The Official Michael Shannon IS General Zod - Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is never a time when it is best to stray away from the source material.

Really, dude?

You are aware that books/comic books and film are very different mediums and therefore, liberties almost always have to be taken when transitioning a story from one to the other. Even the most faithful adaptations usually have to make minor adjustments for the sake of making a better product.
 
Lord, I hope not. I'll take For Tomorrow type armor over that.

You know, if it is based on For Tomorrow, then Zod and Faora will look like Mr. and Mrs. Darth Vader.

Really, dude?

You are aware that books/comic books and film are very different mediums and therefore, liberties almost always have to be taken when transitioning a story from one to the other. Even the most faithful adaptations usually have to make minor adjustments for the sake of making a better product.

I can't name a single change in any adaptation of a superhero comic that I thought was necessary.
 
Last edited:
Abin was all CGI so he wouldn't. But in scenes where Hal was the only real thing on screen and everything else was CGI, he definitely dead.

Abin was Temuera Morrison in make-up just like Mark Strong as Sinestro. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Everything blended together just fine to me. But I was never put off by effects in a movie.
 
Shannon isn't doing an english accent? I have to listen to an American Kryptonian? That's bad. Better than a Geordie one tiough thats for sure :hehe:

I wouldn't mind if the scenes on Krypton had the actors speaking a different language and using subtitles.
 
LOL, at least he's averting the trope of the evil brit in movies.
 
LOL, at least he's averting the trope of the evil brit in movies.
I'd rather have it back. It makes us Brits feel important and shows us as powerfully evil in American minds and the culture :lmao:
 
Really, dude?

You are aware that books/comic books and film are very different mediums and therefore, liberties almost always have to be taken when transitioning a story from one to the other. Even the most faithful adaptations usually have to make minor adjustments for the sake of making a better product.

lol, what's closer to a movie than a comic book?
 
Lord, I hope not. I'll take For Tomorrow type armor over that.

You know, if it is based on For Tomorrow, then Zod and Faora will look like Mr. and Mrs. Darth Vader.



I can't name a single change in any adaptation of a superhero comic that I thought was necessary.

Well, I'm not sure what your opinions are of Nolan's Batman movies, but I think those are good examples of films that took liberties with the source material in order to better fit the structure of the movie, yet still managed to be faithful adaptations. Some have criticized the films for stripping out some of the more comic book-esque aspects but given that Batman is intended to be a more realistic hero, those changes fit the tone. That's not to say that the films don't have their share of fantastical attributes but on the whole, they are more believable than most superhero movies.

Additionally, other liberties taken allowed for various characters to be used within the confines of the stories. Zsasz was never a mob hitman in the comics, but making him one in the film allows us to see a character onscreen that might not have appeared otherwise. Jonathan Crane was never a doctor at Arkham Asylum, but by making him one in the film, we are able to incorporate both the Scarecrow and Arkham into the movie. If they had gone with his origin as a lunatic professor, that would have required a whole other backstory to an already complex movie.
 
Every story is somewhat changed when it goes from a book to a movie. None is 100% faithful. If you read the "Jurassic Park" novel for example and watch the movie, you would notice for example that there is no love story between the paleontologists. Dr. Grant is the teacher of Dr. Sattler.

The lawyer is not a coward in the book, and in fact is the one pushing for the park to be available to everyone and not only the super-rich while Donald, the owner of the park is actually the one that wants the park to be accessible only to the rich and mentions they should have a coupon day.

It is normal that some things are going to be changed when a movie is made based off of a book or even based off of a true story.
 
Yeah, they drastically changed parts of Jurassic Park... some of those changes I didn't like (my biggest gripe was turning nerdy, bookish Malcolm into a womanizing *****ebag) but the film still worked overall. The changes they made to The Lost World (not a great book to begin with)... yeah, let's not go there. But all the adaptations... the good ones and the bad ones... almost always change something. Even in some of the most faithful adaptations, like Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange, there are some minor tweaks here and there, as well as an epilogue that was left out (although that might not count since some versions of the book also don't contain the last chapter).
 
Well, I'm not sure what your opinions are of Nolan's Batman movies, but I think those are good examples of films that took liberties with the source material in order to better fit the structure of the movie, yet still managed to be faithful adaptations. Some have criticized the films for stripping out some of the more comic book-esque aspects but given that Batman is intended to be a more realistic hero, those changes fit the tone. That's not to say that the films don't have their share of fantastical attributes but on the whole, they are more believable than most superhero movies.

Additionally, other liberties taken allowed for various characters to be used within the confines of the stories. Zsasz was never a mob hitman in the comics, but making him one in the film allows us to see a character onscreen that might not have appeared otherwise. Jonathan Crane was never a doctor at Arkham Asylum, but by making him one in the film, we are able to incorporate both the Scarecrow and Arkham into the movie. If they had gone with his origin as a lunatic professor, that would have required a whole other backstory to an already complex movie.

I tolerate changes because Hollywood views comics as trash, and therefore will never adapt them faithfully, but that doesn't mean that I accept their lies that things have to be changed. A thing like Crane's origin is a tolerable change to me because Crane himself is basically the same character still.

