Talk:Superman II

Metacritic
This film is ranked second on metacritics all time top 250. This should be mentioned in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakeyjamie (talk • contribs) 23:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. That's why I looked up the film in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.82.129 (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Director's Cut
Despite all the difficulties, and with only a few noticeable shifts in tone between the two directors' scenes (Lester's scenes tend more to camp and humor), this is still a remarkable and coherent film, highlighted by the movie's battle sequence between Superman and the three Phantom Zone prisoners on the streets of Metropolis, which has yet to be topped by any other superhero movie.

I'd call that paragraph, particularly the end, pretty controversial. POV. Whatever. I happen to like a lot of other superhero battle scenes. I'd fix it, but somehow, I don't think I'd do it right...

"Luthor convinces them they must pursue Superman to his fortress, where Superman tricks them, counting on Luthor to double-cross him. The same red light that drains super-powers is loosed on the fortress while Superman is safe inside the chamber that once drained his powers. Superman feigns weakness, and then crushes Zod's hand, Lois easily dispatches Ursa, and Non leaps to find he can't leap. Superman and Lois return to Metropolis, leaving Luthor to walk home. (In one TV version, a US "polar patrol" is picking up the three Kryptonians.)"

Given the dramatic changes in tone between the Theatrical and Extended version, there really should be two versions of this paragraph. Villains appear to die in theatrical cut while we know Richard Donner orginially filmed them being carted away with Lex by the Arctic police. Also Sups destroys the fortress of solitude and breaks up with Lois.

Trivia Section
I think the trivia section needs a rewrite as it's very bad, gramatically-wise, with lots of frivilous text. Smoothy 13:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It appears to be plagarised from the imdb. 29th April 2006

I removed the reference to a "Ford Pinto" being blown backward into a pit and then exploding in the rear. It's not a Pinto, but a rather large American four-door model with a chrome grill, perhaps a Chevy. - Loadmaster 22:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me where that scene of the north pole police in superman hase gone? I am almost certain that there was a cut scene from super man one or two where they go to the North pole layer that superman owns with the bad guy lex luthor. I can remeber a few years ago comming across a web page with apicture of a polar police officer talking to Lex Luthor. Can someone please help me find the right information? Civilian knowledge (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Protected
Over edit war on whether sequence of films listed should be on basis of continuity or production order. The conversation is at Talk:Superman Returns. -- Samir  धर्म 06:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

disappearing holograms
because marlon brando's hologram appears in superman returns, does that mean that the cut scene with marlon brando explaining that the holograms will disappear is outside of the film continuity? that would put the upcoming richard donner cut as non-canon in the movie timeline. or perhaps because superman returns creates an alternate timeline to the original series, the richard donner cut is inside the continuity of the original timeline (superman 1, 2, 3, and 4) and outisde the continuity of the splinter timeline (superman 1, 2, and returns). ColdFusion650 00:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no true continuity for Superman Returns. It starts it's own and just uses bits from the other films. Bignole


 * The article for Superman Returns and several other articles I've read seem to suggest or flat out say that it's a sequel to the first two. Superman (1978 film) says, "The 2006 film Superman Returns continues from the first sequel." Superman IV: The Quest For Peace says,"Superman Returns would - according to director Bryan Singer - be a sequel to the first two films starring Reeve, and completely ignore both Superman III and this film." Superman Returns says,"Bryan Singer has said that the loose continuity established in the first two Christopher Reeve Superman films serves as its back-story, or, as he put it, a 'vague history'." If there is a misconception, it's fairly widespread. Even the director is confused. This page graphically explains it well. Besides, if it was it's timeline, unrelated to the original movies, it would be a reboot. And I haven't heard the word reboot ever describing Superman Returns. Whereas, it is commonly used with Batman Begins. ColdFusion650 00:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's because it is too hard to police all the articles. It is a "loose sequel", where Singer said the first two movies serves as a 'vague history". And, if the sequel to Superman Returns is true, then Singer wants to retcon almost all the events of Superman II, atleast all the ones with the kryptonian criminals. So, it seems that this "sequel" is turning into a new vehicle of its own. Singer has never said outright that it is a true sequel to Superman II. Bignole
 * Are you saying that the sequel to Superman Returns is rumored to involve the kryptonian criminals? ColdFusion650 00:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Singer has mentioned that he would like to do Zod, but he would want to reinvent him, so to speak. Bignole
 * I'm not sure how that would work. Perhaps he would retcon it to where Superman Returns is only a sequel to Superman I, although that would raise questions as to how Lois had a son with Superman, although while strongly suggesting that, they didn't come right out and say it, leaving it open to be retconned. Although, it never shows Zod dying in the movie. In fact, in the Donner cut, they are picked up with Lex Luthor by a patrol in the arctic. Perhaps he could still make it follow Superman II while having Zod come back, after he somehow got his powers back, through some scheme of Lex Luthor's I'm sure. Although, he could just decide that making it all work is not worth it and drop the Zod idea. That sure is a lot of althoughs and complex sentences. ColdFusion650 01:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that you are supposed to look at Superman Returns as just Superman Returns and any events that require a history just look to the previous films. Everything was really just an inside joke in the movie. Nothing was explicitly stated. I think the point of "vague history" is to say that if you require an explaination then look to Reeve. Bignole

