Man of Steel Sequel Will Feature a "Street Tough" Lex Luthor

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Man of Steel Sequel Will Feature a "Street Tough" Lex Luthor

Batman Superman

Inside sources have said that Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor will be a former gang leader and self-made billionaire.

The announcement that Jesse Eisenberg would the new Lex Luthor in Zack Snyder's sequel to Man of Steel left many Superman fans with questions. At the forefront of speculation, of course, was what kind of Luthor would he be? Could we expect Eisenberg to just ape his Mark Zuckerberg role or would Snyder and company push him in a completely different direction?

If the Latino Review can be believed, it will be very much the latter. The site, which is known for breaking news from Hollywood productions, has released details from inside sources about the version of the character Eisenberg will be playing. Said sources indicated that Alexander "Lex" Luthor will be a self-made billionaire who used his brains to rise up from a life on the streets where he ran a straight-up bona fide gang. His experiences as a "street tough" will be integral to his character on account of them teaching him the importance of intelligence and resolve over pure strength and brute force.

Eisenberg's Luthor will apparently also have some less than cordial feelings for Bruce Wayne, whom he regards with disdain for his inherited wealth. The two will apparently be at odds over their opinion of Superman (whom Lex wants gone) but are willing to work together to rebuild the still devastated Metropolis. That said, Lex will apparently already be making preparations to dispose of Superman. Plans that, not unexpectedly, may involve a certain caped and pointy-eared vigilante.

Not a lick of this, of course, has been officially confirmed and should all be taken with a sizable grain of salt. That said, if these are true, the movie could potentially serve up one of the most original versions of Lex Luthor that we've ever seen. Just personally the mental image of Jesse Eisenberg as a gang leader is more than enough to catch my interest. Granted, that detail could wind up being pretty silly if it's done poorly, but we'll just have to wait and see how it goes.

Source: Latino Review



Yeah, I can get behind that. Would also explain a penchant for less-than-legal means of achieving goals.

"Jesse Eisenberg"


Uhh, not sure how that would work out, because when I see him, I do not think "self-made billionaire street tough".

But who knows?

Perhaps this will be okay?

Right guys...?

"Street Tough"

Something in my body involuntarily cringed at the thought of a Hollywood executive using that term

Self-made billionaire from the streets? Is Lex's new super power battle rapping? Maybe Marshall Mathers would have been a better casting...

And just because it's funny...

Oh my god I am tired of this crap (assuming it's true). I appreciate them trying to break new ground, but not to the point that the characters become unrecognizable!

Perhaps such an odd casting of the character demands a reworking of the origin, but then one could just as easily create a new character. Essentially, "Lex" is simply there for the name recognition, with little else of his defining characteristics brought over (agaain, if it's true).

A few risks are well and good, but it's hard to remain optimistic about a project that's throwing so many curve balls.

1) Ben Affleck - huh, well he was actually good in the Director's Cut of Daredevil, and the man can act really well now, per Argo...

2) Gal Gadot - well, maybe she can bulk up and learn to act like a human being (and not a caricature)

3) Jeremy Irons - a certified badass, though I'd have preferred him in a Lex sort of role

4) Jesse Eisenberg - a good actor, but lacking the age and gravitas to pull off a good megalomaniac

It's just that ALL but one casting decision has been rife with debate. It doesn't send out the best image. Again, we may all be surprised, but it just doesn't bode well. We are looking at the same company that greenlit Superman Returns and Green Lantern.

Not that Man of Steel was perfect, but it would be tragic for them to fumble the momentum they've built with it and Batman (even though it isn't the same Batman we've seen before).

I will, of course, withhold judgement until I see it with mine own eyes, but all of this sounds just awful. The more I hear about this project and it being a lead-up to Justice League, the more I roll my eyes. For the record, I rather liked Man of Steel, with the caveat that the dark theme of it would turn brighter in the sequel. From the sounds of things this is not to be the case.

Again, judgement is withheld, the whole thing might turn out to be a masterpiece, I'm going to give it its full shot but I have not been thrilled by a single reveal since rumors about this project started coming out.

Not only is this a rumor, it's a rumor from Latino Review, who are wrong way more often than they're right. The title of this article asserts this rumor as fact; it's misleading.

If this is true, it could work
But I personally always have seen Lex Lutor as Anti-villain version of Bruce Wayne
And that would be far better origin story for Lex
Only unlike Bruce he saw what idealism leads to, that is why he does whatever is necessary to achieve his goals

The World Famous:
Not only is this a rumor, it's a rumor from Latino Review, who are wrong way more often than they're right. The title of this article asserts this rumor as fact; it's misleading.

I don't know, I kind of believe the plot points here, they make complete sense.

Luthor and Bruce Wayne two billionaires both know for philanthropy (though in Luthers case it's often a smokescreen) get together to rebuild the world greatest city (because it is in DC anyway) which was clearly levelled in the last movie.

Bruce Wayne (who is obviously pro vigilante) likes Superman, Lex who is a street thug turned billionaire (who would have authority issues) dislikes Superman.

