Published on
In 2021, Warner Bros. finally released the long-demanded “Snyder Cut” of “Justice League” — a film director Zack Snyder had to abandon midway through following the tragic death of his daughter. Joss Whedon stepped in to complete the project, rewriting and reshooting large portions of the movie, resulting in a version that left many fans disappointed. For years, die-hard supporters campaigned for Snyder’s original vision, perhaps taking a cue from the release of the Richard Donner Cut of “Superman II” some 15 years earlier.
The story behind “Superman II” is strikingly similar. Director Richard Donner had shot over 80% of the film before being replaced by Richard Lester, who rewrote and reshot enough material to earn sole directing credit. While “Superman II” was generally well-received, the disastrous “Superman III” — directed entirely by Lester — cast doubt on just how much of “Superman II” truly reflected his vision. Fans began to wonder what Richard Donner’s original version might have looked like.
With “Superman Returns” on the horizon and the DVD market booming, Warner Bros. seized the opportunity to revisit the past. Donner was invited back to reconstruct “Superman II” as he had originally intended — using whatever footage remained. The result was “Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut”, a version that, while not as radically different from the theatrical release as Snyder’s cut of “Justice League”, still offered a fascinating alternate take on a classic superhero film.
This makes it difficult to definitively prefer one version over the other. Many of the changes are minor — scenes reshot from slightly different angles, altered bits of dialogue, or small moments added or removed — often subtle enough to go unnoticed when watching both versions in close succession.
That said, a few major differences do stand out. All of Marlon Brando’s scenes as Jor-El are reinstated, having been replaced in the Lester version with footage of Superman’s mother due to a financial dispute between the studio and Brando. These restored scenes significantly alter key emotional beats, particularly when Superman returns to the Fortress of Solitude to regain his lost powers.
The opening also shifts dramatically: instead of a random hydrogen bomb in Paris freeing the Phantom Zone prisoners, it’s the missiles Lex Luthor launched at the end of the first film — making this version a direct continuation of “Superman: The Movie“. Other notable changes include Lois suspecting Clark is Superman from their very first interaction, leading her to jump out a window at the Daily Planet rather than test him later at Niagara Falls. And in the finale, Superman once again turns back time by spinning the Earth backward — a controversial choice that echoes the ending of the original film.
The existence of two versions naturally raises the question: which one is better? It’s a tough call, as both films tell the same core story and share a significant amount of footage. “Superman II” was never a flawless film, and while the Donner Cut addresses several criticized elements from the theatrical version — like the infamous cellophane “S” attack — it occasionally comes off as feeling like a fan edit.
Lester’s version handles certain elements with more subtlety, particularly Lois discovering Clark’s true identity. In contrast, the Donner Cut gains emotional resonance through the inclusion of Marlon Brando, especially during the scenes where Superman loses and regains his powers. However, while the memory-erasing kiss in the theatrical cut was widely mocked, the Donner Cut’s decision to recycle the time-reversal ending from the first film — complete with reused footage — feels cheap and uninspired.
In truth, the ideal version would probably be a carefully balanced mash-up of both cuts. But if I had to choose, I’d give the edge to the theatrical version. It may be less emotionally charged, but it feels like a more polished and complete film, whereas the Donner Cut — while closer in tone to “Superman: The Movie” — still feels like a what-could-have-been.
