Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well yes. But I mean from this current iteration. Nolan would have been ideal, but so far as I know he's out of the comic book game these days and at the time Synder left, was probably still working on Dunkirk. Jenkins meanwhile has made the DCEU's only real hit to date, is a very talented director and I'm pretty sure WW had already premiered by the time Snyder left, so she wasn't currently working on anything for them.

Frankly, if and when JL2 happens, she has to be one of the front-runners for the director's job there as well.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
Much like Age of Ultron, Whedon's last movie, this should have been at least 20 minutes longer and was cut down by studio interference... though that's a moot point as the version we should have got is the one that concluded Snyder's trilogy, remained true to the established tone of the universe and had even a modicum of gravitas and weight that made it work on more than just one level of shooty punchy bang bang...

We are never going to get Snyder's trilogy. Warner mucked up the 2nd film by making it JL-lite, and then thoroughly blenderized the 3rd by having Whedon heavily rework it.

Snyder and Whedon have totally different styles, and I'm doubtful that Snyder's action and weightiness are a good match for Whedon's lightness and banter. While Snyder's films could use a little lightening in tone (and color palette!), jump cutting to a newly-written Whedon scene probably isn't the best way to do it.

Thank god for that - A third film of that trilogy would likely have killed the franchise.

Man of Steel was a mess - it jarringly went from a sub par Flash Gordan Setting to a dull and despressing version of Superman and his world, lurching from one plot hole to another.

Bats vs Sups could have been better - the film is ruined by the antics of one actor for which I blame the director equally in allowing or even perhaps encouraging such a travesty.

JLA continues the breath of fresh air that Wonder Woman swept through the tired, heartless and dingy world that Nolan and Synder had created - ironically only really possible by the fantastic Burton film, unfortunately in following his lead both directors seem to ditched the idea of creating characters and having humour enhance the darker parts of a film by contrast.

Gotta set some records straight here.

Man of Steel *WAS* Nolan's film. He cooked up the idea and story with his brother and David Goyer when they were working on the DK trilogy. He chose Snyder to direct it, but it was very much Nolan's take on Superman and his fingerprints are all over the film.

Importantly -- and unlike Iron Man -- they never intended MoS to be part of any 'universe'. Chris Nolan is famously against the idea, believing that these heroes work best in individual films. And I'll go to my grave saying that MoS isn't even 25% as dark and dour as internet hyperbole makes it out to be. It's mostly shot in bright sunlight, Clark isn't clinically depressed, and yes, he even smiles at different moments throughout the film. The ball is also teed up at the end of that film for a potentially great sequel. However...

What happened after MoS was about the studio pushing for a cinematic universe, and handing the ball to Snyder to make it happen (Nolan was offered the role of DCEU 'godfather' and understandably turned it down). Things went awry (IMO) because the studio didn't understand (and so probably didn't tell Snyder) what they needed, while Snyder was more interested in telling a pseudo-Dark Knight Returns story instead of a crowdpleasing, audience-friendly first true entry into the DCEU. Snyder's BvS should have been an 'Elseworlds' film and not the DCEU launch.

And now WB has come back around to listening to Nolan's advice, since the DCEU going forward will be more about director-driven individual films and a very loosely-linked 'universe'. And I think that's a MUCH better plan for WB than trying to catch Marvel's lightning in a bottle a second time.

But MoS 2 needs to get greenlit. Like yesterday.

MoS had several references to BvS.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
Much like Age of Ultron, Whedon's last movie, this should have been at least 20 minutes longer and was cut down by studio interference... though that's a moot point as the version we should have got is the one that concluded Snyder's trilogy, remained true to the established tone of the universe and had even a modicum of gravitas and weight that made it work on more than just one level of shooty punchy bang bang...

We are never going to get Snyder's trilogy. Warner mucked up the 2nd film by making it JL-lite, and then thoroughly blenderized the 3rd by having Whedon heavily rework it.

Thank god for that - A third film of that trilogy would likely have killed the franchise.

On the contrary. Snyder is the only director to ever "get" that Superman is a literal God made manifest on Earth.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
Much like Age of Ultron, Whedon's last movie, this should have been at least 20 minutes longer and was cut down by studio interference... though that's a moot point as the version we should have got is the one that concluded Snyder's trilogy, remained true to the established tone of the universe and had even a modicum of gravitas and weight that made it work on more than just one level of shooty punchy bang bang...

