The Greatest Criminal Mind of Our Time: Nicholas Hoult IS Lex Luthor

[Gamma Goliath]

I like the relationship between Superman and Lex where they're an anomaly to one another.
Lex is jealous and stokes fear about Superman, he doesn't trust or understand why a man with God like power serves others for nothing in return. Superman is saddened and disappointed that a man of Lex's power and status could be so selfish and vindictive, he thinks Luthor could do way more for the world than he himself ever could.

They don't need to know each other before hand for that dynamic to work.

 

[GreenKToo]

I feel that this Lex would have been "king of the world" pre superman.
Post superman, Lex is second rate news to the public.
I also feel that Lex will be responsible for 90% of the supervillians that appear.
He probably created most of them.

 

[Gamma Goliath]

I hope he's not responsible for all of the villains. We get enough of that with various versions of spider-man and the villains coming from oscorp (or stark industries in the mcu). It's a world full of heroes and villains, the more variation the better the world building imo. I could See Metallo and Parasite being Lexcorps creations. But even then the Man of Tomorrow animated movie gave Parasite a more unique origin. There's also S.T.A.R labs as well.

 

[flickchick85]

Yeah I’m never a fan of all the supervillains coming from one place/source. That’s one of my few (very minor) quibbles with MAWS.

 

[Captain Tired]

That was something that tired me out in STAS: the sheer number of villains linked directly to Luthor. It's like, we get it, he's the archenemy.

 

[SupermansPal]

I'll say that I think the people who are expecting an uber serious and stoic Lex are probably setting themselves up for disappointment, Gunn reutilizing Donner's wacky henchmen tells me that he'll be at least partially a comedic role.

 

[Captain Tired]

That's why I hope Otis will have a tattoo of a scary clown face on the back of his dome.

 

[Gamma Goliath]

I don't think we've seen anything to suggest Otis will be the same wacky henchman in this version. For all we know he could be pretty scary and capable, but also be funny or a little goofy. As far as Lex goes, I imagine he'll be Charismatic and charming, as well as cruel and sadistic. But I guess we'll see.

 

[whoknows]

I don't mind a comedic Lex at all, watching Hackman is a blast, scenes like him giving the double v's and 'Australia!!!!'....in the white house with the 3 villans. Spacey's lex was boring as f***, he could've used a bit of comedy.
but the fully serious Lex from Smallville worked very well, although he wasn't the fully formed Lex we would be getting in a Superman movie. so he was written a lot more sympathetically.

 

[Captain Tired]

I like it when villains are loveable and deceptively bumbling enough to make you almost want to look past their evil actions. It's almost inadvertently meta. And Hackman's Luthor, though loveable and bumbling, does still have a moment or two where the mask drops for a brief moment and you see the clinical, reptilian nature. His dead-eyed 'No, by causing the deaths of innocent people' is pretty masterful acting from Hackman imo.

I like Spacey's, too, for what it's worth.

 

[whoknows]

Yeah, that was a great moment from Hackman. People are too down on that performance I think.
I can't stand anything about Superman Returns though, the whole thing was a miscast travesty.
Trying to get the lead to ape Chris Reeve, excising the humour completely from Luthor, when Kevin Spacey can be quite funny, and having Lois Lane be a bit of a b**** to Clark, treating him like a moron in th elevator scene for instance, no i can't stand that movie, superman 3 was better and i had lots of probs with that film when i was a child.

 

[Lily Adler]

Yeah I’m never a fan of all the supervillains coming from one place/source. That’s one of my few (very minor) quibbles with MAWS.

We still don't know if the full origins of the Kryptonian tech.

