Bobby Roberts
Banned
This isn't true, though.
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Comic-Con Trailer
- Thread starter GK86
- Start date
- Status
This isn't true, though.
Too early to tell. Even if this Lex Luthor is not very true to the source material Chris Terrio + Eisenberg will most likely be good. I am more worried about Gal Gadot because even if the writing is good I have less faith in Gal Gadot's acting chops.
Discotheque
Banned
And holly hunter
Cavill just seems mediocre though, he has so much to prove as clark kent in here so I hope they gave him that duality in this movie
Like I already have a handle on affleck's bruce wayne based on a short trailer but I still really have no idea what clark is like after a whole movie
eh. the movie isnt based around wonder woman so its not she will break the movie.
Superman's nemesis being a self-aggrandizing douche makes sense to me. Just a person who only cares about himself, as opposed to Superman, a character who cares about everyone. Especially if they play off of that in the film, with Lex convincing the public that Superman doesn't care about them, and Superman knowing that Lex doesn't give a shit about anyone other than himself.
And I like how unassuming Eisenberg is in the role. It makes things like getting Superman to bow to him just that much more villainous. Hopefully Batman uppercuts his wig off.
I mean, personally for me. I'm not the kind of guy that comments everything has to cater to me exactly. For me, there is only one character type that has resonated, so it's disappointing to see basically nothing of that in this incarnation.
Maybe it's just how I view people, but if he's a self aggradizing douche, that's all the more reason to dismiss him. Lex Luthor should be someone you can't help but feel has a point, where as this lex would have to go out of his way to make a convincing argument to me if he's clearly a narcissist. Any argument he makes against superman is going to be undercut by the fact that he's obviously just trying to make himself appear better. It should be the opposite, I should be having to remind myself that he's actually a sociopath underneath and all his words are lies.
It's because if he's just obviously the bad guy....then I just don't see the point. He's obviously in the wrong, so there's no real philosophical or idealogical conflict to be had. He's just the bad guy, Supes is the good guy.
i say i like it even more because eisenberg isnt an opposing person. he looks like a cunning ass dude which i like a lot more than a big buff dude
N7Commander95
Member
It's really weird. Cavill wasnt amazing in Man of Steel, but he looks pretty dam good in the Man from UNCLE. Maybe it's just a writing/direction thing?
Bobby Roberts
Banned
So wait, what character type do you think is the only one that's viable for Lex Luthor, then?
edit: you edited in, it appears. So which version of Lex Luthor are you referring to? The one Azzarello wrote in that Lex Luthor mini? Most of the other Luthors that have ever existed have been self-aggrandizing douchebags in one form or another.
Discotheque
Banned
Yeah I should point out he seems really fun in that movie
If cavill is still blank in this then the fault is entirely on snyder's direction of him
I made a post about it earlier
Again, it's just my interpretation. The entire point of long standing comic characters is that they go through many incarnations and everyone can do something new or pick their favorite. I'm just saying that for me personally, it's never resonated half as well as when he's someone who you feel you want to trust, but know you shouldn't. It's almost the definitive character trait for him for me now.
And I feel it's the more interesting dynamic. Both of them are concepts of being the ideal human being. They, in theory, both want the same thing, for humanity to succeed, but where Lex is highly similar to Superman, he uses moral reasoning to justify immoral behavior, to himself and others. When he genuinely believes he is working toward the betterment of humanity, and when he might actually, just possibly, be right...that's when Superman is in real danger from him, not in any kind of physical arena, but because the principles he stands by are endangered.
roflwaffles
Member
This is still the best Lex
I somewhat agree with you, but we'll have to see his motivations. All of his talk about demons and red capes might just be distracting from the core of his hatred towards Superman, and I don't think they've given us a peek at that yet.
All it would take is a single scene like that to change the perception of him as a bad guy.
Well, that's where I disagree. It doesn't need a single scene, it needs his whole character to be like that. He needs to be convincing the whole way through, have us believing his lie the whole time. That's how he was in the comic page you posted, which is my favorite Lex Luthor comic. He never breaks the narrative that he is trying to do good with logical and ratonal arguments to back it up, which only made me realize the true horror of what he had done in retrospect after I put the book down.
If he only has the one scene, all that shows is that he's easily fooled by his own messiah complex and narcissism and severely lacks in self awareness.
But he is, isn't he?
I'm not sure if they can portray Lex's perspective on things. You can do it in a book focused on him, but as the villain in a movie?
I do hope they do Lex justice.
Yes, but the point is he has to be convincing.
In the comic, he has many layers of arguments for why he does his actions, he tries to do constant random acts of kindness to other people, tries to show empathy all the time, etc. If he has only one scene of that, where he convinces himself he's doing good, then goes on and on doing asshole things, then yeah, he has a severe lack of self awareness. But if it's an ongoing narrative that he reinforces at every step he can, then he's still fooled, but a lie strong enough that it would have fooled anyone. It's the difference between a strong lie and a weak lie.
