The Official Michael Shannon IS General Zod - Part 2

[Superman_20]

Could someone explain to me why no one wants any time of the movie to be devoted to the origin part of the story? I don't get exactly why, if its because they know what happens or they think its too slow... i don't get it...


and yes it was done but it was done in a movie in a movie that was campy... it needs to be fixed for a new movie

 

[The Shield]

Tell me about it.

However "Cheesy" or "Outdated" Donner's films may be, those films have an element of magic and fun that I havent seen in most modern comic movies. If Snyder can replicate that sense of magic, thats more important to me than who superman is trading fists with.

once again....i agree, and thats what ive been saying all along.....you cant put all your eggs in one basket, if some people had their way, they would put all of supes foes in MOS..cheeze.......i understand theres no guarantee for sequels, but don't you guys want sequels?

You guys are speaking real Truth here

 

[Willi Berg]

Tell me about it.

However "Cheesy" or "Outdated" Donner's films may be, those films have an element of magic and fun that I havent seen in most modern comic movies. If Snyder can replicate that sense of magic, thats more important to me than who superman is trading fists with.

I watched Superman II last night and while there were silly elements, it was really well done, had great build up and drama and that's why it was so successful. It was a big exciting movie that works. Of course people will look back and pick it apart.

I also watched Supergirl, but that's another story...Helen Slater was pretty good casting though.

 

[terry78]

We've just become cynical in this day and age, that's all. Everything is done in an ironic humor manner.

 

[JAK®]

Look, I'm not the type of person that makes fun of movies for being outdated, but Superman: The Movie is not a film that has stood the test of time. And I'm not talking about the effects, which are still pretty good. The first two acts are very good, but as soon as Superman appears, it lets itself down, with only Reeve's performance holding the film together. It slips back into the '60s Batman feel that Donner wanted to avoid.

Superman II has a few good points but Richard Lester clearly didn't take the material seriously. III has evil Superman, and that's it. IV I don't even have to say anything about.

 

[Octoberist]

I think the humor is charming but can only work in that said era - I can't see Otis coming back to 'Man of Steel' with his 'cartoony theme music'.

 

[manofsteel4life]

What? You didnt like the line from nuclear man......RAOOOOOORRRRR!!!! Destroy superman......lol

 

[Superman_20]

Look, I'm not the type of person that makes fun of movies for being outdated, but Superman: The Movie is not a film that has stood the test of time. And I'm not talking about the effects, which are still pretty good. The first two acts are very good, but as soon as Superman appears, it lets itself down, with only Reeve's performance holding the film together. It slips back into the '60s Batman feel that Donner wanted to avoid.

Superman II has a few good points but Richard Lester clearly didn't take the material seriously. III has evil Superman, and that's it. IV I don't even have to say anything about.

even as a kid; granted by the time i had seen the superman movies as a kid i was used to seeing the more modern 80s action movies and stuff, the superman movies seemed almost like comedies.... the banter and jokes flying all the time at the daily planet didn't seem like a real work environment or like what i imagined it would be like and the 2nd superman, what was up with the scenes with the crazy people rollerblading and ice cream flying and talking on the phone in the middle of a man-made hurricane... and superman 3... wtf was up with the baby, the guy walking around looking at the girl causing all the mess at the beginning and richard pryor who i love but not for a movie thats not a comedy..... why was it made so campy? why was the material never taken seriously? that i'll never understand

 

[Octoberist]

But there's tons of older movies with 'cheesy humor' now that can a 'pass' because of their status in pop culture. I agree with Terry that we've gotten too cynical subconsciously.

 

[Willi Berg]

talking on the phone in the middle of a man-made hurricane...

LMAO!

why was it made so campy? why was the material never taken seriously? that i'll never understand

That was just the pervading style back then. Superhero movies weren't considered very adult or meant to be taken too seriously.

 

[Cousin Itt]

Great actor.

I don't care that they're using Zod again because this is an origin flick so it makes sense to use him.

 

[The Batman]

It slips back into the '60s Batman feel that Donner wanted to avoid.

Disagree with this. STM is nowhere near as campy as 60's Batman, IMO.

 

[BH/HHH]

Disagree with this. STM is nowhere near as campy as 60's Batman, IMO.

Agreed

 

[JAK®]

As a film, it isn't, but when Superman appears, the film reveals that superheroes were still seen in the same vein.

 

[the amazing fro]

I initially hated the idea of Zod being cast for the same reason as most people do. I wanted to see Brainiac or someone different and instead they seem to be repeating stuff from the Donner Movies.

But after giving it some thought, there are A LOT of interesting story ideas from Zod that just weren't picked up on in Superman 2. A great villain should reflect the hero and symbolize something within himself. Zod represents Krypton, his heritage, his place of birth. As much as he loves Kansas and Earth he still feels a strong connection to his home planet and his birthright. Its like an adopted child who finds out they are adopted. They still love their adoptive parents just as much but they have a yearning to find about their real family. Now Zod isn't family to Superman but in biological sense he's the closest thing Superman has to a relative (this is discounting supergirl of course but she's not going to be in this film so it doesn't matter). I think the idea of Superman choosing his loyalties between krypton and earth/nature and nurture is a great theme especially with a film dealing with the early days of superman.

Plus it means that there will be actual fight scenes for a change.

 

[GreenKToo]

Really? to me the first reveal of superman when he catches Lois and the helicopter still gives me chills.

