BvS Jesse Eisenberg IS Lex Luthor - - Part 11

[Captain Tired]

It seems to me, that while characters of, say, the Batman mythos are allowed to have different interpretations and portrayals showered upon them with great eagerness and fanfare, the characters within the Superman comics, by way of overly harsh and hyperbolic fan scrutiny, are continually being forced into their very narrow and tight little boxes, forever missing out on the chance to invigorate some new life into the mythology surrounding those characters. Superman can't be anything other than a clean cut boyscout, Luthor can't be anything but a stoic muscleman. People seem to forget that Luthor, for the vast majority of his run, was portrayed as a hyper, giggling loon who just happened to be extraordinarily gifted in sciences and the arts. As such, Eisenberg's portrayal of the character is just as valid and faithful as that of any other actor to have taken on the role. You may not like it, that's fair enough, but to carelessly wave it away and dismiss it as 'Luthor in name only' or 'The Riddler/The Joker by any other name', to me, simply shows a lack of knowledge with regards to the comics these films are based upon, and an arrogance befitting of the character itself.

 

[batfreakforever]

It seems to me, that while characters of, say, the Batman mythos are allowed to have different interpretations and portrayals showered upon them with great eagerness and fanfare, the characters within the Superman comics, by way of overly harsh and hyperbolic fan scrutiny, are continually being forced into their very narrow and tight little boxes, forever missing out on the chance to invigorate some new life into the mythology surrounding those characters. Superman can't be anything other than a clean cut boyscout, Luthor can't be anything but a stoic muscleman. People seem to forget that Luthor, for the vast majority of his run, was portrayed as a hyper, giggling loon who just happened to be extraordinarily gifted in sciences and the arts. As such, Eisenberg's portrayal of the character is just as valid and faithful as that of any other actor to have taken on the role. You may not like it, that's fair enough, but to carelessly wave it away and dismiss it as 'Luthor in name only' or 'The Riddler/The Joker by any other name', to me, simply shows a lack of knowledge with regards to the comics these films are based upon, and an arrogance befitting of the character itself.

So very very true.

 

[idiot09]

It seems to me, that while characters of, say, the Batman mythos are allowed to have different interpretations and portrayals showered upon them with great eagerness and fanfare, the characters within the Superman comics, by way of overly harsh and hyperbolic fan scrutiny, are continually being forced into their very narrow and tight little boxes, forever missing out on the chance to invigorate some new life into the mythology surrounding those characters. Superman can't be anything other than a clean cut boyscout, Luthor can't be anything but a stoic muscleman. People seem to forget that Luthor, for the vast majority of his run, was portrayed as a hyper, giggling loon who just happened to be extraordinarily gifted in sciences and the arts. As such, Eisenberg's portrayal of the character is just as valid and faithful as that of any other actor to have taken on the role. You may not like it, that's fair enough, but to carelessly wave it away and dismiss it as 'Luthor in name only' or 'The Riddler/The Joker by any other name', to me, simply shows a lack of knowledge with regards to the comics these films are based upon, and an arrogance befitting of the character itself.

Very well said.I like the other incarnations as well but Dceu versions are just as valid because they embody the core traits of the character.Also to brand this superman as "dark" is just so misguidied as for me in MOS I felt a plethora of feelings from doubt,hope,joy,conflict etc.Also considering these characters are growing and evolving in these stories since its all a big story and you cant have the characters being stagnant and one note.

 

[batfreakforever]

This Lex is way more threating and dangerous then any other Lex on live action film before. Yes he killed Lois in 1978 when his missiles caused an earthquake but he never did the unthinkable to Superman and won. Plus I believe we should want to hate villians and having Jessie play him makes you hate him easier. We love the Joker as villain aswell but we also want to see Batman lay the smack down on him too. Same applies to Lex. They are going a birthright lex mixed with a Zuckerberg type with Jessies own mannerisms to make this Lex. Its what the filmmakers said to us and that's what they delivered. Can't fault them on that. They never promised us a different type of Lex.

 

[idiot09]

This Lex is way more threating and dangerous then any other Lex on live action film before. Yes he killed Lois in 1978 when his missiles caused an earthquake but he never did the unthinkable to Superman and won. Plus I believe we should want to hate villians and having Jessie play him makes you hate him easier. We love the Joker as villain aswell but we also want to see Batman lay the smack down on him too. Same applies to Lex. They are going a birthright lex mixed with a Zuckerberg type with Jessies own mannerisms to make this Lex. Its what the filmmakers said to us and that's what they delivered. Can't fault them on that. They never promised us a different type of Lex.

