Am I the only one that likes the Lester version better?

I like Lester's movie better than the Donner Cut, because ultimately Lester's II is a complete film. There's some nostalgia linked to Lester's film that I can't deny as I was six years old when it was released in 1980.

Superman II was my favorite Superman movie for quite a few years (Superman: The Movie is actually my favorite movie of all time -- it invokes very positive, almost religious type feelings in me whenever I watch it).

I was very excited to own the Donner cut when it was released in 2006, after learning about the troubled production history of S:TM and SII. I truly hoped the Donner Cut would convert me over to it as THE Superman II, but unfortunately it didn't. I'm still glad I own the Donner Cut, but I view it as ultimately a curiosity of what could've been from Richard Donner.

No, sir. Don't thank me, Warden. We're all part of the same team. Good night.- Superman

I guess you've never read any Superman comics?

I prefer donner. Lesters stuff looks cheap and he went to comical

Donna version is perfect until the last 15 mins, the whole going back in the time made the ending pointless everything didn't happen yet he has the fight in the bar still.

Kill that ending and go with Lesters and we got a movie. or maybe Donna should cut Superman 1 to have its original ending that ended as a cliffhanger

[deleted]

" Doing it again makes it seem that there's no need for Superman to get into conflicts. Just spin the Earth backwards and everything will be fixed. "

This is completely wrong.

Doing it ONCE is enough, what does 'doing it again' add that doing it once already doesn't provide? Are you saying that doing it once was some kind of a fluke, that Superman couldn't POSSIBLY do it again?

If you want to talk about 'silly', how is 'hypnosis-kiss' NOT silly?

They make a lot of fun about this 'reversing of time', just because of the first movie, it doesn't need to be done twice for it to get that effect. Also, Superman has no need to 'get into conflicts' (what a weird way of phrasing anything!), he's Superman!

Your main point is valid, but you warp it by claiming it's 'doing it AGAIN' that somehow creates the problem, AS IF doing it once already didn't do it. This is absolutely wrong and I can't understand where you got the logic you are using to be able to come to such a weird conclusion.

The whole 'reversing time' is a definite cop-out, and should never have been done, but now that it WAS done, it should be always used (because it's the most logical, easiest fix to ANY problem Superman might have, including 'falling slowly (from superfast being's perspective) into a flame and then holding a hand in the fire for an extended period of time that Lois then deducts somehow proves he's Superman', even though there have been plenty of people that have walked on hot coals and have done amazing 'fire magic tricks' throughout history without being injured.

Instead of explaining the hand-in-fire-for-one-second-thing in some kind of similar way that coal doesn't burn the soles of foot even though its hot, he just reveals his most closely-guarded secret.

These movies don't really make almost ANY sense, when you analyze them, so 'whatever goes', I suppose.

Yes, you're the only one

Yeah I prefer it. It feels like a complete film. Donner cut has some bonuses like Brando and more Luther but it’s let down by distracting test footage and a repeat of the crazy turn-back-time solution. It’s a fascinating curiosity but Lester’s cut is the true Superman II.