Tell me about it - the DCAU in general veered a bit to often into being Batman and the Superfriends, and Waller joining the fanclub, to the point of effectively trying to breed the guy, was nothing if not shilling. Still, the "he died saving us all" line from Superman regarding Luthor was just as indicative of his own intended portrayal.
I felt that Birthright went a bit overboard with the reindeer situation, in how even things like Luthor helping a rival sports team win a game against his own school was treated as crossing the line by young Clark. It's moments like this that drive the point of Luthor being a villain more by virtue of contractual obligation than any internally consistent motivation.
The dog-petting moments in the latest JL arcs - mourning Bizarro, leaving Kord's company alone, helping people alongside Wonder Woman, trusting another person on Apokolips etc. - may be part of a more consistent effort to humanize Luthor, ostensibly the same is planned for BVS. As a guy with no real need for criminal activity, yet far too many accomplishments to be pinned as some insane serial killer, that sort of portrayal is probably worth popularizing. It's not the 80's anymore, when a suit and tie made you a villain by default. If the choice of actor is anything to go by, this Luthorberg approach is shaping up to be a lot more ambiguous than usual.
edited 15th Feb '16 7:14:02 PM by indiana404
The luthorberg thing is a pretty bold creative move in my opinion, since it takes the concept of luthor and significantly updates it to how we perceive a lot of tech moguls today, i.e weird kids with brilliant minds and ideas, but obviously way more villainous in lex's case.
It might not work out in the movie itself but I do think it's something worth exploring in other stories.
Moreover, the modern generation has grown increasingly tech-savvy, so the bad bogeyman with the malicious machinery just doesn't evoke the same feeling anymore. Ditto the attitude toward the military-industrial complex, with which modern day Luthor is almost invariably connected. All in all, I think he's either going to get a bit magnetized, with the overall conflict growing more complex, or writers will have to look for another acceptable target archetype to base him on.
edited 16th Feb '16 12:14:26 AM by indiana404
They could use Donald Trump as the next basis for Luthor. After all, Luthor is anti-immgrant given his undying hatred and distrust to the Last Son (and refugee) of the destroyed Krypton. And he does own buildings made in his image. Not to mention he tends to wear wigs full of hair.
Luthor's already been President once, no need to directly model him after the next one.
Apparently, DOJ's Luthorberg is a lot battier and more unhinged than usual - maybe that could be re-emphasized. As much as mad scientists are walking cliches, they're at least more imaginative than blowhard plutocrats, and their motivations are somewhat more consistent... by supervillain standards.
Well since Luthor was apparently sent to prison at the end of the movie, Villain with Good Publicity would not apply to him anymore. Ironically a similar thing happen with Luthor in the DCAU, particularly in the Justice League. Once Luthor loses his public support, he becomes more of a Mad Scientist and directly fighting the Man of Steel himself with his Battle Armor.
edited 24th Mar '16 11:37:09 AM by Shadao
Could have been worse - with all the speeches about "the greatest gladiator match in the history of the world", I almost expected his grand scheme to be profiting from the pay-per-view of the fight.
Now the only question left is if he's actually gonna don the trademark powered armor in the sequels... or just use Jarate.
That actually wouldn't have been such a bad idea.
I mean, it's not like Luthor is against making cash on the side.
One Strip! One Strip!An extra scene
from BVS. Thought it made enough sense on its own as a character statement to post it here. Essentially, Luthorberg literally worships the Space Devil.
SPOILERS FOR BATMAN V SUPERMAN AHEAD. BEWARB.
Luthorberg—who I really liked, by the way—to me, seemed a lot more like the Joker than classic Lex, and in the context of the story that was great.
Normally, how does Lex combat Superman? He goes after him with Kryptonite, with red sun radiation, with firepower galore, or with his money and connections. And while he did do some of that (or try to), in the end, he didn't have a knock-down, drag-out brawl with Superman in the streets of Metropolis. No, he attacked what he loved: Lois and MAAAARTHAAA! Then, once he had Clark's attention, he tried to force Supes to betray his morals and show the world the "devil" Lex thought him to be. It's like Joker, pushing all of Batman's buttons, trying to get him to break his one rule. Of course, he does go after Supes, Bats, and Badass Warrior Princess of Planet Awesome (Wonder Woman) with muscle, but not his own: he sends Doomsday, and although he couldn't get Superman to kill the Bat, he got him to martyr himself to kill the monster.
Nothing you've just listed is abnormal for Luthor. Luthor has a proud tradition of playing mind games with Superman.
