Re: All Things Superman: An Open Discussion - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 22
I dunno - I think Lex might not be such a good idea.
The Dark Knight Trilogy sequence was good, introduce the Bats' most iconic villain in the epilogue to Batman Begins (when Gordon shows Batman the joker card), then dedicate an entire film to him as the sequel. That works because (a) you introduce the cool villain at a point where you already defined the hero in the previous movie, that way you can devote more time to the villain and his psychology, and (b) the Joker is a brilliant cinematic character.
Luthor? Not so much. I love Lex Luthor because I'm a big Superman fan. But I also admit that he's just not that cinematic. He hasn't got the Joker's weirdness and flare, he doesn't have the freakish appearance of Two-Face and legions of other Batman rogues, he doesn't have the sex appeal of Catwoman or the hulkishness of Bane (who it turns out isn't that cinematic of a character either).
Basically I think that there's not too much you can do to make Lex Luthor interesting to the wider public as the main villain. He'd always need to be in a movie with another foe, someone more interesting or at least visually striking.
Fact is, Superman doesn't have a great rogues gallery, and these would be hard to translate to a great movie villain. We love Zod, but Zod was mainly made cool by Terence Stamp, but the villain himself isn't anywhere close to being as interesting as any number of minor Batman villains. Same with Braniac. I love the guy but I think he'd make audiences groan. His name is way too dumb for a 21st century audience. Doomsday? Basically a derivative CGI creature, same goes for Bizarro. Best not even mention Toyman or I dunno, Conduit. Darkseid is the only great villain you have there, but he's being used for Justice League, apparently.
So basically I think just make someone up to be the villain in the sequel.