Reintroducing Superman: An Open Discussion

[Wushuboy]

While the Joker and Lex Luthor are both villains, they don't play the same roles. Would you say Commissioner Gordon can't be in all of the Batman movies because Dan Turpin isn't in all of the Superman movies? Of course not, because different characters have different roles. Lex Luthor is a prominent recurring character in the Superman mythos, whereas the Joker pops up from time to time to cause havoc. Lex Luthor practically owns Metropolis and as such there is no reason he can't be in every movie.

They do somehwat play the same roles. Ask anyone, not just comic book fans who batman's arch enemy is and they'll say Joker. That's just public perception. You ask them who's superman's arch enemy.. they'll say lex luthor. They are both the antithesis of their corresponding heroes whether they pop up from time to time or not. But Nolan was able to bring in a villain that is relatively unknown to the public and he still made it work. The same can be done with Superman. Lex is not needed. I think at this point the audience would rather see someone new introduced that they havent seen before. It would be new and exciting.

You can't put Turpin on the same level as Gordon. Gordon, in everyone's mind, is important to batman's war on crime. That's just common knowledge. Turpin, on the other hand, is not vital to superman's stories. He's a relatively unknown character. I hadnt even heard of him until the animated series. He doesn't have that reputation of being superman's connection to the police.

Yes LEx is a prominent recurring character but he doesnt have to be in everything. IF so he'd be in every superman story no matter what and he isnt just like joker isnt in every batman story.

We've seen lex in every superman movie already and look at some of the backlash that resulted in it with superman returns. There was a lot of negative sentiment... ppl thinking "another lex story?" Lex can take a break. Everyone knows he's there. Even if they omit him in the movie you can place things in the movie that suggest he's there. Billboards, buildings, newspaper headlines..

Emperor Palpatine in star wars is important to the mythos of star wars but they didnt show him until the second movie and even then it was glimpses. They didnt fully show h im until the last movie. And he was the manipulator or the saga.

 

[Double Down]

They do somehwat play the same roles. Ask anyone, not just comic book fans who batman's arch enemy is and they'll say Joker. That's just public perception. You ask them who's superman's arch enemy.. they'll say lex luthor. They are both the antithesis of their corresponding heroes whether they pop up from time to time or not. But Nolan was able to bring in a villain that is relatively unknown to the public and he still made it work. The same can be done with Superman. Lex is not needed. I think at this point the audience would rather see someone new introduced that they havent seen before. It would be new and exciting.

You can't put Turpin on the same level as Gordon. Gordon, in everyone's mind, is important to batman's war on crime. That's just common knowledge. Turpin, on the other hand, is not vital to superman's stories. He's a relatively unknown character. I hadnt even heard of him until the animated series. He doesn't have that reputation of being superman's connection to the police.

Yes LEx is a prominent recurring character but he doesnt have to be in everything. IF so he'd be in every superman story no matter what and he isnt just like joker isnt in every batman story.

We've seen lex in every superman movie already and look at some of the backlash that resulted in it with superman returns. There was a lot of negative sentiment... ppl thinking "another lex story?" Lex can take a break. Everyone knows he's there. Even if they omit him in the movie you can place things in the movie that suggest he's there. Billboards, buildings, newspaper headlines..

Emperor Palpatine in star wars is important to the mythos of star wars but they didnt show him until the second movie and even then it was glimpses. They didnt fully show h im until the last movie. And he was the manipulator or the saga.

I said they were both villains, that isn't even up for debate. And are they archenemies? Of course. No one is debating that either.
But let's put it this way: Smallville features Lex Luthor. Would a similar show featuring a young Bruce Wayne even begin to consider a similar character modeled after the younger version of what would become the Joker? Of course not. That's because the characters don't fulfill the same roles.
Superman and Batman are not the exact same characters. You do understand that, right? Batman doesn't have a Lois Lane, a Jimmy Olsen, a Perry White or a Lex Luthor. Conversely, Superman doesn't have a Robin, a Nightwing, a Commissioner Gordon or an an Alfred. What works for one character doesn't automatically translate to the other character.
Batman has a whole stable of great villains. Superman really doesn't. There is a reason Joker was in Batman, but none of the sequels, while Lex Luthor was in three of the four Christopher Reeve Superman movies.
Lex Luthor is a businessman who owns much of Metropolis in most incarnations. That is just a guy who is a much bigger part of Superman's scene than a clown who escapes from Arkham every once in a while is a part of Batman's.
And I am not even saying Lex has to be in every movie, I am simply saying his role is much different than the Joker's. But for someone to say Lex can't be in a movie because the Joker isn't or wasn't in a movie is a poor argument.

