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.

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

Thing is, for me, that's old news. How many "like Superman, only dark / inhuman / crazy / dickish" characters have there been in comics and related franchises by now? Just off the top of my head, I can think of Miracleman, Plutonian, Supreme, Ultraman, Superboy Prime, Dr Manhattan, that evil Hyperion from Exiles, Injustice Superman, every time regular Superman gets mindswapped or mind controlled....for me, it's completely tapped.

Now, the really shockingly innovative and original idea for me is that of a Superman who could rule or destroy the world....but he simply isn't interested in doing that, he'd much rather hang out, enjoy living a human life and help people whenever they need it. And Lex Luthor works as a villain because he embodies the cynicism & paranoia of those who can't imagine power not corrupting. I wasn't keen on Man of Steel, but there was one line by the end that I really liked.

"You're afraid of me because you can't control me. But that doesn't mean I'm your enemy."

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

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

Honestly, I think this is one of the more misguided directions we've seen with Superman; not the idea that the world reacts to him as a living God, that's a great angle; but the failure to understand that what makes the character interesting is that fundamentally Clark is a pretty normal human.

Batman and Superman have always worked as opposites and one of the long standing Batman truths is that Bruce Wayne is a mask that Batman wears. The flip side often gets forgotten (famously, Kill Bill has an entire soliloquy about this). It's easy to treat Clark Kent as Superman's disguise but its not; it's who he really is. Clark Kent is a real boy with dreams of being accepted as part of humanity for who he is and not what he can do. He wants people to read his ideas and find them interesting; he wants friends that treat him like any other and he wants the girl he likes to love him in return. Superman can't really have these things because his abilities isolate him from the rest of the world; he needs to be Superman because the world needs Superman, but Clark Kent wants the world to love Clark Kent.

To me that's the biggest failing, certainly of Man of Steel but also of most of DC's attempts to rework the character in general. He needs a family back home to ground him and he needs Clark Kent to provide him with challenges he can't simply punch through.

 LunarSol wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

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

Honestly, I think this is one of the more misguided directions we've seen with Superman; not the idea that the world reacts to him as a living God, that's a great angle; but the failure to understand that what makes the character interesting is that fundamentally Clark is a pretty normal human.

Batman and Superman have always worked as opposites and one of the long standing Batman truths is that Bruce Wayne is a mask that Batman wears. The flip side often gets forgotten (famously, Kill Bill has an entire soliloquy about this). It's easy to treat Clark Kent as Superman's disguise but its not; it's who he really is. Clark Kent is a real boy with dreams of being accepted as part of humanity for who he is and not what he can do. He wants people to read his ideas and find them interesting; he wants friends that treat him like any other and he wants the girl he likes to love him in return. Superman can't really have these things because his abilities isolate him from the rest of the world; he needs to be Superman because the world needs Superman, but Clark Kent wants the world to love Clark Kent.

To me that's the biggest failing, certainly of Man of Steel but also of most of DC's attempts to rework the character in general. He needs a family back home to ground him and he needs Clark Kent to provide him with challenges he can't simply punch through.

Indeed, excellent points - it even comes up in JLA when Batman talks about Superman having more humanity than he has.

 Elemental wrote:
a Superman who could rule or destroy the world....but he simply isn't interested in doing that, he'd much rather hang out, enjoy living a human life and help people whenever they need it

I've been reading some of the Rebirth comics recently and there's a good part about that.



There's a lot of great little interactions there, Superman and his son, basically do the natural human thing, return the high five. Then everyone else shows their personality in their own ways.

LunarSol wrote: Batman and Superman have always worked as opposites and one of the long standing Batman truths is that Bruce Wayne is a mask that Batman wears.

Another good one, in the Rebirth version of when Wonder Woman, Superman and Batman first meet together.



These are just perfect subtle moments, a few lines and a handful of panels that just capture the characters so well.

These are just perfect subtle moments, a few lines and a handful of panels that just capture the characters so well.

Exactly - I thought that JLA did a good job of similar short but encapsulating statements on screen for the various hero's

 Mr Morden wrote:

 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?

Warner made Lex into a Batman-like Joker/Riddler.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 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?

Warner made Lex into a Batman-like Joker/Riddler.

Good to know who to blame - I had not seen that before - is there an interview or similar that confirms?

There's everything that Snyder has done before, and everything that Warner has done.

 LunarSol wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

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

Honestly, I think this is one of the more misguided directions we've seen with Superman; not the idea that the world reacts to him as a living God, that's a great angle; but the failure to understand that what makes the character interesting is that fundamentally Clark is a pretty normal human.