I do hope that one day, an adaptation of an upbeat superhero series (not a deconstructionist series like Watchmen) will be done with the goal to be as faithful as possible. And they are getting closer all the time-Iron Man I and Thor were both pretty close in a lot of ways. I think a more self-contained series like New Gods or Inhumans would work with a very faithful adaptation. And no doubt, non-superhero books like Sgt Rock would be great if kept true to the comics...so they want to do Sgt. Rock as a futuristic war story instead...idiots.
 
Last edited:
I think it's a tad harsh to say that they view comics as trash. Perhaps they view SOME comics that way and yeah, I don't understand some of the stupid changes they make (a futuristic Sgt. Rock, WTF?) but I don't think all studios have that attitude. Like anything, it's a business and they make movies based on the profits they believe they can derive from them. Like you said, Iron Man and Thor were pretty close... I would even argue that Green Lantern was too, even if everyone hated it for whatever reason. Captain America was also pretty faithful and in some ways could be construed as MORE comic booky than the comic book (lack of "traditional" Nazis in favor of a more sci-fi offshoot).

Anyway, you also mentioned that the changes to Crane were okay because he remained the same character, and I would agree... so changing a costume like Zod's M. Bison uniform really doesn't change anything as long as the character is intact. And the comics even did away with that uniform as well.
 
The futuristic Sgt. Rock isn't happening anymore. It's back to WWII and back with Guy Ritchie.
 
Sorry to keep off-topic, but the article it came from:

Ritchie passed on Xerxes, but as you can certainly tell by now, Warner Bros. is not the type to just let a cherished director walk away. Insiders tell us that Ritchie is now in the midst of making a deal to oversee an adaptation of DC Comics' WWII hero series Sgt. Rock. Warner-based producer Joel Silver had originally optioned the project for Ritchie years ago, when he was making Rock N Rolla. Ritchie ultimately bailed to make Sherlock Holmes, and director Francis Lawrence took his place, albeit with a futuristic version penned by Chad St. John. Now Vulture hears that Sgt. Rock is going back to its Greatest Generation roots. Ritchie has been overseeing the development of Arabian Nights — a reimagining of the classic fairy tale that includes all sorts of characters like Sinbad the Sailor and Ali Baba — but feels the Nights script by Cole Haddon (Dark Horse Comics' graphic novel, The Strange Case of Hyde) needs a lot of work. As such, the studio feels like if they quickly make the fixes Ritchie wants on Sgt. Rock, it could well be his next film.

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/07/harry_potter_dark_knight_rises.html
 
That's good. I never understand changes that are THAT drastic, particularly when its a more obscure character like Sgt. Rock that not many people know these days anyway. It's like, why even use the name then? Just make a different movie altogether and call it something else.

Kind of like what happened with Wanted. That movie was so drastically changed from the comic that all you would have had to do was change the name of the main character and the title and I don't think anyone would have realized what it was based on.
 
New Shannon Interview
Terence stamp's general zod in superman 2 is widely considered to be one of the greatest comic book villains ever in movies. When you took the role of zod for man of steel, did you feel pressure?
terence-stamp-general-zod.jpg
michael shannon
: Oh definitely. Terence stamp set a very high standard. Before we started filming, my girlfriend actually had superman 2 on and i saw him—i hadn't seen it in years—and, yeah, it was pretty intimidating. But i think you kind of have to approach it like starting from scratch and it will be different. It's a different take on it; it's not anything i can really talk about in too much detail without getting in trouble. I can say that he's not just a cold blooded villain, you know? In his own way, he's a person just like anybody else and he's fighting for something that he believes in.

had you read a lot of superman comics before taking on the role?
not in a long time. When i was little, i had these two cousins i was pretty close with that had huge comic book collections, and i'd go out and visit them and we would just look at comic books for hours, all different types of comics, and that was a lot of fun. But i hadn't bought a comic book in ages.

did you have a favorite hero or villain when you were younger?

i liked the silver surfer. I thought he was pretty cool, just the look of him surfing through space on a silver surf board.

general zod is not just a cold blooded villain. In his own way, he's a person just like anybody else and he's fighting for something that he believes in.


so are you immersing yourself in superman comics now?

definitely. Before shooting started, i was talking to henry [cavill], who is playing superman, and he told me about this app you can get at dc comics, and they've got the whole series you can look at, and he was giving me some recommendations.
was there anything particular you did to get inside zod's head and determine your approach to the character?
well, for me, it always starts with the script; i find most of the clues or the guide posts for the character are in the writing, particularly if the writing is strong, and then you just have to use your imagination and try and figure out you know what the persons up against and what it feels like to be them.
when you're playing somebody like zod, it's not a lot of hands-on research you can do. It's not like i can go prowling around in a cop car or you know go work at a bar or something and see what it's like. There's nothing to equate [being general zod] to; it's really in your imagination. I mean, i thought the fact that he's a general is something that i could explore, a way into it looking at other real-life generals, 'cause they all have a pretty intense bearing and a very particular way of being so i looked at generals in the army nowadays, general petraeus, people like that, watching interviews with them trying to get to capture that “steely” nature.
http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/...g-general-zod-in-zack-snyders-superman-reboot
 
They got the right guy.
 
Dude sounds great. Acting for most comic book movies in the past few years has been pretty spotless for the most part.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
202,359
Messages
22,091,983
Members
45,886
Latest member
Elchido
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"