I quite enjoyed it at the cinema, but must admit to finding it somewhat lacking when I re-watched it on DVD.

It's a pity they didn't try to be more original, a re-tread of the first film (+kid!) wasn't what was needed really.

Superman Returns, for me, seems a perfect candidate for this thread. Loved the beginning, but didn't live up to expectations for the rest of the film. I will definitely watch Man of Steel though, I love the franchise too much.

I refer you once again to this and this for everything that needs to be said about Superman Returns.

I like this one!

Yup. It was a crème brûlée, with a sprig of mint.

Well done sir for finding my deliberate mistake. A prize is currently winging it's way to you.

EDIT:
And also, you are right Ingram. It did go horribly wrong towards the end. At about the point where they ignored the fact that an island made of Kryptonite renders Superman powerless, and had him lift said Kryptonite island out of the sea and chuck it into the sky.

Probably turning, in time, into a powerful and destructive meteorite that destroyed an entire civilisation elsewhere.

What a bastard.

Good point Shackles.
He really is.

I haven't seen the Donner Cut of Supermen 1 and 2, but if I'm not mistaken does he not turn back time at the end of Superman 2 to undo all the bad stuff that Zod has done?
Becuase if he does, then in visiting the truckers bar and duffing up the trucker who beat up Clarke Kent when he gave up his super powers, he's actually beating up a man for something that never happened.
I await a deluge of people that have bothered to do their research telling me I'm wrong, but I don't care, because Shack has already provided conclusive evidence above. And nothing can change that.
Nothing can change the fact that Shack has destroyed Superman.

Also, in reversing time by flying around the world really fast, what other really good stuff did he undo? Couples all over the world probably didn't fall in love, people may never have bumped into long lost relatives and no doubt it's probably helped the acceleration of global warming.

Superman? Selfishman more like.

You've done the impossible, and destroyed the Man of Steel twice.

And you're right, he never thinks of the knock on effect of his actions.
That bit where he straightens the Leaning Tower of Pisa for instance. Not only does he probably force that souvenir merchant's business into bankruptcy, but there were probably people sitting in the gift/shop cafe who had their drinks spilt.
Scumbag.

You're right. What else would there be to see in Pisa once the tower is straightened out?

And just how lazy would the emergency services be if Superman were around? The job would be really cushty. They'd probably light cigars off a large forest fire while they waited for Superman to come and sort it out.

He's nothing but trouble.

That series of vids is superb.

Superman cannot be held responsible for evil Supes behaviour! He was under the influence of synthetic kryptonite

Though it does give him a good excuse not to call after having sex with Pamela Stephenson.

If only Connolly had done that, he might be funny now.

Considering her vocation now I think the post coital pillow talk may have been enough excuse not to call back.

So Supes. Tell me about your father.

Let's discuss what just happened here. Do I resemble your mother?

I'm not going to hold him accountable for naughty Superman's actions. We've all had those kind of days.
But remember that Evil Supes corrects the lean, thus making the building more structurally sound. So that's a tick for Evil Supes.
Now admittedly this would have caused a problem for the souvenir merchant, but it’s a small price to pay for maintaining one of the world’s great monuments (arguments aside over whether the lean actually makes it so great in the first place).

Moving on, Supes then flies back to Pisa and destroys his own good work. Not only will this further weaken the structure, it has now posed a second financial complication for the Souvenir Merchant. We clearly see that his state of mind is affected by this as he smashes up his own merchandise, almost certainly invalidating any insurance claim he could have made.
And let’s not forget those people having a drink in the Pisa café. Have you ever bought a beverage in a tourist hotspot? Those would have been really expensive. Possibly upwards of the equivalent of £4 in today’s money.

Superman is a clumsy oaf, causing petty annoyance to all and sundry.
The only good thing he has done is to appear in those anti-smoking ads when I was a kid, fighting ‘Nick o’Teen’. If it’s one thing that made sure I would never smoke it’s the indelible impression those ads had on me.

There are some anomalies with the Donner Cut of Superman II, but this is not Donner's fault.

When the production of Superman & Superman II began to encounter serious problems, it was decided to shut down Superman II and concentrate on the first movie, which was then it was decided that they would take the big finale from II and put it on the first one, so they had the "turning back time" ending for Superman The Movie and decided to do something different and more spectacular for the end of Superman II...

...but then Donner was fired and replace by Lester and Donner never got to do his big wrap-up for II.

When it came to assembling the materials for the Donner Cut, it was decided that since some of the "turning back time" finale for II had already been shot (but not included in the first movie) that rather than use Lester's "super-kiss" ending, he would go back to the original ending he had always envisioned for Superman II. Sadly, the passage of time and the the tragic fate of Christopher Reeve meant that Donner couldn't simply be given a budget and film the big ending that he had planned for II.

The "turning back time" ending does create the problem with Clark going back to Don's Diner at the end of the movie, because the event no longer happened, then it merely makes Clark out to be a thug. If Donner had been able to finish Superman II at the time, he would have had a different climax and having Clark clean the trucker's clock would have been more acceptable.

I would personally prefer to see re-edited copies of Superman & Superman II, in which the "turning back time" ending only occurs at the end of Superman II - it's certainly possible. There are professional people in the industry who are frustrated by some of the inconsistencies in Donner's Cut of Superman II and have posted their own versions on Youtube - some of them are pretty good.

As for having Lex Luthor/Kevin Spacey in Superman: Man of Steel - I personally think that it would be a mistake, as the movie series has been relying upon Lex Luthor as a villian for too long. There are plenty of other bad guys in the DC universe, that Luthor can be given a rest for a while.

Sorry if this post sounds a bit on the anal side, but Nick & I have long been champions of Richard Donner's Superman movies (we own numerous different cuts of Supes & Supes II) and we are particularly knowledgable on the subject...

