Ah, these Shakespeare questions are intriguing. I'd never considered that. Those must be some of the most endlessly reinterpreted characters in history if not
THE MOST overdone characters, and I would always welcome the opportunity to see someone else's take on them.
That question about
"do we even need another [insert name of superhero] movie?" is something I've thought about for awhile. I remember when
"Superman Returns" was about to come out, I was telling a friend who was not very familiar with the character's movie history that I thought it was completely unnecessary because we'd already got two good Superman movies in the past.
With the first two Superman movies, the only things I didn't like were the special effects. In the first one, I hate the 'reverse time by spinning the earth' nonsense so much that I didn't purchase the movie based solely on my disgust towards that scene. In the second one, I think the final battle with Superman against Zod, Ursa, and Non looks too cheesy because of special effects limitations of the time. This made the final scenes anti-climactic for me, but I loved the rest of the movie (and especially Terence Stamp's performance, obviously) enough to buy it and watch it again and again.
Since I thought the only thing about the first two Superman movies that needed drastic improvement was the special effects, I always felt it wouldn't be very disappointing if we never got another Superman movie after
"Superman IV: The Quest for Peace", because at least we'd got two movies that did the character justice.
I was much more excited about new Batman movies because I didn't think any of the first four really highlighted the character's appeal enough or treated it with the depth that it deserved. Generally with superhero movies and franchises like Star Trek (setting aside studio desire for money), the biggest reason for a reboot seems to be to wash the bad taste out of viewers' mouths left from a lesser installment.
You could argue that further Spider-Man movies are not needed since the first two movies were well done, but then
"Spider-Man 3" would be the last word on the franchise, and that's a depressing note to go out on. Same goes for
"Star Trek: Nemesis" (by my earlier logic, who cares if one Star Trek movie was awful when there were at least two that were critically acclaimed)?
That's why I've had mixed feelings about Superman reboots. I could never get as worked up as I did about Batman, because I've never thought
"I hope someone FINALLY does the character right" since I already liked the Christopher Reeve version. As I've explained, I'm even less convinced that Zod could be done better. The biggest interest for me with a Superman movie is seeing how much more dynamic the special effects can be compared to how they were in the 70s and 80s, and that's not a reason to get very excited about a movie (compared to eagerness to see new actors, writers, and directors exploring the characters).
Okay, I've rambled a bit here, and I apologize to any who may have found this a slog. Let me put it this way and maybe we can leave it at this - to me, Terence Stamp's Zod will always be a beloved performance of a character that can never be equaled or surpassed. He will always be "my Zod". So after this movie comes out, maybe others can have their Zod and he'll still be mine, and that's fine. And just to lighten the mood after all this intense debate, let me just say: All of you people saying Terrence Stamp's Zod isn't perfect are WRONG and should all
KNEEL BEFORE (Stamp's) ZOD! 
