46 Years Ago, This DC Movie Was Really Two Movies in One (& You Can Still See the Difference)

Skip to content Add Us On Google Hollywood has made plenty of movies with troubled productions, but Superman II is a particularly strange case. The movie had one director, lost him before filming was finished, and then brought in someone else to take over. That alone would be enough to cause problems. But the changes went much further than that. Two different versions of the same Superman story ended up with very different tones, different scenes, and even different endings.

And that’s where things get really interesting. Superman II isn’t just a sequel with a few deleted scenes and a different ending. It’s a movie that somehow became two very different movies, with the same cast, the same basic story, and two directors who had very different ideas about what Superman should be. One version has goofy comedy and a rather questionable solution to a romantic problem. The other takes a more serious approach, with a few surprises of its own. So how did one superhero movie end up with two such different personalities?

The funny thing about Superman II is that you can watch the same story twice and come away with two very different impressions. Richard Lester’s theatrical cut has plenty of silly moments, including some jokes that feel like they belong in a completely different movie. The villains cause chaos on Earth, but the film keeps finding ways to turn them into comic relief. Then there’s Superman himself, who’s still trying to figure out whether he can have a normal life with Lois Lane. Lester’s version takes that romance in a pretty strange direction. Superman gives up his powers to be with Lois, only to discover that being human isn’t quite what he expected. By the end, he gets his powers back and uses a special kiss to erase Lois’s memories of their relationship. It’s an odd way to wrap things up, especially when Lois has spent the whole movie trying to figure out who Clark really is.

I remember seeing this on TV when I was just a wee little lad—and let me tell you—I enjoyed it a ton. I don’t care if modern fans think the originals are outdated or it’s just another older guy’s opinion, but the originals truly capture the Superman spirit and fun of a superhero movie. Personally, I haven’t enjoyed any of the modern Superman reboots. Snyder’s Man of Steel is the most recent Superman film I almost enjoyed, but again, a much darker iteration of my favorite DC hero. I prefer a balance of the original ’50s and the ’80s and ’90s Supes. Cavill wasn’t bad, but Reeves has been the best Clark and Superman hands down.

Donner’s cut takes a different approach, and the changes go beyond the ending. Marlon Brando returns as Jor-El, giving Superman’s Kryptonian heritage a much bigger role in the story. His scenes were removed from the theatrical version because of a dispute over Brando’s salary, so Susannah York’s Lara took his place in several moments. The Donner Cut also feels more serious about Superman’s relationship with Lois, even if some of the unfinished footage makes things a little rough around the edges. And then there’s the ending. Instead of using the memory-wiping kiss, Donner brings back the time-reversal ending from the original Superman. It’s a controversial choice, especially since the first movie already used that trick, but it fits the version of the sequel he was trying to make. Put the two cuts side by side and the difference is hard to miss. One leans into comedy, while the other treats the story as a much more serious Superman adventure.

The trouble started when Donner filmed Superman and Superman II back to back. Producer Alexander Salkind and his son Ilya wanted to get both movies made right away. But the production ran into budget problems and creative disagreements. Donner also clashed with the producers over the direction of the sequel. Then, there was Marlon Brando’s high salary. By the time he was removed from the project, much of Superman II had already been filmed. However, the movie still needed plenty of work. Richard Lester was brought in to finish it. That meant shooting new scenes and completely changing the direction of the story. There was also a Directors Guild rule that required a director to shoot a substantial portion of a film to receive sole directing credit—and Lester wanted that. As a result, plenty of new footage was shot. Lester wasn’t simply finishing Donner’s movie anymore. He was reshaping it, and the proof is all over the theatrical cut.

For years, fans could only imagine what Donner’s version might have looked like. That changed in 2006, when Warner Bros. released the Donner Cut with help from editor Michael Thau. It wasn’t the original film restored exactly as Donner intended, since some scenes were never completed and the team had to use screen tests and other available footage to fill the gaps. Even so, it offered a fascinating look at a major superhero movie that had been pulled in two different directions. The whole thing is a reminder of how much a director can change a film, even when the basic story stays the same. Lester’s version has its fans, and there’s no denying that Reeve’s performance holds both cuts together. But the Donner Cut gives viewers a chance to see the more dramatic movie that might have been. Few superhero films offer such a clear look at two competing visions, and that’s what makes Superman II such an unusual piece of DC history.

The most amazing thing about the entire double-director debacle is how wonderful the end result was. Superman II was a box-office success, and many fans agree that it’s a fun and enjoyable movie. It has that natural ’70s and ’80s charm that didn’t try to be super serious, dark, and realistic. Nor did it rely on quips, insults, and forced adult humor to get laughs. It truly captures a balance between a Silver Age comic superhero and a Hollywood movie. There’s a lot to learn for modern Hollywood filmmakers in there. What do you think about the original Superman movies? Do you like the modern reboots better?