 

[Wushuboy]

I said they were both villains, that isn't even up for debate. And are they archenemies? Of course. No one is debating that either.
But let's put it this way: Smallville features Lex Luthor. Would a similar show featuring a young Bruce Wayne even begin to consider a similar character modeled after the younger version of what would become the Joker? Of course not. That's because THE CHARACTERS DON'T FULFILL THE SAME ROLES.
Superman and Batman are not the exact same characters. You do understand that, right? Batman doesn't have a Lois Lane, a Jimmy Olsen, a Perry White or a Lex Luthor. Conversely, Superman doesn't have a Robin, a Nightwing, a Commissioner Gordon or an an Alfred. What works for one character doesn't automatically translate to the other character.
Batman has a whole stable of great villains. Superman really doesn't. There is a reason Joker was in Batman, but none of the sequels, while Lex Luthor was in three of the four Christopher Reeve Superman movies.
Lex Luthor is a businessman who owns much of Metropolis in most incarnations. That is just a guy who is a much bigger part of Superman's scene than a clown who escapes from Arkham every once in a while is a part of Batman's.
And I am not even saying Lex has to be in every movie, I am simply saying his role is much different than the Joker's. Saying Lex can't be in a movie because The Joker isn't or wasn't in a movie is a poor argument.

I dont think smallville is good example at all. Of course they'll use lex.. he's the easiest villain to put on screen. No makeup needed. You just need a bald dude. Easy to cast and cheap. The whole premise of lex growing up with clark is proposterous in the first place. And it's definately not canon. Specially when half the time clark is without his glasses. That whole show takes many liberties with the mythos. I mean cmon.. clark meeting jimmy, lois, and the entire supporting cast before he even becomes superman? That being so, if they can take liberties in creating the smallville show, they can definately take liberties with a young bruce wayne. Joker was a two bit criminal. They could have bruce wayne in the same gang learning how criminals think and thwarting them all the time while he's undercover since that was part of his journey to becoming batman.

In every incarnation of lex luthor in the movies he wasn't a business man at all. He was just some evil genius. So him being a business man now who owns most of metropolis had no influence over why he was used in previous superman movies. In superman returns, he slept with a dying old woman to get her money. Evil business man? Nope. More like evil gigolo. And another reason is they most certainly did not have the technology to bring to life any of superman's super powered villains. They could only bring to life villains with the same power as superman because that technology already existed. Another reason, they had unimaginative and bad writers. Superman 3 and 4 are not like the pinnacle of stories and it's not like they had the best writers. You have to admit the quality of writing for today's comic book movies is much higher than it was for those movies.

It sure seems like you are saying lex has to be in every movie because he's so important to the mythos.

I mean you just said this "Lex Luthor practically owns Metropolis and as such there is no reason he can't be in every movie. "

And I didnt say he cant be in a superman movie ... I'm saying LEx doesnt have to be in the first movie in the reboot. I never once said he shouldnt be in the entire series if it goes more than one. If you read my posts I said they should reveal him at the end of the first movie to set up the second one. Just as joker did not need to be in the first movie in the batman reboot even though he is his arch nemesis. Most people thought Joker most definately needs to be the first villain in the reboot because he's the first person you think of. But it doesnt always have to be that way.
I can see a movie without lex. You can't. Bottom line. Even the animated series had episodes with no lex. So how do you explain that? I mean according to you, he's so important that he should have been in EVERY single episode. He wasnt always in justice league either. Nor is he in every single issue of superman. So no, if he can take some absence from a superman story in ALL other media, he can take a leave of absence for a while for ONE superman movie.

 

[Double Down]

You are so ridiculous that it has become pointless to debate you.

You said:
It sure seems like you are saying lex has to be in every movie because he's so important to the mythos.
I mean you just said this "Lex Luthor practically owns Metropolis and as such there is no reason he can't be in every movie."

I clearly said there is no reason he can't be in every movie. I did not say "he has to be in every movie." That should be obvious to anyone but you.

And yet you add:
I can see a movie without lex. You can't.

Again, I did not say he has to be in the movie. I explained why he could be.

You clearly read things the way you want to and there clearly is no reason to humor you any more.

 

[Wushuboy]

You're very fixated on the whole joker remark but did not address anything as to why he doesn't need to be in the first film. You clearly got stuck on that one point and cant let it go. I explained why he doesn't need to be.

