Jesse Eisenberg As Lex Luthor: Why It Could Work

Published 1 year ago by

Lex Luthor Jesse Eisenberg Batman Superman Discussion Jesse Eisenberg As Lex Luthor: Why It Could Work

Well, comic book movies fans who feared that the business of blockbuster shared universes meant the loss of surprises or unexpected twists can rest east: the casting of Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor in Zack Snyder’s upcoming Batman vs. Superman proves that all bets are off.

Now that fans have had time to do what they always do when a casting announcement is made – react loudly, vehemently, and passionately, like any good fan would – we thought we’d weigh in on the issue. That begins with asking a simple question: Even if Eisenberg is younger, smaller, and hairier than the most famous depictions of Superman’s nemesis, could the casting work?

We’ve already made our arguments explaining why there may be far more than meets the eye with the casting of Ben Affleck as Batman and Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman, and feel that the tone of some naysayers dismissing Eisenberg entirely must be addressed. The proof is in the final film, but it’s hard to make the case that this casting already amounts to “disaster.”

This Isn’t The Same Old Lex

Lex Luthor Gene Hackman Jesse Eisenberg As Lex Luthor: Why It Could Work

The first issue that has to be addressed is the image that comes to mind when a casual comic book fan hears the name Lex Luthor. On film, there is little debate that Gene Hackman provided the most memorable turn as the villainous billionaire, due partly to the success of the overall film with critics and fans alike (although we’d also point out that Hackman refused to shave his head for the part, so criticizing Eisenberg’s non-bald scalp is somewhat misinformed).

For many, Hackman’s portrayal of the villain in Richard Donner’s Superman: The Movie (1978) was a perfect encapsulation of the Luthor they had known from the earlier comic books: a billionaire genius with an evil lust for more wealth, and a hatred for the goodness and social justice Superman stood for.

The problem with that characterization is that it is about as ‘comic book’ a villain as can be imagined. It may have worked with audiences at the time, but comic book movie storytelling has come a long way since then – and it has been comic book storytelling that has led the way.

Lex Luthor Superman Birthright Jesse Eisenberg As Lex Luthor: Why It Could Work

Comic book writers have given Lex Luthor a variety of motivations and relatable personality traits over the past few decades, all in an effort to make the figure not one of pure evil, but a man whose goals could be understood by actual human beings. Several writers have explored the idea, but few better (or more potentially relevant for Snyder’s upcoming sequel) than Mark Waid’s “Superman: Birthright.”

The 2004 graphic novel offered a new origin story for Superman, informed by modern sensibilities, and with significant changes meant to make Superman (and every other character in the story) a more realistic and recognizable one. It was “Birthright” which argued that Superman’s ‘S’ meant ‘hope’ in Kryptonian, that his role as Earth’s protector would come after years of journeying, and that people would be all-too-ready to fear an outsider, even a well-intentioned one.

Those who saw Snyder’s Man of Steel can attest to the fact that Snyder and screenwriter David S. Goyer followed Waid’s lead in many respects, so there’s serious reason to suspect that they would do the same in developing their idea of Lex Luthor, billionaire industrialist.

Kevin Costner as Jonathan Kent in Man of Steel Jesse Eisenberg As Lex Luthor: Why It Could Work

“Birthright” introduced a Luthor who was the child of an unhappy home. But Lex Luthor was nothing if not a true genius, in every sense of the word. The children around him loathed his ability to memorize a library’s entire contents, grasp theoretical physics and improve upon them, and the people of Smallville looked with suspicion at a boy devoid of the social skills that loving parents would have taught.

Lex Luthor was an outsider among his own people, embodying all of the intellectual aspirations of humanity’s brightest figures, but lacking the moral compass of a Kansas farm boy. The result was a best friend to Clark Kent that made sense: both were incapable of fitting in, both lacked a connection to society, and both were forced to find a way to give their lives meaning.

The difference was that Clark had the Kents; Lex had no one. So while Clark found meaning in family, and the sense of giving and charity they instilled, Lex chose to embrace the fear of lesser minds and drag humanity kicking and screaming into the future; he would be a modern Da Vinci – even if it was only history that would appreciate him.

Lex Luthor Superman Man of Steel Rumors Jesse Eisenberg As Lex Luthor: Why It Could Work

Besides making Lex Luthor something of a tragic figure for both readers and Superman himself, the twist on the one-note villain made him a better fit among history’s most influential, most well-regarded, but often most unkind and uncompromising leaders. And other writers took note.

In Brian Azzarello’s limited “Lex Luthor: Man of Steel” series, he took the next step: positioning Lex as Metropolis’ real hero, not Superman. In Luthor’s eyes, he was the pinnacle of human intellect, authority, and leadership while the alien from another world that had people bowing and cheering was mankind’s greatest enemy, not its hero.To Lex, the questions were clear: how would mankind ever progress if someone was there to help them?

If Superman could be relied upon to solve their greatest problems, how could they advance to the point of solving them for themselves? Superman was a demigod trying to ‘help’ humanity because it was weak, and while people would be sad to see him fall, it was better in the long run.

Lex Luthor Casting Discussion Jesse Eisenberg As Lex Luthor: Why It Could Work

Azzarello’s case was a hard one to disagree with, making the relationship between the two all the more fascinating, since both believed they were doing what was best for the world. Waid’s origin story for Lex made him a tragic figure who better reflected why Superman ended up as good a person as he did, and the mythology benefited as a result.

It was director Bryan Singer who chose not to take their lead when he made Superman Returns (2006), casting Kevin Spacey as the new villain, but keeping all elements of Hackman’s portrayal intact. Luthor was, once again, out for nothing more than money and power, and willing to kill billions of innocent people in the process. In other words, an uninteresting bad guy.

Even now, Singer admits that if he had the chance to do it all over again, he might choose to do a reboot as opposed to a spiritual sequel to an outdated story. Spacey’s performance may have been strong enough to rise above criticism, but there’s no question his simple evil makes him a better fit among Marvel’s murderous villains who valued money or power over all else – Red Skull, Malekith, Iron Monger, the Mandarin – than those Christopher Nolan and Zack Snyder seem to be after.

Lex Luthor Armor Suit Jesse Eisenberg As Lex Luthor: Why It Could Work

It’s foolish to assume that DC and Warner Bros. will suddenly decide to break the trend of villains – Rha’s al Ghul, the Joker, General Zod – who aren’t simply evil and present strong philosophical outlooks. Like it or not, they’re all committed – something Man of Steel proved. Having the classic, power-hungry, spiteful, megalomaniac billionaire Lex Luthor walk into this movie universe simply wouldn’t fit.

The bottom line is that fans looking to previous film appearances of Luthor are likely seeing versions of the character that Snyder and Goyer aren’t too interested in copying. And if they’re pointing to the source material that those versions of the character drew from, Snyder and Goyer have shown they’re not doing the same.

Will Jesse Eisenberg’s ‘Lex Luthor’ be bald? He doesn’t have to be, since Hackman’s wasn’t. Will he be getting into a giant suit of armor to pummel Supes into submission? Probably not, since fans already complained that the same type of fight in Man of Steel dragged on far too long. The only certainty is that Lex will be more believable a figure this time around, meaning he’ll need to be different from previous versions.


