Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

I said that a few posts ago^^

Well, truth be told Luthor is the most consistent enemy Superman faces. STAS even made sure Luthor had his own stake in just about every major villain that showed up (Metallo, Brainiac, Bizarro). Joker might be a massively popular enemy for Batman, but he has such an eclectic Rogues Gallery that Joker doesn't have to be the main villain for each Batman movie. A good Superman universe needs to have a Luthor, and it would be amazing to have him as a consistent figure in different stories (rumors said he would have an appearance in Suicide Squad similar to Batman).

And I was just saying a movie that's faithful to The Question is not going to compete with something like Suicide Squad in terms of being a blockbuster action film. He is a very fun character and could easily fit in the DCEU in other capacities (an Information Broker would be cool), but a solo film would be tricky.

I don't mind Luthor...I just wish the movies would portray him as well as the animated series usually do. To me he is actually more an antagonist than an outright villain, at least in a sense that sometimes his and Superman's goals are identical. Or at least he is the kind of villain you want to keep around - if he is well written. If DC plays their cards right, he could become the Loki of the DCCU.

Agreed. Especially since he has the right balance for that: he is not Too Powerful to Live like Zod was, yet there is a good reason why he can't just be killed and be done with it (Superman doesn't kill + being a Villain with Good Publicity means he can't just be arrested).

Batman and Superman have to pull Stealth Hi/Bye on each other. Why not?

edited 3rd Aug '15 7:07:42 AM by bookworm6390

when Supes does that to Bats:

• Bats (thinking): I hate it when he just appears like that.
• Supes (thinking): I gotta admit, I love being able to do that to him.

Heavily disagreed.

First, I detest MCU Loki. And I will never understand the sympathy or complexity fans claim the MCU version has.

Second, Luthor is a crook, a classic enemy of Superman, someone who will almost never be considered the "good guy". I don't want him to be anything like MCU Loki, or have any "Anti-Hero" clout surrounding him.

edited 3rd Aug '15 7:47:29 AM by Soble

To be fair, comic book Lex Luthor has shown some altruistic sides (even if he still hates Superman and most superheroes). Currently, he's even a member of the Justice League.

Well he's currently a member of the Justice League in the comics though that's more to him tricking the public into thinking he's a good guy and the League thinking they can keep a better eye on him while he's on the team.

Agree about Loki. I think most of the appeal comes from the charm Hiddleston brings to the character.

Loki is certainly not an anti hero. He is a sympathetic villain at best. And I didn't mean that they should turn Luther into a second Loki. More...well, into some kind of Xanathos (without the quasi-redemption arc, naturally), someone whose plans Superman is able to fail but who is always too slippery to be taken down completely and who sometimes is able to win when he supposedly looses (I am a sucker for a believable Xanathos Gambit). I was more referring to the role Loki has as recurring villain in the MCU.

edited 3rd Aug '15 8:11:21 AM by Swanpride

i only really liked him in the first thor, where he was the only remotely interesting thing about the whole movie, which was one of the worst mcu films otherwise. you just assume he's a dick because he's a dick but then he talks about how he feels like The Unfavorite and excluded because he's both adopted and part frost giant and how his entire scheme was an attempt to gain the approval of Odin. When compared to like every other MCU villain (obadiah stane, darren cross, red skull, ronan, the abomination etc) he comes across as more interesting and yes, sympathetic in comparison. a lot of it is also just tom hiddleston being a good actor.

but no, lex luthor shouldn't be anything like him, though the poster didn't mean in terms of characterization anyway.

edited 3rd Aug '15 9:07:16 AM by wehrmacht

Well. I darn flew off the handle, my apologies.

I don't loathe the actor, and I'm forced to accept that Loki actually has a huge role in the creation of the Avengers team. Luthor probably could play the same role for the DCU, yes.

edited 3rd Aug '15 10:59:36 AM by Soble

Lex Luthor and Loki Laufeyson are similar because of their ambition to prove their superiority over anyone who challenges them. Both supervillain react to ambition as if it is a drug they're fixated upon; it blinds them from seeing any chaos they cause, but that also has to do with the fact they embrace their vices. For them they are the heroes of their own story, while reality says otherwise, yet... they remain ignorant towards obvious truths. Yes once in a while the two will act heroic, Lex cures his sister (comicbook) and Loki saves Jane (movie), though those moments only last briefly before they revert back to their sinful ways. They can do good and think they are.

Lex = jealousy, inferiority, fear, egotism.

Loki = jealousy, inferiority, fear, egotism.

They reflect the insecurities and flaws of Human/Asguardian nature. It is why Superman/Thor reflect the exact opposite or at least try. Thor especially distances himself from the destructive nature that these everyday emotions can have.