Your example of lex in smallville suggests it was required for him to be in the series. A necessity. Then you stated "Batman has a whole stable of great villains. Superman really doesn't." So what does that mean? To me it suggests you need to have LEx be the villain since supes' rogues gallery doesnt stack up. It suggests no one else but LEx could have been used. Another thing, LEx in the Reeve movies didnt have the same relationship with Superman as he does now, namely the feelings of hatred for superman because he's an alien. And the relationship of LEx and Superman in the Reeve movies does not even compare to the relationship between joker and batman in the burton movie since well.. Joker killed batman's parents. He was the catalyst for the single most important event in his life. As far as joker not being in the burton sequels. Im pretty sure it had nothing to do with his role to batman, being a villain that just pops up from time to time. That's his role in the comic. With respect to the burton movies, the reason he was only in the first one and not the sequels is simple duh duh duh... they killed him off! He never even had a chance to escape from arkham. If you look at Joker in TDK and even comics, he's not out just to hurt people, he's there to psychological break batman whereas Lex just wants to destroy superman. It's a game to joker and sometimes mind games can be deadlier.

You explained why he could be in the movies. Ok i get it. He's important to the mythos. He *could* be in every movie. I'll agree with you there. But I explained why he doesnt need to be or at least just not in the first one. While their roles arent exactly the same they are similar.. just carried out in different ways. Joker could have easily been the first villain in the nolan series. If you took out the little subplot about updating the costume and had him in the new costume from the beginning, TDK could easily have been the first film in the series even if there was no BB but they chose not to do it. And they can choose not to have lex in the new superman movie as well but could he be? sure he could.

 

[X Knight]

I think, like it or not, Lex really should be in all the Superman movies. To me, he's more than just a villain. He's actually part of the supporting cast. Just like Lois, Jimmy, Perry, etc. Just like Gordon and Alfred are important recurring, supporting characters to Batman.

Now....that doesn't mean Lex has to be the PRIMARY villain in all Superman movies ( that would get stale and boring ). But he should be involved, in some capacity....whether it's teaming up with the other villain against Supes.....or even teaming up with Supes against the other villain.

Lex is just too integral of a character to be ignored in a Superman movie. A Superman movie without Lex would be like a Superman movie without Lois......

 

[Wushuboy]

I think, like it or not, Lex really should be in all the Superman movies. To me, he's more than just a villain. He's actually part of the supporting cast. Just like Lois, Jimmy, Perry, etc. Just like Gordon and Alfred are important recurring, supporting characters to Batman.

Now....that doesn't mean Lex has to be the PRIMARY villain in all Superman movies ( that would get stale and boring ). But he should be involved, in some capacity....whether it's teaming up with the other villain against Supes.....or even teaming up with Supes against the other villain.

Lex is just too integral of a character to be ignored in a Superman movie. A Superman movie without Lex would be like a Superman movie without Lois......

Yeah i agree. I think he def needs to take a backseat for the next film. Yes he's a supporting character... but let's give another villain a shot. No Zod or nuclear man either. I'd like to see someone with some different powers for variety. You never know what some writers could come up with with a character like metallo, braniac, or a parasite. I just dont want to see him as the primary villain again.

 

[Sam]

If Warner goes for a reboot, Lex HAS to be on it.

Heck, even if they dont do a reboot, Lex need to be on the movie!

There are 3 things that is need to be around in some way (besides Superman, of course): Lois Lane, Lex Luthor and Daily Planet!

 

[NeoRanger]

Eaaaasy boys. Let's put it this way, simply: Lex SHOULD be in the future Superman movies, but he doesn't HAVE to be. I don't think there are many who would mind his sheer presence, if he does take a backseat, anyway, so I don't see where we all disagree.

Beer anyone?

 

[Mentok]

I personally like the idea of Lex being in the background, pulling the strings. Ofcourse, when he really reveals what he is up to (after a film or two) then his plans get WAY out of hand and Superman has to save his sorry ass.

No better way to piss of Lex then to have Superman save him.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Too random. It was be much more fitting to have a Lexcorp brand somewhere, to give the hint that Lex is pulling the strings, but don't show him until he has a place in the story.

So basically what Favreau is doing with the Mandarin in Iron Man. Ja?

 

[Double Down]

Eaaaasy boys. Let's put it this way, simply: Lex SHOULD be in the future Superman movies, but he doesn't HAVE to be. I don't think there are many who would mind his sheer presence, if he does take a backseat, anyway, so I don't see where we all disagree.

Beer anyone?

Yep, that's what I was saying. Someone else was trying to put words in my mouth (so to speak).