NEXT PAGE: Acting Ability…


« 1 2 3»

Follow Andrew Dyce on Twitter @andrew_dyce
Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. Great article, Andrew.

    • Much appreciated :)

  2. I knew it was coming.

  3. Heads up: “Next Page: Acting Ability” is pointing to the Ben Affleck Acting ability article.

  4. Superman is too strong to punch Jesse/Lex in the face, but Batman can do it for him! It would also be very cool to see Gal Gadot give him a wonder woman roundhouse kick. Yah! I have no problem with this casting, I’m more concerned with WB/DC putting Jesse/Lex in a kryptonite powered Rhino-esque marc webb battlesuit or jeff bridges/iron monger armor. eek.

    • I don’t think they will in this movie. Should be an intro to how intellectually capable and politically powerful he is. And probably him leading the way into further stories.

      • ^My hopes exactly.

  5. No offense, but this article wasn’t exactly convincing. You make alot of great points, but very few to support Eisenberg as being Lex. I like Eisenberg as an actor, but I just can’t see this working out well. He’s a very unathethletic dude, and unless he’s nothing more than a mastermind behind some henchmen, I don’t see how you can have Cavill & Affleck vs. Eisenberg without it looking like two bouncers beating up an 18 year old going to a club for the first time.

    • The article clearly states that THIS Lex may never throw a punch.

      Why would he? He can take all of Superman’s physical power and make it useless: if he even touches a hair on Lex, the public would turn against him.

      It then forces Superman to rely on Batman/Bruce Wayne’s tactical mind and business connections to thwart Luthor.

      Seems like the problem here is that you only imagine a three-way brawl as the battle we should see.

      • @ Kofi

        I can’t believe YOU didn’t write this ridiculous article Kofi.

        It doesn’t matter how many reasons you and this silly WB/DC backed website come up with, nobody in their right mind thinks this is a good choice for Lex. This movie is building so much negative attention and so much negative momentum that it’s laughable.

        Wait, let me guess, Zach Snyder, David Goyer, and of course Kofi “DC” Outlaw and Screen Rant are the smartest guys in the room and everybody else “just doesn’t get it”?

        Am I close?

        Thought so.

        It’s guys like you, articles like this and sites like this that are making WB/DC the laughingstock of the internet. Nice Job! Of course WB/DC aren’t doing themselves any favors by constantly shooting themselves in the foot with theses foolish choices and you guys just keep propping them up with your foolish logic. A match made in Heaven.

        I can’t wait to read the article you’ll have to write when this movie goes up in flames and takes the entire DCCU with it.

        Whose coattails are you ride on then Kofi?


        Since we all know you already have your 5 star review written for this pile of garbage, you might want to start working on the “The five things that went wrong with Batman vs. Superman and why it didn’t work” article.

        • They don’t choose sides between Marvel and DC. They’re just enthusiastic about DC building their film universe. Marvel is already there.

          Go read somewhere else and if you don’t like it. This article made perfect sense.

          Go keep typing in your mom’s basement while these guys are actually doing their job.

          Thanks Kofi, Dyce, and rest of SR for these articles.

        • I honestly can’t take trolls like you on this site. When anybody says they like what DC is doing people try so hard to convince them they aren’t in the comments yet when they write an article with solid opinions/facts people get angry… why is that?

          • Wanna hear something curious, Josh?

            Once, I copy/pasted a generated “Chuck” post from one Kofi’s DC articles to one of Rob’s Marvel articles… and just switched “WB/DC” to “Marvel/Disney” and “Kofi Outlaw” to “Rob Keyes” and kept all the other words EXACTLY the same.

            For fun, I posted it under “Reverse Chuck”

            Y’know what happened? The comment was immediately deleted.

            Take from that what you will.

            • I am taking that comment into consideration, I don’t know how sincere there articles are but even then they reinforce my pre-existing feelings about the film. I think the’ve casted the right people to fit THEIR vision of these characters. I am trying to just wait until the movie comes out to be negative because if it sucks I will be saying how terrible it was right with the other trolls, I loved Man of Steel it was my favorite CBM since The Dark Knight and after MOS comes Thor so no, I am not a fanboy.

              P.S. Thanks for the comment I take back my comment calling the other guy a troll until I can do some investigating of my own.

              • @Chuck

                I love my haters – you guys let me know I’m doing well in life.

                You also do me the favor of bringing out level-headed and supportive readers.

                So thanks Chuck – and keep up the good work!


        • Wow. This is just…painful.

      • +1. Well said.

        • (My previous comment was meant to Kofi.)

      • If I had to refer to a DC quote, especially in the movieverse, I would refer to Joker’s taunts in TDK:

        “You have nothing, nothing to threaten me with! Nothing to do with all your strength!”

        Also, consider the dynamics that Superman-Batman, Wayne-Luthor and Superman-Luthor represent. Between abilities of pure strength, the intellectual that both Wayne and Luthor have that can be used for technology or politics, and the politics that come with both Batman and Luthor , there is a lot going on there. same reason that we can’t punch someone in broad daylight, because we would get persecuted or arrested. Superman can’t be arrested, but he sure can persecuted, and the main thing that he wants, needs, is acceptance. So for someone like Luthor who is a master of public perception, he does not need to throw a single punch to be a threat. I refer to the above quote once again.

    • I think you’re missing the point completely and I have zero idea why him being “a very unathletic dude” has any bearing on his casting as Lex Luthor… Lex himself isn’t a physical equal to Superman anyway, but it’s his intellect that makes him Superman’s greatest foe.

      Besides, would anyone classify Hackman or Spacey as “athletic dudes?” Come on now, that’s the least important attribute for the character.

    • “I don’t see how you can have Cavill & Affleck vs. Eisenberg without it looking like two bouncers beating up an 18 year old going to a club for the first time.”

      Very well said. Eisenberg is the completely wrong choice. I’ll NEVER accept him as Lex. Full stop.

      Of course Hackman’s / Spacey’s Lex was a one-dimensional, clichéd and sometimes even ridiculous baddie in old-school DC tradition whereas the new movies protray villains much more balanced and realistic. All of this is true and that’s the way it’s supposed to be. However, Eisenberg is the wrong guy to portay him in ANY fashion, be it old-school or modern approach. He’s basically a second Michael Cera in build, age and acting abilities. He would have been an excellent Jimmy Olsen or Robin.

      I don’t mind Lex being different from previous incarnations as long as he’s not played by Eisenberg, Cera or Jonah Hill. Of course the age is an issue but it doesn’t stop there…

      Apart from that, I really stopped believing in DC movies altogether. They’re doing too little far too late. They have already wasted an entire decade staling and making wrong decisions. The only really great part of DC’s legacy was TDK trilogy and that one is obviously going to be ignored and destroyed by Batfleck’s take on Bats. The rest – Green Lantern and that superfluous attempt at continuing the old Supes legacy while rebooting Batman at the same time – didn’t live up to anyone’s expectation but a few die-hards while Marvel, Sony and Fox were releasing 3-4 movies a year!

