SUPERMAN II: The Richard Donner Cut (1980) - Movie WATCH ALONG!!
Added 2025-05-27 13:31:02 +0000 UTCWhich cut of Superman II do you prefer???
Reaction Highlights: https://youtu.be/5Em7TuEs6gI
Watch Along: https://youtu.be/NVVGzEXNXhM
More Movie Reactions: https://www.patreon.com/thereelrejects/posts?filters%5Btag%5D=Movie%20Reaction
Comments
It could be modern bias, but this story is not good having to give up his powers to be with Lois. The Donner cut is definitely not finished and mixed things from the available footage. There are problems with both cuts, the theatrical is better with the arrival of Zod, Ursa and Non on Earth and showing what all they get up to
Hawk
2025-07-14 04:33:35 +0000 UTCMario Puzo, the writer of The Godfather. You guys should react tothe series The Offer on paramount+ about what it took to make The Godfather.
mawii yoo
2025-06-16 07:20:50 +0000 UTCYou may have gotten this comment elsewhere but the memory and consistency in the diner is I think a feature of the differences between the Donner and Lester cuts. The final resolution in the theatrical release hinges on a different plot point which makes more sense there. I imagine Donner didn't have an alternative Coda available and the comeuppance with the guy in the diner is so emotionally satisfying even if it's inconsistent plot wise. I partially agree with the comment above, in that the Lester cut is a more fully formed film and so on some level more satisfying, but the Donner cut tells a better story. Superman 1 and 2 were I believe envisioned as one complete narrative (kind of like Kill Bill) but split for budgetary and time reasons. One personal anecdote, in 1978 I was 7 years old and saw Superman in the theater with my grandmother. It was maybe the only films I ever saw with her. It was interesting to go together because unlike a lot of contemporary content of the time (Star Wars etc...) Superman had been around as a comic, radio series, and TV show during the 30s, 40s, and 50s. So she was more familiar with it, though not particularly knowedgeable. Anyway, walking down the street having lkeft the theatre we were mulling over the end. Superman had just spun the world backwards and brought Lois back to life ignoring the reminder from Brando that "It is forbidden for you to interfere in the course of human history." So my grandmother asked me if now he would lose his powers because he had broken that rule. I think it seemed to her like a natural consequence. I dismissed her idea. How could Superman lose his powers? Of course I didn't know that even though it wasn't a direct consequence of that action, it was very much a part of the envisioned continuation. So my grandmother perceived something narratively inherent in the story. I think some of the holes in the plotting have to do with the lesser sophistication about adapting superhero and comic book material to the screen in the 70s. There isn't really in either the Lester nor Donner cuts nor the first movie of any real justification for why interfering in the course of human history is "forbidden" any more than the mostly unwritten rule that Superman doesn't kill people -- which was an issue for many fans with Man of Steel. It's interesting if you consider Superman 1 and the Donner cut--in 100% of the stories Superman just does a time travel "do over." Amd that ends up being narratively a little bit cheap. I think you would find it interesting to watch the theatrical release now both for its greater polish but also for the way it finesses or approaches some of these deeper themes and tensions in the Superman narrative and character. Thanks for the reaction.
zehloani
2025-05-31 16:18:45 +0000 UTCThe timer on the watchalong seems to be off
Peter J
2025-05-31 07:35:55 +0000 UTC
