About that Plot Hole in Superman 2 . . . (Spoilers)

[Robert Campion]

Just finished watching the theatrical cut of this one. I have some questions. I will try to restrain my anger.

How in the freaking world did Superman get his powers back?? So he picks up the crystal and . . .

What would have better and what I was thinking is this: Oh, he's going to use kryptonite on the bad guys.

Now, I'm not old enough to have seen this in the theaters, so I must ask those who did. What did you think walking out? Did it not bother you?

I'm of the opinion that this has to be one of the most flagrant cinematic crimes I've ever experienced. The film isn't finished. It's incomplete. It's broken. Your pivotal moment of the film is not balanced by a reasonable explanation. They haven't bothered to contrive any explanation for how Superman's sacrifice is undone. There's no turning point back!!!!! If I was teaching a screen writing class, this would surely be on the agenda as a freshman mistake.

(I know this can be explained because Marlon Brando backed out. That's no explanation. Richard Lester and the Salkinds released this broken film to cinemas.)

[Mister Kite]

Watch Donner's cut of the film (now available on DVD.) It is much more satisfying, IMO, and a worthy successor to the first film. That jarring plot flaw is minimized to the point of being a non-factor in what would have been the original version of Superman II, if Donner had completed it and the Salkind's released it.

[minerwerks]

As much as I thoroughly enjoy the Christopher Reeve Superman movies, none of them are particularly great at being logically consistent.

To further explain the holes in Superman II, you have to realize that the original script was cannibalized and some elements were shifted into the first movie. When they reconvened to make the next film, they fired the guy who shepherded the original script and put the guy in charge who was more sympathetic to the bottom line of the producers. Not only did Brando back out then, but Gene Hackman did, too. The new team rushed through a rewrite of the film, and it appears they didn't care as much about solving story issues. We are talking about a movie where somehow Superman can take the symbol off his chest and make it into a giant plastic shield/weapon. :confused:

You didn't even mention how unbelievable it was that Clark could make Lois forget he was Superman. :D

[davenav]

I think the OP will find that many, many people were dissatisfied with that film, including the first films' director, Richard Donner. And yes, the Donner cut, while aggravating to watch (short hair in one shot, longer hair in the next) does indeed have a much more satisfying end.

[wayneklein]

Donner's cut is a better film but it's a pity that more wasn't completed for his version before he was fired. My big issue is the fact that they never figured out an ending for the second film. The first film cannabalized the ending from the second and that's what was used also for the DOnner cut of "Superman 2". SOme of the visual effects for Lester's final version were also kind of shoddy looking with poorly done mattes.

[Chip Z]

I saw Superman II in the theaters in 1980. I was only 8 years old. I remember thinking it was great. Wasn't too worried about any plot holes at that age. :)

[Dave D]

I'll take a plot hole in Superman II over a completely crappy Superman Returns.

[ferdinandhudson]

I saw Superman II in the theaters in 1980. I was only 8 years old. I remember thinking it was great. Wasn't too worried about any plot holes at that age. :)

:righton:
At that age the film rocked! Of course now I may have issues with it but in the end all you have to do is...
http://www.fox-hound.us/misc/Kneel-Before-Zod.jpg

[CellPhoneFred]

I saw Superman II in the theaters in 1980. I was only 8 years old. I remember thinking it was great. Wasn't too worried about any plot holes at that age. :)

WOW! You must have really seen that Donner rough-cut, because the film wasn't released in the U.S, until June 1981. ;)

[Squealy]

Even as a kid I thought SII seemed slapdash compared to the first movie, and that was without knowing any of the backstory about the production (or anything about filmmaking!)

[Walt]

WOW! You must have really seen that Donner rough-cut, because the film wasn't released in the U.S, until June 1981. ;)

It was released in the UK first... about seven months prior to its U.S. release.

[RDK]

I have a much bigger problem with that whole "man can fly" thing. :D

[CellPhoneFred]

It was released in the UK first... about seven months prior to its U.S. release.

Well...the poster I was referring to is from Cleveland, Ohio, so I'm sticking to my story! ;)

[music4life]

SOme of the visual effects for Lester's final version were also kind of shoddy looking with poorly done mattes.


Not to mention that opening sequence where the three villains attack the astronauts on the moon. When they fly of and the one throws the American flag and it quickly lands on the surface without floating or anything considering there's low gravity on the moon, made it look so cheesy.

I still cant believe that Roger Ebert said back then he liked this film even better then the first one...

[Billy Budapest]

How I understand it, when Superman tricked the bad guys and took away their powers, that same process gave him back his powers.

[Walt]

Not to mention that opening sequence where the three villains attack the astronauts on the moon. When they fly of and the one throws the American flag and it quickly lands on the surface without floating or anything considering there's low gravity on the moon, made it look so cheesy.

I still cant believe that Roger Ebert said back then he liked this film even better then the first one...

And speaking of flags - check out that shot of Supes flying at the White House near the end with the flag. The White House fountain isn't even moving. Niiiiice.

[ferdinandhudson]

How I understand it, when Superman tricked the bad guys and took away their powers, that same process gave him back his powers.

At that point he already had his powers back. It happened when he returned to the Fortress of Solitude alone and found the crystal. We just didn't get to see how though.

[sbroache]

Lots of things never occur when dealing with the logic of a 8 year old...

I'd like to know how he got his suit on when he had ordinary clothes the second before :D

[thorbs]

I'll take a plot hole in Superman II over a completely crappy Superman Returns.

+1

'nough said.

[Felix Martinez]

I saw Superman II in the theaters in 1980. I was only 8 years old. I remember thinking it was great. Wasn't too worried about any plot holes at that age. :)

I don't think we saw it in the U.S. until June '81.

[pig whisperer]

At that point he already had his powers back. It happened when he returned to the Fortress of Solitude alone and found the crystal. We just didn't get to see how though.That would have ruined the surprise. :shh:

[Squealy]

It's not great storytelling that in both films, Superman is able to just undo the terrible thing that happened -- in film 1, the death of Lois, in film 2, the loss of his powers.

[dprokopy]

It's not great storytelling that in both films, Superman is able to just undo the terrible thing that happened -- in film 1, the death of Lois, in film 2, the loss of his powers.
I'm ashamed to admit that when the original Superman came out (I was, what, 6 or so at the time?), for the longest time I actually believed you could reverse time by spinning the Earth backwards like that... :hide:

[Squealy]

Actually, he is not literally spinning the world around backwards -- that's just a visual representation of his going backwards in time as he flies around it. Not that that makes any more sense.

[dprokopy]

Of course, the irony is, Eintein tells us that if he were in fact flying at an incredibly high speed, time would actually speed up (relative to himself, at least).