      That advantage can never ever be equalized by Warner/DC. And with Batfleck and Lexbook Guy in SvB I even want them to fail. I used to be an all-out DC-fan and that’s what makes it so emotional for me. I’d rather betray DC altogether and defect to Marvel than applaud this cannibalized version of DC mythology. My DC or no DC! And since I had no previous emotional affection to Marvel and can enjoy that ride without any bitterness and fury. DC is done for me!

      • I don’t usually believe in the marvel vs dc comic book war but on the film front, marvel is kicking dc’s asses. Marvel’s in house productions usually tend to at least be good (Iron Man 2,Iron Man 3) to terrific (Iron Man 1, Avengers.) DC Comics, outside of batman, tends to disappoint most of the time like MOS.

        Doesn’t mean marvel wins against dc at every front (DC makes more memorable animated shows and animated films) but at the live action front, Marvel’s winning.

        • Marvel is not winning. Marvel is helping pave the way for ALL studios. The Comic book movie revolution began with X-men, took quality leaps forward with The Dark Night and hit the peak of entertainment with the Avengers. Three different studios. WB/DC fans keep saying there will be greatness. They are right, there will be. More importantly, there already is. Stop this foolish my comic books are better then yours. You need to appreciate the competitors. Without competition there is monopoly, and that leads to same old same old. We cannot have one without the other.

          • You didn’t read my comment closely. I said that marvel’s winning ON THE LIVE ACTION FILM FRONT!!! I also said marvel’s IN HOUSE PRODUCTION (though most of the x men films and the first 2 spiderman movies were also great).

            I also said dc’s winning on the animation front.

            • Chris;
              My apologies if you took my comment the wrong way. My point was almost mirroring your point. I just want to say let the DC vs. Marvel bias end. I hope for great movise from all four comic book studios and both comic book companies. I get the feeling you do also. You just point out who does a better job in a certain medium.

              • Like I said, I really don’t believe in the marvel vs dc comics but I was just pointing out that marvel has a better grip in film than dc does, though they have a better grip in animation. I certainly don’t intend to be biased and I do hope great things from both of the studios. At the same time, marvel was also involved in some duds like ghost rider, Fantastic 4, Wolverine Origins, and elektra. Please forgive me if I rubbed you off the wrong way.

            • dont be offended by these DC snobs, LOL. these are the same snobs who in 2012 year thought darknight rises was going to bust avengers opening record (which 20 months has passed and no one has gotten close to breaking it) i still have my criticisms of marvel but they are squarely rolling over everyone else live action wise. dc’s animation is awesome. i was convinced by MOS that the dc universe was in great shape with cavill in being lead until they casted
              a goofy affleck as batman then a boney gadot as wonderwoman (i hope she beefs
              up) and now have casted mark zuckberg as lex luthor, LOL.

      • Wanting a movie to fail because you disagree with it’s direction doesn’t really help anything. If the movie does well then it pushes Marvel, Fox, and Sony to do better even if it is just a small amount. If the movie fails then the competition seems to relax and companies don’t feel the need to push the envelope.

        • +1000000000

        • @ Nick: Very well said.

    • Who thought McLuven could be REDMIST or the MUTHAF*****? He is the greatest VILLAIN in my book. Just kidding. For anyone that have seen K-A-2, there was a scene McLuven was speaking with his uncle in prison, McLuven looked pretty convincing as a disturbed, troubled, pyschotic, one bread short of a picnic basket villain for that brief moment. The overall movie was an ok, funny with some serious moments, but it shows that even a NOT so great actor like McLuven, can turn the switch on and off. The point I am trying to make is, that scene, McLuven actually looked crazy. I have no doubt Jesse will be a good LEX. He get’s under my skin when I watch him in most of his movies, so I have no doubt he’ll be that LEX to make it really uncomfortable for Superman and a “piss us all off” villain.

  6. And I was wondering, why haven’t the people at screen rant written an article to justify the choice for this guy in the role?

    It took you so long to find reasons. More than trying to balance the opinions you are trying to convince us. I still say thank you but no thank you.

        • HINT: Cause it’s there in the title of the article. The author is explaining his reasons behind why Jesse Eisenberg could work as Lex Luthor.

          • You missed the point of the comment…
            I wasn’t taking about only this article… Screenrant has had these type of articles about every MOS 2 casting…

            That’s the point…

            • @Anim

              You’re suggesting we do this because we feel the need to defend the film out of some deep-seeded insecurity about these casting choices.

              Allow me to correct you: We write these particular articles in order to balance out knee-jerk angry reactions that we often feel are based on superficial criteria (like Lex Luthor’s physicality).

              You won’t find one for Jeremy Irons because people saw that and said “Yeah, that could work,” on their own. They didn’t say, “OMG – NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! He’s too TALL for Alfred!” So WE don’t need to write an article trying to provide some observations and reassurances to panicked fans.

              This whole “Screen Rant is DC apologists trying to justify their crappy movie,” rhetoric is getting old.

              Nice try on the logic, though.

                • @ Anim


                • @Anim: Nobody is overlooking the fact that this casting came as a surprise, since Eisenberg will be the youngest an most non-stereotypical actor yet cast in a role.

                  The whole reasoning behind these kinds of articles is that the burden of playing one of DC’s most iconic characters is weighed down by the actors who have played the role already – Ben Affleck was following in the footsteps of half a dozen actors of various success, as is Eisenberg, and Wonder Woman’s casting had far more to do with the need for her on film, and how she should be characterized.

                  There’s no real reason to determine “Why Paul Rudd could play Ant-Man,” or “Why Chris Pratt can play Star-Lord” since there’s nothing to compare them to. For starters, they’ll be blazing the trail, and secondly, those heroes are far more niche than the ones DC is casting.

                  If someone wants to attack credibility, then they’re free to attack mine, but I fail to see how someone can attack SR (or Kofi….?). I would also point out that the title of these articles is why these casting choices “could” work, not why they will. That positions the article clearly as a counterbalance to the negativity that seems to follow any casting that’s even mildly surprising.

                  But if Spider-Man gets cast for a third time, Iron Man for a second, or Cyclops for a new wave of X-Men, there’s no reason to think that we wouldn’t examine the announcement in the same way.

              • @ Kofi

                Agree with the point that SR does try to balance the scales. However, I don’t think it’s fair to say all of the angry reactions are unjustified. Anyone who gets mad about the “physicality” of a casting is just going full-rage-nerd, and are disregarding the fact that movies can change physical appearance quite easily. But it is Eisenberg’s character play that I think is getting the logical fans upset with this choice – the approach of a “tech genius of the new age” Zuckerberg type business person is fine, but that is not Lex Luthor. Eisenberg plays a weasel, almost nauseating genius,that is always sarcastic and like a scared animal. That really goes against the core ethos of Lex Luthor. I’m fine with these movies going with a vision, but don’t change the character’s core characteristics. Not saying Eisenberg can’t do it, but it will take some serious acting for him to be the ultra proud, never afraid, charismatic type that defines the character. May happen, who knows.

              • By trying to balance those angry reactions, you also run a risk: losing your credibility in the process. If you constantly write supportive articles for one movie, but never write a critic against it or show hesitation, you make people feel you are totally biased and not balanced on your approach. Just saying.

                While people on the comments can be as biased as they want to, SR should remain above that and be less reactive imo. SR is not meant to be the blog of just one guy but something bigger more neutral.

