Man of Steel Sequel Will Feature a "Street Tough" Lex Luthor

[CriticalMiss]

And next we will find out that Pauly Shore is to be cast as Metallo, but this version of Metallo is an ethnically diverse 20-something college girl from the Middle East who was studying abroad in Metropolis when she was exposed to a high dose of Narrativium that made her change in to a robot or something or whatever. With Brendan Fraser as Metallo's sidekick Doomsday for comic relief.

The more I hear about the movie the more I would rather watch Batman & Robin on a infinite loop. At least you can laugh at that film.

 

[Vault Citizen]

Its weird, for some reason when I first read this article I nerd ranged a little, then I thought it over a little and this works really well, the self man made thing really helps when it comes to his fear of Superman being the way he is due to being born with Superpowers that automatically grant him his abilities. Its kind of worrying to think that it is possible for me to feel nerd rage just because someone changed something in an adaptation, however brief it was.

 

[Vivi22]

Essentially, "Lex" is simply there for the name recognition, with little else of his defining characteristics brought over (agaain, if it's true).

How so? Some of the defining characteristics of Lex are that he's a genius and has an ego the size of the sun. How does a genius level criminal turned billionaire not fit with that? And if we're really going to complain about Lex not being portrayed properly, there have been many different ones in the last thirty years alone. And the present day corporate tycoon version didn't even really take shape until the 80's. That was a massive departure from who the character was prior to that.

It's just that ALL but one casting decision has been rife with debate. It doesn't send out the best image. Again, we may all be surprised, but it just doesn't bode well.

And Heath Ledger didn't bode well. Or Michael Keaton. I hate to keep mentioning those things but as long as people are going to keep questioning the casting because they can't picture someone in a role I'm going to have to keep mentioning it. Two guys that everyone was convinced were the worst choices for their role when the casting news hit. Then the movies came out and everyone kind of had to suck it up and eat some crow. So until I have some actual footage to judge these people on, I'm not jumping to conclusions.

 

[Kenbo Slice]

Dammit, I was hoping they would turn him into a Mark Zuckerberg type of character. That would've been perfect.

 

[Boba Frag]

Excuse me, but that mousy little boy being "street tough?" May as well have the part played by Seth Green. This movie is sounding more like a comedy with every article I read. And I'm still not interested in seeing it (only making fun of DC's desperation to get a Justice League movie out).

Yeah, I really wish I had enough faith in the movie that I could disagree with you!
It all feels very haphazard. Less edgy Nolan casting, more ludicrous Snyder spin.

I actually got on board with Affleck as Batman after watching Argo and The Town.
I think he really pull it off, plus I'm really looking forward to seeing the back & forth between him and Jeremy Irons as Alfred (who had damn well better have a pencil moustache for classic Alfred!)

I'm exceedingly disquieted by Eisenberg's casting as I think the 'geeky genius' shtick is old hat & while it's not been seen in a Superman movie before, it's been seen everywhere else for years.

I find the idea of him leading a gang to be laughable & a terrible way to derail any respect the audience is supposed to have for the character.

Now, I haven't actually seen Gal Gadot in anything.

Can anyone tell me if she sucks or not as I am not sitting through a Fast & the Furious movie just to find out

 

[Boba Frag]

Woops!

Double posted by accident, please delete this post Modgods.

 

[Khymerion]

All I could think about while I was reading this was that they turned Lex Luther into the boss of the 5th Street Saints from start of Saint's Row 3... but without any of the fun that was inherent in the character. Think of it, a semi-smart street gang leader who became a multi-billionair. Or it could be post third game where he pretty much runs the city.

But we won't get anything remotely that campy or silly. Which is a shame considering how poor this is sounding.

 

[The Wykydtron]

Well it is a bit odd to say the least but I am willing to give it a shot, I never really gave notice to who got casted for what role before anyway. There have been plenty of weird design choices in the Batman films and they worked out awesome. Bane's and Batman's voices for example.

Granted I have next to no interest in films so I haven't seen all the drivel this guy has been in before so maybe i'm being too optimistic. I will definitely watch it though.

 

[McFazzer]

I'm not even surprised anymore. This movie throws so many curveballs that it's becoming predictable.
This is how I'm seeing the logic WB is going with: "Okay, this decision would make sense... so we'll do the opposite! No one will ever expect that and the movie will continue to be a hot topic for years to come!"

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Whenever a new bullshit rumor like this picks up I have to remind myself that the movie has a 2016 release schedule and so much can and will change from here to the next 2 years.

 

[Ace Morologist]

A.) How is he a street tough if he used intelligence and resolve over strength and brute force?

B.) This is waaaaaaay too much back story for Lex Luthor. Lex is a modern-day Pharisee. It doesn't matter what he was like as a kid.