We are never going to get Snyder's trilogy. Warner mucked up the 2nd film by making it JL-lite, and then thoroughly blenderized the 3rd by having Whedon heavily rework it.

Thank god for that - A third film of that trilogy would likely have killed the franchise.

On the contrary. Snyder is the only director to ever "get" that Superman is a literal God made manifest on Earth.

And did nothing with it - well except have some pathetic Joker wananbe whine about every moment he capered on screen.

Take the Courtroom scene - I actually thought that was goping to be interesting - but no the gibbering fool was involved so nothing intersting came of it.

As to divinity - not only were their other actual gods on the world but the nature of divinity in fiction is portrayed in such a wide range of forms that being a "god" -

JLA establishes that he is immensely powerful - like others on the world but he is not a increasingly detached godling like Dr Manhatten or indeed a all powerful god. He is just a man with tremendous powers.

 skyth wrote:
MoS had several references to BvS.

If you mean the Wayne Industries logo on the satellite, note that it was the Wayne logo from Nolan's films. It was an easter egg, not a hint about a future film that wasn't even an idea at the time.

 Mr Morden wrote:

JLA establishes that he is immensely powerful - like others on the world but he is not a increasingly detached godling like Dr Manhatten or indeed a all powerful god. He is just a man with tremendous powers.

And I think this is going to become a major aspect of interest and contrast in "The Doomsday Clock."

I saw it this weekend....

Snyder is a very talented director for the most part. He's got a great eye for creating the cinematic equivalent of splash panels to screen and is one of the best in the business when it comes to visual continuity, particularly in action scenes.

The primary issue with using him as the architect of the DCEU is simply that is love of comics mostly lies in deconstructionist works of the late 80's. Almost all of his work has a fatalistic leaning that don't really support sequels and spin offs. They're stories about decay and collapse that feel cheapened by the promise of another story.

I've quite enjoyed Moviebob's overlong analysis of BvS. It's quite interesting as its less about getting hung up on things that are bad about the film and more about rooting out the good ideas at the heart of it and explaining why the film fails to get them across. It's an interesting series from a film dissection point of view at the very least.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
Much like Age of Ultron, Whedon's last movie, this should have been at least 20 minutes longer and was cut down by studio interference... though that's a moot point as the version we should have got is the one that concluded Snyder's trilogy, remained true to the established tone of the universe and had even a modicum of gravitas and weight that made it work on more than just one level of shooty punchy bang bang...

We are never going to get Snyder's trilogy. Warner mucked up the 2nd film by making it JL-lite, and then thoroughly blenderized the 3rd by having Whedon heavily rework it.

Thank god for that - A third film of that trilogy would likely have killed the franchise.

On the contrary. Snyder is the only director to ever "get" that Superman is a literal God made manifest on Earth.

And did nothing with it - well except have some pathetic Joker wananbe whine about every moment he capered on screen.

That's 100% Warner making Snyder's Superman movie into a Batman movie. Don't blame Snyder for Warner's meddling.

Snyder's Superman is MoS. Everything after that is Warner.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
Snyder is a very talented director for the most part. He's got a great eye for creating the cinematic equivalent of splash panels to screen and is one of the best in the business when it comes to visual continuity, particularly in action scenes.

The primary issue with using him as the architect of the DCEU is simply that is love of comics mostly lies in deconstructionist works of the late 80's. Almost all of his work has a fatalistic leaning that don't really support sequels and spin offs. They're stories about decay and collapse that feel cheapened by the promise of another story.

I've quite enjoyed Moviebob's overlong analysis of BvS. It's quite interesting as its less about getting hung up on things that are bad about the film and more about rooting out the good ideas at the heart of it and explaining why the film fails to get them across. It's an interesting series from a film dissection point of view at the very least.

I'd agree with basically all of this. Snyder shoots action sequences better than just about anybody else in the industry, without having to resort to tricks or cuts. They're amazingly clean, and probably not at all unrelated to his love for comics. His ability to recreate an iconic full-page panel is unparalleled.

Snyder never wanted to be the DCEU architect - that label got foisted on him because he was the only guy directing DC Comics movies at the time, the only person in the entire DC Warner empire who actually liked comics at all. And to be fair, Warner being dominated by grimdark Batman being their only success for decades makes it hard to have other successful stories. Especially when something "light" like extra-campy Batman & Robin is an absolute disaster.

