Superman Returns Lex Luthor's True Characterization Expanded On (Hes not doing a homage to Hackman)

[The Watchman]

..

Gene Hackman's Lex was like a real person with understandable motivations. He had a sense of humour, didn't act evil just because but was actually pretty charming. Like evil people in the real world. Also, his goal to earn money through real estate is much more logical than most comic book plots.

I'm very glad you liked Hackman and Puzo's take on Lex, if it was believeable to you, great, you enjoyed the movie that much more, but other have a more discernable eye and are apparently able to distinguish between a realistic character and a caricature that ultimately feels hollow.

 

[dpm07]

When the dictionary decides to change the meaning

Have you even read the novel? There are moments of seriousness with Lex, but there is probably an equal amount of time devoted to Lex in the novel where he comes off as very campy and cheesy. Whether this is due to Lex himself or the fact that his followers are just plain lame and useless (except for Stanford).

Kitty serves no purpose, and there really is no other reason to include the dog than to put it in for laughs. There's a scene from the novel where Lex is reading the newspaper that the dog has already urinated on. I think there's one scene (can't remember) where the dog is humping Lex's leg.

Riley (Lex's cameraman) is doing a documentary that is saving every moment of Lex for prosperity (even bathroom breaks!). Come on! That is ridiculous. Then you have Lex's muscle (basically tweedle dee and tweedle dum) who have the IQ of Otis. The novel even points out that Stanford is thinking basically, "Why does Lex surround himself with these idiots?"

Then you have the wigs. The book talks about Lex having quite a few of them. Kitty even cracks a joke about Lex having a small tally whacker and ridiculous wigs. That's sad! Lex, being the the butt of Kitty's jokes. Granted, he gets a few zingers in on her, but it's just sad.

This is not a Lex I am happy to see on-screen. All the work that the DCAU did that many of us thought might be seen on-screen with a Lex that is like that, has all fallen by the wayside due to Singer wanting to turn back time with a 70's homage. The only difference is, he's doing it in the present, but the feel is very outdated at least by the novelization.

 

[Jakomus]

I'm very glad you liked Hackman and Puzo's take on Lex, if it was believeable to you, great, you enjoyed the movie that much more, but other have a more discernable eye and are apparently able to distinguish between a realistic character and a caricature that ultimately feels hollow.

Hollow characters don't have their own sense of humour, or a personality. I got that from Hackman's Lex.

 

[Jakomus]

They don't need to Spacey's Lex in some scene's is a livng embodiement of it,no badass would go on like that just for the hell of it

Here's your problem: You're too stuck in the boring belief that no sense of humour and being absolutely evil all the time makes you badass. I like characters with a personality, thank you.

 

[The Watchman]

Hollow characters don't have their own sense of humour, or a personality. I got that from Hackman's Lex.

You're missing the point entirely, despite your rationalizations for why Hackman "isn't campy" to most he clearly is, he hams it up. I want a three dimensional character, a real, intelligent man who it wouldn't take a large leap in logic to assume could give Superman a run for his money. I don't know you personally so I can assume you've had limited exposure to the character outside of the film universe. It's possible to give a character "personality" as you put it (though quite a loose and subjective term) without them acting like an insane clown. Fleshing out characters, exploring their motivations and subsequent progression of the plot because of this is what give a film that third dimension. You claim to want realism but then accept a cardboard cut out of a character...perhaps your love of the original has blinded you. I'm not saying Spacey will be campy, because I haven't seen the movie and the scenes I have are out of context but in my head I have a specific characterization of Lex and by just guessing it isn't going to line up with how he is portrayed in the film, it's largely subtextual but I wish there was more "grey area" as to Lex's "evil" because the real world doesn't deal in black and white. Now I'm rambling and I'll just shut up...

 

[NotFadeAway]

Lex Luthor ISN'T the Joker....which I have stated all day long.

This whole unstable, psychotic wingbat with a sense of humor and silliness being passed for the character of Lex Luthor is really starting to annoy the hell out of me. It's annoying me very much.

 

[dpm07]

Lex Luthor ISN'T the Joker....which I have stated all day long.

This whole unstable, psychotic wingbat with a sense of humor and silliness being passed for the character of Lex Luthor is really starting to annoy the hell out of me. It's annoying me very much.

I agree.

Singer's approach is a slap in the face of all the work that people like the DCAU have done to return respect and credibility to the DC Heroes and villains, i.e. Batman, Superman, JL/JLU, Lex, etc. that was undone by people who did the Superfriends tv show, the Batman of the 60's, the Schumacher approach, and the camp of the Superman films.

