a mediator and nothing more, telling him that he wouldn't come on the set unless Donner asked him to. Weirdly enough, Donner has said that Lester told him not to work for the Salkinds because he himself was suing the producers for profits that he had never gotten on the two Three Musketeers movies he had made with them. If that was the case, isn't odd that Lester would not only agree to finish Superman II but direct Superman III, another whole movie, for the Salkinds as well? Anyway, to make this long and complex story short (too late), Lester finished directing Superman II, actually re-shot some sequences that Donner had already completed in order to get a sole directing credit (which makes even less sense if the Salkinds fired Donner over the issue of the budget), and the film was released in 1980 (although it didn't come to America until the following year) and became another box-office smash. To this day, it remains just as beloved as the first film; in fact, many, including Christopher Reeve himself, felt and still feel that it's better than the original. However, the controversy about its troubled production continued to grow, with Richard Donner claiming to have shot a lot of the scenes that Lester was getting credit for. Lester has never commented on this situation so we don't have his side of the story, although when AMC broadcasted a widescreen version of the film, Lester did say that it was his film.
Before we start with the actual reviews, I want to make it clear that I am in no way pretending to know exactly what went down or who filmed what scenes. I have a pretty good idea of which scenes are Donner's and which scenes are Lester's and while I'll go further into this when I review each version, I just have to ask that if I get something wrong, please don't get mad at me. This is a complex and convoluted mess to make sense of and I will do my best but, again, I'm not perfect so I very well might screw up. In any case, first I'll talk about the theatrical version, which is the one that many have seen and remember, and then I'll talk about the Donner version, how that came about, and how Donner's material compares to what actually made it into the theatrical version. Got all that? Good. Now, let's hope I can keep all of this straight as well. And needless to say, this post is going to be rather lengthy so buckle yourself in for that as well.
The Theatrical Version
Richard Lester has had a rather interesting career. He directed a few films featuring the Beatles like A Hard Day's Night (which later got him an award from MTV proclaiming him to be the Father of the Music Video since that film became very influential in how music videos are produced), Help!, and an anti-war movie featuring John Lennon called How I Won the War. He also made some "swinger" films around that time like The Knack... and How to Get It and Petulia. During the 1970's, he made films like Juggernaut, which was his contribution to the disaster movie genre that had become extremely popular around that time, and two films with Sean Connery, Robin and Marian (which also starred Audrey Hepburn) and Cuba. It was around this time when he first worked with the Salkinds on The Three Musketeers and its sequel, The Four Musketeers. Interestingly enough, the Salkinds were just as controversial a group of producers on those films as they would be on the Superman films because, as they would do with Superman I and II, the Salkinds decided to film both of those movies at the same time; in fact, they actually split the mammoth first film in half after filming was completed. (While that's technically different from how the Superman films were produced, since they knew going into that project that they'd be making two movies, remember that beforehand they split the script for Superman in two because it was so lengthy.) This prompted many of the cast members to sue the Salkinds since they had only been contracted and, as a result, paid, for one film. And like I said, Lester himself apparently sued the producers for profits that he never got for those films either. (I have to say that, after hearing about all of this, the Salkinds don't sound like the type of people I would trust.) Once again, though, I have to wonder why Lester agreed to finish Superman II as well as film the entirety of Superman III if he felt that the Salkinds had cheated him out of money from the first films they did together. Was he really desperate for money or did he realize the exposure and finances that directing movies of this popularity would bring him? If the latter was the case, then didn't it cross his mind that the Salkinds might cheat him out of money again? Since we don't have Lester's side of the story, I can only speculate but, that said, I can't blame Richard Donner for feeling betrayed by Lester who took the job of finishing Superman II after Lester had supposedly warned him about working with the Salkinds and told him, "You can depend on me." Again, I can't speak for Lester but his motivations don't make a lot of sense to me and he doesn't sound like someone I would trust either.
While the controversy about who shot what scenes in Superman II continues to this day, there are ways that you can differentiate Lester's footage from Donner's. The most notable difference is in tone. Lester was well known for his comedic directing style and he brought that to many of the scenes he shot and reshot for this film, no doubt conforming to the Salkinds' apparent desire to make the films campier. Some of this stuff include the slapsticky gags that occurs when General Zod and his minions use their super-breath to create a hurricane in downtown Metropolis, including a man's toupee getting blown off, ice cream being blown off of a cone and into a person's face, one guy being blown around while holding an umbrella (although, that one is mixed in with a bunch of other people struggling with the wind so it may go unnoticed by most), and, most obvious of all, a guy in a phone booth getting blown over with the booth and yet he continues talking. There's that as well as the comical stuff that occurs in the Paris sequence at the beginning as well as when Lois Lane jumps into the rapids of Niagara Falls to make Clark confirm her suspicions that he's Superman. Donner's footage, on the other hand, has that feeling of verisimilitude and honesty that he strove to bring to the project. (To be completely fair to Lester, though, he did film the battle between Superman and the villains in Metropolis, which many consider to be the highlight of the film. Of course, that was only because Donner no doubt never got to that before he was fired but still, Lester did create this section of the film that so many enjoy so I have to give him that.)
While the controversy about who shot what scenes in Superman II continues to this day, there are ways that you can differentiate Lester's footage from Donner's. The most notable difference is in tone. Lester was well known for his comedic directing style and he brought that to many of the scenes he shot and reshot for this film, no doubt conforming to the Salkinds' apparent desire to make the films campier. Some of this stuff include the slapsticky gags that occurs when General Zod and his minions use their super-breath to create a hurricane in downtown Metropolis, including a man's toupee getting blown off, ice cream being blown off of a cone and into a person's face, one guy being blown around while holding an umbrella (although, that one is mixed in with a bunch of other people struggling with the wind so it may go unnoticed by most), and, most obvious of all, a guy in a phone booth getting blown over with the booth and yet he continues talking. There's that as well as the comical stuff that occurs in the Paris sequence at the beginning as well as when Lois Lane jumps into the rapids of Niagara Falls to make Clark confirm her suspicions that he's Superman. Donner's footage, on the other hand, has that feeling of verisimilitude and honesty that he strove to bring to the project. (To be completely fair to Lester, though, he did film the battle between Superman and the villains in Metropolis, which many consider to be the highlight of the film. Of course, that was only because Donner no doubt never got to that before he was fired but still, Lester did create this section of the film that so many enjoy so I have to give him that.)
Another difference between the scenes is the way they look. Both Superman I and all of the footage Donner shot for Superman II were photographed by cinematographer Geoffrey Unsworth, who gave it that soft, bright look that I mentioned in the review for the first film. However, Unsworth died a couple of months before the release of the first film and when Lester came in to finish the sequel, he brought in Robert Paynter to shoot his scenes. Paynter's photography, while matching up well with the Donner footage that was retained, is not quite as bright and magical-looking as Unsworth's. It looks more... standard. That's not meant to be an insult, believe me; it's just meant to point out that his scenes look more like a typical big budget film of the day. And like I said, the new footage matches up so well with the footage that Unsworth shot that it's unlikely that you would guess that two different cinematographers were involved with the film.