As for creating Doomsday...Metallo, Bizarro, Parasite, Reactron, etc, have all, Depending on the Writer, been Luthor projects. Creating other villains with which to harass or try to kill Superman is Luthor at his most classic.
edited 19th May '16 9:04:37 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
The latest episode of Justice League Action featured Luthor quite prominently, and I must say, it's by far the best take on the character I've seen, better even than in Young Justice. Unpopular opinion as it may be, I've always thought Clancy Brown's version in the DCAU to be too much of a thug in both appearance and manners, as opposed to someone genuinely valuing intelligence over brute strength. Ironically, he was also a mostly non-action guy, which grew boring after a while.
To contrast, the Lex Luthor brought by the self-propelled awesomeness that is James Woods, is cultured, witty, able to get physical when necessary, and as the episode showed, still having some standards as to how he handles things. Sure enough, his ultimate goal is to destroy Superman, but apparently it's not as simple as just dropping him with Kryptonite. "Not today", he says, "Not this way".
All in all, this Lex Luthor is virtually the opposite of the now overdone corrupt corporate executive or politician who talks big and magnanimous only to be deconstructed as petty and selfish. Even as his current run in the comics is more of an anti-hero, it's clear that writers are uncomfortable working with him like this - they know it's only a matter of time when editorial will want him snapped back as a straightforward villain, so they put barely any effort into his development otherwise.
Consequently, playing him as the aforementioned opposite - an honest, card-carrying Moriarty-style criminal mastermind, but one who still has standards and loftier goals, might be the better strategy in the long term.
edited 28th Aug '17 5:55:35 AM by indiana404
DCAU Lex a thug? That's certainly one I haven't heard before. He could be pretty slimy around people who saw through his facade but I'm not sure if I'd get thuggish from him.
I do like Justice League Action and James Woods' Lex is pretty entertaining. That said, I get the feeling the writers' decisions here are due to the more light hearted nature of the series.
I've been thinking over some of the issues we've discussed with Lex in this and other threads over the years. I think some of them can be partly mitigated by DC giving more of the spot light to heroic badass normals, especially the more self made ones. John Henry Irons is basically Luthor if he were a hero. As is Michael Holt. Hell, you could even have Lex's sister Lena become an ally to the Super family, if only to show not everyone with the name of Luthor is a villain. Really, the issue with Lex isn't that he exists but that there's only one of him so to speak.
I remember reading that Bruce Timm himself described Clancy's Luthor as a "cultured thug", so I reckon at least part of that impression is intentional.
Other than that, it's not that there aren't that many heroic badass normals... though Mr. Terrific (who I constantly have to convince my brain to not refer to as Mr. T) could indeed use some more exposure. Ditto Will Magnus and the Metal Men, but I digress. If anything, it's because there are so many biologically ordinary people who nevertheless tackle near-gods on a monthly basis, that Luthor's shtick as the resentful wannabe feels so arbitrary. It mirrors Superman's own inflated reputation as the be-all of sheer power in the DCU, even though there are certain characters like Captain Atom and Shazam, who can go toe-to-toe with him.
Luthor himself is the kind of guy with enough resources and ingenuity to clone himself a fresh new body and transfer his mind, rather than deal with the marvelous mess that is US healthcare. If he wanted superpowers, he'd have created some a long time ago.
The other problem that greatly stifles and afflicts not just Luthor, but also characters like Amanda Waller, is the nigh-inevitable and obligatory insincerity that gets slapped onto their motivations under writers too skittish to handle them with more complexity. Why read about Waller the ruthless yet well-intentioned denmother of a modern day dirty dozen, when odds are she'll be presented merely as a brutal government spook who'd sooner kill her own agents (even innocent ones) than take responsibility for her mistakes. Why read about Luthor the self styled paragon of human accomplishment, when it'll inevitably be dismantled as plain and simple jealousy of the Gods Among Us™, perish the thought someone in a comic universe doesn't gush about the capes as much as their writers.
So instead, a Luthor who's honest about his villainous intentions yet has some standards, is similarly complex, but much easier to maintain. He could even work in a less lighthearted setting, as a scientific genius who's simply too bored to walk the straight-and-narrow, and has elected to both amuse and challenge himself with criminal ventures. Food for thought.
I always think of Lex Luthor as the best antithesis for Superman simply because you don't want to just make a one-to-one comparison. Charles Xavier and Magneto have plenty in common but one's a psychic and the other guy bends metal. Batman is a scary somebitch but the Joker looks like a circus entertainer. Spiderman deals with a guy who has multiple arms.
For me, the reason Lex Luthor works for Superman is he's the guy who Superman can't defeat by punching because inevitably there's myriad reasons why the plot doesn't involve punching things (albeit, Luthor CAN build things which Superman can punch—he's at his weakest when he's dolled up like Tony Stark and tries to duke it out with Superman). One is the brains and money while the other is brawn.
