The Official Michael Shannon IS General Zod - Part 2

[BH/HHH]

It always amuses me when the fans are like "NOT ZOD AGAIN!!" as if we have been constantly inundated with Zod in live action adaptations.

No, this is only the second time we have seen Zod on screen in 30 years.

It's all because in the SR days, the fans were going on about how SR was a copy of STM and joked that Singer was going to follow it up with a SII remake, featuring Zod. This joke was repeated ad nauseum until they started to believe it as fact. Which was silly because an interview with the writers said that wasn't the case. Still, didn't stop them.

So, to these people, Zod has been a constant presence in live action Superman, purely based on ideas in their own heads.

Yeah totally agree only other thing I can think of is he's been pretty prominent in the comics more recently (well before the New 52 started).

I really can't wait to see Michael Shannon as Zod on the big screen, seeing him battle Cavill's Superman is gonna be amazing.

Also I don't really get why Zack and Henry didn't mention he's playing Zod because Shannon himself has mentioned it so many times already its really no secret.

 

[Krumm]

Yeah totally agree only other thing I can think of is he's been pretty prominent in the comics more recently (well before the New 52 started).

I really can't wait to see Michael Shannon as Zod on the big screen, seeing him battle Cavill's Superman is gonna be amazing.

Also I don't really get why Zack and Henry didn't mention he's playing Zod because Shannon himself has mentioned it so many times already its really no secret.

Maybe he is A villain not THE villain...

 

[Rowsdower!]

It always amuses me when the fans are like "NOT ZOD AGAIN!!" as if we have been constantly inundated with Zod in live action adaptations.

No, this is only the second time we have seen Zod on screen in 30 years.

It's all because in the SR days, the fans were going on about how SR was a copy of STM and joked that Singer was going to follow it up with a SII remake, featuring Zod. This joke was repeated ad nauseum until they started to believe it as fact. Which was silly because an interview with the writers said that wasn't the case. Still, didn't stop them.

So, to these people, Zod has been a constant presence in live action Superman, purely based on ideas in their own heads.

I think you're looking at this the wrong way. I was one of the ones that was upset when they announced Zod as the bad guy, but I'm cool with it now and just hoping for a great movie.

But the reasons weren't as simple as you're making them out to be. True, SR was a rehash of Superman '78 and many did assume Singer was going to rehash Superman II if he had gotten to make a sequel. As it turned out, that wasn't what would have happened, but no matter since the movie was never made.

The issue many of us had with Zod was that he's only a known villain due to Superman II. He hasn't, until very recently, been a very significant villain in the comics... every so often the writers would reintroduce him in some new way and then apparently sh**can the whole thing after a few issues (see: Russian Zod, Jim Lee Zod, etc.). So really, the only definitive Zod we've gotten was the Superman II Zod, and with this movie claiming it wants to break the mold and not take things from the previous franchise, choosing Zod as the villain is a questionable approach.

Moreover, the complaints also stem from the fact that Superman has an entire rogues gallery that remains untouched. Brainiac, Parasite, Eradicator and others might make for amazing movie villains, and yet they were apparently eschewed in favor of a character that many in the core fanbase (the comic book readers) have never been all that interested in.

Some would argue that this is also why Lex Luthor shouldn't be used in a movie either, since he's already been featured on film. The trouble there though is that we've never really gotten a proper version of Luthor on film. The version we have received has tarnished the character's image to some degree. So in a sense, it's actually the reverse of Zod. People who know and like the Zod character probably know him from Superman II (or were at least introduced to him that way) while those who love the character of Lex probably wish they could forget Hackman's and Spacey's campy portrayals of the character.

 

[BH/HHH]

Maybe he is A villain not THE villain...

Well we know he teams with Faora so your right in that respect but I think Zod will definitely be THE main villain. They were probably just teasing so they can do a big reveal like TDKR did with Bane.

 

[sup101]

I think you're looking at this the wrong way. I was one of the ones that was upset when they announced Zod as the bad guy, but I'm cool with it now and just hoping for a great movie.

But the reasons weren't as simple as you're making them out to be. True, SR was a rehash of Superman '78 and many did assume Singer was going to rehash Superman II if he had gotten to make a sequel. As it turned out, that wasn't what would have happened, but no matter since the movie was never made.

