#BvS SPOILER THREAD

[The Dark Knight]

....okay.

I also see people saying Lex's motivations weren't explained in the film. Which is blatantly false. In his opening scene, Lex effectively says if you have a silver bullet, you don't have to hope the monsters play nice. You are giving yourself control over your own destiny. Basically, he's thinking along the same lines as Bruce Wayne. He's arming himself.

[Dagenspear]

....okay.

I also see people saying Lex's motivations weren't explained in the film. Which is blatantly false. In his opening scene, Lex effectively says if you have a silver bullet, you don't have to hope the monsters play nice. You are giving yourself control over your own destining. Basically, he's thinking along the same lines as Bruce Wayne. He's arming himself.

That doesn't explain him creating a giant monster or him not just using the kryptonite himself, instead of manipulating Batman for two years, before he got all that kryptonite. Or why he went on a crazy rant about showing the world that Superman is a fraud by having him kill Batman. His basic motives for what would have been a better idea were explained. The other stuff wasn't really. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

[The Dark Knight]

He says in the film, if you cared to pay attention, that if man won't kill God, the devil will do it. Thus he had Doomsday in reserve. Lex wasn't going to break cover and use the kryptonite himself while he still had a public image to maintain. The tie-in material states Lex was Metropolis' golden child. The character at heart is a manipulator, using other people to do his dirty work while trying to get through everything looking clean. Ultimately, he's exposed and caught in BvS, so the game is up in that regard. He can now go full mad scientist on the world.

[thecolorsblend]

The politics really took a lot of the innocent fun out of it; early Superman comics never really went that deep. Overthinking Superman never really works.

Early Golden Age Superman comics clearly portray Superman as a bit of a two-fisted New Dealer. B89 was a tiny bit of an indictment of how media manipulate the idiotic unwashed masses. BR was a bit more of an indictment of how politicians manipulate the idiotic unwashed masses. BF somewhat revisited B89's theme of people being manipulated by media. BB could be viewed as an affirmation of the war on terror. TDK could similarly be viewed as an affirmation of the Patriot Act in one particular sequence. TDKRises has been criticized by a lot of people as an Ayn Randian rant about how the rich and powerful will protect everybody if only they would be allowed to do so.

My point is that injecting political commentary or some sort of social commentary into comics and these types of films isn't a recent thing.

Narrow-mindedness isn't the cause.

Not sure what you mean by this.

What his character does or can accomplish doesn't change anything about the character that people didn't like. Some of things people even thought were poorly done and in some cases I don't disagree.

The only opinion I care about when it comes to Lex is from people who are conversant with the character and his history. Eisenberg's Lex has about as much relevance to his comics counterpart as Gene Hackman, John Shea and Michael Rosenbaum.

That doesn't explain him creating a giant monster or him not just using the kryptonite himself, instead of manipulating Batman for two years, before he got all that kryptonite.

Especially in recent years it's become typical of Lex to play the long game. It's worth mentioning, though, that he created Doomsday at the first opportunity.

Why not use the Kryptonite himself? Gee, let's think. If he tries that and fails, it's his butt on the line. If he can get a patsy to do his dirty work for him, that would be better. Golly, that sounds like a very post-Byrne Lex attitude to me. By the time Lex finally managed to get his hands on Kryptonite, he had Batman wound up so tight he was about to pop. Again, the long game.

Or why he went on a crazy rant about showing the world that Superman is a fraud by having him kill Batman. His basic motives for what would have been a better idea were explained. The other stuff wasn't really.

Well I will admit there isn't a Nolanesque scene where the character spoon feeds his thoughts to the audience. But his motives are clearly established, his methods are clearly revealed and his psychology is hinted at and/or expressed through the entire film. It isn't didactically explained... which works for some people but not for others. Your unwillingness to accept that approach does not invalidate it. It simply means your preferences are in things being expressed in text rather than depicted through cinematography, performance and other things. Well and good... but that leaves you at a bit of a disadvantage in critiquing Snyder's approach because these issues seem invisible to you even though they're made manifest in the film.

[Travesty]

Even Batman struggled to kill Superman with the kryptonite, and he's Batman. Lex didn't kill Superman with the Kryptonite, because he knew he couldn't, so he tricked Bruce/Batman into stealing it, while doing the job for him. He knows Batman is more capable than him.