                Eisenberg was never in the rumours articles that have been published on the website, or the top preferences for that matter, and all of a sudden the choice is brilliant and he is the best man for the job? That is just not credible and feels a bit forced. I think the normal reaction here is we shall see, rather than it is going to be great. I think this casting choice calls for caution rather than excitement.

                • People have a really bad habit of para-phrasing what others say but actually changing the meaning of the statement entirely.

                  Kofi was NOT saying that Eisenberg is the best casting ever. What he has done is, look at the reactions of the “Internet Community” over the past 3 days and seen that the majority of them are very negative and have no solid reasoning behind them to indicate that the hate is because of anything other than JE’s look.

                  Then, he has posted an article to basically say, “Look guys, you might hate this but here is the other side”.

                  That is not a statement saying “GO JESSE EISENBERG!” or “HE IS THE BEST CASTING CHOICE EVER”. All it says is, try to look at things from both sides.

                  Coming from someone who has experience/training in the field. Never judge an actor based on one performance, a look, or someone he is supposedly in the same group as or a stereotype he supposedly fits.

                  Screenrant will show whether they liked or didn’t like the film when they write the review after it has been released. Everything before is pure speculation.

                  • You say Kofi has looked at the reactions of the “Internet Community” and I say SR has to be less reactive and less the protectors of anything, no matter which side. Let people say whatever they want and let SR provide quality articles covering ALL perpectives and not just one direction.

                    Besides, claiming that the majority of the negative reactions have no solid reasons is just arrogance. There are good reasons to disagree with this casting choice. You can’t just label all the people that disagree as “knee-jerk angry reactions”.

                    As I have said before, an article supporting that this might work is as easy to write as an article stating why this might not work. Both can be done intelligently and within reason. The difference is that you won’t see the latter on SR. No negative news on this movie has come out of SR and that smells funny, don’t you think? Is it even possible to always agree with someone on everything?

                    • For starters, I’m not sure why I need to keep reminding people that I, not Kofi wrote this editorial.

                      At no point did I state that the choice was brilliant, a no-brainer, or the best possible choice. We’re simply trying to add a level-headed voice to the discussion.

                      And anyone who thinks that the reactions to this casting in fan communities hasn’t been reduced to name-calling, belittling or dismissive isn’t really being honest.

                    • @ Andrew

                      And I am trying to have a level-headed discussion on why Eisenberg could be wrong and that seems impossible because the moment you don’t have faith in this casting choice you are called an angry fan and you are put aside.

                    • @Dyce

                      Stop trying to take my bullets, man! They’re here to kill ME!


            • I guess I still don’t get it.

              It sounds like you don’t like most – or all -of the casting thus far and you’re annoyed that someone is defending the casting. An article about Irons as Alfred hasn’t been written because there is no controversy surrounding it – most people are fine with it or simply don’t care.

              With Eisenberg, Affleck, and Gadot, people have gone into an uproar saying how they’re horrible choices because they’re not the conventional choices they would have picked. The point I’m making is that people hate the casting, while others can see the reasons why these people could have potentially earned their roles and are defending why these actors could work.

                • The probability of success does decrease.

                  but if success is achieved, it becomes all that more impressive.

                  Film-making is about risk-taking. Boring films follow a expected and predictable line.

                  Exciting films push the bounderies and take risks. It is what makes cinema.

                • Actually i’m for Ben Affleck as Batman and Jesse Eisenburg as Lex Luthor but gal Gadot as Wonder Woman i thought it was a ridiculous casting decision i was beside myself. She’s was an underwear model acting is not her pedigree, she had a few lines in fast and furious movies and she showed me she couldn’t act at all! I’ve not seen any potential in gadot at all and i think she’ll bomb! affleck and eisenburg are at least real legit actors and were both oscar buzz worthy.

                  • I feel the same exact way. Affleck, I can go with, Eisenberg, I can go with, but I can’t get behind Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman. Nothing she has done has convinced me that she can pull it off. However, I do hope that she pulls it off because I am excited to see the character in a live-action movie.

            • They do it to give people the other perspective, just because fans say something is bad doesn’t mean it is. Don’t be so confident when making statements like that, fans don’t matter we don’t make up a majority they just want their positive voices heard so people will stop doing everything in their power to make this movie seem bad.

              • +10000000000000

              • “…just because fans say something is bad doesn’t mean it is.”

                By that token, just because some website claims that Jesse Eisenberg may make a great Luthor – doesn’t mean that it’s true either …

  7. Let’s make one thing perfectly clear-

    Batman vs Superman, or MoS 2, or whatever they call it, is a movie that has roster of Oscar nominated and winning talent who are accompanied by a story that is in the hands of an Oscar winning writer and is being presented by a director who has a proven record for fantastic visual spectacle.

    To claim that “it is all a joke and this movie will bomb” before seeing one single frame is nothing short of intellectually disingenuous.

    Before someone retorts “that it’s just as disingenuous to claim that it will be good”
    … no it isn’t.

    There is a much stronger, much smarter argument that insists otherwise.


    Whatever, troll away trolls.

    • like…. If anyone wants to slag off any movie they should look at the Need for Speed or Transformers 4 trailers….. This film has the ingredients to be very good, No You See Me was a good movie IMO and Eisenberg was brash, confident and portrayed himself as ‘intellectually superior’ all though…. His Lex could be up there with Ledger as Joker….

    • @ Dr. Truthbender

      “There is a much stronger, much smarter argument that insists otherwise.”

      Says you, the DC fan boy.

      Pull your head out of WB/DC’s butt for a minute and look at this mess objectively & then re-read your statement. If you still agree with your statement, stop drinking alcohol & seek help.

      Wake up Dr. Conspiracy, a team of “all stars” does not guarantee a wining team or a championship. If you want a smart argument, chew on that.


      Let’s make one thing perfectly clear –

      If it were MARVEL making these horrible choices, you would all over them with criticism & you know it. In fact, so does everybody else know it. But because it’s your beloved DC making these awful choices, “we just don’t get what their trying to do.”

      You’re making yourself look silly by defending them. Yes, even you.

      • This is exactly what I’m talking about when I say Marvelites make me embarrassed to call myself a Marvel fan.

        To have any association what-so-ever to this type of pure, unadulterated ignorance is not a good feeling.

        • @ Dr. DC SPIN

          Trying to take the high road Dr? Too late for that. That option was closed to you when you started with your anti-MARVEL- pro DC conspiracies.

          You are no MARVEL fan.
          You are a fan of DC, but most of all a fan of yourself, that much is clear & speaks volumes about your opinions.

          You’re not objective, & for whatever reason, you can’t be. Anything that needs this much defending & explaining isn’t the right choice. Period.

          btw Dr. Spin……I am a CBM fan & can be objective for both sides. You should try that, if you can. If you can’t, you should do us ALL a favor just go away. Take your buddy Kofi with you.

          • Nailed him to the wall, lol.

          • Since Heath Ledger, RDJ, Michael Keaton, and Jennifer Lawrence needed a lot of defending did that make them the wrong choices?

          • “That option was closed to you when you started with your anti-MARVEL- pro DC conspiracies.”

