Because people usually love superhero movies for their daring originality. 
Superman (casting, rumors, pix till release)
- Thread starter Obiwanshinobi
- Start date
^ LOL.
Because people usually love superhero movies for their daring originality.
I love the unpleasable fanbase!
"OMG! They are doing the same thing AGAIN! Ugh...hacks!"
or
"OMG! Something is different! They clearly don't get it! Boycott!"
[sarcasm]Also, Martha Kent will be in it, so Clark obviously will have half of his weekly salary send to her. Since reboots never change anything.[/sarcasm]
Michael Shannon talks about his casting of Zod.
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=76343
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=76343
Nowhere Man
Commodore
Hearing this guy talk I wanna hear him say "Kneal before Zod", Superman:"I refuse to kneal before you." Zod:" Forget about it."
I still don't think this Zod choice can be justified as being a good idea because it will be a "re-interpretation". What happened to "If it a'int broke, don't fix it?". I was all for a new Joker because as fun as Nicholson was, he didn't come close to fully fleshing out such a potentially fascinating and complex character. I'm all for a new Bane, because Bane in "Batman & Robin" was an absolute zero of a character that did nothing but grunt and growl out one word exclamations.
On the other hand, General Zod, as played by Terence Stamp was PERFECT just the way he was. Completely unique and iconic in a way that even Nicholson wasn't. Over 30 years later, people are still talking about "KNEEL BEFORE ZOD", creating ironic websites about him and using his image for satirical purposes, like so:
Kneel, indeed. Were I younger, more impulsive, and immature enough to not realize that they don't make a difference, I'd start a petition campaigning to make sure no one else ever plays this role.
As I said before, I guarantee you they'll go for a more serious take on the character and IT DOESN'T NEED THAT. As much as T-800 in the Terminator movies, Marty McFly, Inspector Clouseau, Indiana Jones, John McClaine, Fox Mulder, Dana Scully, Ashley J. Campbell, Snake Plissken, Rocky Balboa, Jack Sparrow, Tony Montana, Michael Corleone, The Tramp and countless other iconic characters, this is a role that I think should only ever be played by one actor and never re-cast.
And I'll back up the person calling Michael Shannon a relative unknown. I'm a huge movie buff who watches tons of movies per year (to be fair, most of them are old) and I don't recall ever seeing him in anything. His IMDB page says he was in three movies I've seen: "Groundhog Day", "Vanilla Sky", and "Tigerland". He didn't leave enough of an impression (or had too small a role) for me to remember him in any of those. I do wish I'd seen "8 Mile" and "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" and probably will in the future.
Not every person nominated for an Oscar is well-known and not everyone watches HBO. This is all moot, though, because it doesn't matter how famous or not famous an actor is, as long as they're right for the part. I've got nothing against Michael Shannon, I just don't think anyone is right for this part besides the man who already played it. As far as I'm concerned, no one else can ever put their 'stamp' on the character.
On the other hand, General Zod, as played by Terence Stamp was PERFECT just the way he was. Completely unique and iconic in a way that even Nicholson wasn't. Over 30 years later, people are still talking about "KNEEL BEFORE ZOD", creating ironic websites about him and using his image for satirical purposes, like so:
Kneel, indeed. Were I younger, more impulsive, and immature enough to not realize that they don't make a difference, I'd start a petition campaigning to make sure no one else ever plays this role.
As I said before, I guarantee you they'll go for a more serious take on the character and IT DOESN'T NEED THAT. As much as T-800 in the Terminator movies, Marty McFly, Inspector Clouseau, Indiana Jones, John McClaine, Fox Mulder, Dana Scully, Ashley J. Campbell, Snake Plissken, Rocky Balboa, Jack Sparrow, Tony Montana, Michael Corleone, The Tramp and countless other iconic characters, this is a role that I think should only ever be played by one actor and never re-cast.
And I'll back up the person calling Michael Shannon a relative unknown. I'm a huge movie buff who watches tons of movies per year (to be fair, most of them are old) and I don't recall ever seeing him in anything. His IMDB page says he was in three movies I've seen: "Groundhog Day", "Vanilla Sky", and "Tigerland". He didn't leave enough of an impression (or had too small a role) for me to remember him in any of those. I do wish I'd seen "8 Mile" and "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" and probably will in the future.
Not every person nominated for an Oscar is well-known and not everyone watches HBO. This is all moot, though, because it doesn't matter how famous or not famous an actor is, as long as they're right for the part. I've got nothing against Michael Shannon, I just don't think anyone is right for this part besides the man who already played it. As far as I'm concerned, no one else can ever put their 'stamp' on the character.
J
Jetfire
Guest
Callum Blue played Zod on Smallville & will play him again in an ep before the series ends...so it isn't like no one in live action hasn't played Zod since Terence Stamp. Michael Rosenbaum played Zod in Lex's body at the end of S5 & Beginning of S6. You can try to argue that it is only on TV but lets be real...'Man Of Steel' is a new movie that will be made as if nothing has come before it according to Zack Snyder.
