Zack Snyder Defends Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor Casting

[PedroSteckecilo]

Considering how terrible some of his casting for Watchmen was I can't say I'll take his word for it. Particularly I'm referring to the woefully terrible casting of Matthew Goode as Adrian Viedt/Ozymandias and Malin Akerman's not great portrayal of Silk Spectre 2.

 

[drummond13]

An actor known mostly for his roles as the male lead in teen-oriented romance movies was cast in the role as the villain in an upcoming comic book movie. Fans of the source material generally scoffed at the choice of him in the role. He was the pretty boy who gets the girl, not some sinister madman. It was bound to fail.

Spoiler: Boy, didn't they end up looking like a bunch of jackasses.

Heath was cast by the director of "Following", "The Prestige", and "Batman Begins".

Jesse was cast by the director of "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" and "Sucker Punch".

If Snyder had any credibility then this decision wouldn't bother me so much. But he's made so many poor decisions in the past, it's hard to believe this isn't another one of them.

 

[Naqel]

An actor known mostly for his roles as the male lead in teen-oriented romance movies was cast in the role as the villain in an upcoming comic book movie. Fans of the source material generally scoffed at the choice of him in the role. He was the pretty boy who gets the girl, not some sinister madman. It was bound to fail.

Spoiler: Boy, didn't they end up looking like a bunch of jackasses.

To put it in shonen manga terms.

DC discovered their 'special attack' with Ledger, it was effective.
Since then Marvel raised the stakes by revealing that it's special attacks were actually a part of an 'super combo'(The Avengers).
The game has moved to a new level, and DC is at the stage where the hero "spams" his special attack hoping it'll work at some point.
Chances of that working are pretty slim, and we'll probably see DC "fail"(though they'll still make loads of money, because Batman).
Then it'll be time for an intense training session/power of friendship/ect.

 

[Riff Moonraker]

I'm not saying it's GONNA happen, but remember when people got all furious about Nolan casting Heath Ledger as the Joker?

Just gonna leave it at that.

Good point, and I was one of the people eating crow after that, and I learned to keep my mouth shut and not question Nolans choices. However, Snyder is not Nolan, either.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Others have been a bit peeved that Wonder Woman is being introduced as a <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/130239-Wonder-Woman-Is-Israels-Gal-Gadot>side character when, by all rights, she should have her own movie franchise by now.

Why, by rights, should she have her own franchise by now? She's been off the air for decades and comparatively few people even know who she is, what she can do or would pay money to watch her film. She has to be established somehow before she can get her own movie, let alone a franchise. How much WW merchandise is sold relative to the Big Two?

They made a Green Lantern film which flopped. If they tried to make an Aquaman, Flash or Wonder Woman film, they would likely all flop too (though I would give the Flash the greatest chance of that lot at succeeding). Establishing them as a side character as a pre-cursor to their own films, let alone their own franchise, is a safer way to go. Shame it has to be in a continuation of the Man of Steel universe, which quite frankly sucked. I would rather have seen a continuation of Brandon Routh/Kevin Spacey/Bryan Singer than that crap.

 

[Fallen-Angel Risen-Demon]

Why, by rights, should she have her own franchise by now? She's been off the air for decades and comparatively few people even know who she is, what she can do or would pay money to watch her film. She has to be established somehow before she can get her own movie, let alone a franchise. How much WW merchandise is sold relative to the Big Two?

-snip-

Because she's Wonder Woman, one of the big three DC Heroes alongside Batman and Superman and probably the most well known and iconic female superheroes. I find it hard to believe that not many people know who she is at all, and if they don't they never will unless they make a movie with her as the star.

Besides, its already been proven that you can make a good Wonder Woman movie. Just look at the 2009 animated film.

 

[Megalodon]

All the castings decisions for the film have made me excited because they are terrific prestigious actors and they suggest that someone somewhere has a vision for this thing because they're not the obvious choices.

Didn't they cast some Israeli model whose only acting credit is a Fast and Furious sequel as Wonder Woman? Hardly prestigious. Not saying you're wrong to be excited, but the announced cast so far is far from 100% acting A grade.