If you want to be clever and visionary, give Lex a legitimate gripe and show him doing anything in his power legally (or quasi-legally) to turn public opinion against Superman. More like Rupert Murdoch than Mark Zuckerberg. Have him make some sort of moves against the Daily Planet to give Lois and Perry and that lot something to do. This isn't hard, people.

--Morology!

 

[vagabondwillsmile]

Self-made billionaire from the streets? Is Lex's new super power battle rapping? Maybe Marshall Mathers would have been a better casting...

And just because it's funny...

Actually, you know what? I really like your idea. No sarcasm or irony - I would think that's cool.

Does anyone feel like this will be an inconsistant character if the film delivers as described in the article? If his cheif asset is cleverness, then why is the "street tough" bit even important? They definitely cast someone that can be clever, possibly even to an intimidating degree, on screen. But I don't see him as a gang leader capable of doing the dirty work needed to get to the top. They could have a story written where he tricks less intelligent people into doing his bidding and what-not, but again he doesn't need to be "street tough" (what does that even mean hear?) to pull that off then. Are we going to have a scene where he jumps-in someone?

I would rather a character that is brilliant and manipulative, and also that we know can - and will - reverse some jaws if he has too. Someone that everyone knows to fear. For an instant Heath Leadger's joker came to mind as he transended what audiences thought the person playing the role could do, into convincing audiences of what the character could do; and that may be the mindset here. BUT, I think that was one of those performances in cinema that is just lightening in a bottle. Once it's opened and the audience sees it come out, there is no duplicating it. And one key difference is that the back story whith that character was extremely limited - he was kind of an enigma and we really only had what was on screen in the present moment to go on. Whereas, from the article it seems like there will be a more fleshed-out backstory, explaining Luthor and his rise that could give too much information for the audience to accept a master-mind and hardened criminal rolled into one.

I don't know. It all smacks of doing to much; that instead they should pick an archetype and stick with it (which is what super heros and villains essentially are), especially with this casting.

 

[Thurston]

The '90's animated Superman show had Lex as a genius Mafia type.

He was smart enough that he could have been real rich completely legitimately. But he's ruthless enough to kill for advantage or pride. And like Mafia types, he likes to keep a good public image. So he makes legit money, augmented by some illegal action on the side. He's got many points of contention against Superman over time, including his displacement as Metropolis' favourite son, Supes interference in his rackets, and a point of pride on being a self-made man, rather than an alien freak.

I suggest checking out "World's Finest", a Batman/ Superman 2-parter from the '90s.

Harley: "You aren't going to kill us, are you?"
Lex: "No. I abhor violence...... Mercy will." (Mercy is Lex's bodyguard and driver, occasionally assassin)


New Lex:

Lex was a gang-banger growing up, much smarter than average, created new designer drugs, pioneered ingenious smuggling methods, ran numbers rackets, did some computer hacking, and was socially intelligent enough to move up the ranks without getting shot. He gets busted, serves his time with good behaviour, and emerges as a changed man, legal, self-made entrepreneur, and favourite son of Metropolis with a great redemption story of bad kid gone good. Except he didn't go good, he just got more careful. All his time in prison, he was establishing connections, granting favours and developing new toys and drugs. Hell, maybe it was his plan all along!

I see the performance as layered. He'd have to be slick and charming enough that society at large sees him as a good guy, but occasionally show the audience that calculated cold-blooded willingness to slit a throat (or have someone else do it) to satisfy his greed or pride.

 

[Therumancer]

It's like this. Too many sources try and humanize Lex Luthor and make him seem believable, when really he can't work that way when he's supposed to be the arch-enemy and major antagonist to a character that is defined by being unbelievable (so to speak).

Lex Luthor done properly should be less of a "criminal" or "CEO" though he can be both of those things, and more of a mad scientist. His ability to work with, and manipulate, super science is what is supposed to make it practical for him to be a serious threat to Superman. These elements are always sort of there for Lex, but increasingly seem to be relegated to the backround with a bunch of goons doing all the innovation and stuff for him, which in a lot of respects cheapens the character when it's less him being a threat to Superman than his money.

As things stand now we've already seen the "Street Tough" Luthor in Smallville, while Lex was still from a rich family, he was defined as being a trouble maker and getting into all kinds of fights and crime related trouble prior to his moving out to Smallville. This version seems a lot like the same thing, except to give him a poor economic backround instead. Honestly it only really worked there because they powered Superman down so much that they virtually had to power Lex down as well. Going by the fights in "Man Of Steel" Lex needs to have a bit more going on than this movie synopsis implies.

Of course the problem here might also be that they want to do "Batman Vs. Superman" and at the end of the day there is a lot of overlap between Lex Luthor and Batman, as both are basically super-brains who can in theory match Superman with gadgeteering. I myself have argued more than once that given Lex being his arch enemy and having actually won rounds against Superman in the past, there is no way one could fairly define Batman as a true underdog since he'd ultimately wind up approaching Superman the same basic way Lex would (a trap backed by a lot of planning and gadgetry). Lex and Batman Vs. Superman would be kind of one sided, so they are in a position where they have to pretty much ruin one of those two characters, and given Batman's popularity, that means Lex.