The sad thing is Singer will likely do the same thing in the sequel and this may set superhero films back in their tone. While Singer didn't include camp in the X-Men, he didn't have the fetish for the Donner film which did include the camp, and it's obvious that he's incorporating various aspects of that film, most notably some of the cheesy ham.

 

[NotFadeAway]

I agree.

Singer's approach is a slap in the face of all the work that people like the DCAU have done to return respect and credibility to the DC Heroes and villains, i.e. Batman, Superman, JL/JLU, Lex, etc. that was undone by people who did the Superfriends tv show, the Batman of the 60's, the Schumacher approach, and the camp of the Superman films.

The sad thing is Singer will likely do the same thing in the sequel and this may set superhero films back in their tone. While Singer didn't include camp in the X-Men, he didn't have the fetish for the Donner film which did include the camp, and it's obvious that he's incorporating various aspects of that film, most notably some of the cheesy ham.

YES....YES....

Listen to this man people. He knows what he is talking about.

And it's not just going to set movies back, but Superman comics as well. Look what happened to the Animated Series. They butchered Lex because Returns is coming out.

 

[The Watchman]

No, you haven't seen enough of Singer's Lex to even make that kind of statement...

...and it isn't to say that the way Singer and crew are doing Lex doesn't have it's own subtextual merits it just isn't my ideal characterization but I believe it can still work to powerful effect.

 

[dpm07]

No, you haven't seen enough of Singer's Lex to even make that kind of statement...

...and it isn't to say that the way Singer and crew are doing Lex doesn't have it's own subtextual merits it just isn't my ideal characterization but I believe it can still work to powerful effect.

First of all, I can make the statement, and I did. Second of all, I am basing much of this off of what I have already seen from the trailers, and also from the novel. While the film won't include every single thing in the novel, I'm pretty sure it won't deviate that much. The essence will be there.

Also, the fact that this subject is such an issue of contention illustrates that it is a topic that bears consideration and is drawing attention toward itself.

 

[The Watchman]

I was refering to the "slap in the face" comment, characters are in a continuous state of evolution, you may not like where they're going but put simply we don't own them. Superman isn't the same character he was at his inception nor was Batman and I don't see those progressions as being a slap in the face to what came before. There's a fine distinction between my dislike of Lex's portrayal and Singer's right to adapt the character the way he sees fit, without someone overdramatically saying it's a "slap in the face".

 

[NotFadeAway]

But it truly is a slap in the face. It's a slap in the face to the people who have loyally followed and loved the comics for the last 20 years. It is a slap in the face to the people who created one of the best villians in comic book lore, cold, ruthless corporate Lex. It is a slap in the face to the men who have worked to get comic book films taking seriously. Hell, Bryan Singer is slapping himself in the face by putting any kind of cheesy ham on screen. It is one big slap in the face if this character is in any way cheesy on June 27th, 2006.

 

[The Watchman]

But it truly is a slap in the face. It's a slap in the face to the people who have loyally followed and loved the comics for the last 20 years. It is a slap in the face to the people who created one of the best villians in comic book lore, cold, ruthless corporate Lex. It is a slap in the face to the men who have worked to get comic book films taking seriously. Hell, Bryan Singer is slapping himself in the face by putting any kind of cheesy ham on screen. It is one big slap in the face if this character is in any way cheesy on June 27th, 2006.

Lex has a long sorted history and he certainly wasn't portrayed as he is now by his creators, John Byrne didn't create Lex Luthor, his roots are as a mad scientist if anything, read a comic before 1986...

 

[NotFadeAway]

Anything before 1986 other than Crisis on Infinite Earth is outdated, not made for this day, age, and generation.....In My Opinion.

 

[The Watchman]

It still underscores your point, if anything bussinessman Lex could be considered a slap in the face to Lex's true creators (but unlike you I don't use this train of logic)

...I've already stated how I envision Luthor, but I'm trying to make a point that is clearly above your head so I'm done mincing words.

 

[NotFadeAway]

It still underscores your point, if anything bussinessman Lex could be considered a slap in the face to Lex's true creators (but unlike you I don't use this train of logic)

...I've already stated how I envision Luthor, but I'm trying to make a point that is clearly above your head so I'm done mincing words.

It's not above my head, Im just not backing down on my feelings about the subject.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Here's your problem: You're too stuck in the boring belief that no sense of humour and being absolutely evil all the time makes you badass. I like characters with a personality, thank you.

I'm not stuck in any boring belief,since when does dancing around like a fool and acting like a goof equate to personality ?

