The Official Lex Luthor Casting Thread

[Rodrigo90]

I demand the academy awards allow superhero movies to be acknowledged in every respect...So that DDL may think he will win an oscar if he played Lex. t:

 

[super-t]

I think DDL doesnt fit Lex. I mean hes a hell of an acor but i want someone more young and handome, No homo.

 

[GoblinWhirlwind]

I demand the academy awards allow superhero movies to be acknowledged in every respect...So that DDL may think he will win an oscar if he played Lex. t:

I know he dedicated some award to Ledger, so hopefully he took a close look at TDK and realizes what superhero movies can be.

 

[GA1U5]

If you think about Superman as a story with thematic components in which the characters have been carefully designed to connect in narrative harmony, all the suggestions for Lex Luthor on this board are extremely misguided. Rather, a physically weak, conniving, squirrelly-looking Lex Luthor is essential (like in Birthright).

The reason is because that physical look is the perfect contrast to Superman. Superman's power is in his physical gifts (physical strength, speed, flight, etc.) and Luthor's power is in his mental gifts, a genius Einstein-level intellect that he uses for evil. The key is that their power is equal. Despite Superman's astonishing physical power, Lex is able to compete with him through sheer intelligence, while his physicality is weak and unimposing, thus visually emphasizing his great intelligence as the source of his power. Take this panel from Superman: Birthright:

Lex is small, skinny, has harsh, pointy features, almost like an insect, the oppostite of Superman, conveying his physical weakness, but also a ferocious intellect, his contrasting quality to Superman.

To take away that element of the character and turn him into a mere overconfident thug (and cast so many of the names being thrown around in this thread) is to take away the fascinating dynamic between hero and villain, the feeling that, although they are morally opposed, they are two halves of a whole, two extraordinary creatures who are capable of achieving anything due to their gifts, but they use those gifts differently because of the values that they've adopted and moral choices that they've made. That characterization of Luthor adds such tragedy to his character because, for instance, if he had made different choices and decided to use his intellectual power for altruistic goals the way that Superman has decided to use his physical power, think of all the amazing achievements he could have bestowed on humanity (achievements that, most likely, no one but him is capable of).

This question of how to use your natural gifts is central to any Superman story. The purpose of Superman is to use the main character to inspire us to use whatever natural gifts we may possess for the good of humankind, to find the "Superman" within ourselves, if you will. Since Luthor is the primary narrative foil to this message, he must also possess a natural gift that he abuses, displaying the alternative and immoral choice. Having a lot of money and being a bully (the way that he was portrayed in Superman: The Animated Series, for instance) is not a natural gift and is not thematically consistent or meaningful. And casting an actor who is physically strong, who is tall, muscular, handsome, etc... ruins this dynamic, diluting it to the point that it vanishes completely from the story, thusly creating a far less meaningful story.

This is, of course, a mistake because while it would be easy to just say, "Oh, this guy would be cool as Lex!" without giving much thought to it, these characters have such potential to create an entertaining as well as truly touching and powerful story and I believe that the way the characters were initially conceived (Luthor as the genius scientist) was rich and ripe for inspirational storytelling. Superman was conceived as a classic myth and to change Luthor into a large, tough corporate thug and take away the dynamic between hero and villain betrays the roots of Superman. In classic myth, the hero and villain are opposites in every way. Superman is tall, muscular, physically strong. Luthor is small, skinny, physically weak, but intellectually powerful. To do anything else would be to simplify the story and diminish the potential for meaning and drama.

An actor who resembles the above drawing from Birthright should be cast. An actor like Jackie Earle Haley who Snyder worked with in Watchmen. Another actor that fits the mold is Mackenzie Crook, from the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. Or even message board-favorite Crispin Glover. I'm not saying any of these actors should be cast, I'm saying that this is the physical type that should be looked at because it creates the movie that's richest with meaning and drama and classic myth-like power, something that audiences undeniably respond to.

Imagine if you had a handsome, charismatic Superman going up against a villain that looked like this (it would be visually rich and striking and the meaning of the story, the "brain vs. brawn" dynamic would be right in the audience's face and so much fun. Perfect.):

 

[Rodrigo90]

I know he dedicated some award to Ledger, so hopefully he took a close look at TDK and realizes what superhero movies can be.

Well after Nine,I guess anything is possible with him now. So lets hope so.

 

[BH/HHH]

I demand the academy awards allow superhero movies to be acknowledged in every respect...

Exactly why I think the Academy Awards are BS every movie should be acknowledged not just oscar fodder. It bugs me how actors like Sean Penn just make films to win these awards and good decent films get looked over because they're not "right" for these awards, its just a farce.