Luthor then plans some way to get rid of Superman involving some way to manipulate Batman into thinking Superman is threat (Batman the guy that is most other DC media often carries Krytonite in his utility belt just in case, so I don't think it would be hard to push him that way).

All seems pretty believable.

It's bona fide, not bonified. Today's Critical Intel is also full of typos and errors. Is anyone editing these articles? This is embarrassing. I want to show my friends what I consider to be a great source for news and content, and find that lazy editing is getting in the way of that. Please get it together. Spellcheck catches things like bonified, as does google. I don't mean any disrespect. I love this site and it's content. Otherwise, I wouldn't care.

Edit: Thank you for fixing it.

And to think my greatest fear was that they'd turn Luthor into Steve Jobs.

Honestly, I'd believe this if they hadn't cast Jesse Eisenberg as Lex.

But, I mean, really, that entire background story just sounds utterly ridiculous (a 15 year old gang lord who becomes a multi-billionaire by 18 and owns a multi-national corporation by his mid twenties? Yeah, sure, that's "realistic"), almost as ridiculous as the kind of bullcrap Frank Miller writes these days under the delusion/pretension of being "edgy".

Self-made billionaire from the streets? Is Lex's new super power battle rapping? Maybe Marshall Mathers would have been a better casting...

And just because it's funny...

...I can imagine Jesse's Lex rapping to that as his own theme song to the local populous...

OT: A different Lex Luthor, you say? You mean one who may actually have hair this time? Because, seriously, after seeing a photoshot of what Jesse would look like bald, it was more funny than "threatening", in my opinion...

A part of me wants this to actually be good.

A bigger part of me hopes it is utterly terrible and me and my friends can have marathon drinking-game riff-track sessions with it and Batman & Robin.

Someone, please, correct me if I am wrong, but people are gonna get their panties in a bunch over the idea of Lex being a Street tough come Evil Billionaire, which though it is not following the plotline of any Superman stories that I know of, I don't think is a bad idea, but that people are going to get upset by it when this plotline was similarly replicated in comics before?

Seriously, isn't the whole 'Dead parents, (sort of) Street Tough , became a billionaire' angle the same thing that happened to Adrien Veidt/Ozymandias in Watchmen? Why are people getting upset by it? As far as I can tell, that's different, surely, but it's not too crazy.

I kind of like the idea. It might not work for other people, but until I hear something else about the movie that says otherwise, I'm really not bothered by it. I'm all for Eisenberg as Luthor. Give me something I really don't want to hear, and then I'll get apprehensive. Until then, I'm still in.

Honestly... it's not believable. Lex Luthor as a villain was very believable and very interesting. He was a man who lived a life of privilege but still strived to be the best in everything. He was the best and most powerful of business men. He was extremely into fitness because he wanted to achieve the best physical state a human could. He was excellent with firearms and in personal combat because he was always trying to achieve that next level. He was a genius who did a lot of his own research and development on many things. Almost like a bad version of Batman, if you think about it. It was part of the reason why he had extremely xenophobic feelings towards Superman, because he was just better in so many ways without having worked for it, which drove him mad. That is a fascinating character that I like to see (a character that was never shown in any of the movies, I would like to point out). I don't care to see a thug who came up in the streets and is a self made billionaire.

But, I will withhold any judgement till I see it. But, the Lex Luthor from the comics is a much better and more fascinating character. The Lex Luthor here is a cliche.

I'm calling bullshit on this. First Superman against Batman. Then having Wonder Woman in the movie. Then casting Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman. Then casting Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. Then having him be "street tough". No. This has to be a prank. The studio just releasing bullshit rumors like this to keep the movie in the media

Excuse me, but that mousy little boy being "street tough?" May as well have the part played by Seth Green. This movie is sounding more like a comedy with every article I read. And I'm still not interested in seeing it (only making fun of DC's desperation to get a Justice League movie out).

This sounds more hilariously awful with each tidbit that leaks out. At this rate, I think the "Superman vs Batman" thing stands a good chance of hitting So-bad-it's-good territory. Either that, or making Travolta feel better about being in Battlefield Earth.

I like the possible dynamic they're setting up with inheritance vs. achievement - basically a protracted Iron Man vs. Cap - that could make for some really interesting storytelling.

I DON'T like the idea of Batman potentially becoming a hired assassin.

And next we will find out that Pauly Shore is to be cast as Metallo, but this version of Metallo is an ethnically diverse 20-something college girl from the Middle East who was studying abroad in Metropolis when she was exposed to a high dose of Narrativium that made her change in to a robot or something or whatever. With Brendan Fraser as Metallo's sidekick Doomsday for comic relief.

The more I hear about the movie the more I would rather watch Batman & Robin on a infinite loop. At least you can laugh at that film.

Its weird, for some reason when I first read this article I nerd ranged a little, then I thought it over a little and this works really well, the self man made thing really helps when it comes to his fear of Superman being the way he is due to being born with Superpowers that automatically grant him his abilities. Its kind of worrying to think that it is possible for me to feel nerd rage just because someone changed something in an adaptation, however brief it was.

