Board Thread:Supergirl discussions/@comment-31722073-20190318142027/@comment-5536445-20190321030516

Kir the Wizard wrote: Astroarnav wrote: I now have TWO OF THESE GUYS that I can LOVE! (heresy, I know. Please don't sue) There was something right with BvS Luthor, considering that Supergirl's Luthor took some clues from that writing. Cryer also commented on how his portrayal also tackles the themes of sociopathy (although he did not specifically cite Eisenberg). Still, that performance needed some refinement, Snyder got hilariously pushed over by the actor on how the character should be portrayed. Thanks for accepting (and not agreeing to) my opinion!

Xandermcc wrote: Lex should be sociopathic, but that was just Zack's usual god rhetoric rather than an actual intelligent comparison. The dialogue was not feeling like an actual intelligent man going off the deep end. It felt like someone failing to write it. I dunno...I feel like that is a bit...subjective to the viewer. I've said this before on the DCEU Wiki proper, but I agree that the movie version isn't the most accurate to the comics or our idealized version of the character. Eisenberg's Lex Luthor was comic accurate to a degree. While he was capturing the insanity presented in the original Golden and Silver Age variations, he lacked the subtlety and composure that Luthor is much more well known for having. I'm not saying that he should have kept to the subtlety completely, but he had to do a little bit of it. Let's face it: Lex Luthor is known for his stoicism, his subtlety, his composure. You can't exactly adapt a specific version of a beloved character that has been completely retired in the comics, without unintentionally alienating your fandom audience that is more used to the popular take on said character. Unfortunately, Luthor was a bit too eccentric for everyone's taste at the time, and it took a small cameo in another movie to rectify that.

That being said...

For a first-time outing, Luthor had a legitimate plan that worked, one on-par (if not completely equivalent to) Baron Zemo's plan in Civil War. It worked and brought the Apokoliptians to Earth, and effectively killed the Big S while he was at it. Luthor masterminded an entire supervillain operation with such finesse and mastery that it was unbelievable how much havoc he caused. And he did it all...without Kryptonite. Y'know, Kryptonite? His signature weapon? Eisenberg may have been a little eccentric for everyone's tastes (not mine, thankfully, I loved him for what he was), but he made for a great villain in general. His eccentricity helped convey his motivations quite clearly in regards to his god complex (or his view on godhood), and helped explain how he came to hate the Man of Steel. That's essentially the main reason why I like Eisenberg's Luthor; because this eccentricity clearly indicates that this isn't the Luthor that we're familiar with, and certainly not the one with 15 years of experience behind him. This is a younger, more inexperienced Luthor that was insecure about his complexes yet affirmative in his movements on the chessboard. For the purposes of the story, Luthor needed to be absolutely clear about what exactly motivated him, all so that Superman would be completely aware of how dangerous he actually was.

That's the thing that you have to keep remembering about the DCEU. These are NOT the heroes that we're familiar with. The real Superman with 15 years of experience wouldn't let Metropolis be destroyed; it would be a crime to make that Superman let his city get destroyed. But a Superman with little more than 15 hours? Of course Metropolis is gonna get destroyed, and in situations like that collateral damage and casualties are inevitable. Whenever he did get the chance, Supes did try to protect people as best as he could, but again, the lack of experience meant he couldn't save all of them. The trilogy serves to educate Superman on how to be the hero we know him to really be. Despite some very glaring writing problems, the DCEU serves as a modern reconstruction of the DC mythos; it shows how these characters become beloved in this universe as well as what motivates them as people. On that note, it did justice spectacularly (heresy, I know...please don't sue, I don't have money), on the heroes' side as well as the villains; because BvS was Lex's origin story, just as The Flash 2x11 was the Reverse-Flash's origin story, and in that episode Prof. Zoom was pretty weak, not anticipating Barry's moves or tactics, and getting himself caught quickly. The origin story isn't gonna have the character we believe in at the very start. I assume that Lex, being...well, Lex, learned from his encounter with Superman, hence his descision in Justice League to step back into the shadows and becoming much more nonchalant.

Now again, you are free to disagree, because this is my opinion, and if you still hate Lex, that's fine. I'm not even denying the HUGE writing problems in BvS anyway, but many of the faults in writing can be blamed on our friends over at the MPAA, who decided that an hour of important footage needed to be cut in order to justify a PG-13 rating...thus leading to the ABOMINATION that is BvS's theatrical cut. But other writing problems include the sense of pace, a general lack of clarity regarding characterizations and how they fit within the narrative, as well as an apparent LACK of necessary dialogue that would have justified important character moments and would have prevented a mass audience confusion (coughMarthacough). Superman only speaks a total of 40 lines in the PG13 film, and most of the focus was devoted to Batman in order to introduce him. The Last Jedi suffered from a similar problem, where the lack of focus on Luke Skywalker meant that his new characterization wouldn't be as clear as it needed to be, thus sabotaging the audience's rapport with him. The lack of focus on Superman in the theater-cut resulted in him looking much more moody than he actually was, to the point where his actual heroic moments got cut out and replaced with pointless shots of symbolism (aka nonchalance while being surrounded by charred corpses on fire). Then there's also the fact that Zack made one of the best Batmen onscreen, while simultaneously making one of the WORST Batmen onscreen. The Martha Scene works because Batman sees Superman as a human at that point, and more importantly, as the same little boy that he swore a pledge too. It would be an actually emotional moment...if Batman wasn't MURDERING PEOPLE LEFT 'N RIGHT. Zack appears to have been diagnosed with Michael Bay syndrome, and went complete Bayhem with the Batwing and Batmobile to the point of ludicracy. But for god's sake, Zack showed a clear understanding of Batman's character, but also forgot to cut the part where he KILLS PEOPLE. You couldn't have cut THAT out instead of the countless scenes featuring Supes or Lex slowly moving towards a meetup?!

Okay...I'm done...though go watch the Ultimate Edition, it's much better...but even there he still kills.

Now, even though I love DCEU Lex (even if we'll never see him again... :, I ALSO love Arrowverse Lex for a similar reason. This IS the Lex Luthor from the comics. This IS the character with 15 years behind him where he fought the Man of Steel. He's got the right finesse, the right subtlety, the right balance of composure and eccentricity (something we only got a few seconds of from Lex Jr.). There's a presence to Jon Cryer's performance unlike any other, and it sells that sense of experience. I can't go as much into him as I have with Jr., mainly because Jr has been around for 3 years now, while Arrow!Lex has only been around for a few days. I'll be keeping my eye on this one very closely, and hey...maybe I'll change my mind...

...wait, I already changed my mind! I already crowned Cryer's Lex as #1. Problem solved.