The Official Lex Luthor Casting Thread - Part 4

[GoblinWhirlwind]

Lex with some secret identity in the military? No thanks. I want Lex just like he is in Secret Origin.

 

[wspsupes]

Lex with some secret identity in the military? No thanks. I want Lex just like he is in Secret Origin.

I just don't see it going down that way either. At all.

 

[GoblinWhirlwind]

I don't see it going down ANY way, at least not until the sequel.

 

[djsunyc]

i almost guarantee that there will, at the very least, be a lex mention in this movie...

 

[GoblinWhirlwind]

I'm hoping to see the LexCorp building in the Metropolis skyline.

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

i almost guarantee that there will, at the very least, be a lex mention in this movie...

Brilliant deduction

 

[Godzilla2014]

Of course, the frustrating thing about people complaining Lex Luthor has been done to death on film is that we've yet to really see a proper adaptation of the comics Lex Luthor (from any era, really, even Silver Age mad scientist era Lex had more complexity than Gene Hackman's land-grabbing robber baron), so if we got that in this film it would really be a cinematic first of sorts.

Agreed. That was one of the biggest missed opportunities of Superman Returns being an indirect sequel to the Donner films. You get Kevin Spacey to play Lex Luthor, and all you have him do is play Gene Hackman playing Lex Luthor? What a waste.

 

[GoblinWhirlwind]

I'd love an awesome interpretation of Luthor finally, but I'm glad to have one movie with no Kryptonite.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Care to make wagers?

$5 that Lex'll be a businessman

$10 He'll be a government scientist

$50!!! He'll want more land!

 

[Doc Krypton]

i almost guarantee that there will, at the very least, be a lex mention in this movie...

I very much think it's going to be like that, similar to the Joker playing card at the end of Batman Begins. That's why I don't understand why people are upset by the lack of Lex. In Batman Begins, another reboot of a major superhero, the villains were Ra's al Ghul and Scarecrow, not the Joker. They saved him for a sequel when they knew they could dedicate the proper time to the character, as BB, like MOS, was focused on the hero's journey, not on his greatest battle.

 

[Matt]

I very much think it's going to be like that, similar to the Joker playing card at the end of Batman Begins. That's why I don't understand why people are upset by the lack of Lex. In Batman Begins, another reboot of a major superhero, the villains were Ra's al Ghul and Scarecrow, not the Joker. They saved him for a sequel when they knew they could dedicate the proper time to the character, as BB, like MOS, was focused on the hero's journey, not on his greatest battle.

Lex isn't simply a villain. Joker, despite being Batman's arch-nemesis and the most prominent member of his rogue gallery is only a villain. Lex is a major supporting character as well as a villain. That is the difference.

Take Sherlock Holmes for example....it is one thing to do a Sherlock Holmes movie without Moriarty (the most prominent Holmes villain)....but you can't do one without Watson. Luthor is like Watson in the sense that he is a major supporting character (both from a story and thematic perspective).

Take Spider-Man as another example....you can do a Spider-Man film without Green Goblin, because while he is Spider-Man's arch-nemesis he isn't part of what defines Spider-Man. Aunt May on the other hand is...and you can't have a movie without her. Luthor is the same. He is a major supporting character who helps define who Superman is. Or even to your Batman example....they can leave out Joker because he is not part of what defines Batman....but they can't leave out Alfred as he is part of what defines Bruce. Same with Luthor to Superman.

Because Luthor is not just a villain but also a major supporting character, he is far more important to Superman mythos than Joker is to Batman mythos.

 

[Rodrigo90]

I wouldn't say Lex is crucial to Superman's beginnings or this movie.

But a movie without him...feels like you're missing one of your arms.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

It's not so much that Lex has to be an integral part of Superman's story.

But if they are going to approah him as the businessman, then he's an integral part of Metropolis. He's a huge part of what makes the Superman 'Universe' work in the same way that the mob does in Gotham.

He is the personification of the corruption that Superman battles against. He represents greed, lies, injustice and criminality.

If you take him out of the story, you have to replace him with something like 'Intergang', which just seems a shame because then it'd be EXACTLY like Gotham. The thing that makes Lex's criminal activities different is that he has the world convinced he's a good guy.