            Name EXACTLY what you are talking about and tell me one is anti this and pro that.

            Go ahead. I dare you.

            • @ Dr. Mindbender: I sympathize with you immensely, Dr.

              • *sighs*

            • Okay, why don’t you tell us AGAIN why MoS was crippled from the start and had to fight the elements and the evil Disney machine? Familiar?

              Come on, Doc, we all know you are from the DC pretorian guard with the likes of DragonArcher23, Dazz, Archaeon, etc

              What I have learnt on this site is that DC fans are much more hardcore than Marvel fans. It is almost impossible to find a Marvel fan that will defend all the Marvel properties (people sh*t on Fox or Sony or the Mandarin twist) or that it won’t admit they loved the Dark Night, but you can easily find DC fans defending EVERYTHING with nails and teeth.

              You throw around the Marvelites word like if it means something, but you are the one that needs to balance your opinions. We got your plate pal.

        • “This is exactly what I’m talking about when I say Marvelites make me embarrassed to call myself a Marvel fan.”

          Why do you keep throwing this line out like it should make Marvel fans cry for loosing a fellow fan?

          If you don’t want to consider yourself a Marvel fan, then stop doing so in the privacy of your personal choice and not on a much divided and controversial website for other people to see.

          All you are trying to do is manipulate people’s mind so they will think you’re still a “neutral” commentator when most of us now know, you are not.

          Im not trying to pick on you, and I’m not trying to create more commotion, but it definitely pisses me off when people try to manipulate others and think they’re so sly about it.

          • +1

    • Well woven, as always.

      And Kudos 2 U Dr. M, for all the sanity U succeed in clearing into these “jungled” threads!

      Thx! 😉

      PS: Don’t feed the trolls, but do pet them on occasion when they look too tired to bite.

    • Defended?? From who exactly? People who have not even seen a trailer for this movie…..

      • So…an article titled “Why it could work” is not defending the casting?

        • It’s not defending. It’s just stating a possibility. If it was “Why it Will Work”, then you could accuse it of defending.

          • @Nick: That’s kind of how I see this too. Any surprising casting news comes with a fair bit of analysis, but Zack Snyder has proven he’s breaking with fan and audience expectations, and shocking fans. As some of those fans, we enjoy discussing why change isn’t necessarily a bad thing, surprises can be good things, and why fans getting exactly what they think they want isn’t always a recipe for success.

          • Of course its defending nick..
            Like you said…its stating a possibility. ONE possibility. And giving arguments in favor of THAT ONE possibility.

            Which makes it defensive.

            I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that.

            I’m saying lets acknowledge that.

    • Nobody nodded along in agreement when-

      Robert Downey Jr was cast as Iron Man.

      Or when Chris Evans was cast as Captain America.

      Or when Chris Hemsworth was cast as Thor.

      Or when Mark Ruffalo took Edward Norton’s place.

      Let’s say, for a minute… That Batman vs Superman features-

      Karl Urban as Batman. Brian Cranston as Lex Luthor, and Jamie Alexander as Wonder Woman.

      Predictable cast choices, which would lead to a predictable rehash of what we are familiar with…


      The “obvious” choices are exactly what you aren’t going to get, because “obvious” is predictable. Obvious doesn’t take any risks. Obvious is a snore fest.

        • Oh cry me a river…then build a bridge and get over it. Don’t go see the movie then. Good lord. You have absolutely no clue as to how the character(s) are being interpreted and portrayed, haven’t seen a SINGLE FRAME yet you (and others of your ilk) are so convinced they are the wrong choice smh lol. Maybe you all should become casting directors. Oh wait, YOU’RE NOT FOR A REASON.

          Furthermore, do we need to go back and examine Snyder’s track record when it comes to casting? Whatever your opinion is of his flims his track record when it comes to casting is DAMN GOOD. So I’ll certainly put more faith in HIS opinion about characters that HE is interpreting in a film that HE is directing before the opionions of some angry internet warriors who’ve never casted a film in their lives. Enough faith to actually WAIT until I SEE something to judge it. What a novel idea.

            • And you’re basing Eisenberg not being ideal on what exactly? This is my point. You have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE as to how the character is being interpreted or portrayed. NONE, zero, zilch, NADA. The people working on the the film however do. So how can you say with ANY credibility that he is not ideal? Unless you have some insider information the rest of us aren’t privy to? I’m not assuming it’s gonna work out. I’m assuming NOTHING because I know NOTHING. I will wait and see what they’re actually up to judge something of which I have no knowledge of at this point in time. If anything, this casting has my interest level piqued and intrigue. Makes me want to know more about what they’re up to.

              Furthermore, there is a difference between saying “I don’t know, I have my doubts about this. I’ll have to wait and see to be convinced” and “Terrible choice blah blah blah” or “WB/DC/Snyder have no clue what they’re doing” etc etc. Those opinions (which were voiced loud and clear over the last few days, just as was the case with Ben and Gal; if you pay any attention to social media this was CLEAR and EVIDENT) are what this SR article is in DIRECT RESPONSE to. An article with the opposing viewpoint is not necessary because that viewpoint already pervades.

              Snyder casting track record is something we will just have to agree to disagree on.

                • It’s not ideal to YOU. I’m pretty sure WB/Snyder & company are pretty secure and confident with the decisions they’ve made since, you know, they’re actually privy to THEIR vision and know exactly what THEY are looking for to best bring THEIR aforementioned vision to fruition. And at the end of the day they know EVERY SINGLE PERSON prematurely pooing pooing every single decision they make will still have their ass in a seat May of 2016.

                  You keep pointing back to THIS site as if THIS site is the be all end all of opinions. The article wasn’t in response to just the opinions and the poll on this site. Again, if you paid attention to any social media mediums over the last few days the reaction to the news was practically mirror images of the Ben and Gal crapfests that ensued after their announcements. It is a response to the pervading opinion. The article is presenting the opposite perspective IN LIGHT of those reactions (which are based purely on people’s personal visions of what they think something SHOULD or HAS to be and not what that vision actually IS since NOBODY outside of the creators even knows what that IS at the moment). I don’t view this article or the others as being written out of a need or personal desire to defend. Rather simply adding to the already ongoing discussion.

        • Did you even read my comment..? I never said there was nobody disagreeing with these casting. I said the level of disappointment with these castings was no where near levels that require sites to publish articles defending them.
          Which is true.

          • I know the reply trail can be somewhat confusing but I was commenting on the Good Dr’s comment just like you did. We are on the same page :)

            • Sry….I get that now..

              Hoping for a delete button right now…


        • About time somebody called me on my use of the word “nobody.”

          “Not everyone” is what I should have put, which is accurate.

          Describes this situation perfectly also.

          • I admit a pet peeve of mine is people’s frivolous use of absolutes like, “nobody”, “everyone”, “always”, “never”, etc. I use them but very judiciously. 😉

  8. Is Lex Luthor 10-15 years younger than Bruce Wayne in the (crossover) comics? Because if Affleck is supposed to be an older Batman and Eisenberg is Lex Luthor? Or are they just going to make Eisenberg look older with some wrinkles + light facial hair (+ bald)?

    • I think the comics are rather inspiration rather than a blueprint….