 

[jthom19802]

I'm still 100% behind Olyphant and genius, businessman corporate Lex but I must admit reading that, with that description, I hadn't considered J. Haley.

He'd be perfect if they went the small, brainiac-ish weakling scientist.

 

[GoblinWhirlwind]

I was the first to suggest JEH, but no one paid attention. I don't see him as some insectile wimp Luthor, he may be small in stature but he would give a great performance as a cunning Lex Luthor.

 

[jthom19802]

I was the first to suggest JEH, but no one paid attention. I don't see him as some insectile wimp Luthor, he may be small in stature but he would give a great performance as a cunning Lex Luthor.

He does slightly resemble a certain other cunning Luthor we've grown to love.

....and of course, he is the s*** on Human Target.

 

[BH/HHH]

I was the first to suggest JEH, but no one paid attention. I don't see him as some insectile wimp Luthor, he may be small in stature but he would give a great performance as a cunning Lex Luthor.

Whose JEH again?

 

[GoblinWhirlwind]

Jackie Earle Haley

 

[jthom19802]

Whose JEH again?

The guy under McFly a couple of posts up.

 

[BH/HHH]

Jackie Earle Haley

As Lex? nah I just cant see it anyway hes Freddy Krueger

 

[Nemi]

GA1U5, would you Lex be more the mad scientist or the corrupt businessman?

 

[Timstuff]

I want the actor who plays Lex to be the correct age. Snyder already said he's ignoring the previous movies so I doubt that we're going to get an older Lex this time (hopefully), since in the comics he's the same age as Superman. An older Lex was an element that was pretty specific to the Donner-verse. Snyder is going with Clark's parents being younger too, so I bet a younger Lex is in the cards as well.

 

[Still Wynning]

I want the actor who plays Lex to be the correct age. Snyder already said he's ignoring the previous movies so I doubt that we're going to get an older Lex this time (hopefully), since in the comics he's the same age as Superman. An older Lex was an element that was pretty specific to the Donner-verse. Snyder is going with Clark's parents being younger too, so I bet a younger Lex is in the cards as well.

Well, taking your post and GA1U5's post into consideration, how about Ben Foster?

He's 5'9", kind of stalky and not very imposing, so he'd be a pretty good contrast to Henry Cavill. He's also a pretty good actor to boot.

I can't really think of anyone else at the moment. Anyone else have any suggestions that would fit into the above categories?

 

[jthom19802]

Olyphant is 6'0, just a hair shorter than Cavill.

Just saying

 

[Timstuff]

Foster seems like a decent suggestion. The only thing is, I can't help but wonder if Snyder and Warner Bros. are going to want a more well known actor to be Lex, since when they cast a lesser known actor in the lead they tend to try to pad out the supporting cast with more well known names.

 

[Eddie Dean]

I can't really think of anyone else at the moment. Anyone else have any suggestions that would fit into the above categories?

Adrien Brody is a name I've always liked.

 

[terry78]

Foster seems like a decent suggestion. The only thing is, I can't help but wonder if Snyder and Warner Bros. are going to want a more well known actor to be Lex, since when they cast a lesser known actor in the lead they tend to try to pad out the supporting cast with more well known names.

Right now Costner is the biggest name in the movie. And that includes Diane Lane.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

If you think about Superman as a story with thematic components in which the characters have been carefully designed to connect in narrative harmony, all the suggestions for Lex Luthor on this board are extremely misguided. Rather, a physically weak, conniving, squirrelly-looking Lex Luthor is essential (like in Birthright).

The reason is because that physical look is the perfect contrast to Superman. Superman's power is in his physical gifts (physical strength, speed, flight, etc.) and Luthor's power is in his mental gifts, a genius Einstein-level intellect that he uses for evil. The key is that their power is equal. Despite Superman's astonishing physical power, Lex is able to compete with him through sheer intelligence, while his physicality is weak and unimposing, thus visually emphasizing his great intelligence as the source of his power. Take this panel from Superman: Birthright:

Lex is small, skinny, has harsh, pointy features, almost like an insect, the oppostite of Superman, conveying his physical weakness, but also a ferocious intellect, his contrasting quality to Superman.

To take away that element of the character and turn him into a mere overconfident thug (and cast so many of the names being thrown around in this thread) is to take away the fascinating dynamic between hero and villain, the feeling that, although they are morally opposed, they are two halves of a whole, two extraordinary creatures who are capable of achieving anything due to their gifts, but they use those gifts differently because of the values that they've adopted and moral choices that they've made. That characterization of Luthor adds such tragedy to his character because, for instance, if he had made different choices and decided to use his intellectual power for altruistic goals the way that Superman has decided to use his physical power, think of all the amazing achievements he could have bestowed on humanity (achievements that, most likely, no one but him is capable of).