A most telling difference has to do with some of the actors. I can assure you that all of the scenes with Gene Hackman were filmed by Donner. Hackman was so infuriated with the Salkinds for firing Donner that he refused to come back for any re-shoots. As a result, you can bet that if Lex Luthor is in a scene and you can't see his face, it's a body double that Lester used to fill in some gaps. There are also many instances in the film where Hackman's voice is dubbed, usually in scenes that he didn't film but it also occurs in scenes where his face is clearly seen. I don't know why they didn't just use the original dialogue from those latter shots but whatever. In any case, one actor who did come back and had visibly changed between filming periods was Margot Kidder. In the Donner footage, she looks identical to or close to how she looked in the first film. In the Lester footage, however, not only are her hairstyle and color completely different but she looks very frail and sickly. It's especially noticeable in the scenes at the Daily Planet and the Fortress of Solitude near the end of the film because her look keeps changing in-between shots. Weirdly enough, when I first saw her in the Paris sequence at the beginning, I thought she looked pretty but when I started seeing closeups of her, I was like, "Whoa, what happened?!" That's indeed the question. I've heard that she had drug problems at some point in her life but I don't know if she had already started that at this point and that's why she looks so gaunt in the new footage or what but something happened for sure. Also, some have said that, because some of his scenes for Donner were shot at the beginning of production in 1977, Christopher Reeve looks a little thinner because he was still trying to build up muscle for the part. I've never noticed that myself but if that's the case then I'm not going to argue the matter.
Speaking of which, let's discuss this scene where Lois finds out the truth for a minute. The question is what that purely an accident or did he want that to happen, whether he realized it or not? The scene itself points towards the latter, since Clark, after taking his glasses off and confirming things to Lois once and for all, says, "I don't know why I did that." Lois tells him that maybe he wanted to and he responds, "I don't think I did," to which Lois counters, "Maybe not with your mind but with your heart." Okay, that last line is corny, yes, but she may have a point. After all, we know that the clumsy Clark Kent is nothing more than an act that he puts on so that couldn't have been a pure accident. But, then again, maybe he was so lost in his thoughts about her, what had happened between the two of them beforehand, and her feeling like an idiot that he actually wasn't watching what he was doing and really did trip on accident. We know for sure that, whatever the truth of the matter is, he didn't mean to do it since he tries to hide the fact that his hand isn't burnt at all from her. In the end, we're never given a clear answer but that's the best thing about this scene, as it is with all scenes that are somewhat cryptic: you can interpret it any way you want.
 |
| Seriously, what the hell is this thing? |
We get to see a lot more of Supes' powers in this film than we did in the first one, where all we saw was his ability to fly and his strength. He uses his trademark laser eye-beams a couple of times here which, correct me if I'm wrong but, I don't think he used once in the first film. We also see his super-breath which he has to use cool off the radiator of a truck that General Zod heats up to dangerous levels with his own eye-beams. In the final confrontation with Zod and his minions in the Fortress of Solitude, Supes shows off some very random powers that we had never seen before or since. The most infamous one is when he, out of nowhere, throws a big plastic version of his 'S' when Non comes at him. I remember the first time I saw that I was thinking to myself, "What? What was that supposed to be?" Not to mention that it's not very effective since Non easily escapes it and all it managed to do was render him helpless for a few seconds. So not only is it random but it's also the most worthless power imaginable. While more useful, another random power that pops up here is Supes' ability to create multiple holograms of himself in order to fool his enemies. He uses this to distract Ursa and Non and even manages to fool Lois with one of them while he grabs hold of Zod and puts him in a headlock. Again, don't know where that power came from or how exactly he managed to pull it off but I think it's an ability that Superman should use more often. It seems very useful in helping you gaining an advantage or at least buying you some time. And finally, we have the amnesia kiss that Superman uses to wipe Lois' memory of his identity and release her from the emotional torment the knowledge is putting her through. That's a power that I used to feel also came out of left-field and had no rhyme or reason to it but I've recently learned that it was actually used very briefly in the comics. While I really don't get how that thing works and feel that it's a major cop-out, it's still an aspect of the official Superman canon, albeit one that was dispensed with almost as quickly as it was introduced, and not just something that they just made up for this movie so I can swallow it a little easier now than I could before. It's still as big as of a deus ex machina as the time-reversal in the first film (and I'll get back to that when I talk about the Donner version) but whatever.
Once he realizes that he can't defeat Zod and his cohorts without endangering the lives of the citizens of Metropolis, Superman apparently retreats but actually heads back to the Fortress of Solitude where he sets a rather clever trap for the three criminals, who eventually do follow him there. He gives absolutely no hint of the trap though. At first, he attempts to fight the villains off but when Ursa and Non threaten to kill Lois if he harms Zod, he has no choice but to surrender. He also attempts to get them inside the chamber that he previously used to become a normal human but Lex Luthor, whom he tells this to since Zod has had enough of the former criminal mastermind and plans to eliminate him, betrays Supes' trust and warns the villains of the trap. Zod then forces Superman into the chamber and apparently saps him of his powers again. The general then forces the son of his hated enemy to finally kneel before him and swear his eternal loyalty to him by taking his hand. That's when Superman easily crushes Zod's hand, revealing that he reprogrammed the device to affect those outside the chamber while he was safe inside it. I know some have a problem with Superman intentionally killing Zod after sapping him of his powers (and they use his mother's statement that Krypton had no death penalty as an even further reason for why he shouldn't have done that) but you know, Zod has wreaked so much havoc in the short time he's been on Earth (killing innocent people, destroying small towns, enslaving the entire planet, threatening the person whom Superman cares for the most, and damaging Metropolis as well as using his compassion for others against him) that I think the punishment fit the crime. Although, I do wonder what became of Luthor. Superman seemed to just leave him in the fortress while he flew Lois back to Metropolis (however, since he's in jail at the beginning of Superman IV, I think we can assume that he did eventually fetch him from the fortress and drop him off at the prison again like he did at the end of the first movie). 