But as I've said, I'm fine with just hints, name drops and flashes of luthorcorp logos on buildings until the sequel.

I just wanna know he's there. That he exists in that world.

 

[Lily Adler]

So Christopher Meloni, he's bald so that must make him Lex.

Seriously though, I like the idea of a Luthor-free movie. Pull a "Joker Card"-moment like they did with Batman Begins and I'll be pretty happy.

And yes he should be corrupt businessman whose presence is felt when Supes is in Metropolis.

 

[Rodrigo90]

If WB and Synder know they can make sequels, then I have a strong feeling Lex will make an appearance at the end, hinting towards that sequel.

If this is just one film, it'll end in a way that has Porky Pig come up and say
"That's All Folks"

So no Lex or anything else

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I have to admit, I AM looking forward to a movie where Lex is only in the background. I don't really want to see him. I want him to be somehow involved in the plot but all behind the scenes.

But then if there is no sequel, I'll be gutted, because Lex needs a reboot just as much as Supes!

 

[Lily Adler]

If WB and Synder know they can make sequels, then I have a strong feeling Lex will make an appearance at the end, hinting towards that sequel.

If this is just one film, it'll end in a way that has Porky Pig come up and say
"That's All Folks"

So no Lex or anything else

Man you made me hate Bryan Singer even more.

Now, now I don't want to sound like one of those people who bashes their ex.

 

[The Watchman]

Snyder et al, please refer to Superman MOS for reference on how to do a proper Lex.

 

[Rowsdower!]

I think the whole "saving Lex for a sequel but pulling a Joker card" thing is pretty dumb. I mean, okay... Superman, has just bested not one, put probably THREE super-powered badasses in the first film (Zod, Ursa and whoever mo-cap man turns out to be). And then in the sequel he's supposed to be threatened by an evil businessman? Look, I know Goldman Sachs is capable of destroying the world 50 times over, but seriously, that's going to feel kind of underwhelming.

That's why I feel Lex should have a presence throughout out this movie, and any movies they release. Behind the scenes, pulling the strings, etc. If they try to make him the full-out central villain in the second one after only mildly alluding to him in the first one, I think that will be a misstep. Plus, it also means we might have yet another film where they shy away from Superman's other comic book villains.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

Lex isn't simply a villain. Joker, despite being Batman's arch-nemesis and the most prominent member of his rogue gallery is only a villain. Lex is a major supporting character as well as a villain. That is the difference.

We've only seen Joker on the silver screen twice - three if you want to count Batman: the Movie. If we got him as much as we've gotten Luthor in the movies, I guarantee we'd hear whining, "The Joker is the villain...AGAAAAAAAAAAAIN!?!"

If WB and Synder know they can make sequels, then I have a strong feeling Lex will make an appearance at the end, hinting towards that sequel.

If this is just one film, it'll end in a way that has Porky Pig come up and say
"That's All Folks"

So no Lex or anything else

But then if there is no sequel, I'll be gutted, because Lex needs a reboot just as much as Supes!

Man you made me hate Bryan Singer even more.

Now, now I don't want to sound like one of those people who bashes their ex.

Not everything needs sequel setups, you know. It's actually a good thing to make a self-contained movie that serves a story with a beginning, middle and end.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

For an individual idea or story concept, sure.

For an already established Superhero franchise, especially one as huge as Superman, they are bound to make the movie with sequels in mind.

 

[Lily Adler]

Not everything needs sequel setups, you know. It's actually a good thing to make a self-contained movie that serves a story with a beginning, middle and end.

I'm game for a stand alone Superman movie. I'm just being optimistic about a potential sequel.

 

[Boosted]

i don't mind a lack of lex. I've never really found him that interesting, and his movie portrayal has been awful.

 

[ElDuderino]

You can have a beginning, middle and end, then have a set up for the next movie. That should be obvious.

 

[X Knight]

I'm game for a stand alone Superman movie. I'm just being optimistic about a potential franchise.

this better be more than a stand-alone movie.......

I think WB is counting on that, too.