Published on
Today, shooting sequels back-to-back is standard practice—but in 1978, it was nearly unheard of. The original “Superman” was already a massive undertaking, especially for its time. Yet, without knowing how it would perform, the producers had so much faith in the project that they began filming the sequel before the first had even premiered. The result is a follow-up that ties in seamlessly with the original—far more cohesively than most sequels made today.
Simply titled “Superman II”, the film picks up directly where the original left off. We’re reintroduced to the three villains who were imprisoned in the Phantom Zone during the first act of “Superman: The Movie“. A lengthy recap over the opening credits brings viewers up to speed—an obvious relic of a time before home video, when sequels often opened with reminders of what came before.
The recap includes extensive footage from the first film, though curiously, some scenes were noticeably reshot. Most notably, Marlon Brando—top-billed in the original—is completely absent. It’s one of several signs that things behind the scenes weren’t quite as smooth as they may have seemed.
Today, the behind-the-scenes story of “Superman II” is well known. Richard Donner, who directed most of the film, was fired before production was completed. Richard Lester was brought in to finish the movie, but in order to receive sole director credit, he had to reshoot at least 80% of the material. Some actors, like Gene Hackman, refused to return after Donner’s departure, forcing creative workarounds. Given all this, the most surprising part is just how good the final film still manages to be.
In fact, many consider “Superman II” the best of the Christopher Reeve Superman films—even Reeve himself said as much in interviews. And it’s easy to see why. With the origin story out of the way, the sequel is leaner, more focused, and at times dives deeper into character development than its predecessor. It also feels more expansive, juggling three intertwining storylines in the first two acts, giving the film a grand, almost epic scale.
Gene Hackman receives top billing as Lex Luthor, but his role is ultimately that of a supporting character, overshadowed by General Zod and his two henchmen, Non and Ursa. Like Superman, they are Kryptonians and possess the same powers—though they’re still learning to wield them. Each villain has a distinct personality, and their journey is arguably the most compelling and often most entertaining part of the film. Terence Stamp’s performance as General Zod has become iconic, referenced in pop culture moments like “Mallrats“, and likely played a big role in Zod being chosen as the antagonist in “Man of Steel“.
As a direct sequel, much of the film retains the tone of the original, though it leans more heavily into humor. While the first movie had a lighthearted spirit, it largely played things straight. “Superman II”, by contrast, incorporates a fair number of comedic gags—some of which land, while others fall flat. Clark’s constant bumbling starts to wear thin, and by the final act, Luthor is reduced to more of a sniveling sidekick than a serious threat.
The emotional core of “Superman II” lies in the relationship between Clark and Lois. When Lois finally discovers Clark’s true identity, the two confess their love, prompting Clark to give up his powers so he can live a normal life with her—something he can apparently do at the push of a button. This leads to the now-familiar comic book trope: the hero becomes powerless just as the world needs him most. Clark is only depowered for about 15 minutes of screen time, but that’s enough to give us one of the cringiest scenes in the franchise, as he gets thoroughly beaten by a bully in a diner. The eventual payoff feels oddly un-Superman-like—after defeating Zod, Clark returns to the diner to take revenge now that he has his powers back. #notmysuperman
Speaking of powers—what exactly are Superman’s abilities supposed to be? Originally, they were mostly amplified human senses and strengths: super sight, hearing, smell, speed, and of course, flight and heat vision. In the first movie, he even managed to fly around Earth so fast he turned back time—far-fetched, but still within the mythic tone of the story. For the most part, though, his powers felt consistent and clearly defined.
But in “Superman II”, all bets are off. Superman seems able to do whatever the screenwriters dreamed up. Splitting himself into multiple versions? Sure. Erasing Lois’s memory with a kiss? Why not. And who could forget the infamous cellophane “S” he rips off his chest and throws at a villain like a net? What even was that?
A grounded Superman with a well-defined power set is far more compelling than one who can escape any situation with a last-minute, never-before-seen ability. The more arbitrary the powers become, the harder it is to feel any real stakes.
The end result is a film that delivers some of the franchise’s highest moments—and a few of its lowest. But the missteps are easy to forgive, especially considering what lies ahead. I’m not going to call “Superman II” the “Empire Strikes Back” of the franchise, but I won’t argue with anyone who thinks it surpasses the original. Personally, I see it as right on par with the first film.
