Ultimately a brilliant version of Superman II. Lester's version (which was the original released version) had a lot more visual gags that Donner never intended. This cut of the film feels more integrated with Superman: The Movie.

*** SPOILER AHEAD ***

My only complaint is the return to the diner at the end after Superman reverses time. The people at the diner act as if they know Clark Kent but with time reversed they shouldn't. And Superman shouldn't feel the need to take revenge on a bully... it's beneath him. I think this cut of Superman II would have been stronger with this short sequence eliminate.

*** END SPOILERS ***

For anyone who likes the Superman films this is definitely a must see. It's interesting to see how two different directors can influence the same movie differently.

Ultimately a brilliant version of Superman II. Lester's version (which was the original released version) had a lot more visual gags that Donner never intended. This cut of the film feels more integrated with Superman: The Movie.

*** SPOILER AHEAD ***

My only complaint is the return to the diner at the end after Superman reverses time. The people at the diner act as if they know Clark Kent but with time reversed they shouldn't. And Superman shouldn't feel the need to take revenge on a bully... it's beneath him. I think this cut of Superman II would have been stronger with this short sequence eliminate.

*** END SPOILERS ***

For anyone who likes the Superman films this is definitely a must see. It's interesting to see how two different directors can influence the same movie differently.

I may be confused here, since I haven't seen these movies in a long time, but ..... Didn't Supe reverse time in the 1st movie (not the second)? And I remember Supe getting even with the bully, so .... are you saying that it is still in the movie but should have been cut?

I may be confused here, since I haven't seen these movies in a long time, but ..... Didn't Supe reverse time in the 1st movie (not the second)?

You're right, it was the first movie.

Ken V.

Ultimately a brilliant version of Superman II. Lester's version (which was the original released version) had a lot more visual gags that Donner never intended. This cut of the film feels more integrated with Superman: The Movie

I'm confused, too. Donner directed the first Superman movie; Lester directed the second. Did Donner recut Lester's movie, the second Superman movie? How could that be?

BTW, Superman reverses the world in the first movie in order to save Lois.

It's interesting to see how two different directors can influence the same movie differently.

OK, so this sentences sounds like Donner did re-cut Lester's movie. If that is so, Lester must be rolling in his grave, and then what would prevent all sorts of directors from recutting other people's work??

Per IMDb:

• In a 2004 interview, Margot Kidder claimed that there are indeed enough scenes shot for this sequel by Richard Donner "somewhere in a vault" to make his own cut of the film. A website therefore started a petition for Warner Bros. to allow and sponsor Donner with his own cut of Superman II (1980).
  
  
• ...Unfortunately, he [Donner] was fired and replaced by 'Richard Lester' , who did not respect the Superman character or the mythology.
  
  
• US-born Director 'Richard Lester' , an American expatriate living in England, claimed he had never heard of the Superman character before being hired to replace original director Richard Donner for the sequel as comic books had not been allowed in his house when he was child. Many critics believe that Lester's lack of understanding of the character of Superman bordered on disrespect, which was most apparent in the next sequel, Superman III (1983), which he directed entirely on his own.
  

There's more, too. The whole 'trivia' page seems like a lot of Richard Lester bashing.

----------------
(added)

This scenario seems disturbingly similar to the situation surrounding the movie the 13th Warrior based on Michael Crichton's Eaters of the Dead. John McTiernan (Die Hard) was the original director and filmed most of the movie. When it went over budget, he was fired (by Disney?) and replaced by Michael Crichton who finished the filming (and reshoots) and apparently drastically modified the movie. I've never understood what would possess them to install Crichton as the director. I've always wondered what McTiernan's movie would have looked like. Certainly better, I would think. I've been told that there is virtually no chance that McTiernan's version will ever be released, but I hold out hope against all hope.

I thought more people had heard about this. Okay... let me try and explain.

Superman originally was one giant screenplay. They knew it was too big for a single film so they broke it into Parts I and II. Even though they knew it was going to be two films they shot it as one (like Peter Jackson did with The Lord of the Rings).

During the shoot, however, they fell behind schedule so they stopped shooting material for Part II so they could make the deadline for the first films release. By this time they had shot about 3/4 of Part II though.

It was also decided that the ending of Part II would be used at the end of Part I (This is the now famous Superman spinning the world backwards) figuring they would rewrite the ending of Part II when they went back and finished it up.

Brando was, I believe, the main reason where this fiasco begins. Superman did extremely well at the box office so Brando demanded he get a bigger paycheck for his footage in Part II even though all his material had been shot. The studio refused and told Donner to re-write Brando's stuff and re-shoot it. Donner refused and requested they just pay Brando.

The studio decided to just fire Donner and brought on Richard Lester to complete Superman II. Lester used some of the material Donner had shot but decided he wanted to go a different route so much of what we have known as Superman II includes new material shot by Lester.

Now we come to Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut. Fans have been clamoring for this version since the 80's and have signed petition after petition trying to convince Warner Bros. to allow Donner to do his version since he had completed about 3/4 of Superman II.

Warner Bros. finally agreed and Donner has spent the last two years putting together what would have been his version. Much of it is different; some of it the same since he didn't get complete shooting his version so some of Lester's footage is in here.

