Eisenberg's Luthor vs. Leto's Joker

Eisenberg......easy. Both were shitty movies, but suicide squad was a whopper of a turd. Made Leto's shite just kind of blend in with the the shite that is suicide squad as a whole. Batman vs superman had a few ok things that made Eisenberg stand out. This is a tough one honestly, they were both terrible in terrible movies. It was like having a stomach virus and shitting and puking at the same time.....frick the DCEU.

Leto at least slightly resembles the character.

Idk who Eisenberg was playing, but it wasn't Lex Luthor

I loved Eisenberg's Lex, as did my family. Leto...not so much.

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.

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.

quote:

---

I loved Eisenberg's Lex, as did my family

---

Then you don't know Lex Luthor at all. The interpretation was simply fricking insulting. This how the actual Lex Luthor should be: LINK

quote:

---

Luthor should have been bald, with a menacing, brooding presence.

---

In the comics, Luthor is physically intimidating, frighteningly intelligent, wickedly cunning, and blinded by an almost noble ambition to raise humanity up himself. He can become president of the United States, head of any organization, charm any man, woo any woman, but also ruthlessly crush any foe.

We got a pathetic whiney little whimpy pussy who randomly and often inexplicably does shite for no reason other than convenient plot movement.

You know what the other problem in these movies is?

Superman routinely gets the ever living frick knocked out of him by every single character.

Zod
Zod's Henchman
Batman
Doomsday

They all pretty effortlessly destroy Superman in combat.

quote:

---

They all pretty effortlessly destroy Superman in combat.

---

And Superman should have the power of a nuclear bomb. At least give himself someone like Metallo that explains it.

Honestly, if I were designing the DCEU, for the Justice League villains, here's what I'd go with:

I: Brainiac
II: Brainiac-Infused Luthor (give him way more powers, creativity, and personality than the original Brainiac)
III: Darkseid

Instead they introduce Darkseid and what he'll do in the second film and arrest Luthor in his first appearance, when he should be an incredibly overarching villain.

And Luthor is such a good character that you don't have to have him as the villain in all of the movies he appears in. I'm just stunned they didn't immediately think of the President Luthor angle.

I really think that Kevin Smith is right that the only comic Zack Snyder has read is "The Dark Knight Returns", in addition to skimming Watchmen and 300. I'm sorry, but no one should direct a Superman movie unless they've read All-Star Superman a dozen times. That should be the core of Superman and all the characters around him. There's no way in hell Snyder read that comic, because he would have never interpreted literally all the characters the way he did.

I don't know how I feel about Leto. Part of me thinks he didn't get a fair shake in Suicide Squad. They really messed that up. I didn't care for Eisenberg's take. I think he did a good job with the angle he was taking though. Give me Rosenbaum from Smallville all day long.