Exactly.Jesse said in an interview that being a villain he could be "annoying" and a lot of people have said he is so...so it makes sense because that's what they were shooting for.But many people wanted the charming Luthor so naturally they were unhappy.This lex was a productof an abusive childhood so for me it played perfectly into what they were going for.This Lex was cunning,smart,arrogant,a brilliant puppet master and downright evil.I really liked it.

 

[The Joker]

Aside from the long red hair, I didn't get a Birthright vibe from him at all.

That's because there is none of the character in Eisenberg's version.

Exactly.Jesse said in an interview that being a villain he could be "annoying" and a lot of people have said he is so...so it makes sense because that's what they were shooting for.But many people wanted the charming Luthor so naturally they were unhappy.This lex was a productof an abusive childhood so for me it played perfectly into what they were going for.This Lex was cunning,smart,arrogant,a brilliant puppet master and downright evil.I really liked it.

"Annoying" traits in a villain is when the villain annoys other characters, not the audience themselves. Like how the Joker could rile people up and get under their skin. If your villain is annoying your audience then they're not enjoying the character.

Fans are not stoic because they did not enjoy a hammy, cartoonish, irritating out of character interpretation of Lex Luthor. In no way Luthor has been portrayed this way for the majority of his existence. The very fact that 'Birthright' is the only story in the character's history anyone can attempt to link to Eisenberg's version, and even that isn't valid, is clear proof of how off this version of Lex was.

When a character is representative of a large portion of a said character's comic book history, you can easily show it, like here for example: http://jokerfans.blogspot.ie/

 

[Doctor Octopus]

This Lex is way more threating and dangerous then any other Lex on live action film before. Yes he killed Lois in 1978 when his missiles caused an earthquake but he never did the unthinkable to Superman and won. Plus I believe we should want to hate villians and having Jessie play him makes you hate him easier. We love the Joker as villain aswell but we also want to see Batman lay the smack down on him too. Same applies to Lex. They are going a birthright lex mixed with a Zuckerberg type with Jessies own mannerisms to make this Lex. Its what the filmmakers said to us and that's what they delivered. Can't fault them on that. They never promised us a different type of Lex.

Lol Amazing spider-man 2 stupid Harry Goblin kill Gwen but that not make him most dangerous or best Spider-Man villain of movies. Eisenberg Luthor nothing like comic book version. He just stupid corny villain like Electro in Asm 2.

 

[titansupes]

Exactly.Jesse said in an interview that being a villain he could be "annoying" and a lot of people have said he is so...so it makes sense because that's what they were shooting for.But many people wanted the charming Luthor so naturally they were unhappy.This lex was a productof an abusive childhood so for me it played perfectly into what they were going for.This Lex was cunning,smart,arrogant,a brilliant puppet master and downright evil.I really liked it.

Wait, being a product of an abusive childhood means you grow up to be annoying?

 

[wnjcwjkk]

Very well said.I like the other incarnations as well but Dceu versions are just as valid because they embody the core traits of the character.Also to brand this superman as "dark" is just so misguidied as for me in MOS I felt a plethora of feelings from doubt,hope,joy,conflict etc.Also considering these characters are growing and evolving in these stories since its all a big story and you cant have the characters being stagnant and one note.

Right on, completely agree on these statements (also the one quoted in the above post).


Lex Luthor:
Filthy Rich
Eccentric
Mad Scientist
Businessman
Genius
Evil
Cunning
Manipulative
Cold
Narcissistic
Wants to be looked up to, almost worshipped
Hates Superman because he is looked up to
Hates Superman because of his power



EisenLex checks all of the above, all while adding a new twist on the character. I would say he's much closer to the composite of the comic book version of the character than Ledger's Joker.

 

[matt47]

Right on, completely agree on these statements (also the one quoted in the above post).


Lex Luthor:
Filthy Rich
Eccentric
Mad Scientist
Businessman
Genius
Evil
Cunning
Manipulative
Cold
Narcissistic
Wants to be looked up to, almost worshipped
Hates Superman because he is looked up to
Hates Superman because of his power



EisenLex checks all of the above, all while adding a new twist on the character. I would say he's much closer to the composite of the comic book version of the character than Ledger's Joker.

Yep. I just don't like the twist.

 

[idiot09]

Wait, being a product of an abusive childhood means you grow up to be annoying?

