Justice League Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor

[The Guard]

I like how we're debating whether or not it was logical storytelling to have an egotistical, psychopathic supervillain act recklessly and without consideration for how his actions would affect others.

This.

I think people are viewing this through the lens of what they wanted to see from Luthor VS what's actually presented.

Luthor is clearly losing himself a bit to his desire to end Superman in the film.

I doubt he much cares about controlling Doomsday. He's on a high from creating life, a life that could destroy Superman. He goes so far as to create something so awful...I dunno, I don't think he was thinking entirely rationally. Not that he's gone crazy, mind you. Just not thinking totally rationally.

 

[The Guard]

Lex's motivation for all his convoluted plans are crammed into couple lines towards the end when yells at Superman. There are references and allusions, but there is no connective tissue between them and no proper construction of plot or story. Or rather far too much plot and too little story.

That's just not true. Parts of Luthor's motivations are found spaced throughout the film, in pretty much every scene he's in. They build to what he eventually reveals as being his personal hatred of Superman and the very personal reasons for that hatred.

There are absolutely connections made between Luthor's interactions earlier in the film and his evolving actions later in the film.

The writer/s are effectively working backwards when it comes to revealing his motivations and character. They start with the broad strokes, the things Lex claims he truly cares about, and slowly peel away the layers of the deceptive character.

 

[Da-Scribe]

Nor does it mean that he should be able to control the thing that even a super advanced race like the kryptonians deemed too dangerous just because it has his blood in it especially since the ship never indicated that such a thing was even feasible.

The scout ship never tells him it's too dangerous. Just tells him he's not supposed to do it. There's no mention of whether or not it's controllable at all. It's never something that comes up.

 

[The Guard]

Luthor calls the thing "Your doomsday" as it's being born.

He clearly knew it was dangerous before it was born.

 

[Da-Scribe]

Luthor calls the thing "Your doomsday" as it's being born.

He clearly knew it was dangerous before it was born.

He knew it could kill Superman. I'm talking about the idea that he knew it would go on to kill everyone and everything else as well. There's no indication that he knew one way or the other what was going to happen with Doomsday beyond that it'd kill Supes.

 

[Captain Tired]

I never said I like Hackman's or spacey's versions more so please read my post alittle more carefully,

Conversely, I never said you liked them. I said that you were trying to imply that they were in any way better. So talk about reading posts more carefully... But I take your point.

I said that Eisinberg's lex was so wacky and twitchy that he made the former 2 versions look tame by comparison, and in my mind those versions of lex atleast had the excuse of being based on the sillier campier lex of the time while Snyder's lex is supposed to be a modern day lex but ended up resembling a 70s saturday morning cartoon version.

Make them look tame? In what capacity? If we're focusing on mere personality alone, Hackman and Spacey's portrayals weren't 'wacky or twitchy'. They were bumbling fools who bickered ad nauseum with their cohorts, but in mere personality alone they weren't wacky or twitchy. And for that matter, who ever said this Lex was meant to be based on any one iteration? But getting away from that comparison: what I don't understand is why the character acting wacky or twitchy is suddenly meant to be 'campy' or like a '70s saturday morning cartoon'. This Lex isn't acting campy, he's acting like a goddamn loony toon. The character is quite obviously meant to be completely insane. Jack Nicholson's Jack Torrance acted in very much the same manner in The Shining. Is his character suddenly campy or like a 70s superfriends villain? No, of course he's not. If you look at the character from the right angle (that is, the angle of an existentially troubled, emotionally stunted, mentally unstable genius with a lack of empathy, a God complex and a fundamental hatred of beings more inherently powerful than himself), then his behaviour and actions make perfect sense. Or rather, in some instances, don't. Which was exactly the point.

 

[Superchan]

The scout ship never tells him it's too dangerous. Just tells him he's not supposed to do it. There's no mention of whether or not it's controllable at all. It's never something that comes up.

we're going in circles here, I imagine that if he was told not to do it is because it should not be done if you think his reasoning for creating doomsday makes sense then it's all good, I think it's totally silly so I'm going to agree to disagree with you and move on.

