*You don't need to know how Superman got his powers back...even then, this cut doesn't answer it anyway. Just more of Brando talking.* No that's actually a father giving his son one final lesson, and then sacrificing himself (his power & his connection to his son Kal-El) so that Kal of Krypton can finally be Clark of Earth... it's why they destroy the Fortress Of Solitude. "The monument to a civilization since vanished" to paraphrase Zod... a civilization that destroyed itself with its mistakes, implying that maybe Earth can do better with the help of Superman.
Again: the theatrical original (the TRUE Superman II) is a masterpiece of cinema. The Richard Donnor cut is a jumbled mess full of bad editing and FIRST takes. It's terrible. The only nice thing I can say about it is that it's better than Man of Steel.
yea i prefer the theacrical cut lol what i mean the lester cut just sounds better than the donner cut but theactrical cut is better sorry donner but i do like the goonies and lethel weapon
Was thinking before you said it, why didnt he see there was no bullet. He saw it fast enough to catch in the first film so must have some slo mo vision. If it was a blank and he just missed it, at least check for a bullet hole in his clothing. Makes him look dumb same as lois jumping out a window. Same applies to jumping into the Rapids. I like your idea why not stab him or at least try to give him a paper cut. Also the mallrats bit always confused me. I think the just of what superman's mother was saying was if you want to live as a human you have to be human. As in superman 3 where he sleeps with lora li, he can have sex without smashing a human to pieces but it's more a spiritual thing I guess. Who knows maybe this shit is retarded to talk, think about or comment about but I have nothing better to do.
I rewatched this cut and I thought it was much worse than the Lester cut and even that cut isn't as great as I remember it being. The pacing of the Donner Cut is terrible, the cheap CGI effects are laughable, the 2000's style editing is distracting, and the new stuff other than the action at the White House, and the moments with Brando are honestly not that great. And the moments they cut out are baffling. Yes. Some of Lester's slapstick humor is bad, but it's not nearly as silly to me as Zod yelling FREE!! And it's actually charming unlike the six different piss jokes in the first 40 minutes or so. And I don't think the spinning the world backwards ending works at all in Superman II.
good job on the rant and altho i like superman 2 the richar donner cut i dont think i even seen it i cant defend it and i can see why ppl would not like it
Richard Donner cut is interesting, and I like Superman 2 overall, but for overall legacy I prefer part 1, even if Part 2 seems like a natural progression (they were filmed nearly side by side I hear). it's similar to the problem with the Dark Knight movies... the hero becomes the hero right away then overnight he retires, practically. then it has to be that he's been away forever and comes back for just one more hurrah (this is obviously if you skip Superman 4 which they want us to ignore because it was such a flop/farce). decades of comics boiled down into just a couple of years, if that. I guess with movies they make each one as if it's planned to be the last then cash in a few years later with a desperate move to try to re-ignite the magic, even though they used up nearly all their material last time. I agree with people who talk about the "Marvel humor" but the super hero movies being screwball comedies/action farces goes back a long time....
I think the donner cut is great & I give it a break as donner didnt get to finish this movie & lester did & re shot a lot of donners scenes as to be credited as the director bc u must do 50 %. I think superman had never felt pain so I think he wouldnt be able to tell if a real bullet hit him or not. A blank does release something that hits you correct? I loved the brando scenes . It was almost biblical with Jor-el & his son. Him suddenly talking to his mom was odd to me. I liked how jor el & Clark are having an argument it was interesting & I loved how they had brando giving lois the death stare like look what u caused. I also thought lois seems much smarter with the blank. She outsmarted superman. I thought that the lex Luthor scenes put back in were funnier than what lester did. I didnt like Lester's slap stick stuff during the fight. I also liked how zod was more evil just picking up a machine gun & blowing people away. John Williams didnt even score the film. Also Margot kidder looks so much better in the donner scenes her hair make up & wardrobe was on point ! I liked Lester's version better when superman says " care to step outside ?" Instead of his line in donners about freedom of the press. The stupid tricks superman did in Lester's cut were bad with the giant cellophane S. Also the new lex lines were done by a different actor & it was distracting. Also I agree with u about in both versions though why couldnt lois be with at least superman as clark ? It makes no sense why he had to give up his powers. The other thing I like about the lester cut is superman flying to put the flag on the top of the White House. He is very Americana so it's a great image. I respect ur opinion. Also in the 4th film it's not even shot in nyc it's done in canada. I'll also add the made for tv versions in both films pisses me off all they cut out in the theatrical cut. They had to do the go around the world bc donner never finished it. Oh & in the lester cut we never fi d out how he got his powers back. Last thing I dont dislike Lester's cut at all I grew up on it & loved it. Just after seeing the Donner cut I just liked it better. Last last thing I agree spinning the planet would not make the events that happened any different. Like the bomb did hit but why now would lois still be alive ? I think that also is bc donner did not want that as the ending of the 1st one it was supposed to end with the 3 breaking from the phantom zone as a cliffhanger.