The issue many of us had with Zod was that he's only a known villain due to Superman II. He hasn't, until very recently, been a very significant villain in the comics... every so often the writers would reintroduce him in some new way and then apparently sh**can the whole thing after a few issues (see: Russian Zod, Jim Lee Zod, etc.). So really, the only definitive Zod we've gotten was the Superman II Zod, and with this movie claiming it wants to break the mold and not take things from the previous franchise, choosing Zod as the villain is a questionable approach.

Moreover, the complaints also stem from the fact that Superman has an entire rogues gallery that remains untouched. Brainiac, Parasite, Eradicator and others might make for amazing movie villains, and yet they were apparently eschewed in favor of a character that many in the core fanbase (the comic book readers) have never been all that interested in.

Some would argue that this is also why Lex Luthor shouldn't be used in a movie either, since he's already been featured on film. The trouble there though is that we've never really gotten a proper version of Luthor on film. The version we have received has tarnished the character's image to some degree. So in a sense, it's actually the reverse of Zod. People who know and like the Zod character probably know him from Superman II (or were at least introduced to him that way) while those who love the character of Lex probably wish they could forget Hackman's and Spacey's campy portrayals of the character.

so you saying Terence Stamp zod was the proper version?he was one dimensional ,he had a ugly outfit,he was cheesy.we didn't even get to see the real zod in superman 2.we didn't even get to know him and see where he come from,his backstory and i'm sure they will show that in mos.zod come from krypton just like superman,the only difference is that zod is a badass long b4 he get powers on earth,he a skilled warrior and military tactiton on krypton,he run the military on krypton.they will show that in mos.it's personal with zod.the story you can get with zod you can't get it with any other villain.Michael Shannon zod will be the real version of zod.

 

[The Guard]

The issue many of us had with Zod was that he's only a known villain due to Superman II. He hasn't, until very recently, been a very significant villain in the comics... every so often the writers would reintroduce him in some new way and then apparently sh**can the whole thing after a few issues (see: Russian Zod, Jim Lee Zod, etc.). So really, the only definitive Zod we've gotten was the Superman II Zod, and with this movie claiming it wants to break the mold and not take things from the previous franchise, choosing Zod as the villain is a questionable approach.

Zod has been a major Superman villain since the 80's.

He doesn't show up often, but when he does, his visits are impactful, and some of the more emotional storylines in the Superman mythos feature Zod.

Terrance Stamp's Zod was okay...for SUPERMAN II's era. Ditto SMALLVILLE's. Zod can be better portrayed. There is enormous potential with the character.

 

[TheBat812]

I really hope Lex is in this movie as Superman starts coming into the picture. He's really such an important figure, and will influence so much of the arcs for future films, it would be cool to at least see them start building up LuthorCorp as a big corporate influence in Metropolis

 

[Asr]

^ I think you've been watching too much Smallville.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Zod has been a major Superman villain since the 80's.

He doesn't show up often, but when he does, his visits are impactful, and some of the more emotional storylines in the Superman mythos feature Zod.

Terrance Stamp's Zod was okay...for SUPERMAN II's era. Ditto SMALLVILLE's. Zod can be better portrayed. There is enormous potential with the character.

Also, Zod seems to fit in with the themes and journey of Clark in this film. Which is most important for a villain. So if Zod fits the most in their approach, then Zod it is. Despite a want to see a new and different villain, if it fits, it fits.

Plus, I'm pretty sure Shannon's Zod will be a hell of a lot different than Stamp's.

And uh... I still maintain the modern GA isn't really gonna remember Zod from Superman II, especially if Shannon portrays him differently.

 

[solidsnake86]

Zod has been a major Superman villain since the 80's.

He doesn't show up often, but when he does, his visits are impactful, and some of the more emotional storylines in the Superman mythos feature Zod.

Terrance Stamp's Zod was okay...for SUPERMAN II's era. Ditto SMALLVILLE's. Zod can be better portrayed. There is enormous potential with the character.

Finally someone gets it. His character has so much potential mostly for the fact that he can provide not only a physical challenge to superman, but an emotional one as well. Thats something that was not explored in Superman II.

 

[Project862006]

he also can bring more background of krypton heritage that has'nt fully been explored on screen

he is a more personal villain and can question clark's loyalty to humans or to his people

 

[Doc Ock]

While I would love to have Brainiac as a villain for a Superman villain more than anything else, but saying that Zod is one of the coolest villains in the world of Superman. He is just like a evil Superman, not like Bizarro or Ultraman but the true opposite. I think having Zod as the main villain can mean so many great things. And bad things if done incorrectly...