And now, I'm going to hunt down the Moviebob analysis. I'm always interested to read informed film critique. But what I'd really love is for Snyder to be able to honestly say WTF happened with BvS and JL, what his original intent was, because neither of those films are anything like what Snyder shoots on his own.

 LunarSol wrote:
Snyder is a very talented director for the most part. He's got a great eye for creating the cinematic equivalent of splash panels to screen and is one of the best in the business when it comes to visual continuity, particularly in action scenes.

The primary issue with using him as the architect of the DCEU is simply that is love of comics mostly lies in deconstructionist works of the late 80's.

I can agree with all of this.

It's like in their desperation, WB turned to a man they didn't truly understand. Or something like that.

 Easy E wrote:
I saw it this weekend....

Spoiler:

The DC movie universe has a Superman problem.

Once he showed up, the movie bogged down. He essentially did all the heavy lifting, despite their best efforts to try and dress it up as a "team" effort.

I mean the bulk of the movei was about "Superman" this and "Superman" that.

Superman is an enormous writing challenge as a stand-alone, but he is even harder as part of a team. The only "threats" to him as a hero are magic and kyrptonite; both pretty hard to come by. Exposed to these, and he needs a team.

The only other "threats" to him have to be moral/ethical (i.e. make him question his own beliefs and analysis/paralysis him
) or create threats to people/things that he cares about.

Worse, I have not seen anything that really makes him that compelling. The closest thing was when Bruce Wayne states that "Clark Kent is more human than I am." However, I couldn;t believe that based on what I had seen int eh DC movie universe so far. Wonder Woman and Batman are much more interesting chracters so far.

Those are tough things to write to in a tentpole, blockbbuster, hero team movie.

I think it's hard to discuss the film without discussing its twisted history. Steppenwolf was a tin can and a subpar boss villain because he was only ever intended to be the undercard to a Darkseid fight. Then BvS got the reviews and reaction it got, and everything changed. For all we know, WW and company may have defeated Steppenwolf on their own in the original screenplay, only to be faced by Darkseid with an evil Superman in tow. In fact, I believe the signs point that way.

I don't quite agree with the premise of your 'Superman problem', just because the character has been handled well at times, and even in the context of team-up stories. I don't think it's necessarily easy, but I also think it's hard to take any real lessons from what is clearly a Frankenstein monster of a story and movie.

Personally, I think someone is always going to be unhappy with how Superman is portrayed. *shrug*

 LunarSol wrote:
I've quite enjoyed Moviebob's overlong analysis of BvS. It's quite interesting as its less about getting hung up on things that are bad about the film and more about rooting out the good ideas at the heart of it and explaining why the film fails to get them across. It's an interesting series from a film dissection point of view at the very least.

Holy crap. I need over an hour to watch that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9juReoJxI0&index=2&list=PL1WoYVvJ35Xqeh6JGw1GPMB_HvxB8mSFe

The "Superman problem" isn't really a problem when it comes to Justice League style situations. If we're in that sort of situation, then they're up against a ridiculously massive threat anyway.

For example, lets say, hypothetically, you have a villain that is literally one of the New Gods. It would stand to reason that this villain would have, at the very least, a magical weapon.

Because he's a New God.

You could then have a situation where a strategist, maybe say, someone really clever, who was like, the worlds greatest detective, developing a plan to say, remove this magical weapon, which, say, was bladed and cut into the strongest guy of the team, who, despite being the strongest, isn't actually a trained warrior or soldier... While other members of the team are.


You could then set up this situation where you have people working this plan, using their specialist roles to accomplish this goal, allowing the strongest teammember to perform the final knockout.


Now, Justice League wasn't exactly that film, but it showed real signs of getting there. And it showed the potential. Broadly speaking, the Justice League did perform something similar to their roles, that can then be refined and developed in future films.

I still stand by my claim of it's a fun action film with superheroes punching things.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Holy crap. I need over an hour to watch that?

Actually it is two parts with each almost an hour and a half a piece so it is closer to three hours. Which is also why I didn't watch it.