I mean it's pretty much the definition of acting A grade in that they've cast multiple oscar winners. I agree that Gal Godot isn't prestigious but she's the exception not the rule in terms of what they've done so far and it's very likely that her part in this particular film is just going to be a cameo.

IMDB lists 8 confirmed actors so far. Of those 3 have won Oscars and only Gal Gadot hasn't been nominated for one.

Well, I didn't realise they had cast that many, I was only aware of Affleck, Cavill, Gadot and Eisenburg. You're right that it looks like a strong supporting cast. However I feel I should point out that more than just Gadot haven't had Oscar nominations. Cavill hasn't either, and Affleck's wins haven't been for acting (this is something of an assumption, but all the praise I've heard about Argo is related to his filmaking rather than his acting). Again, not passing judgement on the film yet, or saying that Oscar nominations are the only way to measure an actor's worth, but the weak link in the cast atm does seem to be the main characters, rather than the support.

 

[Gorrath]

Others have been a bit peeved that Wonder Woman is being introduced as a <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/130239-Wonder-Woman-Is-Israels-Gal-Gadot>side character when, by all rights, she should have her own movie franchise by now.

Why, by rights, should she have her own franchise by now? She's been off the air for decades and comparatively few people even know who she is, what she can do or would pay money to watch her film. She has to be established somehow before she can get her own movie, let alone a franchise. How much WW merchandise is sold relative to the Big Two?

They made a Green Lantern film which flopped. If they tried to make an Aquaman, Flash or Wonder Woman film, they would likely all flop too (though I would give the Flash the greatest chance of that lot at succeeding). Establishing them as a side character as a pre-cursor to their own films, let alone their own franchise, is a safer way to go. Shame it has to be in a continuation of the Man of Steel universe, which quite frankly sucked. I would rather have seen a continuation of Brandon Routh/Kevin Spacey/Bryan Singer than that crap.

Funny enough, she has way more penetration than Iron Man, and I saw many of the same comments about the Iron Man movie when it was first coming to light. The reason Green Lantern flopped was because it sucked, horribly. I think we are past the point where audiences care how well they know any character or their power set, they are willing to give Super Hero movies a chance based on benefit of the doubt. Wonder Woman should have her own movie. If people can get excited over Guardians of the Galaxy of all things, we've certainly reached a point where Wonder Woman is well known enough to carry her own film. Their best chance of making any of those films and having them not flop isn't through introducing the characters in someone else's movie, but by making them the star of a movie that isn't terrible.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Why, by rights, should she have her own franchise by now? She's been off the air for decades and comparatively few people even know who she is, what she can do or would pay money to watch her film. She has to be established somehow before she can get her own movie, let alone a franchise. How much WW merchandise is sold relative to the Big Two?

-snip-

Because she's Wonder Woman, one of the big three DC Heroes alongside Batman and Superman and probably the most well known and iconic female superheroes. I find it hard to believe that not many people know who she is at all, and if they don't they never will unless they make a movie with her as the star.

Besides, its already been proven that you can make a good Wonder Woman movie. Just look at the 2009 animated film.

Look at the what now? See I haven't even heard of a 2009 animated film, and I'm a geek. WW is not in the public consciousness anywhere near Batman or Superman. Not even close to being in the same league for how well known and prevalent those two are. They can make a big budget movie but if the only people who watch it are WW comic book fans, the film will be a commercial failure. It has to appeal to a wider audience, and the wider audience haven't got the faintest idea who she is. Ask almost anyone about Superman's powers, they'll be able to tell you. Ask about WW, they'll draw a complete blank.

WW, Green Lantern, Flash, Aquaman, Martian Manhunter, Cyborg and so on are not on peoples' radars. How many WW lunchboxes and TShirts get sold compared to the big two (I've never seen a single one in my 3.5 decades)? They need to be more well known by people who aren't comic book fans before they can support a movie, let alone a franchise of their own.