      • I genuinely, genuinely hope more creators and fans can come around to agreeing with that.

  9. I think I finally got it! DC is gonna copy IM3 “beloved” twist and Eisenberg is playing Lex the Mandarin LOL

    Now seriously, I am trying, I really am, but I just can’t see him as the millionaire pal of Bruce Wayne… I can’t see him next to Ben Affleck and make sense of that picture… Lex and Bruce can’t be that different, they are in theory going to be together against the “alien” at some point in the story…

    Sure Eisenberg can play genius but I struggle to see him playing presidential and I think that’s what you need for this role. Lex, as much as Bruce Wayne, is not just the smartest guy in the room, he can also be the most charming and most likeable. Do you guys remember the likeability factor comment from the junior lawyer to Eisenberg in The Social Network movie? Well, it was spot on, this guy is just not likeable.

    Lex has Metropolis eating out of his hands. Lex has a confidence and a presence that I can’t see in Eisenberg. Eisenberg can pull being mean, arrogant and all that, but he is not a popular charmer at all. In fact, Eisenberg is quite the opposite. With all his fast talking and that face, he is a guy that makes you violent and wanting to slap him almost instantly. I get that irritating factor can be well played in the script (Kofi already alluded to this), but Lex should be somehow easy to like, no?

    For me Lex should be more like a Gordon Gekko, loads of charisma, fooling everybody but a mofo in the end.

    PS – Why all the SR articles are about “why it makes sense” when it comes to this movie? What about why it doesn’t make sense? Do you always have to support this movie? Is there no room for respectfully disagreeing with at least one thing? Waiting to see when that happens…

    • *SLOW CLAP…. Thank you sir for taking the words right out of my mouth. These dc fanboys will take anything and say its good. Gal gadot really? Shes 20 pounds soaking wet and thats wonder woman? Jesse Essinberg as Lex is terrible. Hes not a bad actor, hes just not lex luthor. Lex luthor is PRESIDENTIAL. His charisma is palable, hes is someone who has everything. Hes the wolf of wall street, gordon gekko. Hes all of that and he still cant match up to an alien who was born with god like powers and he hates him because of that. Hes not mark zuckerberg who is a smart mouth nerd. PRESIDENTIAL.

      • @ Truth teller


  10. In today’s day and age I can see a modern Lex Luthor as a Mark Zuckerberg type of character – young, influential and in touch with today’s technology. I read an article, I think Huffington Post, that we’re seeing more and more socially awkward, high school students starting or planning businesses using the virtual world to their advantage, many of them inspired by Zuckerberg.
    Being that Eisenberg did a solid job as he creator of FB in Social Network, I can see him as Luthor in that sense

    • Amen to that. I think he would be a hilarious Lex Luther. I just hope they don’t make him an emo Lex that has daddy issues that has been done to death in smallville.

  11. A Lex Luther origin film as it sounds like to me is no bad thing at all.. It means the character can be built up a bit and developed prior to the inevitable demise in Justice League ??? ??? Its all guesswork at the moment to how it will play out in the film but I’m willing to remain open minded.

  12. If there have to be stories to say “Why something COULD work…” then it’s already in the back of peoples’ minds that it’s just a bad decision. There’s really no way to say this was a good move. There are people who are fit for a role and there are people who simply aren’t.

    Trying to feed us dog food and then try to convince us is similar to steak does not make it steak.

    • So because someone comes up with reasons why something could work, that automatically means it must have been a bad idea? Not everybody believes Eisenberg is a horrible choice just because he doesn’t meet the requirements of a Lex Luthor that has already been done to death several times on film before. Based on casting, it seems as though the Gene Hackman Luthor is being avoided.

    • Or they are responding to guys who go around calling things they’ve never seen “dog food.”

      Maybe we don’t won’t your opinion to be the only one out there. Ever think of that @Nautius?

        • Exactly.


        • This article never said this movie was for sure going to be great.

          “It’s still too early to tell whether Esienberg’s casting will be a stroke of genius, and a new approach to an antagonist who’s never really made an audience question Superman’s moral compass, or if his previous roles are his most successful for a reason. But as our argument shows, anyone who believes that this Oscar-nominated actor’s casting is somehow a sign of trouble may want to re-examine the facts on which they’re basing their fears.”

          That’s what they said.

          • Those who have already deem it bad casting (without seeing a single frame or any knowledge of the character interpretation no less) only see what they want to see. At no point did the article deem it a great choice or that it WOULD work. It simply laid out LEGITIMATE reasons it COULD work. But you can’t tell them that. They know everything. Even the future.

          • Yes, but it doesn’t say “It’s still too early to tell whether Esienberg’s casting will be a turd”. It says stroke of genius. Basically it clearly wants to create a line of thinking, and sure, it backs it up, but an article in the opposite direction could also be easily written and that never happens… at some point people wonder why…

            • I hereby coin a new phrase.

              Pessimism loves company.

              • Pessimism? How about objectivity?

                Do you see this optimism with all projects?

                • Says the person commenting on an article written way more objectively than their own comments. You do realize being negative is not the only way to remain objective right? It doesn’t have to be one extreme or the other.

                  Look at the subject of this article. It’s why this casting could work, not why it couldn’t. Why in the world would they end it with “It’s still too early to tell whether Esienberg’s casting will be a turd”. That would completely mismatch the tone of the writing and wouldn’t make any sense at all. Why does their sentence make sense? Because it’s true! This casting could be a stroke of genius! But it might be a disaster as well. Time will only tell. You are being WAY too picky with the wording here.

                  Not sure what you’re trying to say with the second part of your comment. If you are implying that SR only shows this much optimism for this movie, please by all means tell me when they have been absolutely pessimistic about a project.

                  • Objectivity? What’s objectivity? THIS IS THE INTERNETZ! We know everything even before we know everything!

                  • You have completely missed my point and have not seen my other comments. And by the way, when was I not objective? Please show me and quote me.

                    I am not mixing objectivity with being negative at all. I am actually wondering why they always go for the “why it could work” angle and never for the “why it couldn’t work”. Doing BOTH would be the real objective approach, not just one. As I said the pool results were tight.

                    They have already done it three times for this movie.

                    • No point in me telling you why they are writing these articles when you are having the very same discussion with JB right below this comment. Why would they write about what couldn’t work when the “general consensus” shows the majority of fanboys thinking it will crash and burn. Rehashing what “everyone else” on the internet is saying is boring. I think this article is very objective and not reactionary in the least. If they had posted it on Friday, sure I would agree with you. But they waited three days. They took a step back and looked at the possibilities.

                      My initial reaction was rather negative. But you know what? My initial impression doesn’t have to be my final one. I did the same thing I did when I heard about Ben Affleck. I went back and watched Eisenburg’s movies, thinking about how he can use his abilities in the role of Luther. And you know what? The more I watched the more optimistic I became. If that makes me subjective, so be it.

                      oops, I guess I did tell you after all 😛

                    • That falls apart when u consider screen rant’s own pole

                      Which was…54 negative to 46 positive..
                      That’s not a general consensus

                      This is why this article is strictly defending a choice.

                  • @ Huntress: I’m glad you took what I had intended from that. I had thought saying there was a chance that “Eisenberg’s past roles were successful for a reason” was a kind way of saying he should stick to what he’s been good at, but apparently I should have added a healthy dose of snark and cynicism to seem “balanced.”