Sorry but I prefer that over Superman stupidly going around the world Again and destroying the Fortress of Solitude and Lois jumping out of high rise buildings like a moron.
ramboraph4life the Brando scenes are not a rehash they have a lot of emotion to them like how he has to kinda die again to give Kal El his powers back.
Yes, the super-kiss was a rather creepy superpower that Superman used to have in old comics from I believe the 1960s. I don't think it was used in more modern stories. The way it worked, was Supes kisses you and you feel dizzy and cannot remember stuff that has happened recently.
Positives of the Richard Donner Cut: 1. Marlon Brando reprising his role as Jor-el, because having Superman seeking guidance from the elders of Krypton makes no sense. 2. The sequence of missile from the first film freeing the Kryptonian criminals , for unlike the Paris scene in the theatrical cut which in my opinion was unnecessary filler to get the plot going, this allows for consequences from the first film affect the sequel. 3. The sequence of Clark getting his powers back. 4. Zod going Rambo (no pun intended) at the White House (While unnecessary since he has heat vision was pretty bad ass!) Negatives of the Richard Donner Cut: 1. The Opening credits while it uses the same font and style of the first movie, seeing clips from the first movie is more satisfying. 2. Lois taking extreme measures in discovering Clark Kent's secret identity such as jumping out of the window and shooting him (even if the gun was a blank). 3. The re dubbing of the General voice at Huston 4. The line "General, haven't you heard of the freedom of the Press?" is inferior to the line "General , would you care to step outside? 5. Superman killing Lex Luthor at the Fortress of Solitude. 6. Regurgitating the ending of the first film. Overall In my opinion both the Richard Donner and Lester versions have their strengths and weaknesses, but unfortunately the Donner cut feels more like a deleted scene compilation rather than an actual movie . Regardless at some point I need to make a fan cut that uses the best of Richard Lester and Donner's cuts so that it can retain its position as not only my favorite Superman movie but as my #1 favorite super hero movie ever.
I watched the Donner cut before I watched your review. Yeah, I much prefer Lester's cut more than this. I disagree with one thing in your rant: I LOVED the whole Superman reversing the Earth in the first movie. But The 2nd time around? Not necessary!
So if Jor El used the last of his energy to restore his powers, how did he take zods power away in the final fight then ?. A lot of continuity errors there .
I'm pretty sure Metropolis is intended to be New York City. Why they use a fictional name for an actual place, I'm not sure. Especially considering they use the actual names of other places (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Paris, Houston, Niagara Falls etc.). But that decision was made by the comic creators so these movies are just honoring that.
Also I'm fine with Superman not feeling the bullet, but shouldn't he have seen that no bullet came out of the gun? In Superman The Movie, he caught a bullet, which implies he's able to see them as they are shot. Also how would she have gotten a gun into Canada? Or how would she have purchased it in Canada where there are stricter gun laws? Not to mention make all the arrangements without Clark being aware. And not only was her stunt (falling into the rapids vs. jumping out of a building) less risky in the Lester version, but by that point she had more reason to be suspicious. Superman just happened to be in Niagara Falls to save the kid and Clark wasn't around to witness it.
