Man of Steel 2 had better have a lighter tone.

[Matthew Jabour]

Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor.

That could be it. That could literally be my whole post and you'd understand exactly what I'm talking about. But, anyway...
No. No, that is not happening. Ben Affleck as Batman? Sure, after a little thought, I can see how that could work out. But there is no way that anyone on this earth or any parallel earths could convince me that Jesse Eisenberg, the scrawny, neurotic, fast-talking, permanently-17, full-head-of-hair kid, could possibly be a good choice for Lex Luthor.

There are three possibilities as to why they might have chosen Eisenberg for Luthor. Firstly, because Zack Snyder doesn't have Brian Cranston's phone number. (I kid, of course. Everyone knows Bruce Willis would have been better - hell, Luthor even LOOKED like Willis in the Injustice game.) The second possibility, and probably the most likely, is that they're trying to show a younger Luthor just gaining his empire. Now, even if I thought they had the capability to pull off a Lex Luthor origin story (I do not), this would be a terrible idea. Need I remind you, this movie will also contain a new Batman, a new Wonder Woman, a new Green Lantern, and some second Superman villain whose name escapes me but comic book fans are probably saying 'how can you not remember him? He's like the biggest Superman villain!' There just isn't enough time for all that and an actual plot. (Unless they're planning to rip off LXG, which at this point would not surprise me.)

But the third possibility, the one I'm hoping for, is that Snyder has decided to toss the dark, gritty storyline of the original for some colorful camp. Now, I know some people liked the new Man of Steel. Some enjoyed the darker tone. But forgive me for saying that a super-strong alien with laser vision and ice breath who flies around in a skintight leotard is already silly enough to me without the CEO of Facebook joining the fray.

Take Gene Hackman, for example. Yes, he was cartoonishly hammy, clearly unconcerned with establishing a fearful environment, and not even totally bald. But I still liked him as Lex Luthor, because he was clearly having fun with it all. And that's all I really want from a Superman movie - to have fun with it. For god's sake, it's Bill Gates vs. Space Jesus, Owl Man, the pantless princess, and Green Fist Guy - tell me one way you could make that gritty and realistic.

Mind you, I am open to all possibilities. Maybe they can make it dark and realistic, and also make it good. But based purely on observation, statistics, and my stubborn refusal to suspend my belief to the level of comic book fans, I'm rooting for a fun, colorful romp. Anyone else?

 

[Parasondox]

I think you, and all the other people who love to whine about casting choices should just wait until footage or the film comes up.

But hey, why use logic right?

Agreed. I myself would complain in the past but then recently think to myself, "you know what, I have no idea what the story is, no teasers yet or trailers and I haven't even seen the movie yet. Best to just wait and see and then judge".

 

[Sonicron]

Jesus, you're already throwing this thing under the bus before the Hype Machine has even revved itself up into second gear. Why would you do that to yourself?
I had a kind of epiphany when I went to see the second Bayformers movie... I could just cast aside any and all expectation other than being entertained. And you know what? It worked! Had I stubbornly adhered to franchise expectations as dictated by my nostalgia-tinted fanboy glasses I would have pulled out my fingernails with pliers about halfway through the movie, but even something as intellectually empty as that film was good for a couple of laughs and decent action (when enjoyed with a friend).
Anyway, you're clearly determined to go see this movie once it comes out, so why care about casting choices and the like? It won't change your decision about watching the film, so I suggest you just calm down and give it a chance. Even if Willis would make for one kickass Lex Luthor. If the whole thing turns out to be a flaming pile of poop there'll be plenty of time to lambast it then.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

Take a deep breath and remember, THIS...


Was the Joker

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

I don't really give a shit about it, but when I gave it some thought, I thought to myself "Actually that could work".

Maybe they're not going for the calculating and charismatic baldie we're used to, but a wholly different approach. Maybe this Luthor's a Zuckerberg-type, smart and neurotic young millionaire who somehow sees Superman as a threat. And having the skinny Eisenberg cast as Luthor would give them good reason to bust out the power armor.