 

[SuperDaniel]

You guys have to admit corportate Luthor is much better than any Luthor that came before it. I like the fact that Luthor isn`t considered a villain by the people in Metropolis, only Superman and some character know the real Luthor. Singer just forgot the best part of the character, in my opinion.

 

[Captain Kirk]

I agree.

Singer's approach is a slap in the face of all the work that people like the DCAU have done to return respect and credibility to the DC Heroes and villains, i.e. Batman, Superman, JL/JLU, Lex, etc. that was undone by people who did the Superfriends tv show, the Batman of the 60's, the Schumacher approach, and the camp of the Superman films.

The sad thing is Singer will likely do the same thing in the sequel and this may set superhero films back in their tone. While Singer didn't include camp in the X-Men, he didn't have the fetish for the Donner film which did include the camp, and it's obvious that he's incorporating various aspects of that film, most notably some of the cheesy ham.

Don't bash the Super Friends! I grew up with 'em! Singer has done nothing to show me that his approach is campy. This is the guy that jump started super hero films again in the first place! It is profoundly ridiculous to say that Singer's approach is a slap in the face of the DCAU. I hate the way Superman is portrayed in the DCAU! He is diminished just so the other heroes look like they deserve a place at his side. If anything, Singer's version of Superman will be FAR MORE EPIC than the DCAU! I am ready to see Superman be SUPER again! I don't think it is more interesting to weaken Superman to make him more relatable! That is what Spider-man is for. Superman is special and he deserves to be the BEST again! DC comis Superman OYL is returning Superman to the wayhe should be. All-Star Superman is better example of how to write Superman than the DCAU! I demand a better Superman than the DCAU!

 

[MatchesMalone]

I agree.

Singer's approach is a slap in the face of all the work that people like the DCAU have done to return respect and credibility to the DC Heroes and villains, i.e. Batman, Superman, JL/JLU, Lex, etc. that was undone by people who did the Superfriends tv show, the Batman of the 60's, the Schumacher approach, and the camp of the Superman films.

The sad thing is Singer will likely do the same thing in the sequel and this may set superhero films back in their tone. While Singer didn't include camp in the X-Men, he didn't have the fetish for the Donner film which did include the camp, and it's obvious that he's incorporating various aspects of that film, most notably some of the cheesy ham.

 

[KrypJonian]

I like how they describe their Lex.

I think so many people are freaking out because the trailers HAPPEN to show a couple campy parts, which I think they should have caught, but I'm not bothered by it.

 

[Keyser Soze]

It's good to know that everyone has such an in-depth working knowledge of Kevin Spacey's portrayal of Lex Luthor BEFORE THEY'VE SEEN THE MOVIE. Don't base opinions on a novelisation or a trailer. Watch the movie when it comes out, and form an EDUCATED opinion.

Right now, I am optimistic about Lex Luthor. It's one of my favourite comic book villains, being played by one of my favourite actors. Spacey's Luthor is my main source of hype for this film. And yes, I am willing to accept the possibility that I may be disappointed. I'm also willing to accept the possibility that Luthor will be the highlight of the film. But I can't form a solid judgement until I've seen the film.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

It's good to know that everyone has such an in-depth working knowledge of Kevin Spacey's portrayal of Lex Luthor BEFORE THEY'VE SEEN THE MOVIE. Don't base opinions on a novelisation or a trailer. Watch the movie when it comes out, and form an EDUCATED opinion.

Right now, I am optimistic about Lex Luthor. It's one of my favourite comic book villains, being played by one of my favourite actors. Spacey's Luthor is my main source of hype for this film. And yes, I am willing to accept the possibility that I may be disappointed. I'm also willing to accept the possibility that Luthor will be the highlight of the film. But I can't form a solid judgement until I've seen the film.

We are just talking about what the previews are showing. Hell, maybe WB is mis-leading us maybe they aren't, but judging from the previews I suspect Lex is going to be the Hackman campy Lex of the 70's. It's not our fault we think that, blame the previews.

 

[JamalYIgle]

We are just talking about what the previews are showing. Hell, maybe WB is mis-leading us maybe they aren't, but judging from the previews I suspect Lex is going to be the Hackman campy Lex of the 70's. It's not our fault we think that, blame the previews.

According to Marc Andryeko, who is writing two of the SR prequel comics (he's seen some of the footage and read the script,BTW)the footage we've seen is nothing, the trailers don't even come close to showing the real story.

 

[Steelsheen]

i dunno why everybdoy is so worried about Lex. have any of you actually seen a movie where Spacey turned in a lousy performance? if there's anything predictable about the man is the consistency of his work.