I like to believe anything is possible, but yes, it would be very difficult. I don't know, you just have to focus whatever scenes of characterization he has around that concept, I guess. It wouldn't be easy, but anything's doable.
But they're clearly not going in that direction. Just from the fact that's he's so wierd makes you think twice about him, so whatever charm he'll have is going to be off beat. He's not the kind of guy who will convince you to burn down your life while making you think he's doing all he can to help you out. I honestly don't know what they're going for with this lex. It's almost like they wanted to make him Superman's joker, except not as insane. Idk, we'll see I guess.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
You're basically making the case for a Lex Luthor movie. That's the only way the level of nuance that you're asking for could possibly fit here. They're gonna have to shorthand some of this as a matter of necessity.
Plus there's the matter of whether or not he loses respect as a villain if he's so thoroughly swallowed his own bullshit that he can't even be honest with himself about who he is and why he's doing what he's doing. At some point the villain has to own his shit, in most of these sorts of stories - it makes things more satisfying. If Luthor never owns his shit, if he honestly believes (and spends large chunks of the movie making the audience believe as well) that he's right, and he's doing the right thing, for the right reasons, then you're not gonna get catharsis. You'll just end up with a situation where Superman and Batman essentially thwart the best efforts of a man with dissociative disorder.
I'm not saying Azzarello's take on the character isn't a good one. But it's also only really possible if you backburner everything else, and you already have all those other interpretations as contrast.
brickarts295
Member
Maybe Lex is just acting like spoiled child, and by the end of the movie (when loses his hair) he'll mature.
Like I said above, I really am not. I believe it can be done, just not as extensively as a comic with him was, which is the same of any comic adaptation I've seen. I'd like to see that persona adapted, not the whole comic.
And in the comic I am referring to, Lex does own his shit. He just justifies with his own line of reasoning. "If I made even one person change their mind about who you are, it'll be worth it!" He's not delusional about what he does at all, he just considers the ends to have justified the means. It's perfectly rational, just sociopathic.
Again, call it a difference of opinion, but I respect far people who have principles and stick by them, even if I disagree with them, if they can make rational arguments for themselves, which is the essence of what I want Luthor to be. He doesn't have to have a disassociative disorder, no more than most people have when they rationalize away actions. There is no reason that the designation of 'villain' should mean the character himself acknowledges himself in the role, or anyone else in the movie in fact. He's the antagonist of Superman. He has reasons for why he thinks he should go. That's pretty much all that's needed.
I actually prefer someone who can talk about this stuff with some depth and nuance, so I'm good, thanks.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
I don't think that's him really owning his shit though.
Again: I'm not saying the take isn't valid. I absolutely believe it is. I'm just saying the only way it really plays like it did in the Azzarello comic is if you backburner almost EVERYTHING else for the sake of building that up - and even then, you need the other, more popular interpretations of the man as contrast. That book is sort of a special case, and it's written as such, and it works because of that, I feel. I like the book too, and I like the Luthor in it - but it won't work as well out of that specific context. You have to pick and choose what aspects of it you can port over, basically.
Some aspect of Luthor has to be a front, and he's gotta know its a front, and that he's not so much justifying his actions as rationalizing them, because what's important isn't the point that he's making about Superman or Humanity's real potential, it's that he's getting what he wants because he feels he should have it, because he's better than everyone. In the abstract, he'd like to believe other people can come up to his level (so long as they recognize he gave them the opportunity to achieve that level), but once people actually do start encroaching on that territory, and the abstract approaches tangible reality - he can't deal. That's a key aspect of the character, and I think it's present in Azzarello's take, too.
If he's never actually made to own that part, or is never shown to be full of shit on that aspect, it's going to be unsatisfying, I think. And I don't know that you can have him doing things like engineering a conflict between Batman & Superman, or manipulating the government into giving Superman a raw deal, or doing whatever it is he's going to be doing with Zod's dead body, without having him held responsible for that small-minded, xenophobic, scared/threatened fuel for his intellect going haywire.
That's probably why I feel there are more than just the one valid characterization of the man. Hackman's isn't Clancy Brown's, isn't John Byrne's, isn't Mark Waid's, isn't Rosenbaum's, isn't Azzarello's, isn't Grant Morrison's. And yet all of them are pretty compelling in their own ways, and provide really interesting foils for Superman. And most of what they have in common is that hubris combined with that intellect and that fear. It's all in how you modulate it, I guess.
This is still the best Lex
It's hard to disagree.
I made an edit to the post, but I'll add it here. Here's the reason I don't agree it's impossible: Young Justice did it.
While he was a major villain, he appeared sparingly, and had as much screentime as he would in a full length movie probably. He still managed to convey that same personality with that. He justifed himself with moral arguments, was always polite and considerate of the people he was talking to, and manipulated the shit out of everyone. You could tell he considered himself a good guy in his head and had a lot of convincing arguments for why he was doing the right thing, and he was working in an organization specifically dedicated to placing humanity as the forefront species of the universe. That's essentially what I am asking for, delivered in a children's cartoon in the few appearances he had.
