Jesse Eisenberg Isn't "Lex" Luthor After All

[Fanghawk]

Jesse Eisenberg Isn't "Lex" Luthor After All

[tweet t=https://twitter.com/alexanderluthor/status/651093266926952448]Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice's viral marketing campaign reveals Jesse Eisenberg isn't "Lex" Luthor - he's Alexander Luthor Jr.

<a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/141533-Batman-V-Superman-Dawn-of-Justice-Finall-Gets-A-Full-Trailer-From-Warner-Bros#&gid=gallery_4405&pid=1Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is already proving to be an incredibly complex film, packing all kinds of characters and superhero lore into its runtime. But a new viral marketing campaign introduced yet another detail - <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/142326-Batman-V-Superman-Dawn-of-Justices-Lex-Luthor-Is-Not-A-Cartoon-Says-Jesse-Eisenberg#&gid=gallery_4405&pid=1Jesse Eisenberg isn't "Lex" Luthor at all. According to a fictional Fortune interview advertised on Twitter, Eisenberg will be playing as Alexander Joseph Luthor Jr. - Lex's son.

Going by the interview's timeline, Lex Luthor was an East German native who fled to Metropolis and created the petrochemical empire "LexCorp". Alex entered his life ten years later, and was quickly groomed to inherit the company. Following Lex's death, Alex reinvented LexCorp as a technology giant resembling Apple or Google - only with a stronger emphasis on military contracts.

In the comics, Lex Luthor also named his child after himself, in a sense. Shortly before the "Death of Superman" storyline, "Lex Luthor II" emerged as an illegitimate son who inherited the company after his father's death. The twist? Luthor II was actually Luthor I - a cloned body with Lex's brain transplanted inside. Batman v Superman appears to follow a more realistic version of these events, contextualizing Alex Luthor with his father's ruthless legacy.

The Fortune article also highlights a few points DC Comics fans should pick up on. It compares LexCorp to organizations like Wayne Enterprises and Kord Industries. There's a brief reference to Alex's "world-famous collection of meteorite crystals". Finally, there's an explanation to where Alex's hatred of Superman stems from - his father's fear of East Germany. "[Lex] came from a country where the government, in the guise of protector, had absolute control over the citizens," the interview reads. "That drove him. I get it. Heck, I'd hate to see that sort of thing happen over here."

We'll have to wait and see how this dynamic affects Eisenberg's performance, but it does shed some light into why he considers the role <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/142326-Batman-V-Superman-Dawn-of-Justices-Lex-Luthor-Is-Not-A-Cartoon-Says-Jesse-Eisenberg#&gid=gallery_4405&pid=1>"very serious". Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice reaches theaters on March 25, 2016.

Source: <a href=http://fortune.com/contentfrom/2015/10/05/lex-luthor-jr/ntv_a/3dsBA58oDAfxgFA>Fortune, via <a href=http://www.polygon.com/2015/10/6/9463323/jesse-eisenberg-lex-luthor-batman-v-superman>Polygon

Permalink

 

[JustAnotherAardvark]

"why he considers the role 'very serious'."

Dear DC: We get it. Grimdark is srsbidness. You can stop not only being so very grimdark, you can (for the love of god) stop *telling us* just how very grimdark you are. We got it. kthxbai.

 

[K12]

So basically they've written themselves an easy way of disgarding Eisenberg and getting a more "classic" Lex Luthor if people don't like him when the film comes out.

Well comic book writing is largely about retcons and reacting to fan whinging so it's good that they're laying the groundwork beforehand.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

We'll have to wait and see how this dynamic affects Eisenberg's performance, but it does shed some light into why he considers the role <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/142326-Batman-V-Superman-Dawn-of-Justices-Lex-Luthor-Is-Not-A-Cartoon-Says-Jesse-Eisenberg#&gid=gallery_4405&pid=1>"very serious".

This is a local serious film, for local serious actors...

 

[CharrHearted]

Before we make any assumptions, lets wait for the movie to come out before we give jesse any bashing. I can probably see this turning out well! If he takes the roll seriously, we'll probably get a few good scenes out of it! DC will be DC, and I think having jesse as this new roll will probably be better, then again, seeing him trying to portray lex had me hopefully optimistic, since it seemed like it would be a very difficult roll for a younger actor to pull off.