Yeah, I was vaguely aware of Zod appearing in some form on "Smallville", but I've never watched the show and this is one of the reasons I have no intention to. I don't know about this movie. Regardless of how original it may be, I think it would be really hard to watch someone else in a role that I identify so strongly with one actor and never wanted to see played by anyone else. The movie would have to have a lot of other great stuff going on to keep me from feeling too bummed out about that.
No offense, but I think you're prematurely over reacting. Wouldn't you want to wait until they finish casting and release more info on the plot, see photos, trailer etc. before you totally write it off?
I can take Zod if they do it it well but I, too, would like to see a good take on Braniac. That said I just don't want to see Lex Luthor for awhile.
Well I thought my post made it clear that I'm not totally writing it off. I'm open to the possibility that it can still be an enjoyable movie despite the presence of someone else in the Zod role. I may still watch it. I'm just saying no matter what it's going to bother me that someone else is playing the character, no matter how good he or the rest of the movie may be.
Last edited:
+1And I'll back up the person calling Michael Shannon a relative unknown. I'm a huge movie buff who watches tons of movies per year (to be fair, most of them are old) and I don't recall ever seeing him in anything. His IMDB page says he was in three movies I've seen: "Groundhog Day", "Vanilla Sky", and "Tigerland". He didn't leave enough of an impression (or had too small a role) for me to remember him in any of those. I do wish I'd seen "8 Mile" and "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" and probably will in the future.
Not every person nominated for an Oscar is well-known and not everyone watches HBO. This is all moot, though, because it doesn't matter how famous or not famous an actor is, as long as they're right for the part. I've got nothing against Michael Shannon, I just don't think anyone is right for this part besides the man who already played it. As far as I'm concerned, no one else can ever put their 'stamp' on the character.
I read that diss and thought the same thing. But I had limited time at that moment and didn't reply. I watch mostly a mix of movies from the last 5 or so years and check to see who wins the Academy Awards(don't watch the show but check the winners). Michael Shannon isn't someone who has jumped out at me. Heck I just saw Michael Fassbender in something last night and while he was a competent actor you'd think he was an acting genius if you've been following the X-Men:First Class thread. Maybe my following of that thread built my expectations too high for him.
I hope Shannon does a great Zod but he isn't "well known" even by people who watch plenty of movies imo. So it's possible his performance will allow people to see Zod and not *insert really well known name here* playing Zod.
Well, Indiana Jones has already been played by Harrison Ford, River Phoenix, Sean Patrick Flannery and two other actors in The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, who I'm too lazy to IMDB. Inspector Clouseau has been played by Peter Sellers, Alan Arkin, Steve Martin and (kinda) Roger Moore.
The characters you name differ from Zod because they were by and large created for the screen and personified by the actors playing them. Zod was a comic character who was first played on screen by Terence Stamp. He was not created by or for Terence Stamp. I agree that Stamp's performance is highly memorable but the character doesn't belong to him any more than Superman belongs to Chris Reeve. Besides, if Mr Spock, Captain Kirk, Obi-Wan Kenobi and others can be re-cast, then so can Zod. I'm not dying on the character being used in this movie, but there's nothing wrong with reinterpreting him for a new generation of movie-goers.
He didn't call him a relative unknown. He called him an unknown. Which, with an Oscar nom under his belt and having worked with Scorsese, Sam Mendes, Joel Schumacher, Curtis Hanson, Michael Bay, Oliver Stone and Sidney Lumet he's clearly not.
This is all moot, though, because it doesn't matter how famous or not famous an actor is, as long as they're right for the part. I've got nothing against Michael Shannon, I just don't think anyone is right for this part besides the man who already played it. As far as I'm concerned, no one else can ever put their 'stamp' on the character.
Well, we'll see when the movie is released. But this is clearly more on you than on Shannon.
^ I'd say this mentality is all on Too Much Fun. Remember Adam West on The Simpons? "Michelle Pfeiffer? Ha! The only true Catwoman is Julie Newmar, Lee Meriwether, or Eartha Kitt."
You mean like how Christopher Reeve was the definitive Superman, so therefore there shouldn't be another one?
Don't forget Kirk and Spock!
You mean like how Christopher Reeve was the definitive Superman, so therefore there shouldn't be another one?
Don't forget Kirk and Spock!
I figured someone would make a rebuttal like this, so I had this reply ready to go. It's not the same as someone playing the younger version of a character, or playing a movie character in a TV adaptation. This is why I don't think the other Indiana Jones actors invalidate my theory. Harrison Ford is the definitive big screen middle-aged Indiana Jones. Casting anyone else in that role would be wrong and would be rightfully derided.
The same goes for the Star Wars and Star Trek characters. Re-casting them as young characters is not the same as re-casting Alec Guiness, William Shatner, or Leonard Nimoy. Can you imagine how fans would react if there was a new Star Trek series set in the same period as the original Star Trek series, with the same characters at the same age, but played by different actors? How stupid and pointless would that be? A younger version of a character might as well be a completely different character.
The other actors playing Inspector Clouseau just prove my point. They were pale imitations of the original. Inspector Clouseau was a defining role in the career of Peter Sellers, who had a distinguished career and made the character his own. Anyone playing the role would have to be compared to him, and inevitably compared unfavorably.