Loki and Lex secondly are master gambit users. They can apply gambit techniques on such high caliber that would stunt the entire universe if things were going more their way. They are not necessarily powerhosues, but powertricksters who think in the long term of a fight.

edited 3rd Aug '15 11:19:11 AM by xbimpy

Yeah, he embraces other emotions that make him destructive

The primary difference between Luthor and Loki is that Loki is a Trickster Archetype, he's funny, grandstanding and will do things just for his own amusement. Luthor is a massive ball of ego and that's why he is at odds with Superman. Loki is egotistical too but it manifests in a much different way.

edited 3rd Aug '15 11:20:43 AM by KJMackley

Huh? Thor sees himself as anything but the Bloodknight Odin raised him to be. This was the point of his dream during Civil War. He is a monster born in a culture that relishes monsters. It is why he gave up the position for king because the role was turning him into something he saw himself no longer part of, yet... it keeps on coming back. When he stepped on the girl's blocks that was another reminder of who he really is. Thor simply responds by putting up an illusion that counters it. A faux safety net because his time spent on Earth "changed" Asguardian savagery. This is where Thor has been at since Thor: The Dark World. Avengers: Age of Ultron pushed it a little further by reminding him the monster that was in the begging of Thor never went away. Thor: Rangarok is the final acceptance or unacceptance of his innerself.

Yes by ignoring it can be dangerous, but the films never made that clearer. It was always subtle, for example telling Bruce about all the people who died in glory or not hitting harder for fear of turning back into the guy who brutally destroyed a large portion of Jotunheim against foes who would have died faster if he died.

edited 3rd Aug '15 11:40:17 AM by xbimpy

The problem I have with using Luthor in the films is overexposure. Zod was only used as a Big Bad 2 times in Superman film history so he isn't bad but Luthor is now up to 4 and it feels as fatiguing as having 2 different Spider-Man film continuities in the last 15 years starring Peter Parker. I'm not saying don't use him ever, I'm just giving my feelings on the matter.

As far as making him like MCU Loki I wouldn't mind it barring it doesn't harm the actual character of the Big Bad. I liked Loki in Thor and The Avengers(Most Loki fan hate his Avengers characterization but I perfectly fine with it.) but I dislike him in The Dark World for meta reasons.(The actual Big Bad lost about an hour's worth of backstory in order to give Loki more screentime). Just avoid doing that with Luthor.

They are still similar because of that connection. They want nothing more than to make Thor/Superman suffer for all of eternity and be appreciated by those they rule above. Their egos are equally large that gives the ambition to do bad things. Loki thinks he can make a better king for Asguard through his experience from standing not on pair with Thor but beneath him. Lex thinks he is already Earth's king long before Superman came into the picture, but... the second Superman appeared he grew envious of that position, believing the latter took it away. Ever since then they will never ever stop aiming for what they truly believe is rightfully theirs.

Sure Loki's personality is different, allowing him to go about things differently. In terms of personality the one thing that connects them is their extravagance. They want the entire universe to know IT WAS THEM who DID IT and not their hero counterparts. They have no problem being excessive, acting self-indulgent. However, Lex already knows what he wants. Loki's arc implies he is still looking for a never ending answer; is he really doing this for his own enjoyment? or to shun Thor? or for the betterment of whatever subjects he rules over? who knows.

edited 3rd Aug '15 11:57:50 AM by xbimpy

What does that have to do with anything I said?

Really I have to say Darren Cross and Lex Luthor are a closer comparison.

Okay then.

Well, none of the movie Luthors until this point have been the 'evil businessman' variety, but the completely different 'criminal scientific genius' one. This is the first Film Luthor in the former vein, while Nicholson and Ledger, for instance, despite being wildly different takes still fall into the same core 'madman who just wants to wreck havoc upon society' concept.

...I'm sure you meant Hackman and Spacey, Nicholson and Ledger were The Joker.

But yeah, Superman Returns almost managed a plausible "Luthor as businessman" approach based off the Hackman!Luthor backstory. But he went right back to creating wanton destruction just to prove that he can.

No, I was comparing the movie situations of Luthor and Joker. Leto seems to be playing another variant of the same main concept behind Nicholson and Ledger, while Eisenberg's character is a fully different concept from Spacey and Hackman's.

Since we still haven't gotten a good Luther on screen, I just hope that they nail it this time around.

And I think that Luther is nothing like Loki. The ideal Luther is for me a confident businessman who likes to assemble as much power as possible and is kind of frustrated by his inability to control Superman. Loki on the other hand is so much he isn't. He is chaos, Luther is control. Loki suffers under internalized racism and hidden insecurity (never mind his giant daddy issues), Luther is confident and the only time I remember him having daddy issues was in Smallville. Loki's behaviour is mostly an act to a degree that I doubt that he himself knows what is true and what isn't while Luther knows exactly what he wants and only acts for the public.