Not annoying,no.But this Luthor(and they didn't make it up,in many incarnations Luthor is this mad scientist with abusive parents ) has many deep suited psychological issues stemming from his upbringing from his tics to his seeking of power.The annoying personality is a biproduct of that,which makes sense since Luthor is the opposite of Superman in a way.

 

[idiot09]

Yep. I just don't like the twist.

And that's fine mate.Even I don't like many interpretations of many characters.Controversial I know but I didn't like Ra's in BB.But the thing is,its the thing when people say this guy isn't Lex,which is such a broad sweeping statement.

This Lex was more akin to the pre crisis mad scientist,red haired Luthor rather than the Byrne's businessman tycoon Lex...and I love both versions.and its just fine if you don't like this one.But I don't like when people knock this one saying its not Lex when its pretty close to the canon.Its the same as people saying knocking Bales batman over Affleck while in truth both are very different versions and both are true to canon(anyone else felt earthone batman and bale similarities?)

That's just my take on it.

 

[AnneFan]

Not annoying,no.But this Luthor(and they didn't make it up,in many incarnations Luthor is this mad scientist with abusive parents ) has many deep suited psychological issues stemming from his upbringing from his tics to his seeking of power.The annoying personality is a biproduct of that,which makes sense since Luthor is the opposite of Superman in a way.

Yes, but expect to be saying this, and any other BvS defence, over and over to yourself. I saw Ghostbusters and thought it sucked. But I simply don't care about the movie and only visited its thread about once. I'm just about done here. Let the detractors run riot and have their fun.

 

[The Joker]

Right on, completely agree on these statements (also the one quoted in the above post).


Lex Luthor:
Filthy Rich
Eccentric
Mad Scientist
Businessman
Genius
Evil
Cunning
Manipulative
Cold
Narcissistic
Wants to be looked up to, almost worshipped
Hates Superman because he is looked up to
Hates Superman because of his power

That's like saying Arnie's Mr. Freeze is:

Scientist
Genius
Product of a tragic accident
Cunning
Clever
Revenge driven
Ruthless
Loves his wife
Tries to cure his dying wife
Uses freeze technology
Hates Batman for trying to stand in his way
Lashes out at humanity

I would say he's much closer to the composite of the comic book version of the character than Ledger's Joker.

http://jokerfans.blogspot.ie/

Come back with a list of comic book comparisons that amount to that level of depth to EisenLex, and then you can say that with any validity.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Not annoying,no.But this Luthor(and they didn't make it up,in many incarnations Luthor is this mad scientist with abusive parents ) has many deep suited psychological issues stemming from his upbringing from his tics to his seeking of power.The annoying personality is a biproduct of that,which makes sense since Luthor is the opposite of Superman in a way.

I think that no good excuse. Lots of comic villains have issues from childhood. My favourite Dr Octopus have difficult upbringing with abusive father and possessive mother. He not act like annoying cheesy villain like Jesse Eisenberg Lex Luthor.

 

[Driller]

It seems to me, that while characters of, say, the Batman mythos are allowed to have different interpretations and portrayals showered upon them with great eagerness and fanfare, the characters within the Superman comics, by way of overly harsh and hyperbolic fan scrutiny, are continually being forced into their very narrow and tight little boxes, forever missing out on the chance to invigorate some new life into the mythology surrounding those characters. Superman can't be anything other than a clean cut boyscout, Luthor can't be anything but a stoic muscleman. People seem to forget that Luthor, for the vast majority of his run, was portrayed as a hyper, giggling loon who just happened to be extraordinarily gifted in sciences and the arts. As such, Eisenberg's portrayal of the character is just as valid and faithful as that of any other actor to have taken on the role. You may not like it, that's fair enough, but to carelessly wave it away and dismiss it as 'Luthor in name only' or 'The Riddler/The Joker by any other name', to me, simply shows a lack of knowledge with regards to the comics these films are based upon, and an arrogance befitting of the character itself.

I don't recall comics Luthor ever being depicted as the eccentric and flamboyant clown BvS made him out to be. I don't see that in Birthright Luthor, pre-Crisis Luthor, and certainly not in post-Crisis Luthor. At most, he was your typical hammy and scheming villain during the Silver Age, like nearly every other bad guy back then.