Kev W

Ahem

But I'm saying that that's a good thing! I'm not saying evil Supes did a bad thing, I'm saying he did something good.
Good Supes is the one who pushed it back over again.

I'm right on this. I know I am.




And thanks Kevin and Nick.
My thing about Clarke beating up a man in a bar who hadn't done anything was largely said for comic effect. I realise that it's a weird throwback to a cut of a film that is out of continuity with itself.
I too would have liked to know what could have been if Donner had got his way all along. Because frankly, the ending to Superman 2, in the Fortress of Solitude, is a bit rubbish.
Specifically, the bit where Supes throws a giant cellophane 'S'.
It makes absolutely no sense.

But of course, as we all know by now Superman is a dick.

Yeah that stuff in Lester's movie is pretty dire. The Kryptonians suddenly start doing things that don't make a lick of sense, even in established Superman mythology. The Rentaghost-like disappearing-and-reappearing are prime examples of this idiocy.

Sadly, Richard Donner and "creative consultant" Tom Mankiewicz (he was actually the writer on the first two movies - Mario Puzo's contributions to Superman The Movie were minimal in the finished film) didn't get around to coming up with a new ending to their original Superman II - one can only wonder what their devious brains would have thought up...

BTW, in the Donner Cut of Superman II, Lois Lane is much quicker off the bat to discover that Clark is Superman - she works it out just after the opening credits and puts her life on the line to prove it (more so than merely thowing herself into a river, as in Lester's Superman II)

Kev W

You said straightening the tower caused people to spill their drinks and called him a scumbag.

Rocking it back again would surely upset the beverages, too...

That's beside the point.

HK stated that Superman doesn't think about the consequences of his actions and then (amongst others) used the example of one of evil Supes exploits. Now HK reckons the straightening was a good thing, but that's backtracking at best. It's too late! It's carved in stone now! You totally said he did a bad thing, so there.

One could (as HK latterly has) of course argue that reinstating 'the lean' is worse, as it will surely cause more structural damage, spill more drinks and cause the comedy Italian who runs the souvenier store to go bankrupt (again) and kill himself.

Unless of course he had the foresight to store all his original models on the off chance this would happen, and despite Superman undoing his straightening you'd think people would still want a memento of ths straight version of the tower for posterity.

I think he'll be ok.

You should publish a paper on this shit.

The Wider Ethical Implications of the Actions of a Superhero; Superman - Cockmuncher or No?

Okay, I'll give you that one, but it's a victory of semantics alone. It would have been more accurate of me to say ‘Disregarding Evil Supes actions’ rather than saying I’m not including evil Supes actions. I meant that I wasn’t including Evil Supermans actions in my current point, not including every point I have made up until now. Perhaps I should have stated this more clearly. It’s not a backtrack (at best). It’s me resetting my argument to adopt new parameters to argue a case I wasn’t arguing before. I think reversing the order of those quotes has been particularly misleading too. You are nothing if not formidable in a quarrel (I sometimes think back to an inebriated disagreement I had with you at Shacks place about Spider-Mans web slingers, and I shudder slightly).

My point still stands though, and I suspect you know deep down that what I’m saying is true. Superman does not think of the repercussions of his actions. Straightening the Tower of Pisa is a good example of this. Chucking an island into the sky is another (thanks Shack). Making a hole in the street to get down to Lex Luthor’s underground lair in the first movie is another. Think of the rush hour chaos. And I know for a fact that street penant paving costs an arm and a leg, a classic example of Superman landing the hardworking tax payer with an invoice if ever there was one.
I believe (and I’m sure Kevin and Nick will back me up on this) Supes was supposed to chuck the warhead into space at the end of the first film, thus setting about a chain of events that frees Zod and co from their flat plexiglass prison.
Before you jump all over my case, I realise that this event is of questionable continuity and therefore I do not submit it as testimony. It is merely an aside.

So in short, Superman can be a nuisance. I realise that his actions can probably be viewed as being offset by the amount of good they achieved, but he could just be a bit more careful.
If I was exceptionally strong within human standards I would be careful of my power. I would take care when holding a baby, or clutching an expensive wine glass at a friend’s house warming. Superman is strong enough to lift an island (even when weakened, apparently), so he should be extra careful.
But he just has to show off, doesn’t he?
The thing is, even if he was careful, and it led to him not stopping some cataclysmic event, he can always turn back time afterwards and then go about things in a different manner.
Although I still don’t understand the logic in reversing the Earth’s axis leading to time running backwards. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad it worked out for him, but I would be reluctant to try something like that in case it caused unpredictable tidal problems leading to flooding and further burdens on the tax payer and insurance policy holder.

Can’t fault him for the anti-smoking stuff though.

Maybe he should just endorse products/lifestyles and help the world that way?

That was evil Supes.

Superman should probably just have a chat show, associated book club and try to do something about improving school dinners.

That'd be far more effective than knacking up the world and turning our emergency services into the equivalent of clowns with little or no training. Other superheroes do this as well, so it's not just Superman. Batman makes the police force look like multiple Laurel and Hardy's, but with less co-ordination and a greater likelihood to actually shoot themselves in the foot.

Space Ghost beat him to that one. And it was funny.

Dammit.
You know what I meant.

This doesn't destroy my argument though. It just weakens it superficially. Like a big Italian tower that a superhero keeps on moving about.

I am so angry at myself right now.


A few posts back - Shazaam!

Ah, but in Batman's case, he is doing the work of a the police force who, with the exception of Gordon and a few others, suffer from endemic corruption. It's not to do with him showing them up for ineffeciency, but dointg what is right when they refuse to.