I also accidently deleted what I was writing because I hit paste instead of copy so I will try to recap with rewriting entirely. Superman didn't make the other characters useless nor did he do everything. He made everyone's lives easier to be sure, but he didn't replace them. Cyborg couldn't have taken care of the Motherbox alone but with Supe's help and encouragement was able to take care of it. In the end though they still needed Cyborg to do it. Aquaman and Wonder Woman fighting Steppenwolf and the parademons was an uphill battle but, again, with Superman there it went faster. They probably still would have gotten it done but it would have taken longer. Superman got the Flash to go faster then he had before but he didn't make the Flash. There is a reason why Superman is the leader of the JLA (typically) and it isn't just his strength. Very few beings in the Universe are unworried about the Man of Steel and Darksied is one of them. He isn't an idiot though and even in the comics and animated films Darksied tries to minimize his presence or role because of how he effects others.


Also enemies that can fight Superman without magic or Kryptonite (to name a few): Darksied, Mongul, Anti-monitor, and Doomsday. Mr. Mxyzptlk is kind of an odd case as he is from another dimension and it tends to be more tech seeming like magic but they also don't really fight though they are in conflict most of the time.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
I've quite enjoyed Moviebob's overlong analysis of BvS. It's quite interesting as its less about getting hung up on things that are bad about the film and more about rooting out the good ideas at the heart of it and explaining why the film fails to get them across. It's an interesting series from a film dissection point of view at the very least.

Holy crap. I need over an hour to watch that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9juReoJxI0&index=2&list=PL1WoYVvJ35Xqeh6JGw1GPMB_HvxB8mSFe

Part 1, sure. Part 2 is another hour and a half with a Part 3 on the way.

Normally I wouldn't have bothered but I had a big painting project I wanted to get through. The length makes it hard to recommend, but I did find it really insightful and worthwhile. It's rare to get an articulate breakdown of something fan related these days and those videos have articulation in spades.

In particular one bit of the second part I appreciate is the comments on faithful adaptations. The argument basically comes down to the idea that Marvel's success has less to do with being recreations of their comics (truthfully, much of the MCU has deviated pretty significantly from the source material) and more that Marvel has faith that audiences won't flinch from things the comics have managed to sell. By comparison, WB and Fox often come across as embarrassed by the origins of their work. It's an interesting distinction from the usual demands to be faithful to the source material, as nothing really sells a performance quite like confidence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gorgon wrote:

I think it's hard to discuss the film without discussing its twisted history. Steppenwolf was a tin can and a subpar boss villain because he was only ever intended to be the undercard to a Darkseid fight. Then BvS got the reviews and reaction it got, and everything changed. For all we know, WW and company may have defeated Steppenwolf on their own in the original screenplay, only to be faced by Darkseid with an evil Superman in tow. In fact, I believe the signs point that way.

I don't quite agree with the premise of your 'Superman problem', just because the character has been handled well at times, and even in the context of team-up stories. I don't think it's necessarily easy, but I also think it's hard to take any real lessons from what is clearly a Frankenstein monster of a story and movie.

Personally, I think someone is always going to be unhappy with how Superman is portrayed. *shrug*

I assume that the original plan was to have Steppenwolf go to earth specifically to retrieve Superman's body for Darkseid to use as a weapon. Ideally it doesn't matter how good of a villain he is, because he gets to win in the end to set up the sequel. Cutting the film to 1 movie really demanded cutting out Steppenwolf and putting Darkseid in front and center I believe.

As far as Superman foes; the big reason Luthor's revamp post crisis from the mad scientist to the evil suit was that it gave Superman a complex problem to solve. Lex is best when his actions are immoral but not illegal. It makes him a villain that Superman can't beat with his powers.

Yeah, about Lex.

 LunarSol wrote:

As far as Superman foes; the big reason Luthor's revamp post crisis from the mad scientist to the evil suit was that it gave Superman a complex problem to solve. Lex is best when his actions are immoral but not illegal. It makes him a villain that Superman can't beat with his powers.

I agree, and that is what makes Supes and Lex much more interesting. Supes actually has to out think him and use his morals as a guide.



Regarding the fact that Superman 'Helped" people do better and make thing sfaster. That is not what I saw in the movie. WW and AQ were losing to Steppenwulf. Cyborg was not able to seperate the boxes. The Flash could not safe the building full of people. Superman could and did. The only reason he needed a team was because he couldn't do everything all at once, only nearly all at once. If my analysis of Supes was based purely on the DC cartoons I have seen featuring Supes ( which is a lot of them) then I would agree that his strength is helping other heroes up their game and as a moral leader; who also happens to be a heavy hitter. I would agree with you Ahtman. However, that is not what i saw onscreen in JL the movie. The team was needed to bring him back to life and a was nice to have around otherwise Supes would of had to make some tough choices about the order he was going to do everything in the final battle.