"Plot holes"
I don't think problems of scientific plausibility--the scenes on the moon, whether or not the kryptonians feel pain--are "plot holes," which are gaps in explanation between events in the story. Should there be a separate section for "problems of plausibility"? Although one might have to "existence of Superman" under that heading. Ccoll 22:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the whole section. Most are not plot holes and you don't give huge paragraphs for what should be listed in bullet form. Them talking on the moon is a continuity error. If if you could believe in Superman and the powers, they still cannot defy the laws of nature, which when there is no air there is no sound. (Star Wars violates these rules all the time; like when a ship explodes it always seems to fall like a sinking ship, but in the depths of space there is no gravity). The "pain in the molecule chamber" is continuity error as well. As for the "Superman losing powers and then gaining them", that could be considered a plot hole, but it should be more like:


 * In the film, Superman gives up his powers for Lois. In the process the FOS is destroyed, but not before his mother tells him he can never go back. Later, after the Kryptonians land on Earth, Clark goes back to the FOS and finds the green crystal. He eventually returns with his powers restored and no explaination.
 * Note: The scenes that explained this were cut, because they involved Marlon Brando whom the Salkinds refused to pay for his contributions. Bignole 22:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And this should be in the main article, because the movie is unintelligible as it stands. Afabbro 22:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Cut status or Cult status
The heading "Controversy and cult status" was recently changed to "Controversy and cut status" by an anonymous user. I immediately thought "ah! stupid! change it back." But now that I think about it, the heading "cut" status seems even a bit more logical. Should we keep it? This should be decided soon, since the page Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut explicitly links to that section (and is currently broken). &mdash;EatMyShortz 14:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

merge suggestion
At the top of the cut section is a proposal that this page be merged with the Donner Cut page. I don't think this should be merged with the Donner Cut page. From what I'm reading they're essentially two separate films and, in fact, warner brothers will be releasing them as two separate films this fall. Spookyadler 15:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad word choice
Don't use the word "ironically" if you don't know what it means! There is nothing inherently contradictory about the director appearing in the movie as an extra.

Deleting a Poster's contribution
I posted a very lengthy section entitled "Scenes Donner Shot" above the Trivia section. This took considerable time and effort and User:Bignole decided to delete it. It was accurate and I am sure people do want to know what Donner shot. People here need to be less hasty with the edit button! I won't be adding anything further from now on - Indo77
 * Please be aware that you need to provide sources to back that kind of information up, not just something you say you "know". No source = removal. Bignole 00:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This stuff is common knowledge and the Internet community has been aware of the material for years.

http://www.supermancinema.co.uk/superman2/real_s2/analysis/index.htm - Jon Hoyle, GandalfDC, Bill Willaims, Additional help by "Me"

I even wrote the following article

http://www.supermancinema.co.uk/superman2/general/extended_versions/the_tv_versions/index.htm

The Trivia section appears to not back up any sources.