                  • Huntress: “If you are implying that SR only shows this much optimism for this movie, please by all means tell me when they have been absolutely pessimistic about a project.”

                    Have you been following on SR the coverage of the series Agents of Shield? Do you think they have been very optimistic or supportive? Please read the chapter reviews before you answer.

                    Once that is said, I do agree with them that AoS is a turd, and there is nothing wrong with calling a turd a turd when you see one… even if it comes from DC.

            • Because the vocal internet majority has already made that case. SEVERAL times over. The entire point of THIS article was to present the opposite side of the argument. This is not rocket science.

              • The vocal internet majority has already made that case SEVERAL times over???

                The pool results are 54%-46%, which is pretty tight and a quite nicely split decision. There is no need to feel so intimidated and in need of rescuing. Remember that only 10% of the people reading the article and voting actually post comments. There are pretty much as many people liking as disliking so no reason for alarm.

                The thing is that in this cases the coin always falls on the same side, again and again. In doubt defend DC. I just want objective and not reactionary protectors.

                  • I have no issues with being positive and I certainly have no issues with this movie being a success. As you said I am gonna go to the cinema no matter what, so I obviously prefer my money being worthwhile, plus of course if this movie does great it will open the door to more movies which I like big time. I am a big comic book fan and carry no flag. I’ll see them all and cherish them all.

                    Once that’s said and it is clear, my comment was aimed to the permanent need of balancing that SR have towards this movie. They feel it is their responsibility and duty to “modulate” the opinions of people and I honestly don’t think it is their place to do that. I don’t remember an article from SR explaining why the Mandarin twist in IM3 could have been seen as a really good thing (not that I agree, but just as an example). The back slash for that was also very high and then they took a back seat. The most polite thing they said to define it was “polarizing”. So now, are not these casting choices polarizing? No, they all could work and they all could be great. That’s what I mean. And I know we having seen any footage yet, and we have seen IM3 and can have an opinion on that, but my point here is their different approaches to “angry fans” responses.

                    JB, I don’t know how long you have been reading here but there are many precedents of what I say. I am gonna show you an example written on SR:

                    “In May, Marvel Studios’ Iron Man 3 overcame a lukewarm fan reception (read our Iron Man 3 review) to gross over $1 billion worldwide, proving that the Marvel Cinematic Universe remains one of the elite blockbuster franchises. Then, Warner Bros. and DC released the Superman reboot Man of Steel and brought the Last Son of Krypton back triumphantly (read our Man of Steel review) as that film has grossed $282 million domestically and $620 million worldwide (at the time of this writing).”

                    So basically in the first sentence he is implying that despite the lukewarm reception the movie “inexplicably” beat all box office estimates. While in the second sentence the mixed reception is not even mentioned and the box office numbers clearly establish a cause and effect – it was a triumph as the numbers said so.

                    That is poor objectivity imo… The reality is that MoS created as much, if not more, controversy than IM3 and the reviews were not at all unanimous. Both were flawed, so it is unfair to highlight IM3 and lukewarm in the first sentence and MoS and triumph in the second one. If triumph is defined by box office numbers, IM3 is also a triumph, and if we talk about reception, MoS also had its critics. That is the objective approach. At the time I said that obviously Chris Agar liked MoS better than IM3 and his subconscious betrayed him when writing that. He actually admitted it. After that you saw the article from Kofi on why MoS was the best movie of 2013 and after that all the articles defending casting choices for this particular movie. Basically DC is very dear to SR and very close to their hearts. It is just a fact and it transpires in their articles, which is fine but let’s please not deny it.

                    DC is also very dear to my heart and I am not having a teenager angry reaction. I have calmly explained in another comment why I personally don’t see this guy being Lex Luthor (PRESIDENTIAL) and I also would have liked to see SR giving some thought to that rather than being reactive to people screaming and calling names. After all those people are not gonna slow down with this article. It is actually like throwing gasoline to a fire…

        • It’s already in people’s heads that this can’t work, as evidenced by the reactions of people online. So why would someone write an article that would just regurgitate the arguements that are already being thrown out at an alarming rate? This article was seemingly written to give another opinion that differs from the one that is prevalent in many movie threads.

      • Not trying to be pessimistic or say that a single point is the only valid one. I am saying that if you have to sell an idea (casting JE as LL for instance) with the premise of.. “Why this could work…” seems like a half hearted attempt to try convey an idea that I don’t think you guys really believe for a second.

        There was even a video on this site of a group of people discussing actors who could be WORSE than JE.

        I keep getting this message from movie blogs that seem to all say, “Come on guys. Let’s keep open mind” while saying under your breath, “Uggh, this is really bad”.

        There’s no enthusiasm for this guy because it’s generally accepted that he is just incorrectly cast for this part.

        I’ve been reading SR for years now. I LOVE this site. But I have noticed that the speculative articles tend to side with the studio decisions. Bad or good.

        I think it’s ok for a site to say that studios make potentially bad decisions. And the casting track record for this movie seems to be getting worse with each announcement.

        • The question is, however, how can you call something a bad decision with zero knowledge of how the character is being interpreted and portrayed and without seeing a single frame? The only people with this knowledge are the ones currently developing the characters. Why should SR “admit that it’s a bad decision” when nothing of any definitive sort can be said at this point in time?

          • The question is, however, how can you call something a GOOD decision with zero knowledge of how the character is being interpreted and portrayed and without seeing a single frame? The only people with this knowledge are the ones currently developing the characters. Why should SR “admit that it’s a GOOD decision” when nothing of any definitive sort can be said at this point in time?

            • Please state when SR said it was a GOOD (or bad) decision? Don’t worry, I’ll wait…

              The title of the article EXPLICITLY states “Jesse Eisenberg As Lex Luthor: Why It COULD Work”. Not is a great decsion. Not it WILL work. Why it COULD work.

              Stay with me here folks. Again, this isn’t rocket science.

                • Well apparently, YOU’RE not following MY point. You can HAVE an opinion (any opinion you want). My point is what exactly are you basing it on? I’m questioning the logic. We’re still allowed to do that right? How does one know it is a good OR bad decision based on current knowledge? Knowledge that is only privy to those on the inside of the process? The original point of the SR article was to present the opposite perspective and legitimate reasons why it COULD work in DIRECT response to the predominantly negative reception to the casting. Capeesh? Thus, when someone says “why can’t SR just admit it was possibly a bad choice?”, why would they? That wasn’t the point of the article.

                  Joe Public: “this is a terrible casting”
                  SR: “We know a lot of you think this is bad casting but here are reasons why it COULD work.”

                  It’s as simple as that. You can read it and say hey you know what I never thought about that, that might work or you could say nope still not convinced or any number of other reactions. I simply don’t see SR trying to bring some perspective to the conversation as playing Captain-Save-A-Hoe for WB/DC/Snyder & company.

  13. I’m getting so sick of people judging the casting choices for this film, and judging it before it’s even been released, let alone before any kind of still or trailer has been released… People wanted Bryan Cranston, but why? So he could be like all the other incarnations of Luthor? No! At least watch something before you judge! Yeesh!

