Superman TV Show Reportedly In Development At The CW

[Leo656]

He's "okay" but he's still written as a wishy-washy whiny Daddy's boy.

People call him "definitive" because he's bald and wears a black suit. But that's all superficial outer trappings. It's not all the actor's fault that they tried too hard to make him sympathetic - which that character really shouldn't be, at all - but it was what it was.

Plus the bromance sh*t with Clark was awful and unnecessary. He looks the part fine, but for me, that's as far as it goes.
------------------------

It's very easy to understand why people dismiss Eisenberg's Lex - if nothing else, his vocal inflections are... interesting - but as far as being an evil, soulless, manipulative lizard-person wearing a human being costume, he's far closer to the "real" Lex than anyone. I mean, Lex Luthor is the guy who willingly gave up his soul to Neron, because in his mind, "If I ever HAD a soul I would have lost it a long time ago." He's not conflicted about being a scumbag, he revels in it. That's the kind of villain Eisenberg portrayed. Not a jilted boyfriend or a goofy real estate mogul; just a guy who'd be perfectly happy to see the world burn so long as he was left standing atop the ashes. It's the ONLY time I've seen a live-action Lex that radiated that kind of evil, aside from maybe a bit of John Shea back in the day, and he never went anywhere as far.

Now, again, his vocal delivery was weird, but if you put that aside, every bit of his behavior in the film was Classic Lex: The manipulations, the disarming and self-effacing public persona, the Master Plan, his conspiring with the forces of Apokolips, right down to the kidnapping and torture of someone close to Clark... ALL of that is completely faithful, practically ripped right off of the page; he's just dressed different. I can get past the voice and the clothes because for once, live-action Lex Luthor does things that Lex Luthor says and does.

I feel like people simply can't put those small things aside and focus on the bigger things.

As for why he was younger and dressed like a hipster, it's pretty clear to me that the filmmakers were trying to do what Byrne and Wolfman did in 1986: Begin with the idea of Lex as an "evil billionaire" and make it relevant to what was contemporary at the time. In 1986, an "evil billionaire" looked like Donald Trump, so that's what Lex was turned into. Nowadays, it looks like Mark Zuckerberg, so in trying to make Lex more modern, they figured "Screw it, let's get the guy who played the Facebook guy". It's definitely a questionable decision but I 100% understand what the motive was. AND, if they'd waited a year and actually had any idea that Trump would literally become President, I'm TOTALLY sure that they would have done an older, more traditional Lex instead. But that's not what happened, and frankly, I'm fine with what we got.

He's a weird guy. I can see why it's not for everyone but I seriously think people over-sell his performance. I mean, if people really can't get past the little verbal tics, that's their prerogative, but more often, I've heard people dismiss the character completely as being "totally unfaithful", and as I've pointed out that simply isn't true. He behaves FAR more like Lex Luthor than anyone else who's ever played him in live action.

He's just... y'know... squeaky.

[ZariusTwo]

Originally Posted by Leo656

He's "okay" but he's still written as a wishy-washy whiny Daddy's boy.

People call him "definitive" because he's bald and wears a black suit. But that's all superficial outer trappings. It's not all the actor's fault that they tried too hard to make him sympathetic - which that character really shouldn't be, at all - but it was what it was.

Plus the bromance sh*t with Clark was awful and unnecessary. He looks the part fine, but for me, that's as far as it goes.

How do you rate him as a Flash?

[Leo656]

Pretty good. You cheeky bastard.