The story behind SUPERMAN 2 is well known. SUPERMAN THE MOVIE director, Richard Donner, was fired from SUPERMAN 2 after shooting something like 75% of the film. The producers hired Richard Lester and shot many new scenes that were to be combined with some of the scenes Donner directed. The end result is that the film looks like a terrible patchwork of many things and SUPERMAN 2 just feels like a HUGE sloppy production.
As an aficionado of movie mistakes and continuity errors, the only thing I can say about SUPERMAN 2 is that it's a feast for my eyes. It's really fascinating to watch. In the Richard Donner scenes, Margot Kidder looks healthy and beautiful. In the Lester scenes, Margot looks positively gaunt and anorexic. The effect of seeing Margot change from unhealthy to healthy and back to unhealthy throughout the movie is jarring. Then there's the slight alterations that were made to the villains costumes from the Donner shots and the new Lester shots. Notice Ursa's costume is more revealing in the Donner scenes than in the Lester directed ones. Also, Terence Stamp looks much thinner in the Lester shots. And the villains also have less white makeup in the Lester directed shots.
But even if the jarring effect of watching the Donner and Lester scenes coexist together is enough to make one's head spin, the individually directed scenes of SUPERMAN 2, mainly the Lester ones, can only be described as all round sloppy. For instance, the whole Paris scene. In Metropolis, Perry White tells Clark that Lois Lane is in Paris covering the story of terrorists with a hydrogen bomb, but the scene after that one we see Lois in Paris, talking to the police officer and she's told by the police officer that there's a hydrogen bomb in the Eiffel Tower and Lois acts surprised, like she was just told about it for the first time. I'm sure the scene with Lois in Paris was supposed to appear first and then followed by Perry telling Clark about Lois in Paris. But as it is in the film, the order of the scenes doesn't make any sense.
When Superman and Non chase each other over the water, we actually see the wake of the boat filming the footage of the river and cityscape. This shot shouldn't have made it in the final cut. Why did Lester leave it in? It's really bad. There there's the whole battle at the end, which is played strictly for camp. People losing their wigs. Ice cream flying into people's faces. Phone booths falling with people inside. A-ha...not. Note to Richard Lester: this is not a Beatles movie.
For a film that cost $50 million, everything about SUPERMAN 2 feels cheap.
Cheap production values, like the moon set or the NY city street set, the village set, etc. The village set is probably the least convincing movie set ever built for a major movie.
Cheap use of stock footage, from the first SUPERMAN movie, such as when Clark and Lois return from the north pole and the car driving through the Rockies is actually the car that's flipped over in SUPERMAN THE MOVIE. Or the use of fly over footage taken from the first movie which was used for the rockets is now used for the villains when they fly towards the village.
Cheap special effects, like the dreadful animation when the phantom zone thingy goes through shockwave from the nuclear blast. Zod walking on water and you can clearly see the plank underneath the surface of the water. The helicopter being tossed around by Ursa's kiss. The use of little dolls for Superman or the villains flying all over NY city scape. There are some good FX here and there (my favorite is when Non goes through the buildings) but most of the special effects are *really* bad, even for that time.
Sloppy writing. The inconsistent use of superpowers. In SUPERMAN THE MOVIE, Superman could fly super fast and affect time itself. But in SUPERMAN 2, it takes Superman forever to arrive in Paris. The villains (and Superman) have bizarre powers like levitating objects with their eyes or by just pointing their fingers. When Ursa is bitten by the snake, it hurts her. The snake must have fangs made out of steel. Zod easily destroys cars with his laser eyes but it takes him forever to blow up a tanker truck. Non and Ursa throw a bus at Superman, which crushes him like a ton of bricks. But didn't Superman change the direction of the rotation of the earth in SUPERMAN THE MOVIE? What's a bus compared to the gravitational force of a whole planet?
Then there's the whole stupid moment in Niagara. Who came up with this stupid script?!?! And some of the dialogue is just painful. And to make things even worse, there are tons of product placement throughout the movie.
By reading this, you might think I hate the movie. And to a certain extent, there's something about SUPERMAN 2 I just don't like but I admit that the spirit of the film is goofy. The awe and majesty of SUPERMAN THE MOVIE is replaced by schlocky, stupid fun. Like the producers just didn't care about anything and decided, "What the hell. Who cares about all of this. Let's make fun of it all."
The one thing I really like in SUPERMAN 2 is URSA. Sarah Douglas is the best thing in the movie. Ursa ROCKS!!!!!!! The highlight of the film is when Ursa flips a manhole cover and throws it mercilessly at Superman. Cool.
