Okay....Which Zod is Better??

This is a hard call. But I'm skeptical of options being truly "equal" in anyone's mind, even my own. Surely one has the advantage over the other, even if at a molecular level.

Shannon Zod wanted to wipe out humanity like a termite infestation to create a new home, while Stamp's version wanted to rule us. At the same time, despite the fact we would probably survive under oppression in Stamp Zod's world, his version was somehow scarier to me. Shannon's was... sympathetic. That's fine, but I do have a personal preference.

Stamp for me. Baaaarely.

 

No love for Callum Blue? t:

 

I would've done the same thing. Lol

That was just a passing thought of mine.

 

I liked his Zod more than the others, but he has more to work with. In the end, I wouldn't really choose which one was "better" since they were all different enough to me.

 

Just had to say bravo for pointing that stuff out.....I hadn't thought of it that way, you're totally right!

 

People still talk about Terrance Stamp's Zod more than 30 years after he made his debut on the silver screen. One of the all time classic villains.

Shannon's Zod might not make it a year past the blu-ray release.

 

my vote went to Shannon

 

I liked Callum Blue's Zod but I definitely think we can all agree that the worst iteration of Zod is:

[YT]yOS2JsgXGfc[/YT]

Ah 2006, what a terrible year for all things Superman. I still cringe when I hear Rosenbaum's American accent as he says "Kneel Before Zod"

As for which Zod is better, Stamp's Zod was better back in 1970s while Shannon is now, it's all about context.

 

For me, Shannon's Zod was relatable and I could understand what he wanted to do. He transcended the usual label of "villain" and became something more. From what I interpreted while watching Man of Steel, General Zod is the representation of our feeling of wanting to assimilate with those closest to us (in terms of race/heritage/culture/etc). So, I thought it was neat to change General Zod from a generic militant to a General with a bit of depth and nostalgia for Krypton.

On the other hand, Stamp's Zod has this sinister body language that you can't help but be intimidated. I was intimidated when I watched him as a child, and I'm still intimidated now. But that's about it. I never really got that Stamp's Zod was anything more than just a villain. But that's just me.

This is a really tough debate...but IMO Shannon's Zod beat out Stamp's Zod by the skin of his teeth.

EDIT - smallville fan said it best. It's all about context, Stamp's Zod was epic for his time, and I'm sure Shannon will be for this generation.

 

Michael Shannon by a mile, Stamp was only my favorite because really, there was no one else to compare him to.

I kinda wish Shannon could come back, its lead up the best way for him to take on the whole tyrant role....


Zod: Kal, you took everything I loved from me, so in return, I'll take everything from you, these humans whom you love so much....they will all kneel.....THEY WILL KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!!!



friggen hell can anyone else actually picture Shannon delivering that

 

Stamp. I love Shannon as an actor but he needed better to work with. His Zod comes off as a moron who needlessly risks the very thing he says is most important to him.

Stamp was just a wonderful villain especially in the scenes where's he's funny w/o even knowing he's being funny(Planet Houston).

 

Hard choice for me.

It's not something like Nicholson or Ledger, or Pfeiffer or Hathaway where I quickly know who I'd vote for, but Stamp or Shannon...VERY tough call and I won't be voting, haha. Both are amazing General Zods.

 

Stamp's Zod for me....his Zod just had such a commanding, authoritative presence that was unique to him...I can't really explain it. And that voice of his at the time sounded like you an feel it in your bones. Shannon did a commendable job, but he didn't make the role his own imo. When I saw the dark knight, couldn't picture anyone else other than Heath being the joker. When I saw TDKR, couldn't picture anyone else other than Hardy as Bane. With MoS, Shannon is interchangeable with any other actor for me. In terms of backstory, depth, context, Shannon's Zod for me, but Stamp's Zod gave the superior performance....imo

 

Shannon. I'm sorry, I absolutely love Stamp's performance, but Shannon's was much better for me. Perhaps the single most intimidating body language driven performance I've ever seen. Dem eyes...

 

I voted for Stamp without hesitation.

Sure, Shannon was good in the role. Sure, his Zod is more complicated than Stamps….but Stamp’s performance is simply more memorable and iconic. Shannon’s Zod got the show stolen from him by his henchwoman.

Stamp took a second rate character and made him an A list Superman villain. I mean, Topic Creator's can condescendingly claim that people would vote for Stamp because of nostalgia, but its more like Stamp is just cooler.

 

Couldn't have said it better.

 

Shannon by far not going to diss Stamp but his performance just did not leave me that impressed. Even as a young kid I was not at all scared of Zod in Superman 2. But with Shannon's Zod I was it's his eyes and his body language that sold it.

 

Terence Stamp. Michael Shannon had a few cool moments but Terence Stamp was just brilliant. A classic villain regardless of the campy nature of his role.

 

I choose Shannon. That moment where he is in chains and he steps towards Lara, squints and tilts his head after saying, " You think your son is safe?" was the moment that won me over to his side. I do love Stamps Zod, but now that I have someone to compare him to, he played Zod in a way that made him feel like royalty. He felt more like a monarch from a lost civilization then a general. I only noticed after watching Shannons version, who seems more militaristic. The both came off as great leaders who inspire devotion, but Shannon felt more like an alien general and Stamp felt like more of alien royalty. Just my opinion.

 

Both. I think both did an excellent job. Shannon could shake Stamp's Zod off and create something new.

 

They are such different characters that's it's hard to choose between them.

Terrance Stamp's Zod is more of a tyrant/dictator than Michael Shannon's Zod. Shannon's Zod is a general in the truest sense in that he has a clear mission and is devoted to carrying out that mission at any cost, he is not necessarily interested in ruling. In fact, I don't get any real hint that Michael Shannon's Zod wants to rule at all. If that was his end goal he would just be happy with having his small group of Kryptonians rule over humans forever.

Terrance Stamp's Zod is solely motivated by ruling over people. He wants to be a king, not just a general.

So because their motivations are so different it's hard to compare the characters. I'd say I'm leaning towards Michael Shannon's version because his character, and his performance, is just more nuanced. There are more dimensions to him and his motivations. He's someone you can even empathize with, while Terrance Stamp's Zod is just a stoic *******.

Love them both, leaning Shannon.

 

I think they're equal given the fact that their performances were 33 years apart. The 1980 movie was good for it's time as well as Man Of Steel. Really hard to judge stuff like that IMO.


I think it's easier to judge performances when there's not a lot of time between movies.