Personally I think they should just do the movie without Lex Luthor and use him as a proper antagonist in a later film.

 

[JenSeven]

People, what we're forgetting here is that this is a Superman VS Batman movie.
Lex is not the star in this movie.
We're not going to see his origin story, and if we do, we're going to see very little of it.

This is, as usual, just PR speak or wishful thinking.
I cannot imagine that they are going to handle this well or that it will be as people imagine it.
Luthor will be a bitplayer and not get that much screentime since this is promoted as a Superman VS Batman movie. They are the stars of the show and their battle the main attraction.

 

[TheVampwizimp_v1legacy]

People, what we're forgetting here is that this is a Superman VS Batman movie.
Lex is not the star in this movie.
We're not going to see his origin story, and if we do, we're going to see very little of it.

This is, as usual, just PR speak or wishful thinking.
I cannot imagine that they are going to handle this well or that it will be as people imagine it.
Luthor will be a bitplayer and not get that much screentime since this is promoted as a Superman VS Batman movie. They are the stars of the show and their battle the main attraction.

First of all, this movie is not officially "Batman VS Superman" yet. It's just "Man of Steel 2, featuring Batman." Everyone saw that and assumed that it would feature a battle between them.

Second, this would not be the first movie to throw too many eggs into one basket, hoping to build a franchise, and come up with a cluttered, bloated mess of origin stories and unresolved plot threads. Just look at "The Last Airbender" to understand what I fear this film may become.

 

[GiantRaven]

Well there goes my hope of a mad scientist Lex.

I would've thought that would have been a better route to go with Eisenberg. I think he'd have really been able to nail the anger in a crazed genius being torn down by Superman.

 

[Mr. Q]

If I had to take every rumor and announcement that has come out of this project with a grain of salt, I'd be suffering from high blood pressure.

I can see part of that description working for Lex since, in certain origins, he was a self-made millionare... which was due to a massive life insurance policy he took out on his abusive dad and planned out his death to look like an accident. ^^;

The thing that bothers me about Superman/Batman (whatever the hell they're gonna call it) is that there is nothing truly solid about what is going on. All we know are the castings of certain characters (Wonder Woman and Lex Luthor) and the returning cast & filmmakers from Man of Steel. Everything else has been nothing more but smoke being blown up the asses of fans. A lot of this feels like its being made up on the fly in order to recover from the mess the previous movie left in its wake. All of this chaos is just casting more uncertainty about this movie and the future of DC Comics ever rivaling Marvel in terms of movies.

All I can say is that DC and WB need to get their shit together and announce to the people what this movie is going to be about. Because all of this speculation and hearsay is not helping them sway the hearts & minds of fans and moviegoers.

 

[Seracen]

Essentially, "Lex" is simply there for the name recognition, with little else of his defining characteristics brought over (agaain, if it's true).

How so? Some of the defining characteristics of Lex are that he's a genius and has an ego the size of the sun. How does a genius level criminal turned billionaire not fit with that? And if we're really going to complain about Lex not being portrayed properly, there have been many different ones in the last thirty years alone. And the present day corporate tycoon version didn't even really take shape until the 80's. That was a massive departure from who the character was prior to that.

It's just that ALL but one casting decision has been rife with debate. It doesn't send out the best image. Again, we may all be surprised, but it just doesn't bode well.

And Heath Ledger didn't bode well. Or Michael Keaton. I hate to keep mentioning those things but as long as people are going to keep questioning the casting because they can't picture someone in a role I'm going to have to keep mentioning it. Two guys that everyone was convinced were the worst choices for their role when the casting news hit. Then the movies came out and everyone kind of had to suck it up and eat some crow. So until I have some actual footage to judge these people on, I'm not jumping to conclusions.

You missed a few of my points, which I admit I was poor at conveying. To me, Lex has always been a "silver spoon" kind of guy, not "rags to riches." To be certain, it's an interesting wrinkle to make him "street tough," but it isn't quintessential Lex, IMO.

As for the second half, that's why I specified all those people. It's fine to take a risk on one or two actors, not the whole damn cast. There is such a thing as miscasting a movie (in terms of archetype, even if the actor is decent).

Like you (I imagine), I really do want this to turn out well. I just can't garner any hope at this point. On the bright side, it'll be hard to disappoint me now, and it'll be easier to pleasantly surprise me. Now that I think about it, that could be their plan.

I was one of the few people that didn't HATE the Hulk films, b/c I went in hearing that they were absolute crap. So I was satisfied when they were merely (or barely) competent. Maybe that'll happen here.

 

[Rag Doll]

I'd say that judging only by that description, he sounds like an average BATMAN villain.