she feels about him, Superman (as Clark) kisses her and wipes her memory to relieve her of her misery and they get back to the status quo: Lois is enamored with Superman, Clark is jealous that that's all she thinks about, and Lois, although she'll always be Clark's friend, doesn't see him as anything more and, to that end, asks him to get her a hamburger... even though it's 9:00 in the morning. After taking care of that, our hero has two more loose ends to wrap up. First, he takes care of Rocky, the asshole truck driver who beat him up when he didn't have his powers. Some may see this as rather petty and vindictive, something that Superman certainly isn't, but, again, like Zod, I think Rocky got everything he deserved since he was such an unlikable douchebag. I do agree, though, that it wasn't very smart for Clark to show off his super strength in front of all the people in the diner but who cares? It's a crowd-pleasing scene and something you'd want to see after that intense scene where Rocky beat the crap out of the powerless Clark. And finally, Superman restores the damage that Zod wreaked on the White House, returning the American flag and promising the president that he will never abandon his role as Earth's defender ever again. To me, that scene, followed by the traditional ending of Superman flying above the Earth, is the perfect way to wrap things up.  |
| Somebody was definitely living life a little hard in-between filming |
After General Zod is defeated and the damage that he's done is fixed, Lois is a wreck due to her knowledge of who Clark is and having to see him every day without being able to be with him. She admits that she's jealous of the whole world and is selfish when it comes to him, saying that it's unlikely that she'll be able to move on and find another guy. This is a touching scene and Margot Kidder does play it in a very sympathetic way but I have a complaint with this whole idea of them now not being able to be together because he's Superman again. The question I have is, "Why?" Why can't they be together? What's stopping them? Okay, I know the whole reason for his having a secret identity is to protect the ones that he loves, which is the case with most of these heroes but, if you think about it, Lois got herself into plenty of danger and had to be saved by him even before she learned who he was. Moreover, even though they don't know that Superman is really Clark Kent, the villains use Lois' obvious infatuation with Superman as bait for, with Luthor telling General Zod that kidnapping her will ensure that he will come. It's obvious even to people who don't know them personally or know his secret identity that Superman and Lois have a thing, so what's the difference if they are truly together? He could still keep his identity hidden from everybody else for the other reason that Jor-El gave in that extra scene from the first movie (that people would take advantage of him if they knew who really was) but, again, what's the point of him and Lois not being together when she's always in danger simply because of her all-too public ties to Superman? Am I missing something vital here? But, that argument aside, Superman uses that kiss to erase her memory and everything gets put back the way it was to begin with. I still think it's silly myself but hey, what do I know?
The scene with the president ends on an amusing note that is a prime example of one of Zod's most entertaining qualities: his arrogance. As he kneels to Zod, the president murmurs, "Oh, God," to which the evil general replies, "Zod." That's awesome. Zod is so full of himself and confident in his new-found powers that he's just a joy to watch. Going back to when he and Ursa and Non first encounter humans, the three of them come across this redneck sheriff and his deputy and Zod comments that while he likes the red lights on the police car, saying it reminds him of Krypton's red sun, he doesn't car for the piercing sound of the siren and tells them to, "Make way." He's not at all impressed by the sight of the shotgun-toting deputy, discarding the gun as a, "crude noisemaker," after he takes it from the deputy and tries it himself. One of my favorite moments with Zod is when a news crew shows up to the small town that he and the others have invaded and when he discovers that the entire planet is seeing what they're filming, he tells them that they may continue and actually admires himself in the camera. That's great. And let's not forget that Zod has such a huge ego that he constantly refers to him in the first person, telling people to rise and, of course, "Kneel before Zod!" Did you see that speech I quoted up there where he mentions himself twice? Nothing but arrogance. However, Zod's arrogance causes him to become bored of having complete control of the planet as soon as he obtains it. He actually starts to feel that way not long after he arrives on Earth and discovers how easily can defeat any humans that oppose him, even when they attack with the full might of the army. After doing so, he says, "I win! I always win. Is there no one on this planet to even challenge me?!" That's why when he first hears of Superman, he's not only shocked at the thought of somebody not submitting to him but he's also intrigued, eventually challenging Superman during an announcement that the president makes on television, telling him to come and face him. This need to face someone who can challenge him turns into a lust for revenge when he discovers that Superman is the son of Jor-El. Now, he has an opportunity to fulfill the threat he made to Jor-El at the beginning of the first movie, to make his heir bow down before him one day.
When Superman finally shows up and challenges Zod, the general becomes determined to hurt the son of Jor-El in any way that he can. First, he and his two minions inflict as much pain upon him as possible but when that doesn't appear to do much, Zod decides to take advantage of how much Superman cares for the people and causes havoc in Metropolis itself, often forcing Superman to stop fighting and save people as well as fix the serious destruction that he causes. The moment where Zod realizes how much Superman cares for the people gives us another glimpse into his narcissistic mind. He sees this is as a weakness, saying that, "This Super-Man is nothing of the kind... He cares. He actually cares for these Earth people." Zod, as I've said, feels that anyone who is inferior (which, to him, is everyone) does not deserve any compassion whatsoever. In any case, when Superman realizes that he's putting the people of the city in constant danger by battling the villains in the heart of it, particularly now that they're using the people's safety against him, Superman flies away to the Fortress of Solitude to prepare a trap. While Zod first feels that Superman fleeing is enough of a victory, when Lex Luthor tells the general that he knows where Superman lives, they decide to follow him in order to finish the job. Even though Zod is clearly annoyed by Luthor's presence and would kill him if he could, he keeps him around because he continuously gives him information on how to get to Superman and while Zod initially feels that Luthor has outlived his usefulness after guiding him to the Fortress of Solitude (which Zod sees as nothing more than a pathetic replica of a planet that died a long time ago), he decides to spare his life and give him his desired control of Australia when Luthor informs him of the chamber that will sap their powers. To that end, he forces Superman to enter the chamber and apparently saps him of his power again. Of course, we learn that Superman switched the way the mechanism worked and drained the villains of their powers instead. After all the unwavering bluster and arrogance that Zod has displayed in this film, it's kind of shock to see him gasp in pain and be brought to his knees when Superman crushes his hand. Superman then easily dispenses with by throwing him against the wall, causing Zod to fall to his death in one of the fortress' the deep pits.Before we move on, there's one last thing that I have to mention about Zod and, oddly, it's something that I've never heard anybody else bring up: what is up with Terence Stamp's voice? If you watch his scene at the beginning of the first film as well as some of the footage that appears in the Richard Donner Cut, you will notice that in this version of Superman II, Stamp's voice is unusually deep. It seems like when Richard Lester took over production, they decided that his voice wasn't commanding enough or something and lowered the pitch of it in post-production, including in the scenes in this version that we know were filmed by Donner. When I first watched this movie, I was rather surprised to hear Stamp's voice sounding like that. I didn't hate it but it still gave me pause. I will say, though, that once I got used to it, I did think that it gave Zod more of a presence, both in terms of command as well as a sense of snobbish elitism, which is the core of the character. While I still don't think that there would have been any harm in keeping Stamp's voice the way it normally is (if you watch the material where his voice is unaltered, you'll see that he still gives a great performance), this alteration undeniably made Zod a bit more memorable than he already would have been.
As cruel as Zod is, his right-hand woman, Ursa (Sarah Douglas), seems to be even more cold and sadistic than her leader. We get our first clue as to how monstrous she is at the beginning of the first movie when Jor-El says that her hatred of humanity put even the children of Krypton in danger. This idea is compounded even more so seeing as how her first act upon being freed from the Phantom Zone and landing on the moon is to attack this astronaut, depressurize his suit, and then grab him and kick him off into the sky. And after they land on Earth, Ursa continues causing destruction and injuring people in any way she can, be it challenging one guy to an arm-wrestling match and practically breaking his arm or throwing around and whacking a bunch of guards at the White House. While Zod does the cruel stuff that he does due to his narcissism and his belief that everyone else is beneath him, Ursa does it simply because she truly enjoys it. She enjoys kicking ass and taking names, especially when it comes to men, whom she appears to have some sort of searing hatred for. When she asked that astronaut what kind of creature he was, he said that he was just a man, to which Ursa rather snarkily shot back, "A man?" She definitely gives Superman a run for his money during their battles, taking pleasure in causing him pain both physically and emotionally And I don't think it's any secret that she loved mopping the floor with that arm-wrestler, knowing that he has no idea how powerful she is, as well as squeezing Luthor's hand when he puts his on hers. She's not sympathetic to other women either, though, particularly Lois, whom she says is proof that Superman must not be all that demanding when it comes to women and decides to take her along to the Fortress of Solitude because she knows it will give them an advantage over Superman. The only person she respects is Zod. All throughout the film, she does everything possible to please him, from doing his dirty work to simply singing his praises with lines like, "General Zod does not take orders. He gives them." In addition, due to her own cruel nature, she shares Zod's belief that Superman's compassion for humans is a weakness, only able to compare it to the concept of having pets. She becomes all too happy to follow her general's orders to hurt the citizens of Metropolis in order to cripple Superman. Throughout the entire film, Ursa is as cruel and sadistic as you can get but, like her cohorts, she pays for what she's done when she loses her powers and Lois proceeds to punch her out, sending her falling down into the pit.
