Superman: The Movie 4K UHD (1978)

[BNex99]

Originally Posted by Bolty

Just curious -- does anybody think either version of Superman II is better than the first movie?

I did when I was younger, but I feel like the first one has aged much better.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Bolty

Just curious -- does anybody think either version of Superman II is better than the first movie?

Not I.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Bolty

And not I as well.

Do you think that has to do with the troubled nature of the film caused by Donner's departure or other factors?

It's both. The movie never got the treatment it deserved because of the Salkinds. They were rotten.



I've mentioned before that if the best of the Lester and Donner and some of the ABC TV cuts were carefully melded together with finished theatrical grade effects and new bridging music, it's possible a decent enough movie could be made from the effort.

[Bolty]

Sure there is probably a better cut that could be pieced together and it would be fun seeing it -- but it still couldn't touch the first movie IMO.

To me the best parts of the first movie are the casting all around and the Krypton, Smallville and Metropolis scenes. As the third act is more action and villain heavy it tends to weaken and then the time travel ruins it for me.

The second movie which really only needs two plot threads from the first movie -- Lois/Clark/Superman and the Kryptonian villains instead feels the need to retain Luthor/Otis/Tessmacher to it's detriment. Then the action stuff falls flat in virtually every scene and the Lois/Superman romance ends in the only way it could in 1981 -- a reset button -- which leaves what for future movies? But the future movies became moot anyway.

I think Superman I and II are the only super hero movies that I love/like despite the action instead of feeling the action is integral to the story.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Bolty

Sure there is probably a better cut that could be pieced together and it would be fun seeing it -- but it still couldn't touch the first movie IMO.

To me the best parts of the first movie are the casting all around and the Krypton, Smallville and Metropolis scenes. As the third act is more action and villain heavy it tends to weaken and then the time travel ruins it for me.

The second movie which really only needs two plot threads from the first movie -- Lois/Clark/Superman and the Kryptonian villains instead feels the need to retain Luthor/Otis/Tessmacher to it's detriment. Then the action stuff falls flat in virtually every scene and the Lois/Superman romance ends in the only way it could in 1981 -- a reset button -- which leaves what for future movies? But the future movies became moot anyway.

I think Superman I and II are the only super hero movies that I love/like despite the action instead of feeling the action is integral to the story.

Not even Raimi's Spider-Man 2? I actually found that film moving.

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by Bolty

Just curious -- does anybody think either version of Superman II is better than the first movie?

No. For me the original film is a 4/5, whereas both versions of Superman II are 3.5/5. Maybe I like the Donner Cut marginally more than the theatrical cut. It doesn't have that dumbass 'kiss of forgetfulness' at the end.

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Not even Raimi's Spider-Man 2? I actually found that film moving.

Spider-Man 2 remains one of the best superhero films of all time.

[Bolty]

I love many of the "modern" super-hero movies but the Superman movies I love despite not caring much for the action at all. Even back then I felt they were over their heads in trying to make convincing action set-pieces with 1978-1980 methods.


That's why I have some fondness for the Luthor "tunnel trap" in Superman -- because at least they could do convincing machine gun, flame and freeze effects. And it was something you might see in an old comic book.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Not even Raimi's Spider-Man 2? I actually found that film moving.

I watched it again just recently and it didn't hold up as well as I had imagined it would. Still good, just not the end-all superhero flick. Better than most modern Marvel films? YES!!!

[Member-222782]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

I'll wait til the next movie comes out. They're doing another superman movie and they'll release this again with that one. Be nice if they waited til the new movie comes out so we wouldn't have to buy this again.

Good luck on waiting. They're never going to stop making Superman movies. This stuff makes too much money so may as well but Supes '78 now.

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Not even Raimi's Spider-Man 2? I actually found that film moving.

I've always thought Spider-Man 2 took the premise of Superman II but did it better. Superman II is a good movie, but the story arc of giving up his powers doesn't work as well because it's too rushed. He gives up his powers, and then IMMEDIATELY after gets his butt kicked by a trucker, sees Zod has taken over the White House, and then goes to get his powers back.

Spider-Man 2 does a much better job of the same idea-- when he first gives up being a hero, the story spends time showing how much better his personal life gets, and then you gradually see the seams start to come apart until he realizes he can't keep this facade going despite what he gets out of it.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Bolty

I 100% agree -- it's the most rushed arc in the history of comic movies. They would have needed to add additional action at the beginning (as Lester's version did with Paris -- but even more) and then had a much longer interlude in the fortress where they spend some time as a human couple while unknown to them Zod wreaks havok and takes over the world and then have him find out and get his powers back.

Lastly, I've always hated that he got beat up by a single thug. I get that the guy fought dirty, but still they should have used a group or gang of thugs to overpower him. It basically showed us that without his powers he's nothing. Reeve was 6'4 he should be able to handle himself. Take away Thor's power as they did in the first movie -- he still was a badass fighter. Not saying Superman should mop up multiple guys without his powers, but geez, have him last more than 5 seconds.