 

[Infinity9999x]

It seems to me, that while characters of, say, the Batman mythos are allowed to have different interpretations and portrayals showered upon them with great eagerness and fanfare, the characters within the Superman comics, by way of overly harsh and hyperbolic fan scrutiny, are continually being forced into their very narrow and tight little boxes, forever missing out on the chance to invigorate some new life into the mythology surrounding those characters. Superman can't be anything other than a clean cut boyscout, Luthor can't be anything but a stoic muscleman. People seem to forget that Luthor, for the vast majority of his run, was portrayed as a hyper, giggling loon who just happened to be extraordinarily gifted in sciences and the arts. As such, Eisenberg's portrayal of the character is just as valid and faithful as that of any other actor to have taken on the role. You may not like it, that's fair enough, but to carelessly wave it away and dismiss it as 'Luthor in name only' or 'The Riddler/The Joker by any other name', to me, simply shows a lack of knowledge with regards to the comics these films are based upon, and an arrogance befitting of the character itself.

I'd disagree. I think people just wanted a villain who was better written and had cleaner motivations...or any motivations. I was more bothered by the lazy writing surrounding Luthor than tr performance.

 

[Limonade]

It seems to me, that while characters of, say, the Batman mythos are allowed to have different interpretations and portrayals showered upon them with great eagerness and fanfare, the characters within the Superman comics, by way of overly harsh and hyperbolic fan scrutiny, are continually being forced into their very narrow and tight little boxes, forever missing out on the chance to invigorate some new life into the mythology surrounding those characters. Superman can't be anything other than a clean cut boyscout, Luthor can't be anything but a stoic muscleman. People seem to forget that Luthor, for the vast majority of his run, was portrayed as a hyper, giggling loon who just happened to be extraordinarily gifted in sciences and the arts. As such, Eisenberg's portrayal of the character is just as valid and faithful as that of any other actor to have taken on the role. You may not like it, that's fair enough, but to carelessly wave it away and dismiss it as 'Luthor in name only' or 'The Riddler/The Joker by any other name', to me, simply shows a lack of knowledge with regards to the comics these films are based upon, and an arrogance befitting of the character itself.

It's like buying a box of Frosted Flakes to find that inside is a bag of Coco-Puffs.

I don't find anything wrong with fans wanting a fair and true representation of their childhood superheroes and supervillians.

You blame the fans? I blame the people behind the scenes. It is the studio and production team that are forcing these characters into narrow and tight boxes.

 

[Flint Marko]

It's tough to make the argument that fans generally just can't accept a new interpretation when the interpretation in question is awful from top to bottom.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Agreed. Fans can accept new interpretation if it not so bad like Jesse Eisenberg Luthor.

 

[FlareKnight]

I won't say whether or not this is a good interpretation of Luthor.

I will say he was incredibly annoying and I hope this Louthor chokes on a jolly rancher in jail! It was everything people could have been afraid of with Eisenberg being cast as Luthor. They took a big swing for the fences with this choice and interpretation of the character and just missed big.

 

[AnneFan]

I hope this Louthor chokes on a jolly rancher in jail!

 

[Naked Shia]

I like it when some people are basically saying "I can understand why some people don't like this take, but it's a valid one, and I do like it", and some troll comes and replies "lol, it's just an awful take, there is no liking it, because I said so".

This is why most haters of this movie are way more annoying than this Lex Luthor to me: they keep claiming their opinion is fact. But here is a fact: some people loved this movie. some people even loved this Lex Luthor. You have the right no to like Lexeinberg of course. But don't try to pass your opinion as fact, because it really is annoying. And tiring, since some people keep hating on everything after several months. Talk about being obsessed.

 

[AnneFan]

I like it when some people are basically saying "I can understand why some people don't like this take, but it's a valid one, and I do like it", and some troll comes and replies "lol, it's just an awful take, there is no liking it, because I said so".

This is why most haters of this movie are way more annoying than this Lex Luthor to me: they keep claiming their opinion is fact. But here is a fact: some people loved this movie. some people even loved this Lex Luthor. You have the right no to like Lexeinberg of course. But don't try to pass your opinion as fact, because it really is annoying. And tiring, since some people keep hating on everything after several months. Talk about being obsessed.

 

[idiot09]

I like it when some people are basically saying "I can understand why some people don't like this take, but it's a valid one, and I do like it", and some troll comes and replies "lol, it's just an awful take, there is no liking it, because I said so".

This is why most haters of this movie are way more annoying than this Lex Luthor to me: they keep claiming their opinion is fact. But here is a fact: some people loved this movie. some people even loved this Lex Luthor. You have the right no to like Lexeinberg of course. But don't try to pass your opinion as fact, because it really is annoying. And tiring, since some people keep hating on everything after several months. Talk about being obsessed.

Absolutely and well said.

And ofcourse the same goes for people saying "This Luthor was perfect and thats a fact and those who disagree can suck it" but I dont see many people saying that.