Which Zod is better? Michael Shannon or Terence Stamp?

Originally posted by Esau Cairn

If you were old enough to watch Superman 2 on the big screen then Terrance Stamp will always be Zod.

its not nostalgic bias, i swear.

in superman2 the evil kryptonians did things that defined their character as opposed to being in a fullon rage like MoS. we got to see things like:

-evil kryptonians socializing with eachother. really they never speak unless its about their mission. in SM2 we got to see them explore and mock our planet and **** with people.

-superman caring about collateral damage. part of the fun of SM2 were the scenes of zod putting people in peril to troll superman, mocking his caring for them.

-no evil kryptonian spam. didnt have to be 3. even if it was just zod and ursa that would have seemed less blandly saturated and more compelling and defined.

-no generic metallic glowing apocalypse machine as bare-naked plot device.

i was hoping for a modern and not-silly version of SM1+2. instead we got MoS.

Both hold a demanding screen presence but I prefer the more current adaptation of Zod. Stamps performance had a much broader range and whether or not he was being diplomatic or chaotic his emotions and actions always felt genuine and justified. I don't mean to insinuate that, Shannon is incapable of giving a similar performance and even though he did a very fine job at portraying a cold demeanor he never felt as threatening as Stamps performance. Although, this just may be the way his character was written and directed.

Originally posted by focus4chumps

in superman2 the evil kryptonians did things that defined their character as opposed to being in a fullon rage like MoS. we got to see things like:

in SM2 we got to see them explore and mock our planet and **** with people.

-superman caring about collateral damage. part of the fun of SM2 were the scenes of zod putting people in peril to troll superman, mocking his caring for them.

i was hoping for a modern and not-silly version of SM1+2. instead we got MoS.

I guess because Clark was still lost & trying to "define" himself, Kryptonians openly mocking earthlings wouldn't have had much impact on him. Whereas in S2, Clark/Reeves had already embraced humanity...thus Zod & co took advantage of that.

If Zod featured in MOS2 then we'd probably see Zod messing more with the humans to get under Supes' skin.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn

If you were old enough to watch Superman 2 on the big screen then Terrance Stamp will always be Zod.

👆

Or if you grew up watching it on the small screen year after year.

.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
If Zod featured in MOS2 then we'd probably see Zod messing more with the humans to get under Supes' skin.

He did do that in MOS though, why do you think Zod started using his heat vision on that family when Supes had a hold of him? Plus Supes went as far as killing Zod to actually protect them

Stamp Hands down.
Shannon had a better performance and script to work with but stamp will always be zod to me. However 20-30 years down the road the younger generation may feel that way about shannon

I think Shannon's was a deeper, more layered performance.

That said, Stamp's will always be more iconic.

Originally posted by Zack Fair
Shannon.

Stamp's Zod was a bit too 1 dimensional for my tastes, but that has more to do with the script than the actor.

Who will ultimately be remembered? Stamps. The "kneel before Zod" is just too much.

Word Shannon almost stole the show

Yeah he did. Mostly with his over-acting.

YouTube video

haermm

Haha, that's terrible.

I liked him as Zod though.

Although Man of Steel sucked major ballls, I thought Michael Shannon was an amazing villain. Nostalgia gives Terrance Stamp the edge, but Michael Shannon was the bright spot of the movie.

He was about to be reconditioned into a stool pigeon of his former self, maybe the emotion wasn't out of place?

I thought Shannon was a better Zod. Stamp was 70's campy - fun but, really actually silly.

Both Zod's were campy. It just comes with the territory, but I prefer Stamp's interpretation by far.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
👆

Or if you grew up watching it on the small screen year after year.

👆

Stamp hands down. Shannon's performance was terrible.

Agree with quanchi112, Shannon's performance wasn't that good, hoped it to be better.

Nah, Terrance Stamp all day.

I just cannot shake that redneck Michael Shannon vibe I always get from seeing him. Then trying to associate that with Zod.

Stamp had that stately, articulate, regal, pompous, nonchalant 'tude about him that perfectly matched an egotistical general that could embarrass any earthly leader not only physically but more importantly, mentally. Michael Shannon had that nationalist, militant, temperamental, mentality that comes with the typical extremist, aggressive, redneck attitude that didn't match a typical effective leader but Terrance had a confident, leader like, look down on you, hands behind his back, authoritive, chin up, better than you, maniacal demeanor ..

It's subjective really, but I like Stamp's Zod way better