Batman and Superman have always worked as opposites and one of the long standing Batman truths is that Bruce Wayne is a mask that Batman wears. The flip side often gets forgotten (famously, Kill Bill has an entire soliloquy about this). It's easy to treat Clark Kent as Superman's disguise but its not; it's who he really is. Clark Kent is a real boy with dreams of being accepted as part of humanity for who he is and not what he can do. He wants people to read his ideas and find them interesting; he wants friends that treat him like any other and he wants the girl he likes to love him in return. Superman can't really have these things because his abilities isolate him from the rest of the world; he needs to be Superman because the world needs Superman, but Clark Kent wants the world to love Clark Kent.

To me that's the biggest failing, certainly of Man of Steel but also of most of DC's attempts to rework the character in general. He needs a family back home to ground him and he needs Clark Kent to provide him with challenges he can't simply punch through.

Exalted.

Perhaps they should now invite QT to direct the next Superman movie?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
There's everything that Snyder has done before, and everything that Warner has done.

Sorry not sure I understand - is there anything that states that Warner got Eisenstein to make such a terrible job of the role - that Synder had nothing to do with it or any of the other issues in the film?

 LunarSol wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

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

Honestly, I think this is one of the more misguided directions we've seen with Superman; not the idea that the world reacts to him as a living God, that's a great angle; but the failure to understand that what makes the character interesting is that fundamentally Clark is a pretty normal human.

Batman and Superman have always worked as opposites and one of the long standing Batman truths is that Bruce Wayne is a mask that Batman wears. The flip side often gets forgotten (famously, Kill Bill has an entire soliloquy about this). It's easy to treat Clark Kent as Superman's disguise but its not; it's who he really is. Clark Kent is a real boy with dreams of being accepted as part of humanity for who he is and not what he can do. He wants people to read his ideas and find them interesting; he wants friends that treat him like any other and he wants the girl he likes to love him in return. Superman can't really have these things because his abilities isolate him from the rest of the world; he needs to be Superman because the world needs Superman, but Clark Kent wants the world to love Clark Kent.

To me that's the biggest failing, certainly of Man of Steel but also of most of DC's attempts to rework the character in general. He needs a family back home to ground him and he needs Clark Kent to provide him with challenges he can't simply punch through.

Actually, I don't understand the original statement. The Superman of MoS is far more grounded than anything we saw in the Donner film. MoS certainly played with the Christ thing, but so did Donner ("I have sent them you, my only son") and that's been subtly there in the comics for decades.

In Donner & Puzo's story, after he goes to the Fortress, he becomes Superman (the distance shot of the control console establishing this) and his Clark Kent identity is reduced to a mask. Note that we don't see his mother again in the film -- it's established that he directs some of his wages to her, but her absence communicates that part of his life isn't as relevant as it once was. Also note that in the comics of the era, both of his parents were dead and no longer relevant. In the Supergod tradition, Jor-El and Lara are his true parents, while Jonathan and Martha are more like earthly caretakers (similar to Joseph, if we want to return to the Christ analogy).

MoS follows post-Crisis tradition in that he *IS* Clark Kent, with Superman being the role he plays in order to do what he does and keep a normal life. The Donner Superman was the pre-Crisis Kryptonian god who *IS* Superman, with his bumbling Clark Kent identity a falsehood he wears in order to be able to easily move around Earth people. And it's important to note that one or even both of Clark's Earth parents are alive in most modern renditions. (This changed again recently in the New 52, but I have a hunch that we may see Jonathan and Martha restored after the current Doomsday Clock storyline is complete.) This is very important for the Superdude version, because while J & M aren't his biological parents, they're presented as the people who most *formed* him.

Supergod and Superdude are quite different kinds of Supermen. And to disagree with both of you, both approaches have been successful at different times. Superdude has mostly been the status quo in comics and other media for the past few decades, but Grant Morrison's All-Star Superman also successfully dusted off the pre-Crisis Supergod take.

I think it mostly comes down to picking a direction and understanding it.

I don't personally hold the Donner movies on quite the pedestal as others (bits like Gene Hackman's Lex and notably both of the random Deus Ex Superpower endings and pretty clunky) but I understand why Reeves remains the iconic Superman to many. It's worth noting that for all the pre-Crisis "powers save the day" bits of the plot, the meat of the story of the two films is still Clark wishing for normalcy.

Again, I don't actually take issue with the Christ analogue, I take issue with the character beneath it. Clark in Man of Steel simply lacks an appreciation for community that I find crucial to making the character work. He's so detached and given so little to connect with that he comes across even blander than usual.

Also, I won't argue for a moment that historically Superman has been given the Supergod treatment and ignored a lot of his humanity. My argument is that those roads have regularly lead to audiences losing touch with the character. I'm arguing that for Superman to really work as more than an overpowered boyscout, his struggles need to be rooted in his human dreams and conflicts.