 

[hockeyboy89]

As a newb, I always thought that in SR, it should have been established that Lex's dead ex and her billions were part of a Wayne Industries type of corp. He could have taken that and turned it into Lex Corp, used their legal team to cover his bad deeds, and could have combined his knowledge with any tech to further his ambitions.........but alas that didn't happen.

 

[dark_b]

we really need a superfight. and ILM needs to do the effects. bay's movie are maybe brainless or cliche. but they show a lot of destruction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAujq_F_AD0&fmt=22

it really should be a lot of fun like IM and a lot of action.

 

[BestGirl]

As a newb, I always thought that in SR, it should have been established that Lex's dead ex and her billions were part of a Wayne Industries type of corp. He could have taken that and turned it into Lex Corp, used their legal team to cover his bad deeds, and could have combined his knowledge with any tech to further his ambitions.........but alas that didn't happen.

We didn't really need any explanation about where he got his money. The GA knows Lex is rich, and since SR was just a vague sequel to the Donner series there wasn't any real need to explain how Lex got out of his legal woes. Maybe a throwaway reference could have been made.

Welcome to the Hype.

 

[I Am The Knight]

I don't think the GA knows that Lex is rich. They probably don't even remember who played him 30 years ago. Do they even remember much about the Donner films?

 

[El Payaso]

I don't think the GA knows that Lex is rich. They probably don't even remember who played him 30 years ago. Do they even remember much about the Donner films?

What I'm sure of is that GA doesn't remember that the crystals built the FoS and therefore they can grow with water.

But about Lex, what can I tell you. I just loved the old rich woman scene.

But I would love even more business man Lex.

 

[hockeyboy89]

We didn't really need any explanation about where he got his money. The GA knows Lex is rich, and since SR was just a vague sequel to the Donner series there wasn't any real need to explain how Lex got out of his legal woes. Maybe a throwaway reference could have been made.

Welcome to the Hype.

Thanks! I was just saying they could have used that as a way of changing Lex from two bit criminal to the more industrious Lex many are calling for.

 

[Webhead2006]

yea that is one thing i dont like about donnor's lex or SR keeping the donnor ties, that lex is silver age/30yrs old where the character has changed alot since then. If they do reboot i said this before i would love to see the rich/powerful corp lex that owns the whole city and all the criminal activities untill superman shows up and superman discovers lex is evil but cant pin it on him yet so the city goes on thinking he is the great man he has made everyone think he is.

 

[BestGirl]

I don't think the GA knows that Lex is rich. They probably don't even remember who played him 30 years ago. Do they even remember much about the Donner films?

I usually measure the knowledge of the GA based on my knowledge because I wasn't a superhero fan until recently. In 2006, if you'd asked me about Lex Luthor the only thing I could've told you is that he's bald and rich.

yea that is one thing i dont like about donnor's lex or SR keeping the donnor ties, that lex is silver age/30yrs old where the character has changed alot since then. If they do reboot i said this before i would love to see the rich/powerful corp lex that owns the whole city and all the criminal activities untill superman shows up and superman discovers lex is evil but cant pin it on him yet so the city goes on thinking he is the great man he has made everyone think he is.

Yep. I really, really wish SR had been a Superman reboot, BB style.

 

[BestGirl]

Thanks! I was just saying they could have used that as a way of changing Lex from two bit criminal to the more industrious Lex many are calling for.

Yeah, your idea could've worked and would've been the next best thing to a true reboot that made Lex more faithful to the modern comics.

 

[Webhead2006]

I usually measure the knowledge of the GA based on my knowledge because I wasn't a superhero fan until recently. In 2006, if you'd asked me about Lex Luthor the only thing I could've told you is that he's bald and rich.



Yep. I really, really wish SR had been a Superman reboot, BB style.

Yea when i first heard about the film was actually going to happen i too thought it would have been a reboot totally for the series like bb did for batman. But singer decided to go quasi sequel thing.

 

[Nightwing1977]

I don't think the GA knows that Lex is rich. They probably don't even remember who played him 30 years ago. Do they even remember much about the Donner films?

If the general audiences doesn't know Lex is rich from looking at his business suit, then they're dumb.

 

[stargazer]

What I'm sure of is that GA doesn't remember that the crystals built the FoS and therefore they can grow with water.

But about Lex, what can I tell you. I just loved the old rich woman scene.

.

Me too. Very comic-booky.

And I loved the whole movie as well.

 

[dark_b]

Me too. Very comic-booky.

And I loved the whole movie as well.

thats a problem IMO. it goes from cartoony comic booky scene to dead serious scenes.

i still think that LL should never be used for jokes. neeeeeever.