And finally, we have Non (Jack O'Halloran), the mute brawn of the group. There are actually two sides to him. One is a beast who is just as deadly as his far more intelligent cohorts, is quite intimidating despite his lack of brains, and shares his superiors' lust for causing chaos and destruction. The other side, though, is quite childlike and curious. When they arrive on Earth, Non is perplexed by all of the strange things and curiously inspects them, like when he tears off one of the lights on the police car they encounter or when watches those swinging balls in the president's office (sorry if I sound dumb but I don't know what you call those things). I also chuckle at Non's expression when Zod takes the deputy's rifle from him and actually fires it. There's also a running joke throughout the film that he's stubbornly trying to master his newfound powers, most notably his heat vision, and that makes him come across even more like an overgrown child. As we are told at the beginning of the film, Non lacks both thought and voice. He doesn't speak and only growls, roars,and trills as a means of communication. He is quite threatening when he flies at Superman and roars very loudly while doing so as well as when he growls angrily at someone but when he makes those childlike trilling sounds when he sees something that perplexes him or is taken aback, like at the end of the movie when he realizes that he's lost his ability to fly before falling to his death, he almost comes across as cute... emphasis on almost, though. He may not be my favorite of the film's villains but Non is entertaining to watch for the most part.
Although he'd filmed all of his before Richard Donner was replaced, Marlon Brando, being the greedy asshole that he was, wanted too much money for the use of said footage, prompting the Salkinds to reject his demands and replace the images of Jor-El in the Fortress of Solitude with those of Susannah York as Superman's mother, Lara (in fact, they also eliminated all footage of him from the first film during the prologue that plays along with the opening credits, making it seem as if Lara was the only parent Superman had!) She basically serves the same function that Jor-El served in the first film and would have in this one (and, in fact, did do in the Richard Donner Cut): acts as Superman's teacher and guiding light, telling him about General Zod, the history and laws of Krypton, and advising him on tough decisions. When Superman makes the decision to become a normal man in order to be with Lois, she tells him how to do so but also tells him that this was an issue that both she and Jor-El dreaded would come up. While Lara doesn't exactly try to dissuade her son from going forward with this plan, she asks him to be sure that this is what he wants and if the way he and Lois feel about each other is true enough to make doing it worthwhile. But, Superman simply says to Lara, "Mother, I love her," and drains himself of his powers. Doing so ends up destroying the control panel, meaning he will never be able to speak with his parents again or listen to their guidance. By becoming a mortal man, he actually destroyed all of the ties he once had with Krypton and by the end of the movie, all that's left is the fact that he manages to become Superman again. While York does do her job well, giving off a feeling of motherly warmth and wisdom, (plus, she gets to characterize Lara a bit more here than she was able to in her brief appearance at the beginning of the first film), he appearance does feel a bit out of place. After the first film where Jor-El was the only voice from Krypton that guided his son on his journey from the doomed planet to the Fortress of Solitude and beyond, it's kind of odd to suddenly see Lara here as a spiritual hologram as well. (I'm actually not sure if she is simply a hologram or a spirit because she seems to be both at various instances in the film.) I know why they were forced to do so, because Brando's unreasonable demands backed them into a corner, but even so, it still doesn't quite fit with what was established in the first film. Plus, who the hell is the bald Kryptonian guy who pops up and spouts off the poem Trees when Luthor and Mrs. Teschmacher are fooling around the control panel? I know his function is to educate Kal-El but couldn't Lara simply educate her own son about everything, not just the history of Krypton? (After all, Jor-El does both in the Richard Donner Cut.) 
While the first Superman is renowned for its groundbreaking, if somewhat dated by today's standards, effects, I think it's safe to say that, with three other characters that have the same abilities as Superman, this film has even more effects on display here. Since both movies were filmed at the same time, the flying effects here look basically the same as the ones in the first movie, using the same blue-screen, rear projection, and wire techniques as were used there. The quality of those effects are basically the same as well: some still look pretty good, while others do look a little wonky. Some of the rear projection and blue-screen work is kind of... "ugh" and the wire effects used during the closeups as well as the battle in Metropolis are a bit awkward. When Superman and the villains are floating around in mid-air and slowly grappling, throwing, and kicking each other, to me it doesn't look quite as intense and energetic as a bunch of extremely powerful beings fighting should look. But, in any case, because more of Superman's powers are shown here, we get many more different types of effects than just the flying ones. We get some nice rotoscoping and matting effects involving both Superman and the villains' heat vision as well as Superman's super-breath, some nice blue screen work like in the moment where Superman blows up the side of a small building that Zod flings at him, some well-done effects involving the hologram images of Lara and the Kryptonian elder, pretty good and fairly believable matte paintings (the scene where the villains deface Mount Rushmore looks quite realistic), and some impressive physical effects that occur when the villains invade the White House and when they create a hurricane in the middle of Metropolis with their super-breath. There are plenty of other impressive effects in this film as well so, on the whole, Superman II got as much, perhaps even more, bang for its buck when it came to effects as its predecessor.
