There are a lot of great versions of Lex Luthor to choose from:
* The Lex from Elliott S! Maggin's novels Last Son of Krypton
and Miracle Monday
, a fascinatingly rich, almost heroic character, a supergenius who could've brought a technological utopia to humanity if his ego hadn't compelled him to devote himself to battling Superman. He saw Superman's power as a dangerous imbalance in human society and dedicated himself to being the restorer of balance.
* The Lex from the DC Animated Universe, an amalgam of the post-Crisis business mogul and the pre-Crisis scientific genius, with the personality of a cultured thug and the intelligence to be a master chessplayer.
* The Lex from Smallville
, a fallen angel, a man of great potential for good but brought down by his fatal flaws. Like Maggin's, an enemy who could've been Superman's greatest friend.
* The Lex from All-Star Superman
, so arrogant and self-absorbed that he can look right at Clark Kent without glasses and not recognize him as Superman because his sense of superiority won't let him contemplate that a lowly reporter could be in any way significant in comparison to him.
The movies to date have really dropped the ball when it comes to Lex Luthor.
Going by Snyder's not-so-impressive litany of work, I see him going for something far more visual and stylistic than anything with a meaningful or insightful story. However, I would love to be proven wrong. Perhaps David Goyer's script and Christopher Nolan's input was substantial enough to affect the outcome of the story, but at this point I'm not convinced. Hopefully Snyder can make an entertaining film that balances story, character and action, but based on his previous works, I'm not exactly instilled with the utmost confidence.
Audiences wanted more of Superman punching things, just like they wanted the Hulk to smash things more, and that's exactly what they are going to get. Let's hope story and character, like it was with the Hulk, is not sacrificed with Superman.
I've got nothing against seeing more action, but I'd prefer a naturalistic look to Snyder's hyperstylized approach. One thing I've always wanted to see was a Superman aerial action sequence executed by skydivers, with no visual effects beyond those necessary to erase their parachutes. With the right editing and camera angles, a skydiving sequence could convincingly look like a flying sequence. (There was an episode of The Greatest American Hero
where they actually did this, and it was moderately convincing so long as you ignored the obvious ripcord and parachute-pack bulge on the "flying" hero.) Having the characters actually soaring through midair would give it a realism and excitement that you can't get from wire work in front of a greenscreen or CGI constructs. But Snyder's bound to take it in completely the opposite direction and make everything look totally fakey.
(The thing that disappointed me the most about his approach to Watchmen
was the stylization. That story called for more of a cinema verite
approach, a gritty naturalism in keeping with the tone of the story.)
How was Superman at all EMO in "Superman Returns"? I hate the phrase EMO tossed around as a term for emotional turmoil, just because a character is going through emotional turmoil doesn't mean he or she is EMO.
Why in the world are you spelling "emo" in capital letters? It's not an acronym. It's short for "emotional."
Anyway, Superman Returns is a flawed but pretty great movie. I mean, did you people see Spacey's Lex Luthor?
Yes, and I was unimpressed by him. I don't get why people make such a fuss over Spacey in general, and in particular I didn't find his Luthor all that interesting, in part because he was saddled with such an inadequate version of the character.
Or does the rage about Superman daring to have premarital sex (and then daring to feel sad about how he's missed much of his kid's childhood) blind you to how awesome much of the film, especially Spacey, was?
What a bizarre question. Why would you think people would have a problem with premarital sex? This isn't the 1950s.
And it's inappropriate to accuse people of being "blind" just because their tastes differ from yours. Different people with equal degrees of perception, taste, and judgment can arrive at mutually contradictory opinions about the same thing, because they're different people. There is no absolute right or wrong in matters of taste.
Oh, and as for how "visually interesting" the Donner movies are, did Superman or Superman II have Clark getting shot in his invulnerable eye? No, they did not.
You found that interesting, I found that self-indulgent and derivative of The Matrix
. That said, there are plenty of things about the movie I found visually interesting. In particular, Kate Bosworth was utterly captivating to look at. However, she was profoundly, insanely wrong for the part of Lois Lane. Looks aren't everything.
Re: Snyder. Snyder is the best comic book adaptation director there ever was, and likely ever will be. He's actually rather spectacular. Yes, he's a little too much in love with manipulating the flow of time, but that's okay, so are comics. But, actually, you know, he'd be God's own choice for a Flash film.
I would say that's a good idea, except that he'd pretty much do the same kind of super-slo-mo representations of superspeed that Smallville
has made its bread and butter since the beginning. And thanks to Smallville
, I've kind of gotten tired of seeing superspeed represented that way.