Superman is interesting as a reflection of his roots; that's why Overman and Red Son work. Even Dr. Manhattan works as an answer to what happens if you strip Superman of what makes him human. I think that shows just how important Smallville is to making the character work, but far too often that seems to be left out of the equation.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
There's everything that Snyder has done before, and everything that Warner has done.

Sorry not sure I understand - is there anything that states that Warner got Eisenstein to make such a terrible job of the role - that Synder had nothing to do with it or any of the other issues in the film?

I quite enjoyed his Luthor

I'd guess this more fits in to him being "Superdad" nowadays rather than "Supergod" and "Superdude."

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
There's everything that Snyder has done before, and everything that Warner has done.

Sorry not sure I understand - is there anything that states that Warner got Eisenstein to make such a terrible job of the role - that Synder had nothing to do with it or any of the other issues in the film?

I quite enjoyed his Luthor

While Snyder had to have given Eisenberg direction and feedback along the way, there are almost certainly aspects of the character that were the actor's choices. You don't get an Academy Award nominee for a role and then micromanage his performance. Actors seem to like working for Snyder, so I'd also guess that he's very collaborative and gives his actors room to work and some ownership.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
There's everything that Snyder has done before, and everything that Warner has done.

Sorry not sure I understand - is there anything that states that Warner got Eisenstein to make such a terrible job of the role - that Synder had nothing to do with it or any of the other issues in the film?

In no other Snyder movies is there anything like that character, but Warner has had similar characters, and still does.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
There's everything that Snyder has done before, and everything that Warner has done.

Sorry not sure I understand - is there anything that states that Warner got Eisenstein to make such a terrible job of the role - that Synder had nothing to do with it or any of the other issues in the film?

In no other Snyder movies is there anything like that character, but Warner has had similar characters, and still does.

Ah so its speculation? Good to know.

I quite enjoyed his Luthor

Intrigued to know what you liked as I hated every moment he was on screen.

While Snyder had to have given Eisenberg direction and feedback along the way, there are almost certainly aspects of the character that were the actor's choices. You don't get an Academy Award nominee for a role and then micromanage his performance. Actors seem to like working for Snyder, so I'd also guess that he's very collaborative and gives his actors room to work and some ownership.

I wonder what feedback was given to make that shambolic performance what it was? I have also read several people saying its a direct rip off of Heath Ledgers work on the Joker? It certainly plays out that way on screen.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
There's everything that Snyder has done before, and everything that Warner has done.

Sorry not sure I understand - is there anything that states that Warner got Eisenstein to make such a terrible job of the role - that Synder had nothing to do with it or any of the other issues in the film?

I quite enjoyed his Luthor

Having not read the comics, how was Lex portrayed in those? I'm going purely off the Gene Hackman, malicious, conniving, extremely intelligent Lex Luthor of the Christoper Reeve films. You got the strong impression of danger, and being borderline psychotic (but still in control of himself).
The Eisenberg was very much different to that as has been pointed out.

I much prefer the Gene Hackman version (not just in terms of the acting, but as a concept of character) but I would be interested to know how the character was originally conceptualised.

 Pacific wrote:

I much prefer the Gene Hackman version (not just in terms of the acting, but as a concept of character) but I would be interested to know how the character was originally conceptualised.

If you are asking how the Luther character was conceptualized in the comics, think malevolent megalomaniac with unlimited resources at his disposal. There is much more to it, but I haven't read Superman comics in a long time.

If you mean how the BvS Lex was conceptualized, I don't know.

Originally he was just a mad scientist who blamed Superman for the loss of his glorious hair. His portrayal has changed a lot over the years so there really isn't a singular version to point at.

I've not read much DC at all. But I can totally recommend Lex Luthor, Man of Steel.

Ah. I had always seen him portrayed as an extremely wealthy businessman.

 kronk wrote:
Ah. I had always seen him portrayed as an extremely wealthy businessman.

Yeah, that's the post-Crisis (i.e. since 1985) version. Eisenberg's Luthor was a little different, but then I don't think Hackman's version feels like any Lex I've seen in the comics, then or now. The pre-Crisis version was a mad scientist but also a man of action.



The post-Crisis version was a xenophobic business magnate who didn't need nukes and crazy schemes to enrich himself.



The New 52/Rebirth version has combined these two (yeah, he's wearing a cape and the 'S', long story).



I never really understood where they were going with Hackman's Lex. He seemed third-rate. "Enter...Land Grabber!"