[zDBZ]

I thought Affleck looked old enough for the part. Plus, I get the feeling that Hollywood doesn't want to have a leading man or woman looking too old for superhero movies anyway. They probably think it wouldn't be marketable enough.

Fair enough. Affleck's looks were only an issue for me; I fully expect that YMMV.

I thought she served more of a purpose in MOS with her investigation into Clark's trails and how she was the first stranger who trusted him. But I do agree that a lot of her screen-time could've been drastically cut in this movie.

That's actually a good point.

Great. You just brought my whole estimation of this movie lower 

I have to disagree. Up until this point, Batman was consumed with paranoia over Superman that he was too blinded to realize that Lex Luthor was manipulating both him and Superman. This was the turning point to understand what was going on.

Well, as I say, my objection wasn't so much that he stops, it was just how much of a turn-around he made, to the point where he's even describing himself as a friend of Superman.

Given that the next film is going to be the Justice League, I thought this film did the best it could introduce other characters in this universe. Not ideal perhaps, but I'll take it.

Frankly, I think DC should have planned another movie between this and Justice League, or had the first Justice League movie be a Seven Samurai-style search and gathering, than try and cram so many character introductions into this already-too-busy story.

I had problems with plot points that involved Superman in this movie i.e. leaving myself to wonder why did he take so long to arrive in North Africa, how come he couldn't pay attention when a bomb was about to detonate in the Senate hearing, why he didn't take Batman into custody instead of merely threatening him if he was so disapproving of Batman's methods at the end of the chase scene. Those are my reasons why I thought the movie didn't quite live up to my personal expectations.

But despite all of that, I thought he redeemed all of those issues with paying a sacrifice to stop Doomsday in the end. He still saved the world despite how it kept scrutinizing him and condemning him, and his death inspired Batman and Wonder Woman to carry on his legacy and protect the world from constant danger.

But my issue is with the logic. Wonder Woman has the strength to hack off limbs from this thing, and she's not vulnerable to Kryptonite. What actual reason is there that Superman has to wield the spear himself, instead of passing it off to Wonder Woman and serving as a distraction?

This is off-topic, but I never thought Jonathan Kent was actually encouraging Clark to let those kids drown. He was simply scared of the possibility that Clark could expose himself to a world that he's not prepared to cope with, and wanted to protect him from that level of persecution and pressure. Then again, Snyder brought that criticism upon himself by having Pa Kent say the word "maybe". I wouldn't have used it if I was a director.

And I acknowledged the "maybe" 

I'm not the only one who's made that joke, but the larger complaint is what you say here: that, in MoS, Jonathan Kent never wanted Clark to reveal his powers, because Clark - and the world - weren't ready (and apparently, nothing short of "alien invasion" was good enough to count as "ready.") It was Jor-El who encouraged Superman to display his powers, be a bridge between two peoples, lead us to the sun, etc. Which makes that line, and the dream vision of Kevin Costner, a very strange retcon for Snyder to pull in this film. Was Russel Crowe not available for a cameo that they had to change which father they wrote into the script?

[Dagenspear]

The only opinion I care about when it comes to Lex is from people who are conversant with the character and his history. Eisenberg's Lex has about as much relevance to his comics counterpart as Gene Hackman, John Shea and Michael Rosenbaum.

People shouldn't have to know the character from other media well to be able to understand it.

Especially in recent years it's become typical of Lex to play the long game. It's worth mentioning, though, that he created Doomsday at the first opportunity.

Why not use the Kryptonite himself? Gee, let's think. If he tries that and fails, it's his butt on the line. If he can get a patsy to do his dirty work for him, that would be better. Golly, that sounds like a very post-Byrne Lex attitude to me. By the time Lex finally managed to get his hands on Kryptonite, he had Batman wound up so tight he was about to pop. Again, the long game.

I don't care what this version is inspired by. The character as explored doesn't make sense. And his motivations aren't even explored greatly, because his character is barely explored. He has a single scene of catch up with his goal that doesn't make sense and contradicts his own on screen goals in the movie, even his other stated goal about having a deterrent against Superman. He wants Superman to be killed because he's so powerful. No, he wants Superman to be seen as a fraud. Then he wants Superman to be killed by an even bigger threat that he's created.