But the real ressonance of stories is the fact Lex Luthor is just an enormous selfish tool as much as Superman is The Paragon. He's a bully who has everything and could do a lot of good but DOESN'T.
One of my favorite moments was from the early Post-Crisis run where he took out an hour from his day to ruin a young woman's marriage for shits and giggles.
https://scans-daily.dreamwidth.org/5140117.html
edited 9th Feb '18 12:08:47 AM by CharlesPhipps
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Luthor tends to suffer from tacked-on pettiness or otherwise pointless malice whenever writers can't think of a more rational reason for him to be antagonistic... or worse, when they've found a reason that's too rational. My own personal favorite stories are from one of the tie-in comics to S:TAS, and one of the Adventures imprints. In the former, Luthor is presented as someone who grew up in a slum, building his fortune from the ground up, yet now finding himself against a guy benefiting from inborn advantages and other people's goodwill practically from day one. It's not exactly difficult to understand how this may breed resentment, essentially playing one superhero staple for its darker implications.
In the latter story, Luthor is seemingly just wreaking havoc for its own sake, but when asked about it, he states that by keeping Superman occupied and unable to help other people, they will have to learn to make do without him. Given Luthor's own abusive upbringing, and the fact that not being able to save everyone is a staple of the modern Superman characterization, that's another point that I find deserves a lot more serious consideration than just writing it off as some random evil philosophizing. The idea that that's his way of doing good is just as viable, particularly given how Superman himself tends to end up brainwashed and turned against Earth, or otherwise incapacitated exactly when people need him most - as in the DCAU, both times Darkseid arrived. For that matter, too bad Young Justice was cut short - Luthor there was basically Xanatos, catchphrase and all, so it would've been interesting to see his long-term plans regarding the actual alien invaders the DCU is rife with.
I reckon the question is if writers and fans can actually handle that sort of characterization; an actual challenge to the morals and mentality of one of the most emblematic superheroes. It's easy to write Superman as all good, and turn Luthor into a counter-intuitive amalgam of everything a particular writer considers bad, with the stories effectively burning their preferred strawmen in effigy. However, considering Luthor doesn't typically make for much of a physical challenge, while mind-games aren't really the forte of all but the best writers in the industry, then leaving him as a bland avatar of malice removes everything else the conflict might entice with. And then writers wonder why sales are underperforming, while fans frantically cry against anyone asking if Superman is even relevant anymore - because with an arch-nemesis like that, what hero would be?
As a Superman fan, not only do I don't mind Lex being able to challenge Superman on his morals, I would prefer it. Makes their dynamic more interesting if Superman does acknowledges that Lex has some valid points but highly questionable or extreme methods. My favorite story was Red Son, where Superman did allow Lex to bring humanity to a new golden age, and Lex in turn admitted Superman as a worthy opponent who had some legitimacy in his ideas. Young Justice is a little too Xanathos for my taste, and not enough personality in general. While I don't think JL Luthor is perfect, some moments shows Luthor at his best and his outbursts makes him somewhat more human than a guy that manages to keep calm all the time. Anything is better than Luthorberg, which is basically bargain bin Syfy parody of Lex Luthor: Man of steel.
I think the moment that best sums up Luthor is his speech to AMAZO in JL - all of it. That isn't just the inspiring bit, but the bit afterwards where he decides to taunt AMAZO and then thinks for a second AMAZO's going to kill him and practically wets his pants.
Luthor is not totally devoid of good points, but he ultimately talks bigger than he actually is. He ultimately trips himself up in some way or another and undermines himself somehow. Classic Greek play sort of stuff. He wouldn't be entertaining without the tendency to get angry and spoil something.
Making Luthor totally right would probably be the biggest betrayal of the character possible.
Personally, I think this is what puts him above someone like Doom, where lately they've tried really too hard to make Doom a good guy and he starts to lose some of the charm he had as a hammy villain. Like, they need to remember that this is a guy who threw a fit because he got one tiny little scar on his face and then cooked it with an iron mask.
edited 9th Feb '18 8:37:57 AM by Sigilbreaker26
"And when the last law was down and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, the laws all being flat?"

Batman does get called out on this in a few stories (disregarding ones where's much nicer and this isn't even an issue), although in the end they always seem to go back to how great he was anyways (like how TNBA highlights how his controlling behavior led to Dick Grayson leaving him, but then you have the finale of Justice League where Amanda Waller spends the entire episode gassing him up as the greatest dude ever).
You could probably portray Luthor as a more sympathetic or complex villain, yes (Birthright at least gives more reason as to why he's so standoffish), but I think this would mostly depend on a regiment chance at DC with writers and staff who want to paint Lex a bit differently