Analysis of Lex Luthor

In what way? Because through the eighties and nineties he was trapped in a permanent Heel–Face Revolving Door.

Sort of. While he did, it was in line with his personality, rather than "HAHAHAHA Today I am Evil !!" He'd might try to live in peace, then something happens and he gets stroppy and lashes out then the X-Men fight him. Or he might live in peace and someone convinces him that he could do more good helping. Then something happens and he gets stroppy and lashes out then the X-Men fight him.

I just came here to say who Luthor is a Awesome Badass villain, with a good contrast to Clark and with a really good historial.

Lex is Awesome.

edited 26th Nov '15 6:58:09 PM by KazuyaProta

Watch me destroying my country

Depends. I'd say he works great on his own - I love the way he shrugs off the daily weirdness of the DCU, to the point where a mystical spirit with a doomsday prophecy isn't even worth putting down his book.

However, as a foil for Superman, I find the overall narrative occasionally gets self-gratifying and hypocritical. For one, denigrating or outright vilifying ambitions of power and status in escapist power fantasy fiction is more than a little counter-intuitive - nobody picks up a superhero comic to read about how people wanting superpowers are evil for it. And for Luthor in particular, most stories go out of their way to showcase his greed and pride... in fighting against a guy who can make diamonds out of coal, owns a veritable ivory fortress, and has a habit of ranting about how people should conduct their affairs. Add in the occasional direct assault on expies of currently more popular superheroes, and the irony becomes a bit too much to bear. Say what you will about petty grudges over hair-loss, but at least they're consistent with the overall story.

edited 15th Dec '15 3:48:35 AM by indiana404

There are numerous stories that have people in position of power as villains. This is not unique to Superman. And you don't know what every person reads a comic book for so please stop projecting.

Congratulations, you named two comics in Superman's 70+ years of history that was a dig at antiheroes. That's nothing compared to the Authority's constant evisceration of politicians, religion and even other comic book heroes. And even in Kingdom Come Superman's actions are portrayed as being just as questionable as Magog's. The book actually acknowledges that the old heroes didn't have to face the type of criminals the new heroes do.

Strange how the word I used was "ambition" and not "position". Must be something wrong with your browser settings.

At any rate, the point is about the broken aesop that having is morally better than wanting, which pops up quite a lot in superhero tales - particularly in Superman stories, it might as well be called Lane/Olsen syndrome for all the times even them getting superpowers was considered problematic. For that matter, Luthor may be the gloryhound villain in-universe, yet writers throw a fit whenever Superman's relevance is questioned in real life, to the point his latest films are a case study on messianic inflation. When your villain is criticized for holding himself beyond human reproach... yet this mirrors the out-of-universe marketing for your hero... it's no mystery why the message may be a little self-contradicting.

edited 15th Dec '15 4:48:19 AM by indiana404

And how many such Superman stories per year do we get doing that? You're acting like this type of bashing critics in the stories is even limited to him. You don't like what they have to say, maybe find a new character.

I also have to question why you insist on having Luthor whitewashed but don't argue for someone like say Toyman to be made more sympathetic. If you're so desperate for an underdog to root for I think you need to look else where than a rich, white one percenter.

What's funny is that Batman can call Clark out on issues that if Lex tried attacking Supes on, Lex would be shown as wrong. Luthor is more of a Fantastic Racism jerk about it.

Tell me about it. It's quite sad when even DC's foremost enforcers of justice bicker about what said justice is supposed to be.

And isn't Toyman (Hiro Okamura) a hero nowadays anyway? If anything, given the shift in attitude toward technology, classic!Luthor would already be an anti-heroic or reluctant mad scientist. Though his current arc isn't bad either - he passed a straightforward trust-building exercise and everything. It's still most likely it'll be deconstructed in the end, but right now, Luthor's character arc is better than most people would think.

Tell me about it. It's quite sad when even DC's foremost enforcers of justice bicker about what said justice is supposed to be.

Yeah we never see that from Marvel. On a constant basis...

Hiro is a separate character from the Winslow Schott Toyman.

Honestly, the writers not deciding to whitewash Luthor for the sake of having him on the team would be better than the hack job "redemptions" most marvel villains go through.

Why is it that Bruce can call out Clark and still be a good guy, but Lex is a bad guy and always wrong? Is it because Lex is a Corrupt Corporate Executive and Bruce is an Honest Corporate Executive?

Here's a kicker - maybe he isn't even meant to be wrong.

Right now Catwoman, Ivy, Harley, Deadshot, Bane, the Riddler and occasionally Sinestro go through similar redemption arcs more often than not. I'd normally say something to the effect of DC preferring its universe to be more black and white, but even that's actually more a trait of marketing and some fans, not supported in the actual books. Harley might as well be a blatant Deadpool ripoff the way she's written nowadays.

And that's the point here - discrepancies between marketing and actual stories. For all the fluff about the Justice League being impeccable nigh-divine paragons, quite a lot of times they throw around conflict balls the size of Power Girl's cleavage window. Yes, Marvel heroes have issues, but that's the thing - they're designed that way. Nobody ever says they aren't flawed. If anything, DC trying to play catch up in the angst department turned Batman into a sissy emotionally obsessed with the one backstory element just about every superhero has already dealt with.

And to that effect, the notion of Luthor being some sort of Satanic sociopath who's always wrong is becoming less and less true, at least if you're not wearing a Rorschach mask.

In short, graying morality - most characters handle it just fine. Some fans however... don't.

Okay now you're just moving the goal posts. First, it's that DC's heroes don't have flaws and now it's that they're not equipped to deal with them? Do you really hate DC so much you feel the need to insist they're inferior to Marvel in every way. Because I got to tell you this constant metaphorical felating of the House of Ideas is borderline creepy and pathetic.