But as far your definition of him 'owning it'...again, differing of opinions. Truly complex characters can't be pinned down in simple summations like that. Regarding Azzarello's depiction, what your describing of him feeling insecure about how he can't deal with people actually encrouching on him is true, but at the same time, I feel he does genuinely believe that people can rise up to his level and wants them to. Mutually exclusive desires are part of the mess that is being a person. What I am looking for in characters isn't a personal satisfaction of seeing them beat, but an exploration of who they are. For that reason, I don't really care if he 'owns it' the way you describe it. I wouldn't necessarily really care if he does, but only if it's helpful to the story, not to give the audience some kind of satisfaction of "GOTCHA! YOUR A SHITHEAD ALL ALONG!" I much prefer the interpretation that he has many conflicting desires and ideals within him, as that's what makes him feel alive to me, when you can't summarize him with a simple list of what is a true and whats a lie. Much better are the things that are both, and neither. He's a guy who has firm beliefs about what he's doing and is doing it for reasons that make sense to an intelligent mind. Having some delusions and rationalizations isn't a lack of intelligence, everyone has such blindspots. All one has to do is that the delusions are convincing enough to make them work in his character.
Again, this is why I emphasize this is just my personal opinion. For the longest time I've thought that Lex Luthor simply cannot work as Superman's enemy, or atleast arch enemy. There is nothing interesting about a narcissist who decides to have a personal vendetta against a guy whose just being his own person. That just makes him...a douche. Vs a nice guy. It's such a simplistic confict that it never compelled me, because obviously I feel I'm being forced to side with Superman just because the other dude is clearly insane and stupid. As a result, to varying degrees, I found all the ones you mentioned not really compelling. I couldn't understand why anyone would follow this raving moron. Which is why the YJ and Azzarello's ones are the only ones that work for me. They manage to sell me that Lex might have some kind of point and that he isn't just a raving narcissist. Even if he is, the fact that he's playing it down well enough to make me question if he is is enough.
So, while I respect others who disagree, I have to stand by my original statement and say none of those are half as compelling as a Lex who can actually convince me there is something more to him than self-aggrandizing douchery. Anything else has always fallen a bit short. Maybe Clancy Browns, but in JL, I don't think he was trying to fool anyone and they had wierd shit going on all the time there. In a more realistic setting, I feel Azzarello's/Wiesman's interpretation is far more suited.
NO, THIS HAS TO BE MY MOVIE, I WILL ONLY ACCEPT IT IF IT'S FOR ME AND JUST HOW I WANT IT
/s
The Smoking Bun
Banned
Will be interesting too see the worst Batman story made into the best World's Finest film
chyeaaaah
Yes, DC Warners lured away Holly Hunter from Disney. It's the Monday Night Wars all over again.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Jeremy Irons looks like an older Tony Stark. Can't shake that whenever I watch the trailer.
lucebuce12
Member
My brother literally skyped me last night and asked me, "What the hell is Robert Downey Jr doing in BvS?"
Miles Quaritch
Member
Let's focus on the scene where Supes is kneeling before him.
My take....
Superman kneels before Lex...Lex's heart races as he reaches out to touch this God, his body excited and trembling as his hand inches closer and closer to this perfect specimin, his body now tingling as he touches his hair. Thoughts of what it would feel like to feel the embrace of this God race through his mind...his body quivering as he imagines this perfectly sculpted body pressed against his...
Kenzodielocke
Banned
When will see The Flash for the first time ? Will it be in JL1 or The Flash in 2018 ?
I would hate the latter.
I would hate the latter.
Messypandas
Member
Everything points to him
being in this one. Ezra Miller shot some stuff in Detroit during filming, and rumour is he breaks up a store robbery which Batman sees on security footage when he breaks into Lex's place
JL1 probably, but...
If the rumors are true, he is in BvS also, although in an easter-egg kinda thing. (Security cam footage?)
Kenzodielocke
Banned
This is based on The Killing Joke?
Chuckie
Member
Mr. Giggles
Member
Looks good, i'll still keep my expectations low though
Rastafarian42
Member
Yeah that was the first thing that popped into my head.
Kenzodielocke
Banned
Why ?
Terrible is a stretch. Mediocre at worst, great at best. The visuals will be splendid, and some of the action will probably be exciting. The acting will be fine. It's the writing I wouldn't hold my breath over. I'm not fan of Goyer's. Even if some other dude rewrote the script, it's bound to have his schtick shine through I'll bet.
Haloid1177
Banned
Yep. My biggest issue with MoS wasn't the acting or the action, it was the plot and weird pacing of it all. Not sure if it'll improve here or not, but I'm still pumped for this one.
Might give MoS another shot now that I know the biggest plot issue I had with it is a plot point in this (destruction of Metropolis). Gonna grab the Blu-Ray after work.
As long as we actually get inside Clark's head it'll be above MoS for me.
- Status