Anyway, my main problem with SUPERMAN 2, aside from the really stupid script, is that's it's just cheap looking. It's the cheapest looking big budget movie of all time. It cost $50 million back then. That's $200 million today? Where did the money go?!?!
As an aficionado of movie mistakes and continuity errors, the only thing I can say about SUPERMAN 2 is that it's a feast for my eyes. It's really fascinating to watch. In the Richard Donner scenes, Margot Kidder looks healthy and beautiful. In the Lester scenes, Margot looks positively gaunt and anorexic. The effect of seeing Margot change from unhealthy to healthy and back to unhealthy throughout the movie is jarring. Then there's the slight alterations that were made to the villains costumes from the Donner shots and the new Lester shots. Notice Ursa's costume is more revealing in the Donner scenes than in the Lester directed ones. Also, Terence Stamp looks much thinner in the Lester shots. And the villains also have less white makeup in the Lester directed shots.
But even if the jarring effect of watching the Donner and Lester scenes coexist together is enough to make one's head spin, the individually directed scenes of SUPERMAN 2, mainly the Lester ones, can only be described as all round sloppy. For instance, the whole Paris scene. In Metropolis, Perry White tells Clark that Lois Lane is in Paris covering the story of terrorists with a hydrogen bomb, but the scene after that one we see Lois in Paris, talking to the police officer and she's told by the police officer that there's a hydrogen bomb in the Eiffel Tower and Lois acts surprised, like she was just told about it for the first time. I'm sure the scene with Lois in Paris was supposed to appear first and then followed by Perry telling Clark about Lois in Paris. But as it is in the film, the order of the scenes doesn't make any sense.
When Superman and Non chase each other over the water, we actually see the wake of the boat filming the footage of the river and cityscape. This shot shouldn't have made it in the final cut. Why did Lester leave it in? It's really bad. There there's the whole battle at the end, which is played strictly for camp. People losing their wigs. Ice cream flying into people's faces. Phone booths falling with people inside. A-ha...not. Note to Richard Lester: this is not a Beatles movie.
For a film that cost $50 million, everything about SUPERMAN 2 feels cheap.
Cheap production values, like the moon set or the NY city street set, the village set, etc. The village set is probably the least convincing movie set ever built for a major movie.
Cheap use of stock footage, from the first SUPERMAN movie, such as when Clark and Lois return from the north pole and the car driving through the Rockies is actually the car that's flipped over in SUPERMAN THE MOVIE. Or the use of fly over footage taken from the first movie which was used for the rockets is now used for the villains when they fly towards the village.
Cheap special effects, like the dreadful animation when the phantom zone thingy goes through shockwave from the nuclear blast. Zod walking on water and you can clearly see the plank underneath the surface of the water. The helicopter being tossed around by Ursa's kiss. The use of little dolls for Superman or the villains flying all over NY city scape. There are some good FX here and there (my favorite is when Non goes through the buildings) but most of the special effects are *really* bad, even for that time.
Sloppy writing. The inconsistent use of superpowers. In SUPERMAN THE MOVIE, Superman could fly super fast and affect time itself. But in SUPERMAN 2, it takes Superman forever to arrive in Paris. The villains (and Superman) have bizarre powers like levitating objects with their eyes or by just pointing their fingers. When Ursa is bitten by the snake, it hurts her. The snake must have fangs made out of steel. Zod easily destroys cars with his laser eyes but it takes him forever to blow up a tanker truck. Non and Ursa throw a bus at Superman, which crushes him like a ton of bricks. But didn't Superman change the direction of the rotation of the earth in SUPERMAN THE MOVIE? What's a bus compared to the gravitational force of a whole planet?
Then there's the whole stupid moment in Niagara. Who came up with this stupid script?!?! And some of the dialogue is just painful. And to make things even worse, there are tons of product placement throughout the movie.
By reading this, you might think I hate the movie. And to a certain extent, there's something about SUPERMAN 2 I just don't like but I admit that the spirit of the film is goofy. The awe and majesty of SUPERMAN THE MOVIE is replaced by schlocky, stupid fun. Like the producers just didn't care about anything and decided, "What the hell. Who cares about all of this. Let's make fun of it all."
The one thing I really like in SUPERMAN 2 is URSA. Sarah Douglas is the best thing in the movie. Ursa ROCKS!!!!!!! The highlight of the film is when Ursa flips a manhole cover and throws it mercilessly at Superman. Cool.
Anyway, my main problem with SUPERMAN 2, aside from the really stupid script, is that's it's just cheap looking. It's the cheapest looking big budget movie of all time. It cost $50 million back then. That's $200 million today? Where did the money go?!?!