I don't monitor everything on the page, for one thing. But when there is an extensive increase in trivia it's hard to not notice. Also, anything YOU write is not considered valid. Just like if say Richard Donner were to become an editor for Wikipedia, anything he adds to his own page wouldn't be allowed. It's called "self promotion", and wikipedia is not in the business of promoting other websites. As for the link, if you had it then you should have put it there originally. Now, about the information you are trying to add, I would personally discuss it with other editors to see if it would be appropriate to include. Wikipedia likes you to be bold, but sometimes when you are making large additions/subtractions to a page it's good to discuss the matter with other editors that monitor/edit the page on a regular basis. If you leave a message on the Talk page and no one responds, try looking at the "HISTORY" and see what names pop up frequently and send them a personal message to look at what you are trying to add. Bignole 00:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair Enough. I do understand where you are coming from about sources as I have written dissertations. Same rules apply - Indo77


 * You've provided a source, and it seems to be a reputable one, at least Entertainment Weekly thinks so; so I'm cool with it. But, if you personally added some of that information it wouldn't be able to be placed in the article unless you can provide additional sources as to where you found that information out. Bignole 01:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There is definitely an excess of eagerness with the edit button and a complete lack of consideration for the effort of other people. Here's a novel idea: why not ask contributors if they can provide sources BEFORE removing their work?((unsigned|Cgivillains}}


 * Again, as I said on your personal page, it is YOUR responsibility to provide a source to prove your work, not the responsibility of other editors to seek YOU out to prove it. If you cannot prove it then it gets removed. You cannot write a research paper that contains information "FROM YOUR HEAD" and say it's "FACT" and not expect people to question it. NO SOURCE = NO EDIT. I do believe I was polite enough to alert you to why you were being reverted, Cgivillains, and you proceded to lose control and go off about it. You could have simply provided your source initially, that source could have been verified, and this could have all been over. Look what Indo77 did. The situation was presented and they provided their sources, which were reliable, and as far as I'm concerned they have the right to post their information again. You on the other hand persist in arguing about it, and never providing anything to back you up, just simply spouting "Fact#1..." Bignole 22:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the shoting script that I was trying to tell you about: http://www.capedwonder.com/scripts/superman_2-mankiewicz.pdf Pay attention to scenes 394-398. It is exactly what I said it was.

And by the way, you *write* a research paper, you don't "right" a research paper.

CGIvillains


 * Again, "scripts" are rather hard to verify, and as I said on your page if it contains scenes that Indo provided a source for, then ok. As for the fans thing, you have yet to actually prove anything of the sort. Again, all of this could simply be avoided by actually provided documentation of what you edit, but you have yet to do so. Apparently it's bothering you because you feel the need to nitpick a typing error. Bignole 22:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be inconsistent in your views towards scripts. For example, in the Triva section, the first point says " The original script had the nuclear missile from Superman: The Movie releasing Zod and companions from the Phantom Zone, instead of the Eiffel Tower bomb. " Now, why is that acceptable, but when I say that there was a certain scene in the script you have a hard time believing it. I have even showed you a pdf of the script. How is that any less credible than the person who made the point about the nuclear missile? CGIVillains

Again, why do people assume that just because they are reverted for something that who ever reverted them reads everything on the page. I just happened to see your edit, I don't read every single page that I watch to make sure of what is there, that would not only take forever to do, but would just become rather boring after awhile. I didn't create this page, and I've only recently started watching it because of editors trying to make Superman II the predecessor of Superman Returns. If you see others doing something that you were discouraged from, then please feel free to take charge and remove it. If you find that is is legitimate (like, it's noted in the first link that Indo provided) then just place the reference next to that and be done with it. I don't have time to go through every link, or check on every bit of trivia (which really isn't what an encyclopedia should include). People need to understand that just because someone is attempting to make 1 thing better in the article, does not mean that other things don't need fixing as well. I've gone through this with TV episode pages. They aren't very notable, and thus shouldn't be created, but when one is trying to prevent them the only argument is "well others are doing it". Well, others are wrong in this instance as well, but I can't monitor every single television show episode list, just like I can't monitor everything that was already on this page before I started watching it, or that was added in a cloud of edits. Bignole 23:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Everything that I have spoken about has actually been discussed on that SupermanCinema website that Indo provided. For example, here is a page discussing the scripted scene where the villains take over the world: http://www.supermancinema.co.uk/daily_planet/dvd2006/s2-recon-spec/dvd2006-s2-recon-8.asp Is that adequate? This is the same site that is featured by Entertainment Weekly.

Finally, regarding the petition from fans. On that same Supermancinema site (the one featured in Entertainment Weekly), there is a copy of one letter sent to Michael Thau. It's here: http://www.thecinemaforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1098&highlight=open+letter+thau There are 340 names on this letter alone. Yes, i know forums are generally not great sources, BUT this is the forum belonging to Supermancinema. Yes, the same site that was cited by EW!