Finally, afte rall these years why hasn't Supes learned to fight from Black Canary, Wildcat, etc.? Do they ever address that in the comics?

He does eventually learn to fight a bit (I think his time on Warworld helps) but ultimately, I don't think he has the aptitude, or real inclination for it. Because, well, he's Superman, it's kinda an anathema to him.

On the other hand, I may be projecting my own interpretation of the character onto him.

See, all of this is what's wrong with Warner. If we had a post-Deadpool R-rated Lobo movie (which the Aquaman dude would have been perfect for), then there's a dude who can go toe-to-toe with Superman in a brawl who's actually fun to watch on his own... Can't have a Steppenwolf standalone movie.

 LunarSol wrote:
I assume that the original plan was to have Steppenwolf go to earth specifically to retrieve Superman's body for Darkseid to use as a weapon. Ideally it doesn't matter how good of a villain he is, because he gets to win in the end to set up the sequel. Cutting the film to 1 movie really demanded cutting out Steppenwolf and putting Darkseid in front and center I believe.

Oh, I don't think anyone would disagree. I believe the issue was that when BvS premiered, they'd finished pre-production work and Snyder was ready to start shooting. So WB tried to adjust it on the fly, probably to avoid endangering their date and save some money on what already figured to be a very expensive movie. Then they saw what the result was, didn't like it, and brought in Whedon for more adjustments. In retrospect, sure, they were probably better off either sticking with Snyder's vision and eating the turd sandwich in terms of the response it was gonna get, or putting a halt to it all and rethinking/reworking everything.

On that last point, clearly a mistake was in going all in with Snyder and multiple 250+ million dollar films, rather than trying some things and finding out what worked. If JL was even a $200 million film, no one would be sweating the box office.

I just saw Justice League yesterday, and I thought it was just fine. Still not as good as the Marvel movies usually are, but definitely not a steaming pile of crap like some people I know said. I think DC movies will get even better, but Marvel just has such a head start that it's never going to be a close contest between the two. So I say just enjoy the DC movies on their own merits and don't compare them to anything else. I enjoyed Man of Steel, I enjoyed BvS, I enjoyed Wonder Woman, and I enjoyed Justice League. I haven't yet seen Suicide Squad, but the trailers just didn't get me all that excited for it. I'll see it at some point, I'm sure.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
Much like Age of Ultron, Whedon's last movie, this should have been at least 20 minutes longer and was cut down by studio interference... though that's a moot point as the version we should have got is the one that concluded Snyder's trilogy, remained true to the established tone of the universe and had even a modicum of gravitas and weight that made it work on more than just one level of shooty punchy bang bang...

We are never going to get Snyder's trilogy. Warner mucked up the 2nd film by making it JL-lite, and then thoroughly blenderized the 3rd by having Whedon heavily rework it.

Thank god for that - A third film of that trilogy would likely have killed the franchise.

On the contrary. Snyder is the only director to ever "get" that Superman is a literal God made manifest on Earth.

And did nothing with it - well except have some pathetic Joker wananbe whine about every moment he capered on screen.

That's 100% Warner making Snyder's Superman movie into a Batman movie. Don't blame Snyder for Warner's meddling.

Snyder's Superman is MoS. Everything after that is Warner.

Warner made him use Eisenstein and the pathetic parody of a charcater that he excreted onto the screen? I was not aware of that, Luthor is a Superman charater not a Batman one, was that all Warner then?

Am I the only one that doesn't absolutely hate Eisenberg's Lex? Sure, he's frenetic, but you still see the long-thinking genius that is Lex Luthor. And in moments when he's completely focused you see him more as an archetypical Lex. I'm wondering if Supes' return from the grave will give him that focal point, something to direct ALL his energies on, and make him less scattered. I'm thinking so.


I particularly thought the "red capes are coming" scene was very much in line with the Lex I've been reading most of my life. ESPECIALLY if you reread the whole Death/Funeral/Reign/Return of Superman stuff.

Yeah, I'd agree with that. Lex as we see him in BvS is manic in large part because he thinks he can get away with being unfocused due to the belief in his own superiority; his plan can't possibly fail in his eyes, so why pay too much attention to how it's unfolding? He's untested and so used to winning that he's fundamentally arrogant to an extreme degree, hence why he almost fails to comprehend how he could possibly have lost.