Well I will admit there isn't a Nolanesque scene where the character spoon feeds his thoughts to the audience. But his motives are clearly established, his methods are clearly revealed and his psychology is hinted at and/or expressed through the entire film. It isn't didactically explained... which works for some people but not for others. Your unwillingness to accept that approach does not invalidate it. It simply means your preferences are in things being expressed in text rather than depicted through cinematography, performance and other things. Well and good... but that leaves you at a bit of a disadvantage in critiquing Snyder's approach because these issues seem invisible to you even though they're made manifest in the film.

It's not about approach. It's about execution. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

[The Joker]

Eh, no. If people want to overly praise the film, and each interpretation to nausem, that's fine. Praise it till you're on the floor sucking wind, but for me, as much as I really liked BvS, it wasn't perfect (I wouldn't say Batman 1989 was perfect either) and Eisenberg's Lex was like nails on a chalk board. I mean, Holy sh*t. It's crazy that after all this time, we have yet to see an accurate portrayal of Lex Luthor on the big screen. For my money, the best live action take goes to Michael Rosenbaum from Smallville, but only by default because everyone else has been extremely lackluster or underused (Shea). But let's narrow it down, with all cinematic Lex Luthor's that we have seen thus far, each one always hams it up and Jesse Eisenberg, clearly, is the worst offender. Not only is he Jesse Eisenberg, but he plays the character as an awkward, crazy, twitchy, oddball type rather than the cold, calm, calculated Lex who steadily hides his dark side. Nothing changed for me about him from the trailers. He's easily the worst thing in the film for me.

Except sadly enough, being overtly "eccentric" isn't anything new for the character in movies. If that works for some people, or they have come to terms with it, great! More power to you. If history has shown us anything, it's a pretty consistent trait when adapting Lex for the big screen. I just happen to think it's worn out it's welcome a long time ago.

Gene Hackman was playing him pretty eccentric in the Donner/Reeve films. Kevin Spacey obviously evoked a lot of the same spirit. This is a different kind of eccentric, but it's not a totally new take, either. It's just twitchier and less consistent. More akin to a messed up little kid who's drunk with money and power. Providing the audiences a touch of light-hearted wackiness that some people who felt the film was 'too dark, too serious' were probably in need of. Whatever. It came across as jarring to me, and unnecessary. I could have lived without that sort of retro performance yet again. It was pretty much all we could expect from Eisenberg really though. I never could imagine him pulling off a performance that would evoke the cold, calculating businessman Lex that alot of people were ideally hoping for. Evidently, and from what I gather in my circles and on the net, what alot of people were wanting to see as well.

But hey, with some people, if this particular interpretation of the character of Lex Luthor and Eisenberg's performance resonates with you and/or comes across the best portrayals of Lex Luthor we've ever had, or hope to see in our lifetimes, that's terrific, and obviously your opinion. Happy to see that works for you (as I like pretty much everyone here), but at the same time, don't try to insinuate to other's who don't find this particular performance of Lex captivating that we're somehow ill informed if we think Eisenberg's overly eccentric portrayal was anything but ill advised for Lex Luthor, and there wasn't a better way to have gone about it.

Lay off the f*cking crack.

[zDBZ]

It's a shame people are so narrow minded.

EisenLex:

Gets access to what he wants, when he wants - Zod's body and the scout ship.
Manipulates a cripple, using his wheelchair to blow up a hearing, along with his secretary and a hated foe.
Makes Bruce feel guilty by sending fake hate mail.
Has private military kill a bunch of people in an effort to frame Superman.
Has Martha kidnapped and is willing to have her burnt alive.
Pushes Lois off a building to her death, banking on Superman to arrive.
Has a bunch of kryptonite shipped and delivered to his business, to take down Superman.
Sets up the Batman and Superman fight, to kill one of the heroes, or both.
Creates a kryptonian mutation to kill Superman and terrorise the world.
Potentially killed his father and took over the company himself.

Sounds like a worthy representation of the character to me.

For quite a few of us, the issue isn't whether he ticked all the boxes on Lex Luthor Bingo; it's how he did it. And for me, how he did was just too damn annoying. If it worked for you, great.

[Catwoman]

Speaking of Lex, I have a question for our Lex (if he even reads my posts. Site help indeed...lol).

Was the "Granny's Peach Tea" at the hearing right before the explosion one of the things you cited as being a bit too much? I remember thinking "Holy sh*t, did they actually go there?" as I was watching it.