Since they were shot at the same time, the production design between Superman I and II is very consistent, with only a few new locations added here. As with the first film, all of the scenes that Richard Donner shot for this movie had production designs by John Barry, who designed the returning sets of the Daily Planet and the Fortress of Solitude as well as the new locations of the prison, the moonscape, the White House, and the diner. While the aforementioned returning locations look just as good as they did in the first film and the White House, the diner, and the moonscape (which looks quite real, by the way) all serve their purpose and look top notch in the design, the setting that strikes me is the prison. It looks like an ordinary prison for the most part except for one thing: the prisoner uniforms, which are those old-school black and white striped suits. This gives me the same feeling that the look of Metropolis and the nature of the criminals in the first Superman did: this is an old-fashioned comic book movie that's mainly meant to be fun and, while the story it's telling is serious, it's not so serious. The same goes for the sets and locales in the footage that Richard Lester shot, such as the scene in Paris at the beginning, some of the Niagara Falls stuff, and Metropolis during the big battle. In these scenes, the production design was by Peter Murton, who was brought in to replace Barry, who died on the very day that shooting on the picture resumed! Murton did well in replicating Barry's style. The Eiffel Tower sets serve their purpose well (the rather stereotypical nature of the terrorists is another sign that this isn't to be taken too seriously) but the set that just kills me every time I see it is the suite that Lois and Clark stay in at Niagara Falls. That room is damn tacky, with the ugly pinks (including a pink bearskin rug), the flowers, the bed, and the fireplace that it's just hilarious and the attitude of the bellhop in that scene gives it that much more of a sleazy atmosphere. While New York stood in for Metropolis in the first film, the backlot of Pinewood was used for the battle in the middle of the city. It seems to me that Pinewood has such a huge backlot that it's perfect for replicating cities (as would be definitively proved years later when Gotham City in Tim Burton's Batman was built there). As Supes and the Kryptonian villains battle in the streets, you would think that they really are fighting in the downtown section of a real city because it looks so convincing. Murton also had to replicate Barry's style in a much more exacting way when scenes in certain locations such as the Daily Planet and the Fortress of Solitude were re-shot. I do know that they had to rebuild the interiors of the Planet for new stuff that Lester shot and I feel that Murton managed to make it look exactly like how Barry designed it. I'm not sure if they had to rebuild the interiors of the fortress (I would they didn't since that would have been all the more expensive) or not but if they did, then I have to give Murton credit again. Like the two photography styles, the two different styles of art direction managed to mesh together very well to create a consistent look for the film throughout.  |
| "Look at me, Mom!" "Yeah, honey, that's nice." |
 |
| Shit, Zod's packing! |
The scene that everybody remembers from this film is the big battle in the middle of Metropolis and while earlier I kind of crapped on the effects employed here (I still think that some of them look awkward), after watching this scene again I do agree that it is a spectacular fight on the whole. This is the one battle in any of these movies where it feels like Superman is up against a real threat and could possibly lose. No matter how much punishment he gives Zod, Ursa, and Non, they just keep coming and Supes, realizing that he's not getting anywhere and is only endangering the citizens of Metropolis, 
eventually flies away in order to come up with another way to defeat the villains. The sequence is chock-full of a lot of great setpieces as Supes deals with three enemies who all have the same powers that he does. Zod throws a piece of building at Superman, who uses his eyebeams to blow it up (and the explosion apparently hurts his eyes given the pained expression on his face) and then, he's chased throughout the city by the villains. The blue-screen and rear-projection effects here range from pretty good to very dated but it doesn't distract from the excitement. There is one odd moment where Superman hears Ursa call to him out of nowhere (which is actually taken from a moment later on in the battle) and then, he gets kicked into the side of a building by Zod. There's a nice moment afterward where Non grabs ahold of Superman while Ursa prepares to whack him with a beam but Supes ducks out of Non's arms and Ursa accidentally hits him right in the head! Superman and Non have a small scuffle where Non sends him into the side of the building but Superman fights back, punching and kicking Non and eventually causing him to crash into the top spire of what I think is meant to be the Empire State Building. Said spire breaks off and falls down the side of the building and Superman has to catch it before it crushes a woman and her baby (another dumb parent who could have easily grabbed her baby out of the carriage and ran like everyone else was). Superman then uses the spire to create a makeshift cage for the dazed Non at the top of the building. However, this act of kindness is what gives Zod a new idea about how to battle Superman and he proceeds to cause destruction in the heart of the city, blowing up a bunch of cars with his heat vision and then using it to heat up a tanker truck. Superman quickly flies down, deflects Zod's lasers back at him with the truck's mirror (notice that when Zod gets fried, the billboard behind him is destroyed save for a section that says "Cool it"; an idea of Richard Lester's, no doubt), and then uses his super-breath to cool down the truck before it explodes.
What makes this sequence so exciting is the same thing that made the earthquake sequence in the first film exciting: Superman is faced with one obstacle after the other. As he soon as he deals with one issue, he's immediately hit with another with hardly any time to catch his breath. Case in point: there's an interesting section where Non attacks Superman from above and they both go right through the street. This leads to a part where you can hear the two of them battling beneath the street, their blows causing everything up top to shake, manholes to blow off the road up into the air, and the people to lose their balance. It's also funny to hear Superman grunt and groan and Non growl and roar as they fight each other and you just try to imagine what's going on down there. Eventually, Non is sent crashing up through the street and he goes through one side of a building and out the other, while Superman climbs out of the hole and actually wrings his hand a little bit from how much it must have hurt to punch Non. This leads to what I mentioned earlier: no sooner does Superman climb up after fighting Non does Ursa throw a manhole cover at him, causing him to crash into the windshield of a car. And right after that, Zod appears and the two of them grapple on the hood of the car, with Zod throwing Superman into a Marlboro truck beside the car. But, before Zod can attack him again, Superman kicks him when he jumps at him, grabs him, swings him around, and throws him up into the air, causing him to crash into an electric Coca-Cola sign. That's when Ursa and Non both pick up a bus full of people, playing on Superman's determination not to harm innocent lives, and proceed to fling it at him. Superman does his best to stop the bus but even so, he gets smashed between it and that Marlboro truck. For some reason, this apparently messes him up because he stays down for an awfully long time, prompting the people to think that he's been killed. I don't know why a bus and a Marlboro truck of all things caused Superman so much trouble (maybe the ongoing battle weakened him or something) but he's back there long enough for all three villains to use their super-breath to create a windstorm that blows the people away when they all try to attack them. This is also a well done section, with some great physical effects used to create the hurricane that the villains produce. However, Superman eventually shows back up and that's when he realizes that he has to come up with some other way to defeat the villains and has to do it somewhere other than Metropolis so as not to endanger the people. He proceeds to fly away, prompting everyone including Zod to think that he's a coward and has abandoned the city. However, as Zod and his cohorts find out, he's not a coward at all and they end up right where he wants them when they follow him to the Fortress of Solitude.
Because John Williams was busy with other projects at the time, he was unable to create the score for Superman II. That proved to not be much of an issue since when Richard Lester brought his go-to composer, Ken Thorne, to replace Williams, he simply told him to recreate almost all of the memorable themes from the first film. As a result, the score for Superman II contains very little new music, acting mainly as just a repackaging of the original score. I think Thorne did a pretty good job in redoing Williams' music, most notably the epic main theme. While I do prefer the way that it sounded in the original film, it still sounds really damn good here and the feeling that it gives me as it plays during the opening credits sequence, which acts as a recap of the events of the first film, is nothing short of goosebumps. I like recaps anyway and hearing that music as you see clips from the first film makes it feel like one story has ended and another story is about to begin. It's remarkable. It works well for the ending credits too, ending on a triumphant note signifying Superman's defeat of General Zod and returning Earth to a sense of order. Thorne also makes good use of Williams' other pieces and manages to put them in the appropriate places. He does create some new music to serve as themes for the villains, giving Zod his own brief theme as well, as well as for scenes like when Superman unknowingly releases the villains from the Phantom Zone and the battle in Metropolis but it didn't leave that much of an impression on me. In conclusion, the score may be nothing more than a repeat of the original film's music for the most part but that stuff was awesome and pleasing to the ear that there's no reason to complain about it.