As for James Bond, Sherlock Holmes, Superman, Batman, and various other superheroes, that's different. By design, those characters are always going to be re-cast and reinterpreted by different directors in different eras. They are the main characters of their own franchises, and therefore, must be re-cast in order for the franchises to be sustained. They are not simply products of their times, but can be tweaked to work in different eras.
Heroes will always change actors. I see no reason for an actor to play a villain that had appeared in a past superhero movie if the villain had been portrayed to its full potential. All of the interpretations of Batman villains in Burton/Schumacher films were shallow and underdeveloped in their own ways, so they're all fair game to be revisited by future Batman directors.
Gene Hackman was great as Lex Luthor, but aside from a few isolated moments, he played the character as a comedic figure. His version also had a real estate fetish. A more sinister, menacing, intimidating and brilliant scientist Luthor would be fresh territory for a Superman movie (as long as he's not as boring as Spacey's Luthor).
Zod was played straight, even if his bravado was intentionally over-the-top so we could get laughs from it. He was both serious and funny. Dangerously ruthless, yet amusingly naive enough to be fooled by Superman. I can't see how anything more could be done with the character or improved from how it was written and played with Terence Stamp in the role.
For more examples of actor and role synergy that just can't be replicated, look what happened when Vince Vaughn (an actor whose work I've loved) played Norman Bates. Nobody but Anthony Perkins could do that role justice. Does anyone else want to see a new Dr. Octopus? Hans Gruber from "Die Hard"? T-1000? Keyzer Sose? Alex DeLarge? Mr. Blonde? Hans Landa? Some villains are so strongly identified with and so masterfully played by certain actors that to put anyone else in their role would just be redundant and lame.
I'm inclined to feel the same way about Terence Stamp as Zod, but actually, I'm not quite as appalled as I was about Steve Martin playing Clouseau (and I've loved Steve Martin's work too). I'm completely willing to accept the possibility that Michael Shannon could do a great job as the character and define it for a whole generation.
I just personally think it's very unnecessary. First of all because I see no reason to have someone else play a role that has (in my opinion) already been played to perfection, and second of all because it would be better and fresher to see a Superman villain who hasn't been featured in a movie before.
P.S. I accidentally wrote "Ashley J. Campbell" instead of "Ashley J. Williams", confusing the name of the character with the name of the actor. Actually, maybe that just reinforces my point by demonstrating how strongly we associate actors with characters they play brilliantly.
There's no such thing as perfection, and there's always room for a new interpretation.
I'm glad people back in Elizabethan England didn't think the same way as you. I'm not terribly fond of the idea of nobody else ever playing Romeo and Juliet, or Hamlet, or Othello, or Macbeth, after those original performers because people just couldn't fathom anyone else ever doing it better.
I'm glad people back in Elizabethan England didn't think the same way as you. I'm not terribly fond of the idea of nobody else ever playing Romeo and Juliet, or Hamlet, or Othello, or Macbeth, after those original performers because people just couldn't fathom anyone else ever doing it better.
^ So you can recast a superhero but not a supervillain? Or just not this particular supervillain? I just don't agree with that. I think Chris Reeve's Superman was at least as iconic and as fully played as Stamp's Zod. Stamp just played one take on Zod. You can't say the role was played to full potential until you see what someone else does with it. Should no-one else play Macbeth or Richard III because Olivier played them so well?
I don't disagree with all of your post; particularly about Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates, but I think it's fair to say that this movie will not be a shot-for-shot remake of Superman II like Gus Van Sant's Psycho. Nor do I disagree with you on the issue of necessity - but equally, do we need a new Superman movie? Do we need a new Spider-man movie, another Batman movie? Movies aren't about necessity, they're about (hopefully) entertainment. (And business too, for that matter). Zod wasn't my preferred choice for this movie's villain but I'm glad they got a good actor and one who is a very different actor to Terence Stamp to play him.
As regards Hans Gruber etc, we come back to the point that Zod is a comic strip creation, not a written-for-the-screen character like Keyser Soze or the like. As such, he's fair game for reinterpretation.
Edit - my post overlapped with that of Skywalker and is aimed at Too Much Fun. The references to Shakespearean characters are coincidental!
I don't disagree with all of your post; particularly about Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates, but I think it's fair to say that this movie will not be a shot-for-shot remake of Superman II like Gus Van Sant's Psycho. Nor do I disagree with you on the issue of necessity - but equally, do we need a new Superman movie? Do we need a new Spider-man movie, another Batman movie? Movies aren't about necessity, they're about (hopefully) entertainment. (And business too, for that matter). Zod wasn't my preferred choice for this movie's villain but I'm glad they got a good actor and one who is a very different actor to Terence Stamp to play him.
As regards Hans Gruber etc, we come back to the point that Zod is a comic strip creation, not a written-for-the-screen character like Keyser Soze or the like. As such, he's fair game for reinterpretation.
Edit - my post overlapped with that of Skywalker and is aimed at Too Much Fun. The references to Shakespearean characters are coincidental!
Similar threads
