Board Thread:DC Universe Discussion/@comment-3974095-20130611233337/@comment-5624498-20130702023056

Thailog wrote: What do you mean? Personally I liked the Richard Donner cut a LOT, until the end when they ruined the whole thing by rendering it moot. Might as well say that all had been a dream. Except for the ending, I liked it immensely. Especially the beginning and how the villains we see the villains witnessing key events from the Phantom Zone. Their liberation was also much better (though Zod's "FREEEEEEEEEEE" felt so corny and out of place). I also liked how Lois tricked Clark into revealing himself. Much more believable than Clark clumsily poking his hand into the fire and "hey, it didn't melt off... this must mean.....". Though surprisingly this Cut managed to make Luthor even more idiotic. Worst Gene Hackman role EVER.

My only problem with the original are the "humorous" scenes and lines. Cut that out along with the cellophane S-Shield, and it's a pretty good Superman movie.

I mean that, upon watching Donner's version, that I find it better than the Lester version and don't consider the Lester version to be better than the first Superman movie Donner directed (as some people do).

I agree with what you said about the ending to the Donner cut, though, as it was simply a cop-out to get out of everything that had been done. Whereas in the first movie, it may seem far-fetched, but it worked along the lines of Superman losing one person he cared for previously and not wanting to lose another.

I have no issues with the Donner cut otherwise and think it works better than the Lester version, despite the ending. What I saw from the Lester version upon additional viewing was some of the gags were out of place (no reason for them in the fight scene between Superman, Zod and company) and the fact they seemed to just come up with special powers for the sake of doing so (such as Zod magically pulling a rifle toward him and what you mentioned about Superman).