I don't hate the Donner Cut. I just prefer the theatrical cut. That's not necessarily a criticim of Donner as he was never able to actually finish his movie. We just got a scraped together version of his original vision and had to make do with whatever footage was available. If he actually got to finish his movie, it may very well have been better than the theatrical version. Like you, there are a few things I prefer about Donner's version but overall I like the theatrical one more. What really tips the scales is the ending where he turns back time again. That is my biggest complaint from Superman The Movie so I'm with you and hate seeing it a 2nd time. As for stuff taken out of the Lester version like "General, would you care to step outside?", I don't think they were necessarily saying the change was better. I just think they were trying to use as little of Lester's footage as possible. For scenes in which they each shot a version, they were using Donner's. It's likely they didn't come up with that line until after Donner was fired.
15:43 Exactly bro I'm happy I'm not the only who noticed that bro. 34:34 I always felt that way but then again this was the first film I saw in the series.
I have never agreed with the going backwards in time was so terrible. In almost every comic, every speedster is able to affect time. Superman, like it or not, is a speedster. He was going so fast that he was able to affect time. If we can accept this from the Flash then I have no problem buying Superman's ability to do this.
Then why not do this every single time something bad happens? Because the way it is done in the movies, there was no consequences to doing it...thus again, on how little the movies go into it? He should turn back time every single time a bad thing happens.
@@ramboraph4life Thanks, I get what you're saying now. Yes, you're absolutely right about the consequences. That scene with Jor-el warning him was effective for me - I took it for granted that he realised after that he can't do that and the wisdom of what his father was saying. Cause it seemed like he regretted listening when Pa Kent died and that he would do what he wanted for Lois. But as you pointed out, yes, the movie doesn't deal with it and that would have been good to show why he doesn't do that every time. Only reason could be no one else important to him dies in the movie which is really selfish and unlike the character. I just had a knee jerk reaction to the mention of the going backwards. I should listen better.
My favorite Superman movie is Vs The Elite. It challenges his principles on no killing vs killing and gave him a great adversary will the Elite. Also had a great Atomic Skull showing. I think kinda like the current AMU Superman (New 52 style movies) though I hate how he, like the other Leaguers, don’t have a series like Batman does.
all the superman movies after the first one were comedies. yes, superman in the comics (note the term "comic") had all sorts of humor in them, especially during certain periods (violence/sexuality had to be toned down so they substituted jokes and surrealism). they are enjoyable movies. the Richard Donner Cut is more like a curiosity. I agree it doesn't replace the original version, but to me, Superman 2 (and 3) are movies I like more out of nostalgia. other than great casting and music, the plots are pretty goofy and take some wild twists with the character. I agree that a major weakness is introduced with having Superman decide his work is done in such a short time diminishes him as a character. I always hated the idea of Superman throwing away his cape to get his rocks off (or worse, in the "sequel" superman returns, to become a super deadbeat dad) but within the context of the movie it shows that he is learning and growing. he chooses to be a hero (originally he's supposed to hide from the humans in the first movie), then he chooses to shrug off that responsibility for "love".. then he takes it on again to save the planet (not merely because of Lois, or because his personal honor was challenged or because his ghost dad told him to).... because its the right thing to do. besides, he gets to flirt with Lois around the office... and then he gets her sister from another mister, Lana Lang. and if that doesn't work out, I'm sure the comic writers would have introduced us to "Linda Lou" or maybe "Lacey Lamb." Today, Superman 2 gets a pass from me on the strength of Terence Stamp's performance alone. notice they don't put the extra modulation behind his voice in the Richard Donner Cut restored scenes. you could imagine it's some act he puts on (his "command" voice) but its clear they just didn't add the effect.