This question of how to use your natural gifts is central to any Superman story. The purpose of Superman is to use the main character to inspire us to use whatever natural gifts we may possess for the good of humankind, to find the "Superman" within ourselves, if you will. Since Luthor is the primary narrative foil to this message, he must also possess a natural gift that he abuses, displaying the alternative and immoral choice. Having a lot of money and being a bully (the way that he was portrayed in Superman: The Animated Series, for instance) is not a natural gift and is not thematically consistent or meaningful. And casting an actor who is physically strong, who is tall, muscular, handsome, etc... ruins this dynamic, diluting it to the point that it vanishes completely from the story, thusly creating a far less meaningful story.

This is, of course, a mistake because while it would be easy to just say, "Oh, this guy would be cool as Lex!" without giving much thought to it, these characters have such potential to create an entertaining as well as truly touching and powerful story and I believe that the way the characters were initially conceived (Luthor as the genius scientist) was rich and ripe for inspirational storytelling. Superman was conceived as a classic myth and to change Luthor into a large, tough corporate thug and take away the dynamic between hero and villain betrays the roots of Superman. In classic myth, the hero and villain are opposites in every way. Superman is tall, muscular, physically strong. Luthor is small, skinny, physically weak, but intellectually powerful. To do anything else would be to simplify the story and diminish the potential for meaning and drama.

An actor who resembles the above drawing from Birthright should be cast. An actor like Jackie Earle Haley who Snyder worked with in Watchmen. Another actor that fits the mold is Mackenzie Crook, from the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. Or even message board-favorite Crispin Glover. I'm not saying any of these actors should be cast, I'm saying that this is the physical type that should be looked at because it creates the movie that's richest with meaning and drama and classic myth-like power, something that audiences undeniably respond to.

Imagine if you had a handsome, charismatic Superman going up against a villain that looked like this (it would be visually rich and striking and the meaning of the story, the "brain vs. brawn" dynamic would be right in the audience's face and so much fun. Perfect.

I'm sorry but I completely disagree with you.

The relationship between the characters in the Superman story may have started out as simple 'contrasts' and 'opposites', but they have since evolved beyond those archetypes. And thank god, because TBH it's a pretty boring stereotypical structure otherwise. Brain vs Braun is one of the simplest concepts there is, and one that very much no longer applies to the Superman story.

For one thing, Superman is portrayed as incredibly intelligent himself. He's not just braun at all. And instead of just having 'really smart' under his belt, Luthor has a much more powerful tool - manipulation of the public. It makes him a much much much more threatening and interesting villain.

There have been comics in which Luthor is portrayed as a 'mad scientist' type. Usually, in those portrayals, he is drawn in a similar fashion to the example you've posted i.e.

But in a hell of a lot of other interpretations, Luthor is more complex than just the physical opposite of Superman.

He is portrayed as a man obsessed with power, a corrupt businessman with a charming exterior. So he appears clean cut and well put together, and is often drawn quite stocky. This helps towards the idea he could be commanding enough to run for President, and also threatening enough to keep criminal elements under his control.

It's just a matter of what the individual prefers. I personally find the 'mad scientist' Lex is not my taste. I love the idea of Lex as untouchable, and prefer it when his physical depiction enhances that. Not because he is muscly or anything, but because he is believable as someone who could pull off charming Metropolis into letting him control everything.


This man is my pick: (Clive Owen)

To be able to go from this charming, almost sly smile ^

...to something darker, and more threatening, but still keeping his wall of 'cool and calculating'.

I'm think a lot of good actors are out there that could portray him. Clive Owen is just one I really like the look of, and the feel of. He's got a great voice, and he's also a very good actor.

 

[RoughNTumble]

clive owen is a good suggestion

 

[Zack Snyder]

For the sake of big names I think could be interesting for Lex. Let's go with the biggest male name in the last 15 years.

Brad Pitt.

We have been talking about getting the biggest names out there. We have talked about having someone charismatic and maybe even a bit suave for Lex. A billionaire the women will see and look past his manipulative characteristics.

That would be pretty interesting imo.

I don't know how possible it is in terms of Pitt's status, but bumping my old Lex casting idea as finally some people are starting to dig it.

 

[Eddie Dean]

There's no reason why Luthor can't be both a mad scientest and untouchable political figure. The thing I most want see is how Luthor's arrogance and jealousy towards Superman completey destroys him. Basically a mix between Salieri in Amadeus and Morrison's Luthor.

 

[Ursa]

Joaquin Phoenix or Edward Norton.

Even though I don't like to see the same actor in different comic books characters, I think Norton as Lex would be awesome and kind a "revenge" against Marvel, hehe.