Here is a video of Thau being interviewed. Notice how he states that the fans were responsible for petitioning Warner. http://iesb.net/mambots/content/mgmediabot/players.php?params=standalone,true|type,wmv|path,http://host143.ipowerweb.com/~inlandem/newvideo/ccmichaelthau.wmv|width,400|height,400

The fortress & the green crystal
I may have missed this in older discussions about this article: What evidence do we have that Sup used the green crystal to rebuild the FOS as opposed to just fixing the control panel or something similar? I seems perfectly plausible BUT I've never seen any scenes or heard any dialogue that illustrates this, either in the theatrical or extended vers... Tommyt 15:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it was insinuated that he used it, because it was the only thing left when he returned and it was what built the FOS in the first place. Also, I think that I may have heared that Donner originally filmed that sequence of events, but I'm not sure and no one will be till the Donner version comes out in November. Bignole 15:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Guess we'll all have to wait n' see then. Tommyt 20:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Rewording required?
"*In a episode of Family Guy Peter remebers a scene in which Superman trows the crest from his chest and makes a illusion taht Non would be traped."

I've corrected the spelling in this sentence but can anybody reword it to make more sense? Having not seen "Family Guy" I don't exactly know what the poster is trying to say.

POV correction needed
There's a part in the article where it says the salkinds used Donner as "a scapegoat".I'm not trying to justify what the Salkinds did,but that's really a POV.The Salkinds belived that Donner may fail the movie by going over the budget. Basically they too have their side of the story and probably won't admit that they used him as a "scapegoat". I just think it should be removed as it's a simple POV.Nadirali 15:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali
 * Agreed. Bignole 15:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Plot hole
The whole macho brawl did not make sense.

Rocky comes into the diner looking to pick up and eat. Lois rejects him. Rocky turns away from her and does not bother her. Clark walks out and wants his seat. The diner is not full- they could have moved. Clark challenges Rocky to a fight(uncalled for- it was not like he was touching/harassing lois or that Rocky was picking a fight with Clark). Rocky hits Clark from behind- Rocky then goes and sits down. Rocky tried to end the fight fast.

Clark gets up walks over to Rocky and stares at him- very stupid- what was he waiting for- he should have thrown a punch or did something. Not stand and get attacked again. Rocky defends himself and leaves the diner in disgust.

Later...

Rocky is eating a meal and is challenged to a fight- AGAIN. Clark beats him up. Rocky breaks his hand and is humiliated. Probibly loses his job as he can not drive a truck. Maxwell Smith 10:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ummm....makes perfect sense. Since Clark lost all his super powers, he is experiencing "human" feelings, such as hunger, jealousy, rage.  Clark was trying to protect Lois and thought he was invincible.  He exacted a measure of revenge on Rocky when he got his superpowers back.
 * ArcAngel (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Walking to Superman's Fortress
If ever a 'blooper' section is added to this article, here's a blooper> Clark Kent (minus his super-powers) somehow manages to walk through snowstorms and freezing climate, back to his 'Superman Fortress'. He neither freezes or starvs to death (even more laughable, he's got no winter clothing). GoodDay 21:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC) Strike-through text

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Superman ii ver3.jpg
Image:Superman ii ver3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

1980 or 1981?
This article states that it was released in 1980 but Box Office Mojo states that it was released in 1981. Is there a more clear information on this? Jhenderson 7 7 7  14:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As noted here, it was released in several countries in December of 1980. It didn't find its way to the US until the summer season of 1981. Why they followed that marketing strategy is anybody's guess. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have my doubts about that listing, Bugs - and we know the IMDB gets things wrong sometimes, and should not be used as a reliable reference. I find it hard to believe that a film as troubled as this managed to have a finished version ready for exhibition six months ahead of its wide release in the US and the UK. We need to find vintage news stories that corroborate these early releases. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Ebert's review is dated January 1, 1981. So, at the very least, the film was available for viewing by late December of 1980. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind this comment for I figured out a little bit on the contribution history. Instead my question has something to do with the articles 1980 in film and 1981 in film since Box Office Mojo is the source for the top ten grossing films on those articles (and since Box Office Mojo deems it as a 1981 film it is listed on 1981) then which year does it really belong on the top ten list because originally I noticed it on both? Jhenderson  7 7 7  14:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Where does that site measure the total gross? Nationally or internationally? Given the limited 1980 releases, I would think most of its gross revenue came in 1981. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * So leave it on the top ten grossing films in 1981 are you recommending? I just know it's got to be one over the other. As for putting it on the list of all the films released over the certain years I would probably recommend leaving it 1980 since most sources say it is released then on this article. Jhenderson  7 7 7  15:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How do they measure the gross of other films released late in a given year? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if we had to disambiguate the title by year then it would be Superman II (1980 film) as per Naming conventions (films). There are plenty of sources saying it was released in 1980: TCM, NY Times, Allmovie, British Film Institute. It was the norm 30 years ago for film releases to span several months, and Superman II was obviously held back for the US summer season. The film should be covered by 1980 in film since that was the year it went on general release—Avatar made most of its money in 2010 but it's covered by the 2009 article, as it should be. Lots of films have a release split over two calender years so I don't quite see what the problem is with this particular film; BOM has it down as a 1981 film because it uses the US release date, but I don't see why that prevents using the source on the 1980 article.  Betty Logan (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