@@nickb9718 two is good (either version), though the storyline of Superman giving up on earth and his powers in order to sleep with Lois kind of ruins the character (though he does "learn his lesson" as soon as he gets beat up and sees Zod on the tv)... that Superman returns picks up and follows that storyline is the weakest part of that sequel as well. 3 is enjoyable as a comedy, but it's a straight up farce, like Superman in some of the comics of nearly three decades prior. Part 4 just takes it one step further but at least we get to see him fight Nuclear Man on the moon. ;) Just like the "comedy Batman" of the Adam West series (post season 1) wasn't the best, so this incarnation of Superman wasn't the greatest. Still, I had it tapped off tv as a kid and watched it a lot, so that was my cinematic superman for a long time (I preferred him in the comics of course). then again, these movies were aimed more at adults so a lot of the "humor" went over my head back then. I just wanted to see Superman doing feats of awesomeness and saving people from bad guys... and despite the goofy time travel ending (which isn't out of place for the comic book Superman of the past) Superman: The Movie is a cut above the others, even though he's up against Lex rather than a bunch of super powered villains. Now if you watch Part 1 & 2 as a single movie, that is something else...
I'm totally with you on this, Matt! I watched both films today and I prefer the Lester cut more.
*You don't need to know how Superman got his powers back...even then, this cut doesn't answer it anyway. Just more of Brando talking.* No that's actually a father giving his son one final lesson, and then sacrificing himself (his power & his connection to his son Kal-El) so that Kal of Krypton can finally be Clark of Earth... it's why they destroy the Fortress Of Solitude. "The monument to a civilization since vanished" to paraphrase Zod... a civilization that destroyed itself with its mistakes, implying that maybe Earth can do better with the help of Superman.
Again: the theatrical original (the TRUE Superman II) is a masterpiece of cinema. The Richard Donnor cut is a jumbled mess full of bad editing and FIRST takes. It's terrible. The only nice thing I can say about it is that it's better than Man of Steel.
And Superman 4 and Supergirl.
Theatrical cut is the better version. Sorry Richard Donner, but I prefer that version of Superman 2.
Agreed!
yea i prefer the theacrical cut lol what i mean the lester cut just sounds better than the donner cut but theactrical cut is better sorry donner but i do like the goonies and lethel weapon
Was thinking before you said it, why didnt he see there was no bullet. He saw it fast enough to catch in the first film so must have some slo mo vision. If it was a blank and he just missed it, at least check for a bullet hole in his clothing. Makes him look dumb same as lois jumping out a window. Same applies to jumping into the Rapids. I like your idea why not stab him or at least try to give him a paper cut.
Also the mallrats bit always confused me.
I think the just of what superman's mother was saying was if you want to live as a human you have to be human.
As in superman 3 where he sleeps with lora li, he can have sex without smashing a human to pieces but it's more a spiritual thing I guess. Who knows maybe this shit is retarded to talk, think about or comment about but I have nothing better to do.
I rewatched this cut and I thought it was much worse than the Lester cut and even that cut isn't as great as I remember it being. The pacing of the Donner Cut is terrible, the cheap CGI effects are laughable, the 2000's style editing is distracting, and the new stuff other than the action at the White House, and the moments with Brando are honestly not that great. And the moments they cut out are baffling. Yes. Some of Lester's slapstick humor is bad, but it's not nearly as silly to me as Zod yelling FREE!! And it's actually charming unlike the six different piss jokes in the first 40 minutes or so. And I don't think the spinning the world backwards ending works at all in Superman II.
💯 agree with you bro . Cant believe some people prefer the donnor cut lol. No wonder he was fired
I prefer this cut in all honesty. As unfinished as it is.
good job on the rant and altho i like superman 2 the richar donner cut i dont think i even seen it i cant defend it and i can see why ppl would not like it
Sometimes the director's cut isn't always the best
Apocalypse Now Redux. Most scenes slowed the film down and were unneeded.