 

[BrotherRool]

Well, I didn't realise they had cast that many, I was only aware of Affleck, Cavill, Gadot and Eisenburg. You're right that it looks like a strong supporting cast. However I feel I should point out that more than just Gadot haven't had Oscar nominations. Cavill hasn't either, and Affleck's wins haven't been for acting (this is something of an assumption, but all the praise I've heard about Argo is related to his filmaking rather than his acting). Again, not passing judgement on the film yet, or saying that Oscar nominations are the only way to measure an actor's worth, but the weak link in the cast atm does seem to be the main characters, rather than the support.

Oh yeah sorry my mistake with Cavill, I misread or forgot something there and you're right about Affleck not winning any for acting. I saw he had two and for some reason I assumed he won one for directing Argo and that the other must be for an acting gig, but it turns out he wrote Good Will Hunting(?) along with Ben Affleck(?!). He won a BAFTA for acting in Argo, so it's not like he was a terrible actor there but it was somewhat misrepresentative for me to talk about his Oscars.

I think Cavill held up his role really well in Man of Steel though, if anything I think the cast made the film seem a tiny bit better written than it was, at least for the people supporting it.


Apart from the normal Heath Ledger example, Tom Hiddleston is a great demonstration of how pretty off the wall actors can end up doing great in these sorts of films. Before Thor he'd only acted in 2 films previously and one of those was for years ago. In the closer one his role was a son in a British family going through a 'quarter life crisis' and before that was just TV work. And he became easily one of the best things about the Thor movies and absolutely pivotal to the success of the Avengers.

...Gal Godot doesn't even have that history behind her though. Jesse Eisenberg is a fantastic actor with a lot of great films behind him, Cavill is good for his part and Ben Affleck has done some great roles in films and in particular has actually become a better actor since he started directing too. But Gal Godot was either chosen because she's a fantastic actor who hasn't been given a shot ...or for her looks. I'd toss a coin and I wouldn't be able to make a guess as to which. I don't suppose we'll know until we see her in the film, and even then its probably going to be just a cameo

 

[drummond13]

Why, by rights, should she have her own franchise by now? She's been off the air for decades and comparatively few people even know who she is, what she can do or would pay money to watch her film. She has to be established somehow before she can get her own movie, let alone a franchise. How much WW merchandise is sold relative to the Big Two?

-snip-

Because she's Wonder Woman, one of the big three DC Heroes alongside Batman and Superman and probably the most well known and iconic female superheroes. I find it hard to believe that not many people know who she is at all, and if they don't they never will unless they make a movie with her as the star.

Besides, its already been proven that you can make a good Wonder Woman movie. Just look at the 2009 animated film.

Look at the what now? See I haven't even heard of a 2009 animated film, and I'm a geek. WW is not in the public consciousness anywhere near Batman or Superman. Not even close to being in the same league for how well known and prevalent those two are. They can make a big budget movie but if the only people who watch it are WW comic book fans, the film will be a commercial failure. It has to appeal to a wider audience, and the wider audience haven't got the faintest idea who she is. Ask almost anyone about Superman's powers, they'll be able to tell you. Ask about WW, they'll draw a complete blank.

WW, Green Lantern, Flash, Aquaman, Martian Manhunter, Cyborg and so on are not on peoples' radars. How many WW lunchboxes and TShirts get sold compared to the big two (I've never seen a single one in my 3.5 decades)? They need to be more well known by people who aren't comic book fans before they can support a movie, let alone a franchise of their own.

I see what you're saying completely, but I would argue that the Green Lantern movie didn't flop because it featured a relatively unknown DC character, it flopped because it was one of the worst movies of its year.

Iron Man was also a character considerably less familiar to the general public and his movie worked out just fine. Now he's one of the most popular movie superheroes. I think DC dropped the ball big time when they canned the Joss Wedon Wonder Woman movie.

 

[Something Amyss]

P.P.S. Morgan Freeman was also nominated for an Academy Award too, why didn't you cast him as Lex?

I would LOVE a Morgan Freeman Lex Luthor. That could be completely epic.

OT: This movie has basically slipped off my radar. I'm not saying it can't be good, but I don't care much. My expectations are pretty low. If it's good, great! I'm not deciding any of this is bad before I see it (on Netflix, probably), but nothing particularly strikes me as a good decision.