Make them look tame? In what capacity? If we're focusing on mere personality alone, Hackman and Spacey's portrayals weren't 'wacky or twitchy'.
They were bumbling fools who bickered ad nauseum with their cohorts, but in mere personality alone they weren't wacky or twitchy.

Who said they were? Again reading things that aren't there. I said Eisenberg's lex was so wacky and twitchy that he made those campy versions look tame.

And for that matter, who ever said this Lex was meant to be based on any one iteration?

Nobody did, you seem to infer things that aren't there.

But getting away from that comparison: what I don't understand is why the character acting wacky or twitchy is suddenly meant to be 'campy' or like a '70s saturday morning cartoon'.

I didn't say he was 'meant to be' I said he came off that way to me because he was wacky and twitchy.

This Lex isn't acting campy, he's acting like a goddamn loony toon. The character is quite obviously meant to be completely insane.

Exactly, so to me instead of coming off as a legitimately scary insane villain he seemed to be a laughably campy, Schumacher type villain.

Jack Nicholson's Jack Torrance acted in very much the same manner in The Shining. Is his character suddenly campy or like a 70s superfriends villain? No, of course he's not.

Nobody mentioned Nicholson's joker, so stick to lex.

If you look at the character from the right angle (that is, the angle of an existentially troubled, emotionally stunted, mentally unstable genius with a lack of empathy, a God complex and a fundamental hatred of beings more inherently powerful than himself), then his behaviour and actions make perfect sense. Or rather, in some instances, don't. Which was exactly the point

Makes sense to you but comes off as asinine to me and you need to make peace with the fact that I don't agree with you and I can't look at the character from the right angle because, to me, the film failed to make me do so.

 

[Wolfgangamadeus]

Jack Nicholson was playing the Joker. Don't think Jesse Eisenberg was. Hackman was basically at 70's Bond villain. Not perfect but a fun and iconic performance that's still referenced and even he's got a better reason for wanting Superman out of the way.

 

[Captain Tired]

we're going in circles here, I imagine that if he was told not to do it is because it should not be done

*gasp* You mean the villain of the piece rejected authority? Goddamn.

Who said they were? Again reading things that aren't there. I said Eisenberg's lex was so wacky and twitchy that he made those campy versions look tame.

The only way your assertion makes any sense is if you're referring to personality alone. There's no other way in which Eisenberg being 'wacky and twitchy' supposedly 'makes them look tame', unless you're referring to their personalities, as 'wacky and twitchy' would fall pretty firmly under that bracket. Ergo, the implication is that you were saying that they were wacky and twitchy to some degree.

Nobody did, you seem to infer things that aren't there.

The pot meets the kettle at last.

I didn't say he was 'meant to be' I said he came off that way to me because he was wacky and twitchy.

Are pointless semantics really worth dedicating its own quoted section to?

Exactly, so to me instead of coming off as a legitimately scary insane villain he seemed to be a laughably campy, Schumacher type villain.

No, you're mistaken. Loony Toon doesn't meant what you seem to think it means. Loony Toon is a slang term for crazy person. It's not strictly a reference to the cartoon or anything else campy.

Nobody mentioned Nicholson's joker, so stick to lex.

You're right, nobody mentioned Nicholson's Joker. And that's because I mentioned Jack Torrance from The Shining. Again, I implore you to actually carefully read the posts you're responding to.

Makes sense to you but comes off as asinine to me

No, it makes sense. Full stop. The character's actions and behaviour make sense (or don't, as the case may be with crazy people) within the context of the film due to the character being insane.

and you need to make peace with the fact that I don't agree with you and I can't look at the character from the right angle because, to me, the film failed to make me do so.

I don't know why you seem to think that because someone challenges your opinion, they can't accept that you don't agree with them. Are you not familiar with healthy discourse? I'm gonna have to stop conversing with you, Superchan, because you don't really read the replies you're responding to. Patience only lasts so long.

