TBH, I find being sick of Lex Luthor as ridiculous as saying you're sick of Lois Lane and don't want her to be the love interest at all in this franchise.
I'm fine with him being absent in MOS, I get that (though I still hope they make a reference to Lexcorp, perhaps through Dr. Hamilton). But to not include him in sequels would be really really stupid.
Luthor is basically everything Superman is fighting against, all rolled up into one; greedy, power hungry and untouchable psychopath causing suffering for innocent people with almost every corrupt business deal he makes.
If you take that out, then you have one of two choices 1. You don't include a plot that involves any kind of fight against hidden corruption. Like the Donner films and SR did, where all the villains where independant, the world knew them as villains. Superman was never really the 'champion of the opressed'. 2. You have someone else take Lex's place as the . I guess Intergang could work, but it would be ridiculously similar to Nolan's Bat franchise then, wouldn't it? Or you could use new figures, like that 'Mr Glenmorgan'. But really what would be the point, when Lex is already there with all that history and potential?
Originally Posted by Rowsdower!
And he's never been done RIGHT in movies. EVER. That is precisely why I'm not sick of him. The wisecracking real estate scammer? Yeah, f*** that guy. But the brilliant billionaire industrialist and scientist with an uncontrollable disdain for the Man of Steel that drives him to do unthinkable acts? Yeah, we haven't seen that guy. They tried to add a little bit of those elements with Spacey's Lex, but he still came off like a tool. I want the REAL Lex Luthor. The guy who can be a charming media darling one minute and then will turn on a dime and strangle one of his goons to death for failing him.
Originally Posted by flickchick85
Same goes for Lex. We haven't seen the definitive Lex Luthor in live-action. I think the closest we got was John Shea in L&C, cheesy as that show was. Rosenbaum had the brilliant, Machiavellian billionaire part down, but he didn't have the "public charmer" aspect at all (because his character wasn't written that way). Shea's Luthor, while still portrayed on the cartoonish level of that show, was a charming, brilliant, and a self-made billionaire industrialist who was beloved by the public, and had a true, viscous hatred of Superman going on because of what he represented to him. And he had the whole world fooled except Superman. That's who Lex Luthor should be, imo. Just, ya know, a less cheesy version of it, lol.
Agree so much with the both of you
'Why do I find all of this so horrible to explore?
Sure, they are interesting questions that I don't mind seeing in an elseworlds GN. But as a theme for the film that is kicking off the tone of the whole JL, and in a film that is presenting Superman to the general audience in a way that current generations will remember him?
I just don't like it. It's dark, it's depressing and it's not how I like the tone of Superman films to be.'