The Richard Donner Cut
The 2006 documentary Look Up In The Sky! The Amazing Story of Superman, which was made to coincide with the release of Superman Returns, was the first time that I had ever heard about the tumultuous production of the first two Christopher Reeve movies, particularly that of Superman II. I had no idea that there was so much behind-the-scenes drama, with Richard Donner being fired and replaced by Richard Lester even though the first film had been an enormous hit and Donner had shot a good chunk of the sequel. Judging by that documentary, I assumed that Lester's re-edited theatrical version of Superman II was what we would always have and that would be the end of it. It wasn't until later that year when I heard that Donner's cut of the film was actually going to be released and I was like, "Oh, they found his version!" I had just assumed that all of his material had been lost and Lester had re-shot the sequel almost from scratch. It wasn't until later when I learned that quite a bit of Donner's footage was used in the theatrical version and that was also when I learned that this film wasn't exactly Donner's cut but rather a very close approximation of what it would have been using all of the footage that he did shoot. In any case, I got both DVDs the following year and I watched the theatrical version first (which I hadn't seen since that night when I watched it with my dad) and then, I watched The Richard Donner Cut. After seeing both versions, I can safely that the Salkinds made a huge mistake in firing Donner because most (emphasis on most) of the stuff that he shot for Superman II is truly excellent. It's a shame that he didn't get to make an actual complete cut of the film so we wouldn't have to settle for what is essentially a commercially-released fan edit cobbled together from what they had because, judging from what he was able to shoot, that film would have been awesome if he had been able to go back in and not only finish it but also rethink some of the more troubling aspects of this cut; if that had happened, I think it would have felt even more like a much truer second chapter of the same story.
After his departure from the Superman films, Richard Donner's directing career took a while to recover. The first two films he directed after Superman were Inside Moves and The Toy (the latter of which, oddly enough, featured Richard Pryor the year before he would be in Superman III), neither of which did very well. However, his career got a big boost in 1985 when he directed the beloved children's film The Goonies and from then on, save for a flop here and there, his track record was quite strong and included such hits as the Lethal Weapon films, Scrooged, Maverick, and Conspiracy Theory (since he's worked with Mel Gibson so much, I wonder what Donner thinks of him nowadays since I know that he is Jewish). Although he may have had sore feelings over being unable to complete Superman II, I'm sure that the enormous successes that he accumulated over the years and the friends he made in the industry (he's a very well loved and respected filmmaker to this day) helped to ease his pain. In fact, when it came time to put together The Richard Donner Cut, Donner himself said that he had kind of forgotten about it and put it behind him. From what I've read, though. the truth may be a little more complicated than that. When the first film was restored for its DVD release in 2001, interest in Donner's cut of Superman II began to gain momentum and, interestingly enough, around that same time, the footage he shot for the film was discovered in a vault in England by Michael Thau, who restored the original film for its DVD release. Shortly afterward, Warner Bros. approached Donner with the idea of recutting the film to what he originally envisioned but Donner told IGN in May of 2001 that he was reluctant to do so, that he was finished and done with it and that was that. Despite his reluctance, fans started a bunch of internet campaigns demanding to see Donner's version of the film and finally, after a bunch of legal issues with the Salkinds and Marlon Brando's estate were settled, work began on the cut but, initially, without Donner. Donner again told IGN in January of 2006 that he was having no involvement with the creation of the new cut whatsoever, saying he didn't even want to see it until it was completed. But, by June of that year, Donner had apparently had a change of heart seeing as how he eventually did decide to be more involved with the restoration, even bringing in Tom Mankiewicz to help in doing so. In fact, I've also heard stories that, over the years, Donner actually went back and forth between wanting to do his cut of Superman II and not wanting to. Whatever the truth is, Donner eventually did decide to help with the creation of the cut, although he admitted that some of the hard feelings he had over his removal from the project years before came back and, according to editor/producer Michael Thau, he wanted as little to do with the Lester footage that needed to be retained for story purposes as possible. All that aside, though, Donner seems quite satisfied and happy with what they were able to come up with, particularly in the introduction he gives on the DVD. If nothing else, at least people now have a better sense of what his vision for Superman II originally was and I'm sure that's good enough for him. |
| Michael Thau (dressed a bit like Zod, I might add) |
 |
| FREE! |
look the way it did when Donner originally shot it (when it was used in the theatrical version, they did something to tone down the brightness) but the Lester footage that's retained also looks that way. I guess since they re-cut it from the original negative, they were able to manipulate that footage to make it look more in line with how Donner originally filmed it. (Not being an expert on the actual mechanics of film, I could be completely wrong about this so please don't give me grief if I am.) The audio here is also up to the same quality as it was in the original film, which was more crisp and detailed than how it was in the theatrical version. And, most importantly of all, the tone of this version definitely fits with the feeling of verisimilitude that Donner was determined to bring to the project. In the Lester footage that is here, they removed a good chunk of the slapstick and dumb humor (while the man with the umbrella and the guy on the rollerskates remaine during the windstorm sequence in Metropolis, the most blatant gags are removed) as well as those random powers that Superman started using during the final confrontation in the Fortress of Solitude. That said though, it's weird that Donner and many others, rightfully so, criticized the humor that Lester put in and yet, in the footage that he himself shot, there are quite a few piss jokes involving Lex Luthor and his cohorts. When they're doing laundry duty in prison, Luthor comments on how one inmate is a bed-wetter, prompting Otis to unknowingly relay that information to said inmate. When they're escaping, they hear Mrs. Teschmacher go, "Pssh," in order to get their attention and, not knowing what it was, Luthor asks Otis if he went, "Pssh." Otis says he wished he had before they came outside. And finally, when Luthor and Mrs. Teschmacher arrive at the Fortress of Solitude, she comments on how the place has everything except a bathroom... and the scene ends with the sound of her flushing a toilet! I guess Superman has the same needs as normal people but still, what was Donner's fascination with urination jokes here? How does that constitute verisimilitude but silly slapstick doesn't? But then again, he did allow that joke in the first film when Lois accidentally asks Superman, "How big are you?" so there's that. Still, I just find that a little odd. 