 

[Captain Tired]

Jack Nicholson was playing the Joker. Don't think Jesse Eisenberg was.

Nobody mentioned the Joker.

 

[Superchan]

*gasp* You mean the villain of the piece rejected authority? Goddamn.

Less of an authority and more of source of advanced knowledge, so for me lex is a dimwit for doing so.

The only way your assertion makes any sense is if you're referring to personality alone. There's no other way in which Eisenberg being 'wacky and twitchy' supposedly 'makes them look tame', unless you're referring to their personalities, as 'wacky and twitchy' would fall pretty firmly under that bracket. Ergo, the implication is that you were saying that they were wacky and twitchy to some degree.

You're thinking way too hard about this dude, just let it go, it's ok.

The pot meets the kettle at last.

ummm.....ok then

Are pointless semantics really worth dedicating its own quoted section to?

Ofcourse! The foundation of this whole message board is built on pointless semantics

No, you're mistaken. Loony Toon doesn't meant what you seem to think it means. Loony Toon is a slang term for crazy person. It's not strictly a reference to the cartoon or anything else campy.

No I'm not, you were referring to the slang use of the term loony toones and i was actually referring to the cartoon and how Eisenberg's lex is a cartoon.

You're right, nobody mentioned Nicholson's Joker. And that's because I mentioned Jack Torrance from The Shining. Again, I implore you to actually carefully read the posts you're responding to.

Well I didn't know who jack torrance was, I thought you were referring to Nicholson's Joker who was also named Jack.

No, it makes sense. Full stop. The character's actions and behaviour make sense (or don't, as the case may be with crazy people) within the context of the film due to the character being insane.

No it didn't make sense. Full stop. The character was a cartoon and his actions were cartoony in the context of a film that had the depth of a badly made cartoon.

I don't know why you seem to think that because someone challenges your opinion, they can't accept that you don't agree with them. Are you not familiar with healthy discourse? I'm gonna have to stop conversing with you, Superchan, because you don't really read the replies you're responding to. Patience only lasts so long.

Hallelujah and it seems like someone can't accept that I disagree with them.

 

[Captain Tired]

You're thinking way too hard about this dude

Your problem is that you're not thinking at all.

 

[Superchan]

Your problem is that you're not thinking at all.

Resorting to insults now are we? You're taking all of this way too seriously so I suggest you stick to your original plan and stop conversing with me.

 

[metaphysician]

Lol, never thought I'd actually hear someone claim Marvel has good villains. Time to abandon thread.

Compared to the DCEU villains to date, they have *awesome* villains. When your best villain is a guy whose plans and actions make zero sense if you give them even the slightest examination? Ciphers like Malekith start looking good.

 

[Da-Scribe]

Compared to the DCEU villains to date, they have *awesome* villains. When your best villain is a guy whose plans and actions make zero sense if you give them even the slightest examination? Ciphers like Malekith start looking good.

I don't remember a single plan a Marvel villain has had, so I ain't the one to debate this with.

 

[misslane38]

Compared to the DCEU villains to date, they have *awesome* villains. When your best villain is a guy whose plans and actions make zero sense if you give them even the slightest examination? Ciphers like Malekith start looking good.

Lex's plans do make sense, though. They're elaborate, for sure, but they hold together. Plus, Lex remains a fascinating figure and focus of discussion while Malekith and others are so bland and meaningless that few care about them. My friend just watched Civil War on DVD and when we started talking about it, they didn't even remember the name of the main villain. A villain like Lex might inspire dislike from some, but that's because their attitudes and their behaviors are provocative. They say and do things that make you think or make you uncomfortable because they are challenging norms. The result is that they get under your skin in ways that make you remember them and even consider their ideologies in your daily life.