 

[The Batman]

As a film, it isn't, but when Superman appears, the film reveals that superheroes were still seen in the same vein.

Again, I disagree.

 

[BH/HHH]

Really? to me the first reveal of superman when he catches Lois and the helicopter still gives me chills.

Same here

I dont think theres anything campy at all about Superman in those movies. His costume obviously looks abit dated now but it was a film made in the 70s.

 

[JAK®]

I'm not saying that Superman himself was campy. I'm just saying that the film itself changes tone when Superman, or more accurately Clark Kent, arrives in Metropolis.

 

[BH/HHH]

I'm not saying that Superman himself was campy. I'm just saying that the film itself changes tone when Superman, or more accurately Clark Kent, arrives in Metropolis.

I'll admit the gags do start when they hit Metropolis and Otis is there for comic relief (personally I loved him had me in stitches) but I dont think campy is the right word.

To me Superman the Movie is still the best comic book film ever made. When you watch it even some of the FX that dont look great now dont bother you cause the film completely sucks you in and you really do believe that you are watching Superman do his thing. Even after all these years its still an amazing film.

 

[flickchick85]

I completely agree with JAK about S:TM. I only saw the movie for the first time in college, so I never got to view it through the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia, and I honestly feel like the origin parts of the story and the Metropolis segments seemed like two different movies. It was "serious sci-fi character epic"-turned-cheesy superheroics, that yes, while not of the same "knowing camp" breed of the 60's Batman tv series, still seemed like it was born out of the same mindset that show was: That superheroes are only the stuff of goofy pulp serials for children. A far cry from the respectful origin story that preceded it.

It made the film feel far more dated than any 70's visual effects ever could, imo.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Indeed! A whole thing of candy beans for you! t:


ITA. I don't know how anyone familiar with Shannon's work could possibly think we're gonna get a retread of Terrence Stamp's character. This Zod will almost certainly be a totally different entity. One that I can't wait to see.

If he can make a slap look terrifying, think what he can bring to Zod.

He smacked the dog piss out of him...

I completely agree with JAK about S:TM. I only saw the movie for the first time in college, so I never got to view it through the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia, and I honestly feel like the origin parts of the story and the Metropolis segments seemed like two different movies. It was "serious sci-fi character epic"-turned-cheesy superheroics, that yes, while not of the same "knowing camp" breed of the 60's Batman tv series, still seemed like it came from the same mindset that show did: That superheroes are only the stuff of goofy pulp serials for children. A far cry from the respectful origin story that preceded it.

It made the film feel far more dated than any 70's visual effects ever could, imo.

My favorite part of the film is the first act. From the beginning until he becomes Superman in the Fortress of Solitude. It's so beautiful and poetic. My favorite scene in the film to this day is Clark's goodbye to Martha in the corn field. William's score is fantastic in that scene and the Fortress scene. I get chills while watching all that.

I still like this stuff with him in Metropolis. But I don't think it gets to the West camp. But Hackman's Lex and Otis make is kind of cheesy. I still love Reeve's earth shattering yell when he finds Lois dead.

If there is anything that will last about that film, Reeves' performance will be the one thing that will stand the test of time.

 

[The Shield]

I completely agree with JAK about S:TM. I only saw the movie for the first time in college, so I never got to view it through the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia, and I honestly feel like the origin parts of the story and the Metropolis segments seemed like two different movies. It was "serious sci-fi character epic"-turned-cheesy superheroics, that yes, while not of the same "knowing camp" breed of the 60's Batman tv series, still seemed like it was born out of the same mindset that show was: That superheroes are only the stuff of goofy pulp serials for children. A far cry from the respectful origin story that preceded it.

It made the film feel far more dated than any 70's visual effects ever could, imo.

It's definitely a three part movie. Even as a huge fan of the film and having watch it as a 3 year old kid for the first time, there are certain aspects of the it that I wish were tweaked. Even as a kid was never a fan of the comic relief that Otis brought. I liked his character but more for a sit-com type show.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

But after giving it some thought, there are A LOT of interesting story ideas from Zod that just weren't picked up on in Superman 2. A great villain should reflect the hero and symbolize something within himself. Zod represents Krypton, his heritage, his place of birth. As much as he loves Kansas and Earth he still feels a strong connection to his home planet and his birthright. Its like an adopted child who finds out they are adopted. They still love their adoptive parents just as much but they have a yearning to find about their real family. Now Zod isn't family to Superman but in biological sense he's the closest thing Superman has to a relative (this is discounting supergirl of course but she's not going to be in this film so it doesn't matter). I think the idea of Superman choosing his loyalties between krypton and earth/nature and nurture is a great theme especially with a film dealing with the early days of superman.

Plus it means that there will be actual fight scenes for a change.

Yeah, the idea has grown on me, mostly for all the reasons you stated

 

[SuperDaniel]

Well, to me, the scenes with Lex, Otis and Ms Teschmacher are all terrible, especially the ones that they go to change the programming of the missiles. I cannot take that Army seriously or all the characters in it. Its those moments after the Superman flight with Lois. The movie begins to be serious again by the time Clark jumps out of the window and goes to Luthor's lair, but theres about 20 mins in there that is just pure camp, cheesiness or plain stupid. It would be a perfect movie with a more modern representation of Luthor. I just hate that portrayal of Lex and all his land schemes. It wasnt so bad in STM but in SII and SR it just became really STUPID.