  14. I just think it’s sad that you have to take the time to write this article to defend a casting decision. The drawbacks of the Internet–intensified public opinion.

  15. I think this is brilliant casting on Warner Bros part! I feel Jesse Eisenburg will really come into his own and define the role. Lex Luthor on screen has mostly come off as a comedic and cartoony viliain. I think Michael Rossembaum from Smallville who in my opinion was the best version of Lex Luthor on screen. He brought real depth and sophistication to the role of Lex Luthor. I see the same with Eisenburg here with his casting as Luthor. I like am seeing from Warner Bros. They are following their own formula and doing something different which is fantastic. If Warner Bros pulls this off, which I am sure they can, they will have the confidence, respect and love from fans and mainsream movie goers for years to come.

  16. Personally, I’m looking forward to this iteration of the character. I’m definitely curious about how he will work in the universe they’re creating. I agree with most of the points raised in this article, but I hope he’ll shave his head for the role. It’s only a superficial change (as expressed in the article, it’s not like the baldness is what defines Lex Luthor’s character) but I think it’d be a good look for him.

  17. Acting ability and range are great, but sometimes an actor just does not fit the role he’s in. Look at guys like Bradley Cooper or George Clooney or Leo DiCaprio. All are great actors with fantastic ability and a very wide range. They can be very serious or very funny and pull it off very well. But can you see them playing someone like Lex Luthor or Superman? I can’t. No matter how great an actor is, some roles aren’t right for them simply because of who they are. I just cannot see in any way how Jesse Eisenberg could have any presence whatsoever to intimidate Superman. He may have played out similar characteristics to Lex in his role as Mark Zuckerberg, but it goes without saying that Mark Zuckerberg is not Lex Luthor. I mean, would Tom Hanks work as Captain America because he played a WWII Army captain in Saving Private Ryan? Of course not! I know you guys are trying to stay optimistic about this casting (and I’m sure some of you are all for it), and I really hope I’m proven wrong when the movie comes out, but I think DC may have screwed the pooch on this one.

  18. If he’s keeping the hair he better dye that crap Red cause Lex is a Red head if atleast auburn haired. I’m willing to give him a shot. Lex has always been more cerebral anyway so this dude might just do a good job.

  19. I like Eisenberg. He’s no doubt a great actor. But even him cannot change his voice. Watch Now You See Me and you’ll see what I mean, he sounds like a whiny man-child, and it cancels some of the charisma that shows from his exterior.

  20. You made good points but he acts, looks, and talks so young for a 30 year old that I think it would be better if he just plays Luthor in flashbacks in the beginning and rise of Lexcorps than a man that is considered Superman’s equal and arch nemesis. He could have made a great Toy Maker or Jimmy Olsen.

  21. Is Goyer still writing? Yep?

    Expect all the great ideas in Birthright/The Man of Steel/All Star to get paid lip service, and then be completely jettisoned by what is actually happening on the screen.

    How many carts can you put before the horse on this monstrosity?

    • Actually Terrio (Argo) is rewriting.

  22. I’m just kinda tired of people knee jerking to, “Oh, well Eisenberg could be the next Heath Ledger.” There’s a huge difference between what Ledger did with the Joker and how the Joker had been presented every time prior. Ledger’s performance was a lived-in performance, one that is one of the best performances in the HISTORY of film, let alone comic book movies. Even if you truly believe there were no signs that Ledger could be that sort of performer (see Brokeback Mountain, I’m Not There, Ned Kelly), Eisenberg has not had those roles outside of the Social Network.

    He plays the smart guy in most movies, and more often than not neurotic on some level. Squid and the Whale, Adventureland,Zombieland, 30 Minutes or Less, or To Rome With Love all show him disappearing behind actors with more charisma. Even in the Social Network, it’s hard to argue that Andrew Garfield or Justin Timberlake ever take second fiddle to him. I just can’t see millions of people following Eisenberg as a politician, or being able to hold his own charisma on screen with Affleck or Cavill. The lack of charisma will ultimately be his downfall in the role. I hope I’m wrong because I like him a lot, just not as Lex.

    • I agree.
      The opposite knee jerk reaction is so much more fun!

  23. Ok…I’m a little less worried now, but why do a lot of people not even consider Clancy Brown ‘s performance in Superman TAS, and Justice League/JLU? I thought he did an excellent job of portraying Lex and giving him complexity (see last episode of “JLU” on Netflix). I guess that’s really the Lex I want to see on the big screen.

  24. Actually Hackman’s Lex was bald. His hair proved to be a wig.

  25. After the latest fan reaction, I’m totally on-board with Kofi’s theoretical executives from the podcast: F*** fans. This is a dream cast at this point. Loads of proven talent. If Soderburg, Russel or Fincher had this cast, it’d be for a late November Oscar fishing trip. While Marvel’s done very well banking on young talent, it says something that Warner is grabbing award winners and established talent.

    The physical disparity is perfect. Superman is a god who wants to be a man; Lex is a man who wants to be a god.

    I have to say at this point, I’m amazed at “fan” complaints: Man of Steel is based entirely on Byrne’s run in the 80’s and Waid’s Birthright. Eisenberg is perfect for that kind of Luthor. Read a (DC COMIC) book.

    • +1

      Your physical disparity description is absolutely spot on.

  26. Thanks Dyce for another well thought out article that once again helps sustain my hopeful optimism for this movie! Taking a step back and considering just what the film makers are building is so reasonable of you it should be illegal(and apparently is to some on the internet). I am still so excited for this movie because though I can judge all I want, I have no idea what exactly is going on in Snyder’s mind and what his vision is. Whether it is right or wrong, I will find out in 2016.

  27. BILLIONAIRE, not Millionaire. cough cough… for both lex and wayne.

  28. Oh ScreenRant. The peasants have turned on you.

    Let’s begin by thanking SR for promoting this movie. In turn, they get thousands of hits on the site and hundreds of comments from fans. If you do not know, web hits mean ad dollars, and ad dollars mean more great articles. If SR needs to up their web hits, all they need to do is write about Superman/batman, or the Mandarin twist.

    I, for one, say bravo. Please do. This is a great web site. I love it. You guys love it to or you would not be here. Let them be bias toward money so these great writers can stay at SR rather than going to EW online. This site is not bias toward DC, they are bias toward keeping their job. Bias toward doing something you love to do.

    While usually sarcastic, this comment is not. I mean this.

    • @Crestor

      Finally someone who gets it.

      Thank you. You pretty much just spelled out my job.

      • Ok, so now tell us who are the trolls on the payroll that keep the clicks going and generating traffic?

    • I love this website and agree with everything you just said, but I would add the caveat that while they did not defend the Mandarin twist, they have been very energetically defending MoS or anything related to the upcoming sequel. That’s the only thing we are pointing out here. They weigh in with certain things more than with others and there is some sort of pattern behind it.

      I am no hater and if you read my comments or the comments from Anim for instance they have all been very polite and asking legitimate questions imo.

      @ Kofi, please stop playing victim using people like Chuck and address the “level-headed” opinions of the people that respectfully disagree. Don’t hide behind the angry reactions to justify your position. Being reactionary to extremists is not a valid reason imo.