Kind of like Gotham City has it's own statue of Liberty according to Batman Forever!😅
I love this cut, but hey we agree to disagree and that's cool
Richard Donner cut is interesting, and I like Superman 2 overall, but for overall legacy I prefer part 1, even if Part 2 seems like a natural progression (they were filmed nearly side by side I hear). it's similar to the problem with the Dark Knight movies... the hero becomes the hero right away then overnight he retires, practically. then it has to be that he's been away forever and comes back for just one more hurrah (this is obviously if you skip Superman 4 which they want us to ignore because it was such a flop/farce). decades of comics boiled down into just a couple of years, if that. I guess with movies they make each one as if it's planned to be the last then cash in a few years later with a desperate move to try to re-ignite the magic, even though they used up nearly all their material last time. I agree with people who talk about the "Marvel humor" but the super hero movies being screwball comedies/action farces goes back a long time....
Wtf
Superman II is my favorite Superman movie, General Zod is my favorite character in this.
I think this has issues I’m more just in the mindset that it’s not a finished movie....I would love to see a fan cut of both versions
There's actually a lot of those floating around lol
I think the donner cut is great & I give it a break as donner didnt get to finish this movie & lester did & re shot a lot of donners scenes as to be credited as the director bc u must do 50 %.
I think superman had never felt pain so I think he wouldnt be able to tell if a real bullet hit him or not. A blank does release something that hits you correct? I loved the brando scenes . It was almost biblical with Jor-el & his son. Him suddenly talking to his mom was odd to me. I liked how jor el & Clark are having an argument it was interesting & I loved how they had brando giving lois the death stare like look what u caused. I also thought lois seems much smarter with the blank. She outsmarted superman. I thought that the lex Luthor scenes put back in were funnier than what lester did. I didnt like Lester's slap stick stuff during the fight. I also liked how zod was more evil just picking up a machine gun & blowing people away. John Williams didnt even score the film. Also Margot kidder looks so much better in the donner scenes her hair make up & wardrobe was on point !
I liked Lester's version better when superman says " care to step outside ?" Instead of his line in donners about freedom of the press. The stupid tricks superman did in Lester's cut were bad with the giant cellophane S. Also the new lex lines were done by a different actor & it was distracting. Also I agree with u about in both versions though why couldnt lois be with at least superman as clark ? It makes no sense why he had to give up his powers.
The other thing I like about the lester cut is superman flying to put the flag on the top of the White House. He is very Americana so it's a great image. I respect ur opinion.
Also in the 4th film it's not even shot in nyc it's done in canada.
I'll also add the made for tv versions in both films pisses me off all they cut out in the theatrical cut.
They had to do the go around the world bc donner never finished it.
Oh & in the lester cut we never fi d out how he got his powers back.
Last thing I dont dislike Lester's cut at all I grew up on it & loved it. Just after seeing the Donner cut I just liked it better.
Last last thing I agree spinning the planet would not make the events that happened any different. Like the bomb did hit but why now would lois still be alive ? I think that also is bc donner did not want that as the ending of the 1st one it was supposed to end with the 3 breaking from the phantom zone as a cliffhanger.
hey ladies and gentlemen, this is matt, playing all your favorite smooth jazz hits from the past.... j/k matt. I miss the old setup, but good luck!
This to me is the superior cut and at least Superman doesn’t do stupid shit like throw a cellophane S🙄
Sorry but I prefer that over Superman stupidly going around the world Again and destroying the Fortress of Solitude and Lois jumping out of high rise buildings like a moron.
ramboraph4life the Brando scenes are not a rehash they have a lot of emotion to them like how he has to kinda die again to give Kal El his powers back.
I can accept that. I am giving the theatrical cut some slack.
Never seen this cut but im curious about it.
BADDASS RANT! On ripping apart this shitty version of a epic sequel IMHO!
Yes, the super-kiss was a rather creepy superpower that Superman used to have in old comics from I believe the 1960s. I don't think it was used in more modern stories.
The way it worked, was Supes kisses you and you feel dizzy and cannot remember stuff that has happened recently.
Positives of the Richard Donner Cut:
1. Marlon Brando reprising his role as Jor-el, because having Superman seeking guidance from the elders of Krypton makes no sense.
2. The sequence of missile from the first film freeing the Kryptonian criminals , for unlike the Paris scene in the theatrical cut which in my opinion was unnecessary filler to get the plot going, this allows for consequences from the first film affect the sequel.