And Snyder's not helping any here. With anyone, really.

 

[Sanunes]

Why do I all of a sudden have the feeling that he is being defensive only because of how divided people seem to be about Man of Steel? For people being upset about who is playing a certain character has been an issue for most of the movies I have seen that are based on comic books.

The comments I have seen for this casting seem pretty tame compared to Ben Affleck and Heath Ledger announcements for their roles.

 

[C14N]

I don't understand the constant outrage at the choice of actor's in this film. Ben Affleck is tall, pretty buff guy whose recent films have all been pretty good and he should be perfectly fine as Batman. I always thought Lex Luthor was supposed to be a kind of dorky villian too since his only power is his intelligence and scientific knowledge, hardly seems worlds apart from Zukerberg in The Social Network.

The real reason it's hard to be excited is because Zack Snyder is directing and that guy just puts out misfire after misfire. I'm not saying it won't ever change but there isn't much cause to be excited about anything he does with his current track record.

 

[Toadfish1]

For my money, something pretty out of left field is going to have to happen to make me look at Jessie Eisenberg and think to myself "He's Lex Luthor". As an actor he tends to play character are come across as smug, self satisfied arseholes but lack the charm and sophistication to make it look good.

Better bring your A-game, Jessie. Christ knows you'll need it.

So he plays smug self satisfied arseholes with no charm and a total messiah complex about themselves. And thats not Lex.

...have you, like, read a comic featuring Lex Luthor in the last 50 years?

To me, Lex Luthor has always seemed like charismatic and charming man: his public image as an industrialist, a scientist and statesmen depend on such things. He's a total bastard, but still a charming one: unless he's talking to or about Superman. That's when he starts with the ranting, raving and table flipping behavior.

THe charm and charisma is all something he pays an image consultant for. In reality, Luthor is an obsessive, vindictive, petty, egotistical tyrant. Since everything positive about him is manufactured, whats Eisenberg missing?

 

[Tradjus]

Right.. because a twenty three year old pimple faced nerd as Lex Luthor will be so intimidating too Superman, who just destroyed two cities and effectively told the U.S military too shove it up their ass by destroying their spy satellite, AND not too mention, brutally murdered a super-powered genocidal maniac with his bare hands.

Yeah, making this guy any sort of challenge too Superman is going to be a pretty hard uphill struggle and we all know they're just going too pull something out of their ass, some stupid contrivance that makes it impossible for Superman too just snap Luthor's neck too, because obviously -this- version of Superman has no issue with murder.

 

[Dr. Thrax]

I always thought Lex Luthor was supposed to be a kind of dorky villian too since his only power is his intelligence and scientific knowledge, hardly seems worlds apart from Zukerberg in The Social Network.

Lex Luthor is the only mortal who can actually stand up and fight Superman, while the animated Luthors have been a bit bulkier, he's still shown, even in the comics, to have a certain presence about him that commands respect. Luthor is very much a square-jawed, charismatic, silver-tongued devil (That is until the topic strays to Superman.)
Eisenberg does not have that same kind of stature and presence, especially to me. To me he just looks like some snotty teen brat.
I'll warn you that both of these spoilers are kinda image heavy.

Spoiler: Various animated versions of Lex Luthor

Now, I know the animated versions really aren't that great of a reference point, since they tended to make everyone a bit bulkier and square. While the comic version of Luthor tends to be just a little bit slimmer, he still has an intimidating presence.

Spoiler: Various comic versions of Lex Luthor

This one's just too big for img tags, so here's a link to it instead.
http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20131106222016/marvel_dc/images/0/0e/Superman_Unchained_Vol_1_4_Textless.jpg

In my mind, that's what I see Luthor as, and Eisenberg just doesn't have that.

 

[MrBaskerville]

People could at least wait until a trailer before they start bitching. Honestly, if the movie looks shit from the trailer, ***** until the cows come home and don't go see it.

There's "I don't think he is right for the role" which is fine to think, but I've seen some people completely lose their shit over this and it's weird to see.

I know my quite positive attitude doesn't really have a place here but I think we can all name a few actors we were pleasantly surprised by in movies and maybe Eisenberg will be another one.