 

[Wolfgangamadeus]

Lex's plans do make sense, though. They're elaborate, for sure, but they hold together. Plus, Lex remains a fascinating figure and focus of discussion while Malekith and others are so bland and meaningless that few care about them. My friend just watched Civil War on DVD and when we started talking about it, they didn't even remember the name of the main villain. A villain like Lex might inspire dislike from some, but that's because their attitudes and their behaviors are provocative. They say and do things that make you think or make you uncomfortable because they are challenging norms of behavior. The result is that they get under your skin in ways that make you remember them and even consider their ideologies in your daily life.

Lex Luthor got a horrible reaction from the public because of his cartoonish mannerisms and tone. If they went with a serious Lex to match the serious tone of the film it would've gone down much better.

Zemo by the way has become a lot more popular than Lex. He is discussed over and over again about the workings of his plans rather than whether they were good. Your friend is really an unreliable measuring scale---him not remembering his name doesn't prove much. On the bigger scale in terms of critical reception, box office and audience appreciation Baron Zemo outdid Lex by a country mile.

 

[misslane38]

Lex Luthor got a horrible reaction from the public because of his cartoonish mannerisms and tone. If they went with a serious Lex to match the serious tone of the film it would've gone down much better.

Right, so you agree with me that the reason Lex unsettles audiences who might reject him or dislike him is because he challenges norms. In this case, norms of behavior. He doesn't fit in. He stood out both in the fictional world of the movie and in comparison to what we are comfortable with in the behaviors of the people around us in our own lives, and so we react to him the same way we might react to someone like Kevin Smith or Neil DeGrasse Tyson getting a little over-excited talking about something he is deeply interested and invested in, except since Lex's interests are more sinister, his behavior is more off-putting than charming. I appreciate a villain who puts me on edge. I don't go to movies to be comfortable.

Zemo by the way has become a lot more popular than Lex. He is discussed over and over again about the workings of his plans rather than whether they were good. Your friend is really an unreliable measuring scale---him not remembering his name doesn't prove much. On the bigger scale in terms of critical reception, box office and audience appreciation Baron Zemo outdid Lex by a country mile.

I can't debate subjective matters or anecdotal evidence, and box office is irrelevant given one could hardly make a convincing or logical argument that Zemo was the key factor motivating ticket purchases. I provided my anecdote to show why I have a certain hunch, but I know my friend isn't the be all or end all of what objective proof is needed; so jury's out. When pop culture like Gilmore Girls can make jokes about Marvel characters being forgettable, though, I at least feel validated that on some level there's a sense that they don't make the strongest of impressions.

 

[Monochron]

Lex's plans do make sense, though. They're elaborate, for sure, but they hold together. Plus, Lex remains a fascinating figure and focus of discussion while Malekith and others are so bland and meaningless that few care about them. My friend just watched Civil War on DVD and when we started talking about it, they didn't even remember the name of the main villain. A villain like Lex might inspire dislike from some, but that's because their attitudes and their behaviors are provocative. They say and do things that make you think or make you uncomfortable because they are challenging norms. The result is that they get under your skin in ways that make you remember them and even consider their ideologies in your daily life.

Heath Ledger's Joker seems to do all that, but does inspire dislike. Why do you think that is?

 

[misslane38]

Heath Ledger's Joker seems to do all that, but does inspire dislike. Why do you think that is?

Because Joker is not portrayed in the mold of a weak, odd, and effeminate wunderkind. He's a wacky gangster who instantly terrifies. I think a lot more people see in Lex qualities that they don't like in themselves. In other words, Lex is more recognizable. Joker's straight up fantasy presentation puts a comfortable distance between him and the audience.

 

[Superchan]

Compared to the DCEU villains to date, they have *awesome* villains. When your best villain is a guy whose plans and actions make zero sense if you give them even the slightest examination? Ciphers like Malekith start looking good.

To be fair I thought General Zod was well done and the likes of Amanda "the wall" and Joker have potential, while for the MCU the only saving grace when it comes to villains is loki IMO.
Overall though neither DC nor marvel have hit it out of the park when it comes to villains but atleast the latter excelled with their heroes, which is the most important thing at the end of the day.

Right, so you agree with me that the reason Lex unsettles audiences who might reject him or dislike him is because he challenges norms.