Still, I wish him the best of luck in the roll as Alexander! I'm not going to spew any what if's, or let my nerdy panties get in a twist, so I think i'll wait and make my judgement on release! Optimism viewers! Lets be optimistic!

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Man, between this and Will Smith saying he never shot any scenes with the Joker(implying to me at least the Joker is only for Harely flashbacks) these DC movies are really sinking quickly. Seems like its all hot air and its slowly leaking.

 

[ShakerSilver]

Y'now, one of the most important things about Lex's character and what helped define his philosophy was that he was a completely self-made man. He acquired this wealth, his connections, his knowledge, and his powers by his own hand - sometimes through illegitimate means like setting his parents for a life insurance plan then cutting the breaks in their car, but it was still through his own will. That's why he always felt so threatened by Superman: a man with that much power, who was just born that way, just show up in his backyard, and he supposedly uses his powers not for personal gain, but to benefit others - it goes completely against Lex's ideals. That's what made the dynamic between the two so interesting.

Having a Luthor that's just a pampered heir to the family company most likely means that Eisenberg's Luthor won't have this dynamic between himself and Superman. Sure, they may try to still include it by having this Luthor trying to live up his father's legacy or something, but it won't seem quite as personal.

Also, if he isn't Lex, then why is he bald in some of the promo pics?

 

[Makabriel]

Man, between this and Will Smith saying he never shot any scenes with the Joker(implying to me at least the Joker is only for Harely flashbacks) these DC movies are really sinking quickly. Seems like its all hot air and its slowly leaking.

You have that backwards. He's never met Jared. Only the Joker.

 

[Fox12]

Man, between this and Will Smith saying he never shot any scenes with the Joker(implying to me at least the Joker is only for Harely flashbacks) these DC movies are really sinking quickly. Seems like its all hot air and its slowly leaking.

What I don't understand is why everything is set after all the interesting stuff happens. Robin is dead, Lex is dead, Batman is presumably older, and even retired. We don't see much of the Joker, and Harlequin is evidently in prison after... something big happened? You know, I would kind of like to see all that. After watching all these clean, safe Marvel films where nothing interesting ever happens, it would be cool to see a superhero universe where there are consequences to people's actions.

This begs the question. Why set the stage so late in the game? It would be like Marvel starting their universe with the Civil War arc, without introducing any of their characters first.

At least Suicide Squad looks awesome.

 

[Fanghawk]

Man, between this and Will Smith saying he never shot any scenes with the Joker(implying to me at least the Joker is only for Harely flashbacks) these DC movies are really sinking quickly. Seems like its all hot air and its slowly leaking.

What I don't understand is why everything is set after all the interesting stuff happens. Robin is dead, Lex is dead, Batman is presumably older, and even retired. We don't see much of the Joker, and Harlequin is evidently in prison after... something big happened? You know, I would kind of like to see all that. After watching all these clean, safe Marvel films where nothing interesting ever happens, it would be cool to see a superhero universe where there are consequences to people's actions.

This begs the question. Why set the stage so late in the game? It would be like Marvel starting their universe with the Civil War arc, without introducing any of their characters first.

At least Suicide Squad looks awesome.

I assume it lets them jump in quicker. Instead of having to introduce everything (especially characters we already know from Nolan's Batman movies) they can just go "Oh this happened already" and rush ahead to the current movie.

It might backfire, but it is interesting, and the quickest way to catch their universe up to Marvel.

 

[IOwnTheSpire]

"why he considers the role 'very serious'."

Dear DC: We get it. Grimdark is srsbidness. You can stop not only being so very grimdark, you can (for the love of god) stop *telling us* just how very grimdark you are. We got it. kthxbai.

Don't use words if you don't know what they mean. DC movies are not grimdark. I don't recall anyone at DC calling these movies grimdark. Serious /= grimdark. Got it?

 

[ShakerSilver]

What I don't understand is why everything is set after all the interesting stuff happens. Robin is dead, Lex is dead, Batman is presumably older, and even retired.

You want to know why they did it? Just to make it like Dark Knight Returns.

The whole Superman vs Batman angle, robin dying, middle-aged Batman coming out of retirement who ruthlessly pursues criminals, hell, they're using the same Anti-Superman suit (which really doesn't make sense consider Superman just appeared in this universe). Even if I had the faith in WB to produce a good film, I still wouldn't have thought this may have been good. The only reason it worked so well when Frank Miller did it was because of the context of its creation - Superman and Batman were known as World's Finest, best friends at the time, not ideological opposites; superheroes never fought each other like bitter enemies; Robin hadn't died (yet). It was a bold, provocative move that turned all current conventions on their heads, and it was actually done quite well.