 

[Captain Tired]

Spacey's Luthor still had moments of comedy, but the emphasis was admittedly more on his bitter and nasty side. But it makes sense, given that his character's spent the intervening years mostly in prison. I do agree that Routh, at least in Superman Returns, makes for a pretty charmless Superman. But I think that's mostly down to the creepy, stalkerish characterisation they gave him. Was a big misfire. And whenever I think back to Returns, I honestly can't even remember Routh talking. His Clark Kent reminds me of Kevin in Sin City. Put Routh's Kent in a Charlie Brown sweater, I guarantee you wouldn't notice the difference.

 

[flickchick85]

We still don't know if the full origins of the Kryptonian tech.

Yeah but it’s still creating a bunch of villains it didn’t create in the comics, regardless of where it has come from.

 

[whoknows]

Re Superman returns, i didn't mind Superman abusing his powers to spy on lois and her family, i thought that was a fairly realistic way of doing things and made for an interesting character moment(and superman was punished for it as he heard her say she didn't love him), but when he took her flying, ie trying to get in her head through using his powers, well that was definetly creepy as ****, i didn't like that characterisation at all.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I'll say that I think the people who are expecting an uber serious and stoic Lex are probably setting themselves up for disappointment, Gunn reutilizing Donner's wacky henchmen tells me that he'll be at least partially a comedic role.

I doubt it.

In Nicholas Hoult's appearance on Inside of You, Hoult said he loved the way Michael Rosenbaum inhabited Lex with 'such depth and charm, and that ability to switch, that makes him dangerous and formidable and a great opponent'.

Then Michael Rosenbaum said:

'James is such a great director and he's not gonna be like 'let's play it really over the top and big and goofy and haha. I mean, everyone knows that'.

Hoult (jokingly) responds: 'So I shouldn't do that?'

Nothing I've seen or heard so far indicates they are going for a comedic Lex at all.

 

[Deck Rickard]

Re Superman returns, i didn't mind Superman abusing his powers to spy on lois and her family, i thought that was a fairly realistic way of doing things and made for an interesting character moment(and superman was punished for it as he heard her say she didn't love him), but when he took her flying, ie trying to get in her head through using his powers, well that was definetly creepy as ****, i didn't like that characterisation at all.

One thing I hate about Superman Returns is how they made Superman this unintentional d***. First, he jets off and leaves Earth for five years and doesn’t even tell Lois where he’s going, yet he apparently had enough time to go cook up a scheme with his mom to send Lois postcards “from” Clark so she wouldn’t put it together that Clark is Superman. Then when he comes back, he uses his powers to spy on Lois and her family like a stalker. And then of course, his dog wants him to play fetch so Clark chucks the ball into the next state (which also would have killed someone if it hit a person). It’s like no one in the writer’s room thought about all this stuff and was like, “Wait a minute, this makes Superman look like an ***hole.”

 

[whoknows]

Yeah, just all around bizarre decisions went into the script of that movie.

 

[Dr.]

...And then of course, his dog wants him to play fetch so Clark chucks the ball into the next state (which also would have killed someone if it hit a person). It’s like no one in the writer’s room thought about all this stuff and was like, “Wait a minute, this makes Superman look like an ***hole.”

Well...

There are many things that Superman does that would seem to be problematic if given a full analysis. Consider this generic scenario: Supes scans Metropolis with x-ray vision searching for a ruthless villain or a hapless kidnap victim. But wait a second. Those x-rays are invading a lot of personal privacy. Does this morally compromise Supes? Technically, yes.. But we’re obviously meant to enjoy and embrace the fun/fantasy aspects of this feat — and ignore/wink at its more realistic ramifications.

The baseball scene in SR is an obvious callback to a similar scene in STM involving Clark kicking a football “into the next state.” Nitpick the former and you’re kinda obliged to do the same for the latter.

 

[whoknows]

not really, in superman the movie he is still a stupid high school kid who is frustrated that he can't use his powers to join the football team, so he kicks the ball in frustration and to prove to himself that he's the best at football. he doesn't think about where it's gonna land, he just wants to kick it, because hes a stupid kid.
in superman returns it's just a bizarre decision to throw the dog's ball into the ether, no logic behind it.

edit: and to prove he's just a stupid kid at this point in his life, we see the scene afterwards where pa kent puts him on the right track, telling him that he was made for more than touchdowns, that he has a great destiny and shouldn't be concerned with impressing his peers.