Lex is one of those characters who is whatever the story needs him to be, but my favourite iterations are definitely the ones where he genuinely believes he's doing the right thing for the right reasons. It's why I like Forever Evil so much; yes, he stands to gain a lot for what he does in that event and he's definitely calculating that, but he's also stepping up to save the world when no one else can or will. Much like the Rebirth version, taking on the Superman 'identity' might be on one level just to try inflate his ego, but he also recognises that the world needs a Superman.

I find those version much more compelling than the outright evil ones, though there's some good stuff there to; the Lex Luthor: Man of Steel that Mad Doc suggested is phenomenal.

Yeah, the New 52/Rebirth Lex has been a borderline good guy at times, even joining the JL. Of course, as readers we get to see his internal monologue and know that he's still a self-interested guy. Still a lot less evil than some previous versions, though.

I'd say "Forever Evil" is a good place to start for the modern Lex, rather than going staight into "Lex Luthor: Man of Steel" as 'Forever Evil' does let you see him being well, classic Lex bad guy at the start and the extra layers are being revealed. Rather than vice versa.

Opening Lines of Forever Evil:

Lex Luthor wrote:
I once saved a cat from a tree. My sisters kitten had gotten itself stuck up an old white oak stretching over Elbow River. Lena's incessant pleading motivated me to climb to the rescue.

When I reached out to help the trapped animal, it did what most trapped animals do: It lashed out.

It scratched me.

So I threw it into the river.

It didn't understand.

I was only trying to save it.

There's just so much of the character in those lines. His ego, his insanity, it's all wrapped up in there. And it's not Loopy Lex's shouting at the sky insanity, it's something else... A completely amoral point of view. It just makes him so interesting as a character.

Lex is best when written as a product of ego. He's the smartest, most important man in the world; he knows what's best for everyone; and he often doesn't comprehend why everyone else isn't smart enough to realize this.

Generally speaking, when it comes to DC characters other than Batman and probably Wonder Woman, I just adore Geoff John's interpretation of them. It kind of saddens and baffles me that since he's moved to creative director we haven't seen very much of that bleed through to other properties. There's this odd phantom of his fingerprints in the mix, but not the spectacular understanding of the characters and how to make them compelling.

 LunarSol wrote:
Lex is best when written as a product of ego. He's the smartest, most important man in the world; he knows what's best for everyone; and he often doesn't comprehend why everyone else isn't smart enough to realize this.

Lex Luthor may be a smart and wealthy man, but even he must bow before Victor von DOOM!

Unlike Lex, Doom actually *does* know what's best for everyone and represents one of our few chances for utopia on Earth.

 LunarSol wrote:
Lex is best when written as a product of ego. He's the smartest, most important man in the world; he knows what's best for everyone; and he often doesn't comprehend why everyone else isn't smart enough to realize this.

Generally speaking, when it comes to DC characters other than Batman and probably Wonder Woman, I just adore Geoff John's interpretation of them. It kind of saddens and baffles me that since he's moved to creative director we haven't seen very much of that bleed through to other properties. There's this odd phantom of his fingerprints in the mix, but not the spectacular understanding of the characters and how to make them compelling.

Well, Johns' influence (and DCEU 2.0) will truly begin with Aquaman, since BvS was in theaters and JL was already filming(?) at the time of his promotion. Although he was one of the writers on the WW screenplay.

Regarding WW, I'm glad that the films are keeping some of the New 52/Azzarello elements. That run was epic. What's come since...has not been.

 gorgon wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Lex is best when written as a product of ego. He's the smartest, most important man in the world; he knows what's best for everyone; and he often doesn't comprehend why everyone else isn't smart enough to realize this.

Generally speaking, when it comes to DC characters other than Batman and probably Wonder Woman, I just adore Geoff John's interpretation of them. It kind of saddens and baffles me that since he's moved to creative director we haven't seen very much of that bleed through to other properties. There's this odd phantom of his fingerprints in the mix, but not the spectacular understanding of the characters and how to make them compelling.

Well, Johns' influence (and DCEU 2.0) will truly begin with Aquaman, since BvS was in theaters and JL was already filming(?) at the time of his promotion. Although he was one of the writers on the WW screenplay.

Regarding WW, I'm glad that the films are keeping some of the New 52/Azzarello elements. That run was epic. What's come since...has not been.

I keep forgetting how recent that promotion is because I keep thinking about his 2010 promotion to CCO of DC Comics. So much of his stuff has been the basis for DC films and shows (notably Season 1 Flash and the GL movie) that I forget he didn't really have that much control in how they were adapted.

I was really thrilled they left the Zeus thing in for sure. Didn't really get why Ares throws lightning bolts, but Azzarello has certainly written the definitive revamp of the character, which is why I primarily give Johns credit to just Hal, Arthur, Barry, and at time Clark.