Nowadays, superheroes fighting each other isn't a novel concept at, nor is hero/sidekick death. The way this film seems to be handling this just seems to be a cheap way of inciting some nostalgia over Miller's work, but with none of the context that made it interesting and probably without any of the good ideas (the ideas he had before he went crazy and made shit like dk2 and All-Star Batman).

 

[Fox12]

Man, between this and Will Smith saying he never shot any scenes with the Joker(implying to me at least the Joker is only for Harely flashbacks) these DC movies are really sinking quickly. Seems like its all hot air and its slowly leaking.

What I don't understand is why everything is set after all the interesting stuff happens. Robin is dead, Lex is dead, Batman is presumably older, and even retired. We don't see much of the Joker, and Harlequin is evidently in prison after... something big happened? You know, I would kind of like to see all that. After watching all these clean, safe Marvel films where nothing interesting ever happens, it would be cool to see a superhero universe where there are consequences to people's actions.

This begs the question. Why set the stage so late in the game? It would be like Marvel starting their universe with the Civil War arc, without introducing any of their characters first.

At least Suicide Squad looks awesome.

I assume it lets them jump in quicker. Instead of having to introduce everything (especially characters we already know from Nolan's Batman movies) they can just go "Oh this happened already" and rush ahead to the current movie.

It might backfire, but it is interesting, and the quickest way to catch their universe up to Marvel.

That's the problem, though. Everyone's trying to catch up to Marvel. Sony tried it with Spider Man, Universal tried it with Dracula, and now DC wants to do it with the Justice League. But it only worked for Marvel because they were careful. These companies don't seem to understand that before you can make a successful franchise, you have to make a successful film.

A batman v. superman film could work, but it would need context, which The Dark Knight Returns had. It would need a slow buildup so that the conflict had an emotional payoff. You can't have it here, as an introduction of characters. We don't even know anything about this iteration of Batman, and he's one of the title characters. And now they want to shoe horn in Wonderwoman and, of all people, Aquaman? This reeks of executive meddling, and it won't work, because the film is trying to be too many things at once. It wants to be a Justice League movie, a Batman v. Superman movie, and an origin story, all at the same time. The dynamic fight can't even occur as the finale of the film, since not-lex is evidently the primary villain, and all the characters have to be friends by the end of the movie. So it can't even succeed as a Dark Knight Returns adaptation. The fight will probably occur half way through the film, and then we'll get a copout moment where the four strongest people on the planet have to unite to defeat the greatest evil of all:

Spoiler

I'm on the edge of my seat now...

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

I'm...completely okay with this. Mostly because I am so sick and tired of seeing Chrome Dome in EVERYTHING Supes related.

 

[Thomas Barnsley]

This kind of reminds me of how they went directly to the younger Green Goblin in ASM2. I thought that worked out ok, I thought he was one of the film's more interesting aspects.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Why not just get an older actor to play Lex Luthor? It feels like a cheap way to get a young actor in a role that decreases the tension between Lex and Superman.

Because you need something the tweener demographic can relate to. Same logic behind the casting of the Fantastic Four reboot and X-Men's "soft" reboot.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Why not just get an older actor to play Lex Luthor? It feels like a cheap way to get a young actor in a role that decreases the tension between Lex and Superman.

Because you need something the tweener demographic can relate to. Same logic behind the casting of the Fantastic Four reboot and X-Men's "soft" reboot.

Oh I know, but its stupid and it hurts the character. While the comparison isn't 100% accurate, imagine if Magneto suddenly wasn't a holocaust survivor, but a child of a holocaust survivor who was born decades after. It was the singular defining event of his life. If you're going to create this motivation for the reason why a character dislikes Superman why the hell are you giving it to the parent of Superman antagonist? It defangs the character and it already seems like they're taking a cheap swing at the character, trying to frame them as being xenophobic to make it easy for us to dislike him, as its kind of hard to portray a refugee as a xenophobe. Also seems like they might try to portray him an a spoiled kid who was born with a diamond spoon in his mouth to further make him easy to hate.

I guess it's kinda like Amazing Spider-Man 2, where the movie skips Norman Osborne altogether and goes right for his kid as the Goblin. I kinda wanted to see Lex Sr. though.