Going forward, whether that's in a Superman solo movie or JL2 as part of a Legion of Doom/Injustice League type setup, I think he'll be the Lex we are more familiar with. As you say, there are already hints towards that in BvS, just as there are hints to the more familiar Superman that we finally see in JL; the events of that film are the catalyst that changes both of them into their more traditional personas.

That, and he just has a couple of really great scenes in BvS. The meeting with the Senator as you mentioned, and the rooftop confrontation with Superman.

 Paradigm wrote:
Yeah, I'd agree with that. Lex as we see him in BvS is manic in large part because he thinks he can get away with being unfocused due to the belief in his own superiority; his plan can't possibly fail in his eyes, so why pay too much attention to how it's unfolding? He's untested and so used to winning that he's fundamentally arrogant to an extreme degree, hence why he almost fails to comprehend how he could possibly have lost.

Going forward, whether that's in a Superman solo movie or JL2 as part of a Legion of Doom/Injustice League type setup, I think he'll be the Lex we are more familiar with. As you say, there are already hints towards that in BvS, just as there are hints to the more familiar Superman that we finally see in JL; the events of that film are the catalyst that changes both of them into their more traditional personas.

That, and he just has a couple of really great scenes in BvS. The meeting with the Senator as you mentioned, and the rooftop confrontation with Superman.

Not for me - As I said before the court scene was a chance for some intersting stuff about gods and men, laws and superheors etc - but instead we had another stupid plot and pathetic "joke" form an apparently iditoic Loopy Luther - and thats the main issue I had with him beyond his half baked joker impression.

None of his plans make any sense

The court scene which does nothing other than blow up his right hand girl
He does not use media manipulation or similar to try and make Sups look bad.
His plan to make Bats and Sups fight is just bat gak insane (again Joker nonsense) as whoever wins is going to either kill him or maybe just cripple him and throw him in jail. Seriously you know that Superman will kill and what do you think will happen if you burn his mother alive and he lives? Again its just piss poor writing and acting that portrays Lex as a complete idiot with a death wish. His capering about like a demented monkey on the roof is awful.

Sadly the scene form the end of JLA has the same smug prat so zero character growth.

 Paradigm wrote:
Yeah, I'd agree with that. Lex as we see him in BvS is manic in large part because he thinks he can get away with being unfocused due to the belief in his own superiority; his plan can't possibly fail in his eyes, so why pay too much attention to how it's unfolding? He's untested and so used to winning that he's fundamentally arrogant to an extreme degree, hence why he almost fails to comprehend how he could possibly have lost.

Going forward, whether that's in a Superman solo movie or JL2 as part of a Legion of Doom/Injustice League type setup, I think he'll be the Lex we are more familiar with. As you say, there are already hints towards that in BvS, just as there are hints to the more familiar Superman that we finally see in JL; the events of that film are the catalyst that changes both of them into their more traditional personas.

That, and he just has a couple of really great scenes in BvS. The meeting with the Senator as you mentioned, and the rooftop confrontation with Superman.

It's like you read my mind, going over everything I didn't post yet...

To be fair though, if Superman kills Lex, prominent businessman and philanthropist, it totally proves him right. So he knows that either he gets Superman to submit/fight Batman to save Martha, satisfying Lex's ego by controlling 'god', or Superman kills him and he 'wins' as the rest of the world turns on Superman for the murder of a major public figure.

As for Batman, he was looking for that fight anyway, all Lex needed to do was push Superman into it and make sure Batman could win with the Kryptonite, which he very nearly did effectively. The irony there being that by 'reducing' Superman to an ordinary human protecting his mother, Lex inadvertently provides him the opportunity to prove that same humanity to Batman and thus end the fight. Had that fight just come about without Lex's meddling, without Martha under threat, the catalyst that brings it to its shuddering halt is gone and Batman just kills him... But because Lex has to be in control, he meddles and that's where things fall apart.

Ultimately, though, Lex doesn't want to prove that Superman is wrong or evil or dangerous ,despite his various lines to other characters about that; what he wants, what Lex always wants, is to prove he's better. It's all about power. about proving to himself that his intellect and influence make him an equal to someone who can level cities. First he tries to control a god, then he tries to kill one, then he tries to become one by creating Doomsday. His speech in the library says as much:

'The bittersweet pain among men is having knowledge with no power because... because that is paradoxical'.

