-
That's a tie for me. Because, Donner's cut gives us his true dramatic-romance intent of Reeve's Kal-El wanting to give up being Superman to be with his Lois, while Lester's gives us the satirical slapstick comedy that I find more entertaining to watch for laughs and nostalgic from childhood.
Neither is what I consider really true or respectful to Superman. Jerry Siegel's Clark wouldn't selfishly give up his Superman responsibilities to the world just to be with Lois. And Lester's slapstick comedy turns Metropolis into just a joke. There should be comedy but it should come from Superman himself kidding around with a certain sense of humor, a sense of fun, and not taking himself and the whole thing so dramatically, but not jokey in a Deadpool way or also not turn Metropolis into a Jerry Lewis slapstick comedy movie. Superman should take crime and injustice seriously.
-
I wish it didn't have to use test footage of the time travel at the end again but it is what it is and I'm just happy to have it and I prefer Donner's cut. I love the added Jor-El scenes, I prefer the reveal to Lois he's Superman and the taking out of most the slapstick comedy. Last the beginning with Lois in the Daily Planet figuring out Clark is Superman is just great MK was fantastic in those scenes she had that spark in it that made me love her Lois so hands down Donner's cut.
-
I love the Donner cut.....I'm a big Donner fan, so, for me, it's a no brainer...That being said, I also have a fondness for the Lester version, too....
-
Watching the Donner cut just makes me sad that he wasn't able to realize and complete his original vision for the films. I watch it more for historical context, but the screen test footage for me is really jarring and takes me out of the movie because Christopher Reeve looks completely different than he does in the final picture. So I usually go to the theatrical cut which has that great sequence at the end of Superman flying the flag back to the White House.