Ben Affleck Is Batman for Man of Steel Sequel (dir. Zack Snyder)

[bigpern23]

I'm highly skeptical of Eisenberg as Luthor. I thought Bryan Cranston would be a slam dunk as the character, though as Jay noted, Eisenberg is at least the same age as Cavill. That's about the only thing he has going for him.

 

[JRoyal]

As far as Eisenberg, it could work. If you can accept that the modern idea of a billionaire entrepreneur is a guy like Zuckerberg, you almost can't blame them for chasing the guy who played that in a film. Eisenberg has roughly played the same character in his films, but it doesn't mean he doesn't have range. I thought he played Zuckerberg without all the annoying ticks of an insecure character, such as the one he did in "Zombieland." Even so, if you think about it, the character of Luthor has always hated Superman. Why? Luthor saw himself superior to everyone else and didn't want that challenged in the public mindset. That's insecurity, plain and simple. I'm sure Eisenberg can convey that more dramatically without channeling stuff like "Zombieland."

If anything, the casting of Heath Ledger, which I hated at first, taught me to not pre-judge something. If I see the movie and hate it, I'll hate it then. I'm willing to give it a shot.

You thought he played Zuckerberg without insecure ticks? He spoke in clipped sentences. At times, he could barely keep eye contact with people. His Zuckerberg came across as arrogant and someone who thought he was better than everyone else, but he was also clearly not comfortable around women and felt like he had to prove himself.

And Zuckerberg isn't the only type of modern billionaire out there. Look at Mark Cuban. Sean Parker. Jack Dorsey. There are plenty of self-made rich guys out there. Everyone keeps making the Zuckerberg-Luthor comparison like the guy is the only billionaire in the last two decades. Do Luthor and Zuckerberg share some traits? Sure. Is Zuckerberg in "The Social Network" similar the Luthor character that has been drawn up through decades of mythology? Only in the way that pretty much every billionaire is similar -- they both have an overabundance of self-confidence.

And the idea that "Luthor saw himself superior to everyone else and didn't want that challenged in the public mindset" equates to insecurity is a little off, too. Everyone has some insecurities, but they come across in different ways. Luthor's never come across in the way he carries himself or interacts with others, just in his obsession with defeating Superman and proving himself superior. Eisenberg's characters all wear their insecurities on their sleeves. Big difference there.

And the Ledger thing is BS, too. Ledger had shown a lot more range by the time he was cast thanks to "Brokeback Mountain." That showed he was one of the best actors in Hollywood, hands down. Every character Eisenberg has played, including Zuckerberg, is the same nerdy guy who is insecure around girls, just with different ticks. He's

There's nothing wrong with that. Some actors have had great careers doing one character over and over, and Eisenberg is great as that character. But that character isn't Lex Luthor.

The two movies that have me actually holding out hope are two that aren't even out yet in wide release but that might show he can play sinister without the ticks -- "The Double" and "Night Moves." Both made the festival circuit last year and should be out this spring sometime. But so far he hasn't shown the range that Ledger had.

 

[Starman]

Luthor has never been done right in movies.

The Hackman version was a buffoon. Spacey was somewhat of an improvement but shackled by the mandate to mimic the Hackman version.

The greatest film version of Lex Luthor was Mark Strong as Lord Blackwood in "Sherlock Holmes." THAT was forking Lex Luthor.

 

[outofplace]

Luthor has never been done right in movies.

The Hackman version was a buffoon. Spacey was somewhat of an improvement but shackled by the mandate to mimic the Hackman version.

The greatest film version of Lex Luthor was Mark Strong as Lord Blackwood in "Sherlock Holmes." THAT was forking Lex Luthor.

Speaking of actors who would have made a better choice to play Luthor.

And that is a VERY long list.

 

[Starman]

Apparently the objection to Strong is that he has become somewhat typecast playing intimidating ruthless villain types. Well, no shirt, maybe because he is good at it?

A common comment about casting Strong as Luthor is that it would be a "safe" choice, and I agree -- unless the Lex role was so badly written that nobody could save it (see the Hackman version), Strong would at worst be decent, even if he essentially just 'mailed in' his performance.

But with Eisenberg the Luthor role will have to be both awesomely written PLUS the actor himself will have to deliver a performance above and beyond anything he's done in his career. The odds of both those events happening are pretty long.

If they wanted a high-risk, high-reward Luthor, they should have gone with Nic Cage.

 

[3_Octave_Fart]

Luthor has never been done right in movies.

The Hackman version was a buffoon. Spacey was somewhat of an improvement but shackled by the mandate to mimic the Hackman version.

The greatest film version of Lex Luthor was Mark Strong as Lord Blackwood in "Sherlock Holmes." THAT was forking Lex Luthor.

Speaking of actors who would have made a better choice to play Luthor.

And that is a VERY long list.

The character has not been drawn very well.
Hackman had nothing to work with.
Stamp's Zod was a gooftastic villain, but he was still awesome to watch.

 

[Starman]

It's a little hard to take a villain wearing a poufy nylon disco-dancing outfit very seriously.

 

[3_Octave_Fart]

Not when he's being played by a superb avant-garde actor.

 

[Bradley Guire]

I'm still going to give it a shot. Once I see it, and if it's shirt, I'll gladly admit it's shirt.

 

[outofplace]

Luthor has never been done right in movies.

The Hackman version was a buffoon. Spacey was somewhat of an improvement but shackled by the mandate to mimic the Hackman version.

The greatest film version of Lex Luthor was Mark Strong as Lord Blackwood in "Sherlock Holmes." THAT was forking Lex Luthor.

Speaking of actors who would have made a better choice to play Luthor.

And that is a VERY long list.

The character has not been drawn very well.
Hackman had nothing to work with.
Stamp's Zod was a gooftastic villain, but he was still awesome to watch.

The character has not been done well at all in the movies. They managed to waste Hackman and Spacey with crappy material. heck, Michael Rosanbaum's version was probably the best I've seen in live action, which tells you just how weak the others have been.

There have been some damn good animated portrayals of Lex Luthor. The "Timmverse" one voiced by Clancy Brown was strong. All-Star Superman was better. That's the Lex Luthor we should see in the movie, but I cannot imagine Eisenberg pulling that off.

 

[3_Octave_Fart]

So how would you depict Luthor?
I just don't think he's a very colorful villain.

 

[outofplace]

So how would you depict Luthor?
I just don't think he's a very colorful villain.

It has already been discussed on this thread. Luthor at his best is a genius, a master of science and business. He is absolutely ruthless in his pursuit of money and power and intimidating just by the sheer force of his will. He thinks everything he does is justified because he is simply better than everybody else. A villain who thinks of himself as a hero, as a potential savior for humanity if everybody would just stop getting in his way. Capable of being charming when it suits him, but a truly menacing presence when he doesn't get his way. And that edge that you know if he is pushed far enough, he will crack and be even more dangerous.

Remember Gene Hackman going on about being the greatest criminal mind of all time? The best versions of Luthor live up to that hype.