Thus, he must prove to himself that through knowledge, he has power greater than Superman (who has power without knowledge). It's hubris, obsession, ambition and just a bit of insanity. Hence the complex plan that he believes can't possibly fail even though it's clearly flawed. Again, he says as much (in the extended cut)

Superman: You've lost.
Lex: I don't know how to lose.

And from the same scene, 'I don't hate the sinner, I hate the sin. And yours, my friend, is existing'. Lex is so used to being the most powerful person in any interaction he has, so when someone comes along with the brute strength that can overcome all his social, economic and intellectual power, he has to destroy that aberration before it destroys him. Of course his plan isn't a good one, because it's concocted by a man who's losing his grip on the reality he's become so used to controlling.

So yeah, the plans themselves don't make sense, but the reason they don't does.

I found it mediocre at best, which was a shame, as I did want to like it. The villain was terrible, the CGI was awful and the pacing was all over the place.

**/*****

To be fair though, if Superman kills Lex, prominent businessman and philanthropist, it totally proves him right. So he knows that either he gets Superman to submit/fight Batman to save Martha, satisfying Lex's ego by controlling 'god', or Superman kills him and he 'wins' as the rest of the world turns on Superman for the murder of a major public figure.

Only if the death is witnesed, or oh dear he kills a proven terrorist who burnt his mother alive and who has a super journalist on tap to make sure that story is heard. This just seems to be the same death wish - what is the upside for Lex if he is smeared across a wall unless he is actually the madman that he seems to be - again just emulating previous screen performances of the Joker? What does he prove and to whom?

Where is the cleverness, the brilliance?

As for Batman, he was looking for that fight anyway, all Lex needed to do was push Superman into it and make sure Batman could win with the Kryptonite, which he very nearly did effectively. The irony there being that by 'reducing' Superman to an ordinary human protecting his mother, Lex inadvertently provides him the opportunity to prove that same humanity to Batman and thus end the fight. Had that fight just come about without Lex's meddling, without Martha under threat, the catalyst that brings it to its shuddering halt is gone and Batman just kills him... But because Lex has to be in control, he meddles and that's where things fall apart.

We the whole "Martha is you mother?" thing was poor writing/directing but again the issue is that Lex is never in control - he just about manages to orchastrate a fight that as you say is goping to happen anyway but he has no control of the outcome or indeed the "backup plan" of Domesday. Leaving aside the sheer stupdity of that plot element how it unfolds - again there is no Control here - either Superman wins or the worlds ends for everyone - Joker deathwise again - which makes no sense?

Ultimately, though, Lex doesn't want to prove that Superman is wrong or evil or dangerous ,despite his various lines to other characters about that; what he wants, what Lex always wants, is to prove he's better. It's all about power. about proving to himself that his intellect and influence make him an equal to someone who can level cities. First he tries to control a god, then he tries to kill one, then he tries to become one by creating Doomsday. His speech in the library says as much:

Sadly he never shows any significant interlect in the show - his plans are weak, badly concieved and with zero upside for him, at best he goes to prison - at worst dies.

Thus, he must prove to himself that through knowledge, he has power greater than Superman (who has power without knowledge). It's hubris, obsession, ambition and just a bit of insanity. Hence the complex plan that he believes can't possibly fail even though it's clearly flawed. Again, he says as much (in the extended cut)

Superman: You've lost.
Lex: I don't know how to lose.

And from the same scene, 'I don't hate the sinner, I hate the sin. And yours, my friend, is existing'. Lex is so used to being the most powerful person in any interaction he has, so when someone comes along with the brute strength that can overcome all his social, economic and intellectual power, he has to destroy that aberration before it destroys him. Of course his plan isn't a good one, because it's concocted by a man who's losing his grip on the reality he's become so used to controlling.

So yeah, the plans themselves don't make sense, but the reason they don't does.

But its not like Superman is alone in this - Luthor even knows there are other metahumans - some perhaps on the same level as Superman - Wonder Woman is up there as the daughter of a god for example.

In his "normal" life prior to the film, Bruce Wayne is his equal in money and power - Lex is shown as a rich, perhaps brilliant man but nothing special amongst his peers - certainly not without equals in his own world. Being just a "nerd" jealous of a "jock" is just such weak writing - especially when you compare to it previous incarnations of the character - all of which took different paths to becoming a villan.

I just feel its weak writing and weaker acting in making a character a half assed version of the Joker.