3. The sequence of Clark getting his powers back.
4. Zod going Rambo (no pun intended) at the White House (While unnecessary since he has heat vision was pretty bad ass!)
Negatives of the Richard Donner Cut:
1. The Opening credits while it uses the same font and style of the first movie, seeing clips from the first movie is more satisfying.
2. Lois taking extreme measures in discovering Clark Kent's secret identity such as jumping out of the window and shooting him (even if the gun was a blank).
3. The re dubbing of the General voice at Huston
4. The line "General, haven't you heard of the freedom of the Press?" is inferior to the line "General , would you care to step outside?
5. Superman killing Lex Luthor at the Fortress of Solitude.
6. Regurgitating the ending of the first film.
Overall In my opinion both the Richard Donner and Lester versions have their strengths and weaknesses, but unfortunately the Donner cut feels more like a deleted scene compilation rather than an actual movie . Regardless at some point I need to make a fan cut that uses the best of Richard Lester and Donner's cuts so that it can retain its position as not only my favorite Superman movie but as my #1 favorite super hero movie ever.
Theatrical is the better cut. I don't really care for the Richard Donner cut, to me it's overrated.
I didn't like is cut of superman 2
I like original is better
you're not the only one Matt
No,you're not the only one who did'nt care for this cut!I did'nt care for it,either!
I watched the Donner cut before I watched your review. Yeah, I much prefer Lester's cut more than this.
I disagree with one thing in your rant: I LOVED the whole Superman reversing the Earth in the first movie. But The 2nd time around? Not necessary!
Yeah the first glimpse of angry/evil superman when lois dies and he takes of yelling.
I thought it made sense in the first film and like it.
Overrated Cut
I enjoyed both versions
Can't beat the junkyard fight in Superman 3 in my opinion :)
Dan that’s the only good scene in that movie and some of the other evil SUPERMAN stuff.
Yes I agree some scenes and ideas were handled better in the other version but I feel like other scenes work better and make more sense
I completely agree with you Matt.
So if Jor El used the last of his energy to restore his powers, how did he take zods power away in the final fight then ?. A lot of continuity errors there .
I'm pretty sure Metropolis is intended to be New York City. Why they use a fictional name for an actual place, I'm not sure. Especially considering they use the actual names of other places (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Paris, Houston, Niagara Falls etc.). But that decision was made by the comic creators so these movies are just honoring that.
Also I'm fine with Superman not feeling the bullet, but shouldn't he have seen that no bullet came out of the gun? In Superman The Movie, he caught a bullet, which implies he's able to see them as they are shot. Also how would she have gotten a gun into Canada? Or how would she have purchased it in Canada where there are stricter gun laws? Not to mention make all the arrangements without Clark being aware.
And not only was her stunt (falling into the rapids vs. jumping out of a building) less risky in the Lester version, but by that point she had more reason to be suspicious. Superman just happened to be in Niagara Falls to save the kid and Clark wasn't around to witness it.
I don't hate the Donner Cut. I just prefer the theatrical cut. That's not necessarily a criticim of Donner as he was never able to actually finish his movie. We just got a scraped together version of his original vision and had to make do with whatever footage was available. If he actually got to finish his movie, it may very well have been better than the theatrical version.
Like you, there are a few things I prefer about Donner's version but overall I like the theatrical one more. What really tips the scales is the ending where he turns back time again. That is my biggest complaint from Superman The Movie so I'm with you and hate seeing it a 2nd time.
As for stuff taken out of the Lester version like "General, would you care to step outside?", I don't think they were necessarily saying the change was better. I just think they were trying to use as little of Lester's footage as possible. For scenes in which they each shot a version, they were using Donner's. It's likely they didn't come up with that line until after Donner was fired.
Theatrical is better .
15:43 Exactly bro I'm happy I'm not the only who noticed that bro.
34:34 I always felt that way but then again this was the first film I saw in the series.