And I stand by comments that Marvel's "have your cake and eat it too" style of writing with their heroes is FAR more problematic than anything DC has written.

Sinestro and Deadshot didn't have redemption arcs so much as they had a few enemy mine moments and fought guys who were worse than they. And quite frankly, I'd rather DC keep writing them as villains than go through the mental gymnastic Marvel does to "redeem" their villains.

Maybe you should consider what type of characters you admire.

Normally, I'd write this off under complaining about people not liking the character or general misaimed fandom. In light of the aforementioned Deadpoolization of Harley, however, it's more like DC characters are evolving - and that's a good thing - to the chagrin of certain fans... and that's an acceptable loss. Truth be told, DC has plenty of great characters, including in the Justice League - Hal Jordan and Barry Allen make for an awesome buddy cop team, especially since they're literally cops. It's just the big three that are overmarketed, while their actual sales are propped by gimmicks like Jim Gordon becoming a cybernetic Batman or Superman turning into a bruiser with a buzz-cut. Next to that, Luthor becoming an anti-villain is pure poetry.

"Great characters" "Hal Jordan and Barry Allen"

I seems to have stumbled into some kind of alternate universe where everything is backwards.

How about Booster Gold and Ted Kord then?

In light of the aforementioned Deadpoolization of Harley, however, it's more like DC characters are evolving - and that's a good thing - to the chagrin of certain fans... and that's an acceptable loss.

Did I ever say I didn't like Harley's current direction? No. SO please stop putting words in my mouth and stop making assumptions about me based on generalizations. It's just plain petty on your part. I do have a problem with when people act like Marvel is beyond reproach with how their stories play out and I think DC should avoid such stories. If that means the likes of you don't read DC, then that to me is an acceptable loss.

edited 15th Dec '15 12:27:15 PM by windleopard

Too bad DC has been disagreeing lately. Or not so lately, since Luthor ended up saving the world as far back as the DCAU. How horrible an experience that must have been.

I hardly think Marvel is beyond reproach, just that their marketing isn't quite so inflated - they advertise ordinary people with extraordinary abilities, and deliver just that. DC promises "gods among us"... and gives us Crazy Steve, Bonkers Betty and Bearded Idiot. Then again, "Rubber bullets; honest." is probably the most awesomely paper-thin claim of technical pacifism to ever grace a printed page. Kudos to Miller for sheer audacity.

At least Crazy Steve and co were limited to non-canon appearances. Spider-Man making a deal with the devil happened in the main verse and still has yet to be dealt with.

As for Luthor in JL, he's still very much a villain just one with good publicity, a man out for himself and no one else. But if you think he's anything but, I guess it speaks to his status as a magnificent bastard. See, DC acknowledges that these guys don't see themselves as villains but doesn't have the narrative forget it. That's what I meant when I said those are the type of Marvel stories DC should avoid and quite frankly, they're richer for it.

"Jingle bells, Batman smells."

When villains start saving the world, they become more than villains. The way the official heroes keep growling in skepticism doesn't change that, but actually makes them look less sympathetic. It's kinda funny how earlier Superman stories had him lamenting the fact Luthor can do so much more for humanity if he abandoned his grudge, while modern Superman scowls in disdain at the mere thought of Luthor not being a selfish sociopath. A paragon of hope and optimism, no doubt about it.

Blind optimism is not a virtue in face of overwhelming evidence. Saving the world a handful of times compared to the numerous you actively endanger it. Especially if you're just solving a problem you started like Lex resurrecting Darkseid in the JLU finale.

Having the villains turn themselves in to serve their sentences or paying for the damages to their victims' families would be a lot more sincere than hiding behind PR shields of the heroes.

I was gut punched by Morrison's versions of Magneto and Talia, but you know what? I was glad someone remembered that these are not nice people.

I'm not much of a fan of Black Cat's current development though. But that's another way in which Marvel and DC don't differ.

edited 15th Dec '15 1:46:08 PM by windleopard

Given that Luthor's bodycount has included entire planets, healthy skepticism on the part of Superman is pretty understandable.

edited 15th Dec '15 1:44:00 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

This it's not like Clark's suspicions aren't based on Luthor's own less than admirable history. There's being hopeful and there's being delusional.

Post-reboot less so, I think. And optimism is only as delusional as the writers intend. Looks more like you're projecting your own desire for Luthor to remain a cardboard-flat mustache-twirler than anything else.

In general, given how a lot of supervillains start out as utterly unrealistic and no longer acceptable scapegoats or bogeymen, making them more ambiguous is a good way to counteract the resulting unfortunate implications. Luthor used to be a mad scientist - practically the dumbest cliche adventure fiction has ever employed. He then became a Gordon Gecko expy - closer to reality but more of a political strawman than anything else, and that's before he became an actual politician. And now he's Jeff Bezos... the horror.

To contrast, if he were an actual career criminal or a dictator or somesuch, evil would be part of the job description, so there wouldn't be a need for the pseudo-psychological handwaving to try and explain how he's different from, say, Iron Man.

No, I'm simply using what's on the page instead of deluding myself through head canon. Looks like you're projecting your desire for a whitewashed Luthor because for some reason you think that rich, white, one percenters are some kind of unjustly persecuted group in fiction in need of positive representation. Quite frankly there are more grievously offensive portrayals of certain individuals or groups in comics that you could be better served protesting against.

I'm not shedding any tears because DC doesn't have enough billionaires as heroes. Especially given what real life CE Os like Luthor have done and gotten away with.

edited 15th Dec '15 2:23:27 PM by windleopard