Clark could get beat up so easily because he had literally been drained by the Krypton technology not long before - making his systems unbalanced, so to speak. He was also such a goodie-two-shoes that it wasn't in his nature to fight just to fight until Zod's crew made him have to. The fact that Donner (not Lester) had him come back and put the bully in his place shows that Clark did have that all too human emotion of having the petty sense of satisfaction in getting even, while making the trucker less of a threat to people in the future.

[cynatnite]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Clark could get beat up so easily because he had literally been drained by the Krypton technology - making him unbalanced, so to speak. He was also such a goodie-two-shoes that it wasn't in his nature to fight just to fight. The fact that Donner had him come back and put the bully in his place shows that Clark did have that all too human emotion of having satisfaction in getting even.

Plus, he wasn't raised to fight. His parents raised him to hide his powers and to not fight despite the urge to do so.

[Bolty]

Uh no. He was the one who asked the guy to step outside. If he was such a goody-goody pacifist he would have just asked Lois to move to an empty table or further down the counter -- he didn't want to avoid a fight, he wanted to prove he was still a man. But he was a really naïve man who even after getting suckered once, gets close enough to the guy to get suckered again.

And the comeuppance scene was dumb too because he displayed some odd abilities in front of several people knowing that he pretty much looks exactly like Superman.


"Oh, I've been working out."

"That makes your stomach completely immobile like a rock when struck by a huge guy -- dude who looks like Superman and whose girlfriend called "Clark" a couple days ago?"

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Bolty

Uh no. He was the one who asked the guy to step outside. If he was such a goody-goody pacifist he would have just asked Lois to move to an empty table or further down the counter -- he didn't want to avoid a fight, he wanted to prove he was still a man. But he was a really naïve man who even after getting suckered once, gets close enough to the guy to get suckered again.

And the comeuppance scene was dumb too because he displayed some odd abilities in front of several people knowing that he pretty much looks exactly like Superman.


"Oh, I've been working out."

"That makes your stomach completely immobile like a rock when struck by a huge guy -- dude who looks like Superman and whose girlfriend called "Clark" a couple days ago?"

Clark has always looked like Superman. It's one of the in-jokes Donner played with subtly (just slouch, bumble about, and wear big nerd glasses and no one notices)- one of the cheesiest superhero alter-egos in comic book history, so they poked fun at it.

[Croweyes1121]

The definitive Superman II (with all the best elements of Donner AND Lester) has still not been 100% achieved IMHO. Perhaps I should create a series of polls, asking consensus feelings on Donner versions of scenes vs. Lester versions. Lines and moments to keep or to excise, etc. Part of the trouble in creating the “best” hybrid of the two versions is that people are in such disagreement on what scenes are better. Frankly, while the superkiss isn’t the greatest, I prefer that to Superman just going back in time yet again. The rehearsal footage is a better WAY for Lois to learn Clark’s secret, but the footage just doesn’t jive with the rest of the movie and sticks out too much. I dislike much of the slapstick Lester footage, but actually think some of the scenes he reshot as carbon copies of Donner scenes work a bit better. And I know it’s sacrilege to say it, but I actually thought Reeve’s acting in the reshoots with York was much stronger than his acting in the original scenes with Brando, etc. But then...I do PREFER Brando being in the movie. The definitive cut would definitely be a tough nut to crack.

[HarrySullivan]

Originally Posted by Bolty

Lastly, I've always hated that he got beat up by a single thug. I get that the guy fought dirty, but still they should have used a group or gang of thugs to overpower him. It basically showed us that without his powers he's nothing. Reeve was 6'4 he should be able to handle himself. Take away Thor's power as they did in the first movie -- he still was a badass fighter. Not saying Superman should mop up multiple guys without his powers, but geez, have him last more than 5 seconds.

Even without his powers, Thor was a highly trained expert warrior with literally thousands of years combat experience to call on. By contrast, poor Clark was worse off than even an average human; had he ever thrown a single punch in his whole life? And while he's heard how to talk the talk, the reality of taking a sudden punch in the gut is something new.

Clark was completely unequipped to deal with that situation, so he does come across as pretty pathetic. Valuable experience though for the real battles which were just ahead!

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by ray0414

This guy/gal

They're not working on it.

That's just a website!

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

They're not working on it.

That's just a website!

I misread another quote. But claims to have seen the negatives.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

They're not working on it.

That's just a website!

They're helping to provide archival material and insight that can help with the restoration and/or supplements. The site owner is a curator of all things Superman. He has loads of stuff collected from over the years. WB has gone to them before.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Bolty

Just curious -- does anybody think either version of Superman II is better than the first movie?

I love them both but they were shot all at once I believe and they do feel like one long film. As for the Donner or Lester cuts, I actually like things about each and dislike things about each. When we watch these films we tend to stick to the Lester cut though. It’s too jolting with the obvious inserted footage and the pacing gets weird too with the Donner cut. Some great scenes but they don’t feel "right" if that makes sense.

Still, I’ll happily grab the first two films on UHD if they are released separately. I won’t go for a box set though since other than the first two films I can’t stand the rest. Totally useless drink coasters to me. Returns is OK but I can live with that on standard Blu-ray.