But I still think MovieBob's idea of Dwayne Johnson would have been even better.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Take a deep breath and remember, THIS...


Was the Joker

Heath Ledger had already displayed quite a lot of range with Monster's Ball, Lords of Dogtown, Brokeback Mountain and I'm Not There. He wasn't typecast in a single role, unlike Eisenberg, who plays the same character in every movie and everybody knows as "the Social Network guy".

 

[Sonicron]

Yeah, listen to this guy. Lower your expectations to the absolute bottom of the barrel that it'll at least achieve SOME watchability if it has enough pretty pictures. Who cares if the characters are superfluous and the plot barely makes a lick of sense even in the context of its own rules it seems to be making up on the spot? We know who we're dealing with and we know they couldn't give two shits about such silly things as "quality", so it's better to just give up and embrace the effortless crap they're going to give you. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

I'm sad to say you missed my point, sir. Entirely.
I advised against buying into the Hype Machine and a needlessly pessimistic outlook on future movie projects such as this one, not switching off all your higher brain functions. All I said was to give the film a chance and watch it with as little bias as possible before passing judgement.
Feel free to heap your unjustified ridicule on me, though, if that makes you feel good about yourself.

 

[Chaos Isaac]

As long as they don't lose the completely overblown and really awesome action scenes.

 

[Browncoat86]

As I said in another topic on a different forum, "Man of Steel" was a re-imagining of the Superman story, correct? Then it stands to reason that the new Superman would have a new Lex Luthor. All of the actors that have been mentioned so far, Brian Cranston, Bruce Willis, hell, even Dwayne Johnson all look like what we picture in our heads when someone says "Lex Luthor", so to me, the casting of Eisenberg means that this universe's Luthor is going to be different from what we've seen in the past.

 

[hermes]

I don't know what is growing more tiresome, the people that complain about Eisenberg being Luthor, or the people that think Cranston would be a better one. I get it, he is a good actor and he is also bald in his most popular work to date. You know who else is bald enough to play the part? F*CKING every single actor out there who is willing to cut his hair to get the part, or use a bald cap (one of the easiest props any makeup artist can make).

My point is, maybe Eisenberg killed it during the audition, maybe he really can pull it off... I don't know, and until I see some footage, I will not advance any opinion in favor or against that choice.

A few weeks ago we were discussing how cool it would be if WB would take the risky choice in the casting, and now we are complaining because the choice is not bald? That is the easiest casting trap ever. If being bald is the only requisites, why not Vin Diesel? or Bill Goldberg? or Jason Statham? or Steve Austin? But no, lets complain about the only one in that list that can actually act because he "has too much hair", and God knows haircuts are not something that a person can change about himself.

 

[Sonicron]

I'm sad to say you missed my point, sir. Entirely.
I advised against buying into the Hype Machine and a needlessly pessimistic outlook on future movie projects such as this one, not switching off all your higher brain functions. All I said was to give the film a chance and watch it with as little bias as possible before passing judgement.

You brought up Transformers 2 of all things to make your argument. I think I got your point quite clearly...

Ah, so your perception of quality invalidates my opinion. Is that it?

I'm well aware that from the perspective of a Transformers fan (like myself) the film was abhorrent (with the possible exception of Peter Cullen's consistently good VA work). However, I think it's perfectly serviceable as a low-brow action movie of the "to be enjoyed in the company of friends for a barrel of laughs" category.

I never made a call about quality here, neither in general nor about Transformers 2 in particular. So no, you quite clearly didn't get my point.
I conclude you're either trying to be cool by way of lambasting an obviously stupid movie, or you're a fan with a major case of post-release butthurt that's gone untreated for years.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Forget tone, Man of Steel 2 needs a director who doesn't edit like he's on his 5th Redbull-Java bender of the day.
Or at least someone who can slow the story down enough for the actors to give an actual performance.