- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Eisenberg's Luthor vs. Leto's Joker
Posted on 3/10/17 at 10:25 pm to Breesus
Posted on 3/10/17 at 10:25 pm to Breesus
Leto's Joker was a somewhat respectable interpretation of the character. It was shite, clearly, but I could see a rational interpretation of the Joker within it.
Eisenberg's Luthor though... holy fricking shite. Aside from being rich and hating Superman, he has nothing in common with his source material. Lex is a physically imposing genius with a God complex who sees himself as the true champion for humanity. Honestly this Luthor is the fricking Riddler. There's no way in hell a good Luthor would use his own prototype bullets to frame Superman for murder. Luthor typically makes sure nothing traces back to him, but this one is just begging for everyone to find him.
Eisenberg's Luthor was a wimp and a pussy. He was also insane, which Lex tends not to be. He's perfectly sane and wishes to bring humanity to its highest form. Unfortunately Luthor doesn't perceive that his visions for a greater humanity primarily benefit himself over everyone else, and he doesn't really give a shite about the casualties that may result from his pursuit of a perfect world.
So why the frick did he create Doomsday? It makes no god damn sense. He has to be completely crazy to create Doomsday to defeat Superman and surely doom the world if Superman loses. What the frick is that? It's the actions of a person who has no rational motives.
At least I can see some Joker in Leto's terrible interpretation, but I see none of Luthor in Eisenberg's. And what's even more insulting, we have yet to have an even decent interpretation of Luthor on the big screen. Please give me someone who isn't a bat shite insane pussy or real estate mongol to represent the character.
As Breesus said, if you're going to base him on a rich guy, go with Elon Musk, not Mark Zuckerberg. With the rise of Trump, it was an incredible frick up to make Lex a nutjob from the start. When designing the DCEU, the first thought that should have passed through their head was "President Luthor". Instead they fricked it up right out of the gate with Jesse Eisenberg.
Eisenberg's Luthor though... holy fricking shite. Aside from being rich and hating Superman, he has nothing in common with his source material. Lex is a physically imposing genius with a God complex who sees himself as the true champion for humanity. Honestly this Luthor is the fricking Riddler. There's no way in hell a good Luthor would use his own prototype bullets to frame Superman for murder. Luthor typically makes sure nothing traces back to him, but this one is just begging for everyone to find him.
Eisenberg's Luthor was a wimp and a pussy. He was also insane, which Lex tends not to be. He's perfectly sane and wishes to bring humanity to its highest form. Unfortunately Luthor doesn't perceive that his visions for a greater humanity primarily benefit himself over everyone else, and he doesn't really give a shite about the casualties that may result from his pursuit of a perfect world.
So why the frick did he create Doomsday? It makes no god damn sense. He has to be completely crazy to create Doomsday to defeat Superman and surely doom the world if Superman loses. What the frick is that? It's the actions of a person who has no rational motives.
At least I can see some Joker in Leto's terrible interpretation, but I see none of Luthor in Eisenberg's. And what's even more insulting, we have yet to have an even decent interpretation of Luthor on the big screen. Please give me someone who isn't a bat shite insane pussy or real estate mongol to represent the character.
As Breesus said, if you're going to base him on a rich guy, go with Elon Musk, not Mark Zuckerberg. With the rise of Trump, it was an incredible frick up to make Lex a nutjob from the start. When designing the DCEU, the first thought that should have passed through their head was "President Luthor". Instead they fricked it up right out of the gate with Jesse Eisenberg.
Posted on 3/10/17 at 10:28 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
As Breesus said, if you're going to base him on a rich guy, go with Elon Musk, not Mark Zuckerberg.
Thank you.
quote:
Leto's Joker was a somewhat respectable interpretation of the character.
Respectable I might disagree with, but it was an interpretation. Greatly hindered by script and direction. And the deleted scenes absolutely added to the character, in particular the toll booth scene.
This post was edited on 3/10/17 at 10:29 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News