 

[Spuzz]

Can someone explain to me in, say, three sentences why you think Zod is right for this first Snyder/Supes film as a villain?

 

[Project862006]

Can someone explain to me in, say, three sentences why you think Zod is right for this first Snyder/Supes film as a villain?

I think he is the perfect villain for the Snyder MOS reboot because not only is general zod such a great villain he posses a physical threat for superman.Everyone has wanted superman to throw a punch and fight on screen and zod is that formidable foe in my opinion not only that but zod is a very personal villain for Clark.He comes from Krypton for clark he can bring background and history of the heritage of krypton something we have rarely seen he even can question where clark's loyalty lies and even make him question himself of siding with humans or siding with zod a man of kryptonian blood just like Clark.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I honestly think Zod is going to be this films Ra's. An older potential father figure, who knows where Kal-El is coming from, who also has a different view of what to do with the world. I personally wouldn't have used him for the first film, but I can see where they are potentially going.

 

[Silvermoth]

Can someone explain to me in, say, three sentences why you think Zod is right for this first Snyder/Supes film as a villain?

He's awesome. He can match Superman on a power scale as well as an emotion one. Alright to be honest I actually would have liked them to try someone new like Brainiac but I'm not going to cry about using Zod.

There you go. Three sentences.

 

[Herolee10]

Can someone explain to me in, say, three sentences why you think Zod is right for this first Snyder/Supes film as a villain?

Like others have said, he's someone that's definitely useful for a origin film considering his ties to Krypton and Jor-el; which would help make things more cohesive when diving back into Krypton's backstory and Zod's own.

Plus, budget wise, he's easier to do visually in terms of appearance as opposed to villains like Brainiac, Darkseid, Doomsday.

He's also intelligent, and like some have said, represents the worst of Krypton which could be served as jab at the gut for Clark given on his longing for his home world.

 

[Krumm]

Can someone explain to me in, say, three sentences why you think Zod is right for this first Snyder/Supes film as a villain?

I second what everyone else has said. That being said:

Also, as I said recently somewhere on these boards, the conflict can between Superman and Zod can (and most likely will), mirror the current cultural and religious conflicts in the world. This can help the film to resonate more with audiences as they can recognize the point of views and the stakes of such a conflict. I think one of the big reasons the Nolan series has succeeded is because it's themes have struck a chord with the post 9/11 world and I think MOS can have the same impact if done right.

 

[sethypants]

Maybe he is A villain not THE villain...

omg yes. BRAINIAC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Zionite1]

I second what everyone else has said. That being said:

Also, as I said recently somewhere on these boards, the conflict can between Superman and Zod can (and most likely will), mirror the current cultural and religious conflicts in the world. This can help the film to resonate more with audiences as they can recognize the point of views and the stakes of such a conflict. I think one of the big reasons the Nolan series has succeeded is because it's themes have struck a chord with the post 9/11 world and I think MOS can have the same impact if done right.

You know this is what I want to see in Superman stories in comics,and movies-A superman that tackles issue that strike a cord with Real life.That was the true essnece of Superman in the Golden age-A superman who battled the evils of his day.

 

[Spuzz]

Interesting. Looking forward to Shannon's role a lot more now. Yeah Brainiac would be amazing, maybe in a sequel? Think we could ever see Darkseid in a movie?

 

[sup101]

Interesting. Looking forward to Shannon's role a lot more now. Yeah Brainiac would be amazing, maybe in a sequel? Think we could ever see Darkseid in a movie?

I think it's gonna be lex and Brainiac and the sequel. then maybe lex again with doomsday in part 3. zod is a good villian to start with in a origin story and he bringing a few other villains along with him.Faora coming with him and atlease one big cgi monster from the Phantom Zone from what we've seen and the set pics.

 

[sup101]

Interesting. Looking forward to Shannon's role a lot more now. Yeah Brainiac would be amazing, maybe in a sequel? Think we could ever see Darkseid in a movie?

got to save Darkseid for the justice league movie.

 

[Herolee10]

got to save Darkseid for the justice league movie.

I wouldn't considering that the chances of them successfully getting a JLA film off the ground, let alone having it come off as successful and well received are very very very very slim imho. I would rather allow Superman to take him on in his own film.

 

[Rust]

Introduce Darkseid in a MOS-movie and then bring him in full capacity in a JL- or WF-movie. Returning villains have the most gravitas and impact, especially in the cross-over/shared universe.