I don't think he particularly looks the role and his past movies have been a bit too much "awkward teenager/adult" but this might be his time to shine and break free from the type-casting.

Saying that, if Snyder makes a good movie he will receive all of my respect. It's going to be tough to pull this off.

If nothing else we can at least expect top flight action scenes. He doesn't use shaky cam a whole lot like most action movies do these days. Say what you will about his films but in almost every single one they have some pretty damn engaging action scenes. Hell Suckerpunch proved that is someone wanted to make an anime into a live action movie and actually use anime style battle cliches and make it work they can. The Owls of Gahoole, Man of Steel, Suckerpunch all had great action beats. Plus the heroes can actually move in their costumes in the live action ones thus allowing them to actually do engaging combat sequences, unlike some other heroes I know. *looks at Batman franchise*

Normally i would agree, but i think the action scenes was what ruined Man of Steel, i kinda enjoyed the movie but the action was so boring and drawn out. But normally he manages action pretty well, his all style and no substance, but it kinda works for him. Unfortunately i think the quality of his work has declined recently, Man of Steel was the best of the last three, but still not particularily good (mainly do to action imo) and Sucker Punch + the owl were pretty awful. He's best when he adapts stuff.

The owls were an adaptation and that's weird. You're like the one person I've seen who says that Gahoole was awful. We know Zack can make good movies and hell even good comic books movies. After all he was the one who filmed the unfilmable comic and made it great. Or at least I think it was great. Everyone keeps telling me it actually is but when I saw it I couldn't get passed big blue swinging dicks and sex scenes. Perhaps freshman year high school was not the best time to see it. Its the Nolan touch that probably needs to go away. Nolan is a good film maker but obviously when it comes to the comic book stuff he likes to do dark descontructions of it rather than embrace it. Kind of like Alan Moore did except I think Nolan is less of an ass than Moore. They got good names associated with the franchise. The problem is their styles clash. Where as Zack likes to embrace a stylistic approach to his films Nolan would rather bring it down to the real world.

I've heard a lot of great things about the Owl movie, but i just found it to be very trite and predictable. It was the same old story as most animation movies follow, only it didn't really add ny characters i cared for, it didn't have an interesting twist to the story and i disliked the humour. It was very boring to sit through for me, but i might need to add that i usually have this experience when watching non Stop-motion animated movies from the west. So yeah, it was an uphill battle, but i didn't see much of interest in the Owl movie. It wasn't poorly made, just kinda derivative, imo.

 

[C14N]

I always thought Lex Luthor was supposed to be a kind of dorky villian too since his only power is his intelligence and scientific knowledge, hardly seems worlds apart from Zukerberg in The Social Network.

Lex Luthor is the only mortal who can actually stand up and fight Superman, while the animated Luthors have been a bit bulkier, he's still shown, even in the comics, to have a certain presence about him that commands respect. Luthor is very much a square-jawed, charismatic, silver-tongued devil (That is until the topic strays to Superman.)
Eisenberg does not have that same kind of stature and presence, especially to me. To me he just looks like some snotty teen brat.
I'll warn you that both of these spoilers are kinda image heavy.

Spoiler: Various animated versions of Lex Luthor

Now, I know the animated versions really aren't that great of a reference point, since they tended to make everyone a bit bulkier and square. While the comic version of Luthor tends to be just a little bit slimmer, he still has an intimidating presence.

Spoiler: Various comic versions of Lex Luthor

This one's just too big for img tags, so here's a link to it instead.
http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20131106222016/marvel_dc/images/0/0e/Superman_Unchained_Vol_1_4_Textless.jpg

In my mind, that's what I see Luthor as, and Eisenberg just doesn't have that.

Well we'll see. I haven't seen Eisenberg in a film since The Social Network and that was 4 years ago so maybe he's able to pull off something different by now. Also, the only version of Lex Luthor I've seen is the Gene Hackman version from the 70s and a short strip of Luthor's origin as Superman's friend-turned-enemy (which may or may not be canon). He really wasn't very menacing in the original movie though, he came across as something of a slapstick pantomime villain.