I have never agreed with the going backwards in time was so terrible. In almost every comic, every speedster is able to affect time. Superman, like it or not, is a speedster. He was going so fast that he was able to affect time. If we can accept this from the Flash then I have no problem buying Superman's ability to do this.
Then why not do this every single time something bad happens? Because the way it is done in the movies, there was no consequences to doing it...thus again, on how little the movies go into it? He should turn back time every single time a bad thing happens.
@@ramboraph4life Thanks, I get what you're saying now. Yes, you're absolutely right about the consequences. That scene with Jor-el warning him was effective for me - I took it for granted that he realised after that he can't do that and the wisdom of what his father was saying. Cause it seemed like he regretted listening when Pa Kent died and that he would do what he wanted for Lois. But as you pointed out, yes, the movie doesn't deal with it and that would have been good to show why he doesn't do that every time. Only reason could be no one else important to him dies in the movie which is really selfish and unlike the character.
I just had a knee jerk reaction to the mention of the going backwards. I should listen better.
It's fine, no problem.
My favorite Superman movie is Vs The Elite. It challenges his principles on no killing vs killing and gave him a great adversary will the Elite. Also had a great Atomic Skull showing. I think kinda like the current AMU Superman (New 52 style movies) though I hate how he, like the other Leaguers, don’t have a series like Batman does.
All true.
I feel pretty much the same about Blade Runner and Blade Runner Director's Cut.
all the superman movies after the first one were comedies. yes, superman in the comics (note the term "comic") had all sorts of humor in them, especially during certain periods (violence/sexuality had to be toned down so they substituted jokes and surrealism). they are enjoyable movies. the Richard Donner Cut is more like a curiosity. I agree it doesn't replace the original version, but to me, Superman 2 (and 3) are movies I like more out of nostalgia. other than great casting and music, the plots are pretty goofy and take some wild twists with the character. I agree that a major weakness is introduced with having Superman decide his work is done in such a short time diminishes him as a character. I always hated the idea of Superman throwing away his cape to get his rocks off (or worse, in the "sequel" superman returns, to become a super deadbeat dad) but within the context of the movie it shows that he is learning and growing. he chooses to be a hero (originally he's supposed to hide from the humans in the first movie), then he chooses to shrug off that responsibility for "love".. then he takes it on again to save the planet (not merely because of Lois, or because his personal honor was challenged or because his ghost dad told him to).... because its the right thing to do. besides, he gets to flirt with Lois around the office... and then he gets her sister from another mister, Lana Lang. and if that doesn't work out, I'm sure the comic writers would have introduced us to "Linda Lou" or maybe "Lacey Lamb." Today, Superman 2 gets a pass from me on the strength of Terence Stamp's performance alone. notice they don't put the extra modulation behind his voice in the Richard Donner Cut restored scenes. you could imagine it's some act he puts on (his "command" voice) but its clear they just didn't add the effect.
We agree to disagree. Superman 2 and 3 are both good.
@@nickb9718 two is good (either version), though the storyline of Superman giving up on earth and his powers in order to sleep with Lois kind of ruins the character (though he does "learn his lesson" as soon as he gets beat up and sees Zod on the tv)... that Superman returns picks up and follows that storyline is the weakest part of that sequel as well. 3 is enjoyable as a comedy, but it's a straight up farce, like Superman in some of the comics of nearly three decades prior. Part 4 just takes it one step further but at least we get to see him fight Nuclear Man on the moon. ;) Just like the "comedy Batman" of the Adam West series (post season 1) wasn't the best, so this incarnation of Superman wasn't the greatest. Still, I had it tapped off tv as a kid and watched it a lot, so that was my cinematic superman for a long time (I preferred him in the comics of course). then again, these movies were aimed more at adults so a lot of the "humor" went over my head back then. I just wanted to see Superman doing feats of awesomeness and saving people from bad guys... and despite the goofy time travel ending (which isn't out of place for the comic book Superman of the past) Superman: The Movie is a cut above the others, even though he's up against Lex rather than a bunch of super powered villains. Now if you watch Part 1 & 2 as a single movie, that is something else...