One of the first real criticisms I have to make about this movie comes right after the opening credits. Here, instead of throwing herself into the rapids of Niagara Falls in order to confirm her suspicions that Clark is Superman, Lois tells him her theory in Perry White's office after they've been given that assignment and when he laughs it off, she throws herself out the window. As he does in the theatrical version, Clark saves Lois' life by subtly using his powers without becoming Superman. He rushes outside the office, slows Lois' fall with his super-breath, uses his eye-beams to create a makeshift safety net, and after she lands safely, he quickly gets back up to the office so she's none the wiser. It's a good scene, no doubt, and it's certainly not as comedic as the situation presented in the theatrical version but the reason I'm putting it down is because the impetus behind it doesn't feel natural to me. After Lois is congratulated by Perry for her excellent work on the story of Superman foiling Luthor's plot at the end of the first film, Jimmy Olsen, upon seeing Clark come in, says that it was a shame that he wasn't there to see it, prompting Lois to comment on how he's never around when Superman is. If you've seen the first film, you'd know that these two already had this discussion at the end there, so why are they speaking virtually the same dialogue here? In any case, this exchange is what prompts Lois to suspect that Clark is Superman, draw his hat, glasses, and business suit over a picture of Supes, try to get him to confess the truth to her, and then throw herself out the window to prove her point. Again, Lois already suspected that Clark might be Superman at the end of the first film and immediately shrugged it off, saying that it was a silly idea. It seems rather random for her to suddenly get this idea in her head again shortly afterward. I thought the way it progressed from the first film to the theatrical version of Superman II was more natural: Lois initially gets that idea at the end of the first film, shrugs it off, sees Clark without his glasses when they're at Niagara Falls, gets suspicious again but quickly shrugs that off too, but when Superman suddenly shows up to save that kid that falls off the edge and Clark is nowhere to be seen, her suspicion boils over. If they had gone that route here and had them get the Niagara Falls assignment, leave out the scene where Lois throws herself into the rapids and instead go ahead with the scene in the hotel room that's here, I think it would work better. Now, maybe this could all be due to perception and some may see this opening scene as being very logical. Also, I probably should again take into account that this version is what Superman II was originally meant to be before the Salkinds interfered but even then, it doesn't feel right to me. 
On the flip side, I think the scene where Lois learns that Clark is Superman in this version is much better than the corny way it was done in the theatrical version. I like the idea of Lois tricking Superman into revealing himself to her rather than him, intentionally or not, doing it himself. To me, it shows how smart Lois is and, in fact, if they had removed that opening scene at the Daily Planet, I think it would have made this already great scene even better. I feel that it would have shown that Lois, instead of potentially getting herself killed, is smart enough to come up with a deceitful but harmless way to get Clark to admit his secret to her: make him think she shot a real bullet at him when she really only fired a blank. That's brilliant. Now, some would argue that this scene is a natural progression from that opening one because it shows that Lois has learned her lesson after doing something stupid and has, as I said, come up with a way to prove her point without putting anyone's life in danger. I would agree with that and could buy that... if it weren't for that unnatural bit of dialogue between Lois and Jimmy at the beginning of that scene. That is the major sticking point for me and I'll go further into both it and the film's ending later on. Still, though, this scene on its own is great (though, I wish there was a moment in-between this and the following scene of the two of them flying together where they decide to talk because Supes is really pissed at Lois at the end of this scene) and it's a shame that Donner never got a chance to shoot a real version of it. What we see here is a screentest of both Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder that they tried to make look as close to an actual scene as they possibly could. However, it's not hard to notice that it looks a little wonky. Plus, since this was before filming actually begin, Reeve is noticeably slim since he had not yet gained the muscle for the part and those certainly aren't the glasses that he actually wore either. But, regardless, I think they made it fit with the rest of the film just fine.
Speaking of the villains, there are some noticeable differences concerning them in this cut as well. First off, while General Zod has that deep and booming voice he had in the theatrical version for the most part here, there are moments in the latter half where you can hear Terence Stamp's normal voice before it was altered. In fact, after the battle in Metropolis, Stamp's voice is almost completely normal for the rest of the film save for one or two moments where it's that altered version, which make for some very awkward shifts in Zod's voice. While I do enjoy the over-the-top alteration that was made to Stamp's voice in the theatrical version, I think some of the lines that he spoke here in his natural voice are more effective, particularly when he responds to Luthor's impertinence with the line, "Why do you say this to me when you know I will kill you for it?" It makes me wish that I could see a version of the entire film with Stamp's normal voice. I would think that since the film was re-cut from the original negatives, they would have recovered the original voice track, particularly since at the end of the film, you hear Stamp speak some lines in his normal voice that were spoken in the altered one in the theatrical cut. Maybe they couldn't find the audio elements for the rest of the film or what but I would still be interested in seeing a version where Stamp speaks normally from start to finish. While we're on the subject of altering people's voice, was Sarah Douglas' voice also dubbed for the theatrical version? There are moments in this cut where Ursa speaks, like when Superman is about to punch her and she says, "What, you hit a woman?" (great line, by the way), and she sounds different from the way she does in the rest of the film. I don't know why they would have done so but I could have sworn she sounded different. Or maybe I was just hearing things. And finally, in this cut, Non is much less vocal. You do occasionally hear him roar, growl, and grunt but for the most part, he's completely silent. And in this version of the final confrontation in the Fortress of Solitude, when Non attempts to fly at Superman and realizes that he no longer can, he doesn't roar and then squeal but he actually makes human sounds, including a human yell when he falls to his death in the pit. While I do think that some of the sounds he made in the theatrical version were funny, I like him better here. The silence makes him come across as more menacing.
the first movie. I know the practical reason why he wasn't there but even so, it didn't feel right. His appearance in this version is another thing that puts this much more in line with the original film. Not only does his spirit and pre-recorded hologram teach Kal-El about matters of mere fact but he also advises him on more complex matters. I really, really love the scene between the two of them after he and Lois have made love where he talks to his father about the feelings he's having for her. What's great about it is that it discusses matters that were just barely touched on in the theatrical version. Jor-El advises his son that there is no way that he can serve humanity if he becomes so emotionally attached to one in particular, to which Kal-El responds, "And... if I no longer want to serve humanity?" I also like this because it's Superman himself who first hints at becoming a normal human, rather than in the theatrical cut where Lara, out of the blue, tells him that he must do so if he wants to live with Lois, prompting me to go, "Why?" And while I still don't agree with the notion of Superman and Lois not being able to be together, I do like that the reasons given are much more fleshed out here. Jor-El asks his son how he could abandon those who need him, to which Kal-El says that he only wants what they get: a chance for happiness. He doesn't deny his father's statement that he does indeed feel happiness whenever he inspires others but he also says that his feelings for Lois are much stronger than that. That's when Jor-El tells Kal-El that he must become a normal human if he wishes to live with one of them and shows him the molecular chamber that will take away his powers. He still pleads with his son to think harder on the decision he's about to make. I like that Kal-El tells his father the same thing that he tells his mother in the theatrical version, "I love her," but instead of being full of happiness as it was there, here it's more of a warning, meant to convey to Jor-El that he's made up his mind and wants to be with Lois. I like that he's already wearing the normal clothes that he wore as Clark when he goes into the chamber and, therefore, there's no need for that bizarre and confusing effect that was used in the theatrical version. And you have to love the look that Jor-El gives Lois during all of this, as if he's saying, "This is all because of you." This confirms that Jor-El isn't merely a pre-recorded hologram all of the time but does appear in spiritual form to talk with his son. 
was he who filmed this scene, not Lester, and used the fact that he has a cameo in the shot where Lois and Clark first pull up to the diner as proof (his cameo, though, is one of those situations where if you blink, you'll miss him). Now, one could argue that the shot containing his cameo doesn't prove anything and that the actual scene inside the diner could have been shot by Lester later on. But, if you look at the scene carefully in the theatrical version, you can tell that it was indeed filmed by Donner due to Margot Kidder not looking as gaunt as she did after Lester took over. Also, even though the film's quality was changed, you can still see a hint of the bright style of photography that Geoffrey Unsworth employed. In any case, this scene is very strong because it's just so humbling to see Clark, who was once the most powerful man in the world, without his powers and unable to defend himself from the vicious attacks by this horrible truck driver named Rocky. He gets punched and knocked over several times before Lois finally gets Rocky off of him. Rocky proves what a jerkwad he is even more so when he says to Lois, whom he hit on earlier, "I don't like your meat anyway." Just a Grade-A asshole in all respects. And then you see Clark lying there, beaten to a pulp with several bleeding cuts and a black eye, groaning in pain. Lois has to help him up, he's so badly injured. Again, it's just so hard to see him get his ass handed to him by someone who wouldn't have stood a chance against him before. And then, as if things weren't bad enough, that's when Clark learns that Earth has been taken over by General Zod, whom he knows from a recording where his father talked about him. Clark now truly understands why his father tried to dissuade him from giving up his powers and, even though it's a long shot, he decides to go back to the fortress and try to find a way to fix this mess that he's created.