No, many supervillains challenge the norms in someways including Lex. The reason why Eisenlex was rejected because he was an over the top cartoon in a film that's trying way too hard to be adult.

 

[Monochron]

Because Joker is not portrayed in the mold of a weak, odd, and effeminate wunderkind. He's a wacky gangster who instantly terrifies. I think a lot more people see in Lex qualities that they don't like in themselves. In other words, Lex is more recognizable. Joker's straight up fantasy presentation puts a comfortable distance between him and the audience.

It sounds like you are arguing that every well regarded movie villain is only liked because the audience can distance themselves from them.

Edit: Let me extend that to all well regarded villains in all media, not just movies.

 

[misslane38]

It sounds like you are arguing that every well regarded movie villain is only liked because the audience can distance themselves from them.

Edit: Let me extend that to all well regarded villains in all media, not just movies.

Well that would be a completely off-base analysis of my argument. The question, at least how I interpreted it, was specifically why strange and almost cartoonish villains like Lex and Joker are treated so differently by a particular audience. That's the question I'm answering. I think that if villains like Lex and Joker existed as villains in other media outside the superhero genre audiences would have vastly different responses to them.

I think Joker is liked rather than disliked for his tics and mannerisms because he's not only performing them, but he's also proud of them. He's an anarchist who is in control of his own presentation. Lex, on the other hand, desires societal approval. He wants to "fit in" or at least stand out as an Ubermensch. His inability to meet those standards of social acceptability puts him in a position no one in real life relishes.

Joker is like a horror film. It's a fantasy experience that allows one to experience what one fears in a context that thrills as it chills. Joker is exciting. Lex is a character whose very core rejects fantasy. His goal is to make gods face their own fallibility in the face of brilliant humanity. His awkward mannerisms reveal the feelings of inferiority: the hallmark of a superiority complex. Every slip is proof of the fine line between sanity and insanity that drives him. Lex is not a safe fantasy experience for the audience because his villainy is not cloaked in fantasy. It is more accessible and real. And I think that makes a big difference in a sci-fi fantasy genre. And I think it makes a particularly big difference to a sci-fi fantasy audience.

In psychological terms, the placement of Lex and Joker within the sci-fi context primes the audience with certain expectations associated with the genre. This priming affects the audience's response to different stimuli. Those who are seeing a sci-fi fantasy film about superheroes are more primed to accept cartoons within a cartoon context. A character like Lex straddles between cartoon and realism, so the audience is more likely to judge him by their real life schema than their sci-fi schema. So my analysis most certainly does not and should not apply to all villains and all films. It is, I believe, a response that is unique to the sci-fi/superhero genre.

 

[Polux]

This.

I think people are viewing this through the lens of what they wanted to see from Luthor VS what's actually presented.

Luthor is clearly losing himself a bit to his desire to end Superman in the film.

I doubt he much cares about controlling Doomsday. He's on a high from creating life, a life that could destroy Superman. He goes so far as to create something so awful...I dunno, I don't think he was thinking entirely rationally. Not that he's gone crazy, mind you. Just not thinking totally rationally.

But that's the crux of modern fandom. I'm totally convinced that people deem a movie/interpretation of the character "bad" simply if it's not what they wanted to see; not everybody of course, but plenty of people...I've seen it actually with lots of people close to me with the classic "yeah, but it shouldn't have been like this....it should have been like this!!" attitude.

I'm also sure lots people decide if they will like or not a movie even before seeing it (again, seen this happen with friends of mine).

I just think is sad when people are not open to different interpretations and stories....they're missing out.


Polux

EDIT: This is not exclusive to Luthor, but everything with an established fanbase, I think.

 

[Angel0fDeath]

Yes, that's exactly what's going on. Before BVS came out, even I shared my ideas on how certain things might play out, how the movie might end etc., but once I sit down to watch a movie all that goes away. I can't judge a movie for what it's not, for what I pictured it would be. I judge it for what it is. I respect the creators vision and work.