So which year on the top ten grossing films are you recommending, Betty Logan. I should note that it does state top ten highest-grossing films (U.S) so the release date in United States probably matters more on that list. Where 2009 in film meant worldwide. Jhenderson 7 7 7  15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously it should be covered in the domestic chart in 1981 in film, but listed as a 1980 release in 1980 in film. It's just a quirk that we'll have to accept. Betty Logan (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * And I am ok with that. Perhaps we could explain the difference of these quirks with a note. Jhenderson  7 7 7  16:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's an interview with Valerie Perrine:. It sounds like there was some sort of distribution problem in America. Betty Logan (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Hmm that's interesting. Jhenderson 7 7 7  15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That would make sense. There were always money issues with the first two films. It's amazing the films turned out as well as they did. That clip does raise the question of how Val's last name is pronounced: to rhyme with "queen" or "nine". The host of that show rhymes it with "queen", and she doesn't correct him. But I've often heard in rhymed with "nine" also. The article doesn't say. Does anyone here know? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A couple of detailed accounts of the release schedule here: (pages 124–126) and  (page 42). It was even disqualified from the 1982 Hugos on account of its 1980 release! Betty Logan (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact, those links include some stuff we can use in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Superman II was released nationwide on june 19, 1981 it needs to be changed User:Babyiluvu223 21 january 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced statements
A lot of this article contains that are totally unsourced. In fact, much of the Production Difficulties, Later releases & Television sections just seem like an editors opinions and gossip, gleaned by watching the various releases of the movie, and maybe magazine articles or internet gossip. All statements of fact need sources. Please provide them to avoid having text chopped. Ashmoo (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

British?
Why is this considered a British movie? Just wondering. Perhaps this could be more clear.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It is probably classified as British by most sources because Dovemead (owned by the Salkinds and based in London) produced the film and it was filmed mostly at Pinewood Studios in England. Betty Logan (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Superman II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090625232431/http://www.tcm.com:80/thismonth/article/?cid=90490&rss=mrqe to http://www.tcm.com/thismonth/article/?cid=90490&rss=mrqe

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Roger Ebert review
I think quoting Roger Ebert to this extent violates WP:UNDUE. We don't usually quote critics to that extent in criticism sections, and when we do it is because the critic is providing some illuminating insight into the quality of the film. As such Ebert's opinion now monopolises the section, and it is exacerbated by the fact that the extended quote is not essential to critiquing the film. Betty Logan (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Superman II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6FwgrZEgJ?url=http://snarkerati.com/movie-news/the-top-50-greatest-heroes-villains-of-all-time-total-film-compiled-list/ to http://snarkerati.com/movie-news/the-top-50-greatest-heroes-villains-of-all-time-total-film-compiled-list/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101224011850/http://comics.ign.com/top-100-villains/30.html to http://comics.ign.com/top-100-villains/30.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101223024532/http://tobaccodocuments.org/youth/AmCgPMI19791018.Lt.html to http://tobaccodocuments.org/youth/AmCgPMI19791018.Lt.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Superman II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030309213051/http://www.smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu/pdf/sfm10_variety.pdf to http://www.smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu/pdf/sfm10_variety.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

$54 million budget?
Can someone please tell me how did Superman 2 cost $54 million? weren't the scenes that Richard Donner shot part of the $55 million budget of the fist movie? The Salkinds said they wanted Superman 2 to be cheaper. If this is the case, how did it only cost $1 million cheaper?