So they'll cover the origin a bit, at least. Good.
I think the real issue here isn't that "someone new is playing Zod", but that the studio went through all the trouble of canning the director from the last film which was heavily influenced by the Donner films, bring a new guy in for a "fresh take" and he ends up using the same villain from the second Donner/Lester film. Are we ever going to get a decent film that moves past the content of the Donner films?
I think the real issue here isn't that "someone new is playing Zod", but that the studio went through all the trouble of canning the director from the last film which was heavily influenced by the Donner films, bring a new guy in for a "fresh take" and he ends up using the same villain from the second Donner/Lester film. Are we ever going to get a decent film that moves past the content of the Donner films?
Can someone please explain to me the line of thinking behind this? Now maybe I'm confused because I like to use common sense, but this is exactly like saying The Dark Knight is aping Batman 1989 and Batman Forever simply because it reused Joker and Two-Face. By this same standard, anything that shows Clark Kent as a reporter who turns into Superman and Lois Lane as a fellow reporter and love interest fails to get past the content of the Donner films.
In Zod we trust.![]()
And I would still like to see that on the air...Capt. Mike, you had four years of Byrne's Superman on Lois & Clark.![]()
except that Zod is being used for "us" fans and we have given examples of this.Not surprised that the origin will be touched on in some manner. How has Zod been overused? Zod has been in two Superman films, "Smallville" (which maybe on average one point five million people watch on a weekly basis) and been revamped in the comics. Unless you've seen Zod in any of these films and are a hardcore Superman fan you're not gonna give a Kryptonian's arse if he is being used again.
Sometimes fans baffle me.
Because the director of Superman Returns said he liked the Donner films and was basing his movie as at least a partial sequel? Thematically there are several parallels between Returns and The Movie? ( Lex wanting to gain power through real estate, The movie beginning at the Kent farm with Clark's arrival from Krypton, Lex using Kryptonite to stop Superman, Superman succumbing to Kryptonite and falling in water, woman dives into water and saves superman, clumsy Kent portrayal...).I think the real issue here isn't that "someone new is playing Zod", but that the studio went through all the trouble of canning the director from the last film which was heavily influenced by the Donner films, bring a new guy in for a "fresh take" and he ends up using the same villain from the second Donner/Lester film. Are we ever going to get a decent film that moves past the content of the Donner films?
Can someone please explain to me the line of thinking behind this?
as do I.Now maybe I'm confused because I like to use common sense,
No, because the characters were used in very different ways in those films.but this is exactly like saying The Dark Knight is aping Batman 1989 and Batman Forever simply because it reused Joker and Two-Face.
There is a difference between a character profile and reusing themes/plots.By this same standard, anything that shows Clark Kent as a reporter who turns into Superman and Lois Lane as a fellow reporter and love interest fails to get past the content of the Donner films.
Pick and choose what? please enlighten me as to what I left out in my comparison?I will never understand this pick-and-choose mentality
What script? I am referring to movies that have been out for years and noting that based on what little we know at this point it is starting to sound like Superman 2., especially when you know nothing of the actual script.
You may think you're being funny, but truth be told, the various TV shows have been the only ones to break from the Donner films.(and the comics, obviously)Hell, you could say that only Smallville has broken from the Donner films because it's about the Red-Blue Douchebag and not Superman!![]()
What script? I am referring to movies that have been out for years and noting that based on what little we know at this point it is starting to sound like Superman 2., especially when you know nothing of the actual script.
He seemed like most hollywood actors, no conection to reality once the money rolls in.
You know most Hollywood actors personally?
Being that the "Man of Steel" is a reboot/origin story or whatever you want to call it, they will show you the whole story all over again. Well not the way Richard Donner showed you but it will have some sort of similarities to "Batman Begins."
Here is what my source told me:
You will see JOR-EL and his wife, Lara.
Daniel Day-Lewis was looked at for JOR-EL and not the villain.
Krypton will not be a crystal planet like the Donner film; this Krypton will PROBABLY look like the Coruscant skyline from Star Wars. (See image below)
The Kryptonian villainess is not URSA...Well sort of. The villainess is FAORA.
In the movies Superman and Superman II, the female Kryptonian villainess URSA is based on Faora.
^ Dennis' response was a lot shorter and without the mocking tone my response would've contained. So I don't feel like hitting my head against the wall over this anymore.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.