What I was referring to previously, with time being reversed, was not going to be the ending for Superman II since it had been moved to the end of Superman. But since Donner never was able to shoot a new ending it has been reused (kind of) here.

We still have the fight with the three Kryptonians in the Fortress of Solitude. Much of this is the same from Lester's version yet it's not as comical. Where the reversing time comes in is instead of Clark kissing Lois to make her forget he is Superman he instead turns back time to make her forget, return the villains to the Phantom Zone, etc.

My two complaints about this is Clark goes back to the diner after reversing time to get revenge on the bully who beat him up. At this point it doesn't matter since it never happened yet they still seem to remember who he is and what happened. This is why I think Donner's cut would have been stronger if this scene had just been removed.

My other complaint is with reversing time the movie becomes "it was all a dream".

But since they never had the opportunity to shoot some of their footage this is as close to what Donner would have done back in 1979. It's very strong as a follow up and deserves to be seen as this was originally what Superman II was going to look like.

Hopefully that explains some of the confusion.

seems like a lot of Richard Lester bashing....

Too bad. I like Richard Lester's sardonic point of view and have enjoyed many of his films, A HARD DAY'S NIGHT, HELP, THREE MUSKETEERS, and the exquisite ROBIN AND MARIAN. I also like his "Superman," irreverant or not. I misspoke; apparently Richard Lester is not dead, so he won't be rolling in his grave over anything.

...This scenario seems disturbingly similar to the situation surrounding the movie the 13th Warrior based on Michael Crichton's Eaters of the Dead. John McTiernan (Die Hard) was the original director and filmed most of the movie. When it went over budget, he was fired (by Disney?) and replaced by Michael Crichton who finished the filming (and reshoots) and apparently drastically modified the movie. I've never understood what would possess them to install Crichton as the director. I've always wondered what McTiernan's movie would have looked like. Certainly better, I would think. I've been told that there is virtually no chance that McTiernan's version will ever be released, but I hold out hope against all hope.

I liked EATERS OF THE DEAD and would love to see McTiernan's version.


And, Marc, thanks for the in-depth explanation. I was unaware of the bruhaha surrounding the various "Superman" movies, and now it all makes sense.

Brando was, I believe, the main reason where this fiasco begins. Superman did extremely well at the box office so Brando demanded he get a bigger paycheck for his footage in Part II even though all his material had been shot. The studio refused and told Donner to re-write Brando's stuff and re-shoot it. Donner refused and requested they just pay Brando.

I'm not sure how much Brando had to do with the Donner fiasco. There was definitely controversy over Brando, but the Salkinds (producers) didn't get along with Donner pretty much from the beginning. Richard Lester was actually hired as a liaison between the producers and Donner during filming to minimize their contact with one another. It was that bad. (One might argue that the producers were grooming Lester to replace Donner, too.)

One of the most publicized conflicts between Donner and the Salkinds involved the tone of the film. The latter wanted a more comic and campy feel, something they got when they replaced Donner with Lester. That's one of the main things fans commonly disliked about Superman II.

The studio decided to just fire Donner and brought on Richard Lester to complete Superman II. Lester used some of the material Donner had shot but decided he wanted to go a different route so much of what we have known as Superman II includes new material shot by Lester.

It was more than just a decision by Lester. At least 51% of the footage had to be shot by Lester in order for him to be credited as director. Since, as you said, roughly 3/4 of the movie was already done by Donner, some of the footage was reshot by Lester in order to deny Donner his director's credit. This was almost certainly motivated by the Salkinds' dislike of Donner and wasn't really due to Lester. Lester seems more to have been caught in the middle. Donner did resent that Lester didn't contact him and let him know what was going on, though, since they were good friends on the set. He was still waiting for the word to go back and finish shooting on II when he was up and fired.

Lester's version of II featured maybe 30% Donner footage. Everything with Gene Hackman, for example, was shot with Donner since Hackman refused to come back and shoot anything else after the way Donner was treated (everybody pretty much loved him except the producers, from what I've read). You can tell Lester got a really bad voice double for Hackman in a couple of scenes if you're paying attention.

Margot Kidder was very public in her condemnation of the Salkinds and their treatment of Donner, too. In response, she was almost entirely written out of Superman III (though she may be grateful in hindsight).

Blake

Fascinating backstory. Thanks for the info, guys.

I'm gonna see if the Donner cut is available from Amazon.

My other complaint is with reversing time the movie becomes "it was all a dream".

I finally watched it. And this complaint is the reason why the time reverse should've been cut from the Donner version of #2. If you take #1 as it is and the Donner version of #2, then there are two time reversals. One to save Lois, the other to keep the bad guys in the Phantom Zone. If Superman reverses time to put the baddies away (again) then the bully scene is paradoxical. Why does he preserve the lives of three super-villains and then beat the crap out of a bully? If you take out the second time reversal and just let Zod and crew stay dead, then Superman beating up the bully makes more sense.

I realize that this was more of a film school project to preserve what should've been, but they could've kept it in context with the first movie. Much like "Superman Returns" completely ignores Superman III and IV.

The other paradox in Superman II is the whole "you must become human to love a human" power-sapping-contrivance. What was the big deal? After all, there is a scene with Superman (fully powered) cuddling with Lois Lane. They obviously coupled and there was no death by explosive force. Know what I mean? nudge, nudge, wink, wink.