The scene where he does return to the fortress and meets with his father one last time is really great stuff and is infinitely more satisfying than its counterpart in the theatrical version. Clark, unsure of whether or not his father's spirit is still present, tells him that he's failed not only him but all of humanity and that they no longer have anyone who can save them from Zod's tyranny. Just when he's about to give up, he hears the signal from the green crystal that constructed the fortress and he puts it into the console, which prompts Jor-El to appear once more. Jor-El informs his son that this is the last time that they will ever speak and tells him that if he's seeing this, than he's made a horrible mistake and has now come back for one last chance to set things right. It gets sincerely touching when Jor-El says, "Once before when you were small, I died while giving you a chance for life. And even now, though it will exhaust the final energy left within me..." and Clark, almost on the brink of tears as he realizes what his father is going to say, turns away and pleas, "Father, no!" Jor-El, however, tells his son to look at him and says, "The Kryptonian prophecy will at last be fulfilled: the son becomes the father, the father becomes the son. Farewell forever, Kal-El. Remember me, my son." This is so genuinely moving and Brando's acting is just top notch. It makes you wish that the Salkinds had paid Brando what he demanded and used his footage in the theatrical version because this rivals his goodbye speech to his son at the beginning of the first movie. Also, we finally see what he meant by that message of the son becoming the father and the father becoming the son when his spirit, in full human form, appears before his son, puts his hand on his shoulder, and gives him the rest of his life energy in order to restore his powers and turn him back into Superman. They have now become one in the same. Really awesome and mythic stuff here. 
in the late 70's. It's easy to tell, however, when some new blue-screen work was put into the unfinished effects shots because the characters are lit rather brightly and the matting lines around them are softer than what you see in those effects shots in the first film and the theatrical cut of this one but it's not an issue. What's really strange is that some of the effects look so good that I'm not sure of that's due to Thau's team using CGI to clean them up and enhance them or if they always were that good. Some of these shots include moments during the Metropolis battle when the villains are chasing Superman and in the scene before that when Jor-El appears to his son for the last time and materializes in full human form. Those shots look so good that you would have to think that there was some computer enhancement used to make them look that way. Then again, the effects artists who worked on these films back in the 70's were some really talented guys and created some groundbreaking effects for the time so maybe these effects are simply another example of their talent. Whatever the case, while there is some noticeable CGI here, for the most part Thau and his team managed to keep the film looking the way it did in 1980. 
... and then, Tom Mankiewicz spoke up and gave one of the dumbest reasons why that ending shouldn't be used: only Superman should kiss Lois, not Clark. Okay, Tom Mankiewicz, God rest his soul, was a great writer and it was because of his input that the first Superman wasn't as campy as it was going to be originally. So, I give him major props for that. But, that said, that is a really stupid idea. You know why? Because, while it is Clark kissing Lois in that scene, she knows that he's Superman. That's why she says, "Just say you love me," and then lets him kiss her. Does it really matter if he's wearing the suit or not when she knows who he is? I wouldn't think so but, apparently, Mankiewicz did and as a result they didn't use that ending. So what ending did they go with? The ending that was originally intended for the sequel: Superman turning back time. Alright, let's just ignore the fact that this was used as the ending for the first film because you should know that by this point. There's one very good reason why it was a bad idea to use that ending here: it negates the entire fucking movie! While the use of it in Superman did create some plotholes, at least everything that happened up to that point was still relevant and did actually happen. Here, Superman reverses time back to the point before the villains were released from the Phantom Zone so, as a result, everything that we've seen and been invested in for the last two hours is negated. Lois didn't find out who Superman really was, they didn't have their romantic night in the Fortress of Solitude, Superman didn't give up his powers and then learn why that was stupid of him (I know that he himself still remembers but you know what I mean by that), he didn't defeat his father's worst enemy, and the Fortress of Solitude is still intact, which makes him destroying it just a few minutes before even more pointless. I don't think I can come up with another way to make way to make the events of what was otherwise a mostly solid movie completely irrelevant. And what's more, this creates even more plotholes than it did in the first film. Now that the Fortress of Solitude has been restored, does that mean that Jor-El's spirit is back? And as a result, in the middle of reversing time, shouldn't Superman have lost his powers and either fallen to his death or died in the vacuum of space? Maybe he did it quickly enough to pass the point before he gave up his powers but even so, that's a slap in the face to Jor-El's selfless and noble sacrifice for his son. Also, the same plothole occurs here as it did with the earthquake: if he reversed time to back before the Phantom Zone was shattered, what's keeping that from happening now? Did Superman throw the rocket somewhere else before it exploded? And if he's reversing time on Earth, shouldn't an event in space be unaffected? Finally, if he reversed time, what sense does it make for him to go back to that diner and beat up Rocky? What's more confusing is that Rocky knows who he is and even the guy who runs the diner tells him that he just had the place fixed. If he reversed time, shouldn't that fight between them have never happened? Again, you see why I hate it when time is played with movies? It's just so damn confusing.
As much as I do enjoy this cut of Superman II, I think the biggest problem with it is the same thing that sold it: it's meant to reflect Richard Donner's vision of the film before the Salkinds interfered with him and ultimately replaced him. Besides what Mankiewicz said, I think that was another reason why they used the turning back time ending for this version: it was what was originally intended. That's all fine and dandy but the problem with that is the same as with the opening scene in the Daily Planet: the first movie already did that. I know I have to put myself in the mindset of how these movies were originally meant to be before that ending was used in the first film and whatnot but the original Superman was released and set in stone nearly thirty years before this version of the sequel came out. It's a little hard to forget about a movie that's not only as popular as that first one is but has also been around for that long, you know. It makes me wish that Donner hadn't been replaced and was allowed to make his own compete version of Superman II. Maybe if he had been able to do so, not only would he have come up with another ending as he planned but he also may have thought about some stuff that now kind of hinders this film, decided, "I already talked about this in the first film. I don't need it here," and re-shot it. But, that's all just wishful thinking and we'll have to settle for this film that represents what was originally intended and, as a result, doesn't quite fit with the legendary first film in some spots.
Well, thank you for the kind words and the encouragement. As long as people enjoy them, I'll keep doing them.
ReplyDelete