 

[Captain Tired]

Still, playing devil's advocate, a kid of Supes' age would know there's a possibility that a ball dropping back down from that height could potentially kill someone. It's like that nutjob from Missouri who smashed the other girl's skull into a pavement 3-4 times. If you're in high school, you're old enough to understand what can potentially kill someone. Feelings of frustration for whatever reason don't suddenly mitigate that.

 

[whoknows]

he also jumps in front of a train, which was much worse, he could've derailed the whole thing and killed lois and everyone onboard.

i still say he was just an unthinking stupid kid, i did plenty of things when i was a secondary school kid that i am horrified by, the same is true for superman here in the movie, you just have to accept he wasn't too bright in his teenage years.

edit: there's a logic behind the ball being kicked, whereas there is zero logic behind throwing the dog ball.

edit: when you think about it clark is a dummy at that age, as i was saying, in the conversation afterwards pa kent has to put him right on his destiny, as Clark is only concerned with impressing lana lang and her friends, while jor-el also teaches him about his destiny in the fortress over a couple of years. before that he is a clueless ****, jumping in front of trains, kicking footballs into god knows where, whereas in superman returns he is a seasoned superhero and reporter who should know better.
edit: he should probably know better as a teenager, but from all angles in the movie, he proves to be a dummy, focused on the wrong things and only gets smart when his adoptive and biological parents teach him.

 

[GreenKToo]

I hope he's not responsible for all of the villains. We get enough of that with various versions of spider-man and the villains coming from oscorp (or stark industries in the mcu). It's a world full of heroes and villains, the more variation the better the world building imo. I could See Metallo and Parasite being Lexcorps creations. But even then the Man of Tomorrow animated movie gave Parasite a more unique origin. There's also S.T.A.R labs as well.

I think in a round about way, Lex and his creations will inspire other supervillains to come forward, much like how superman inspired other heroes to come out.

 

[Dr.]

not really, in superman the movie he is still a stupid high school kid who is frustrated that he can't use his powers to join the football team, so he kicks the ball in frustration and to prove to himself that he's the best at football. he doesn't think about where it's gonna land, he just wants to kick it, because hes a stupid kid.
in superman returns it's just a bizarre decision to throw the dog's ball into the ether, no logic behind it.

That seems like a stretch.

Invoking a bit of “head canon”… we might assume that STM Clark (though young and reckless) knew enough to aim the football into an adjacent — and non-populated — cornfield. Likewise, more experienced SR Clark used “super control” and x-ray vision to ensure that the baseball wouldn’t conk anyone on the noggin.

Generally, we just apply some willing suspension of disbelief. Sure: maybe Ben Hubbard got impaled by a supersonic projectile. But more plausibly (and absent any evidence to the contrary), the football and baseball landed harmlessly.

 

[whoknows]

but when you see that he's also the kind of kid that plays chicken with trains, you can see the character trait of unthinking stupid kid is there, it's not a stretch.
he's a dummy, he's going on about playing football and pa kent has to tell him that his powers come with responsibility as he is destined for great things.
the kid is dumb, he should be concerned with what he is going to grow up to be, not kicking footballs and jumping in front of trains.

i can sympathise with people who don't like that character trait being in the donner movie, as he wasn't a dummy at that age in the comics, he was a fully fledged superhero as a teenager, and took responsibility for his powers.
i am being a bit of a hypocrite as i don't like Batman89 very much as the characterisation of Batman, Alfred and the joker are far off the comicbook versions i grew up with. so i can see why some people would have a problem with a stupid teenage superman, but i don't, probably because i didnt read any superboy comics when i was growing up, and because i was also a stupid unthinking tearaway as a teenager, i can relate.