Essentially, "Lex" is simply there for the name recognition, with little else of his defining characteristics brought over (agaain, if it's true).

How so? Some of the defining characteristics of Lex are that he's a genius and has an ego the size of the sun. How does a genius level criminal turned billionaire not fit with that? And if we're really going to complain about Lex not being portrayed properly, there have been many different ones in the last thirty years alone. And the present day corporate tycoon version didn't even really take shape until the 80's. That was a massive departure from who the character was prior to that.

It's just that ALL but one casting decision has been rife with debate. It doesn't send out the best image. Again, we may all be surprised, but it just doesn't bode well.

And Heath Ledger didn't bode well. Or Michael Keaton. I hate to keep mentioning those things but as long as people are going to keep questioning the casting because they can't picture someone in a role I'm going to have to keep mentioning it. Two guys that everyone was convinced were the worst choices for their role when the casting news hit. Then the movies came out and everyone kind of had to suck it up and eat some crow. So until I have some actual footage to judge these people on, I'm not jumping to conclusions.

Dammit, I was hoping they would turn him into a Mark Zuckerberg type of character. That would've been perfect.

Excuse me, but that mousy little boy being "street tough?" May as well have the part played by Seth Green. This movie is sounding more like a comedy with every article I read. And I'm still not interested in seeing it (only making fun of DC's desperation to get a Justice League movie out).

Yeah, I really wish I had enough faith in the movie that I could disagree with you!
It all feels very haphazard. Less edgy Nolan casting, more ludicrous Snyder spin.

I actually got on board with Affleck as Batman after watching Argo and The Town.
I think he really pull it off, plus I'm really looking forward to seeing the back & forth between him and Jeremy Irons as Alfred (who had damn well better have a pencil moustache for classic Alfred!)

I'm exceedingly disquieted by Eisenberg's casting as I think the 'geeky genius' shtick is old hat & while it's not been seen in a Superman movie before, it's been seen everywhere else for years.

I find the idea of him leading a gang to be laughable & a terrible way to derail any respect the audience is supposed to have for the character.

Now, I haven't actually seen Gal Gadot in anything.

Can anyone tell me if she sucks or not as I am not sitting through a Fast & the Furious movie just to find out :P


Double posted by accident, please delete this post Modgods.

All I could think about while I was reading this was that they turned Lex Luther into the boss of the 5th Street Saints from start of Saint's Row 3... but without any of the fun that was inherent in the character. Think of it, a semi-smart street gang leader who became a multi-billionair. Or it could be post third game where he pretty much runs the city.

But we won't get anything remotely that campy or silly. Which is a shame considering how poor this is sounding.

Well it is a bit odd to say the least but I am willing to give it a shot, I never really gave notice to who got casted for what role before anyway. There have been plenty of weird design choices in the Batman films and they worked out awesome. Bane's and Batman's voices for example.

Granted I have next to no interest in films so I haven't seen all the drivel this guy has been in before so maybe i'm being too optimistic. I will definitely watch it though.

I'm not even surprised anymore. This movie throws so many curveballs that it's becoming predictable.
This is how I'm seeing the logic WB is going with: "Okay, this decision would make sense... so we'll do the opposite! No one will ever expect that and the movie will continue to be a hot topic for years to come!"

Whenever a new bullshit rumor like this picks up I have to remind myself that the movie has a 2016 release schedule and so much can and will change from here to the next 2 years.

A.) How is he a street tough if he used intelligence and resolve over strength and brute force?

B.) This is waaaaaaay too much back story for Lex Luthor. Lex is a modern-day Pharisee. It doesn't matter what he was like as a kid.

If you want to be clever and visionary, give Lex a legitimate gripe and show him doing anything in his power legally (or quasi-legally) to turn public opinion against Superman. More like Rupert Murdoch than Mark Zuckerberg. Have him make some sort of moves against the Daily Planet to give Lois and Perry and that lot something to do. This isn't hard, people.


Self-made billionaire from the streets? Is Lex's new super power battle rapping? Maybe Marshall Mathers would have been a better casting...

And just because it's funny...

Actually, you know what? I really like your idea. No sarcasm or irony - I would think that's cool.

Does anyone feel like this will be an inconsistant character if the film delivers as described in the article? If his cheif asset is cleverness, then why is the "street tough" bit even important? They definitely cast someone that can be clever, possibly even to an intimidating degree, on screen. But I don't see him as a gang leader capable of doing the dirty work needed to get to the top. They could have a story written where he tricks less intelligent people into doing his bidding and what-not, but again he doesn't need to be "street tough" (what does that even mean hear?) to pull that off then. Are we going to have a scene where he jumps-in someone?

I would rather a character that is brilliant and manipulative, and also that we know can - and will - reverse some jaws if he has too. Someone that everyone knows to fear. For an instant Heath Leadger's joker came to mind as he transended what audiences thought the person playing the role could do, into convincing audiences of what the character could do; and that may be the mindset here. BUT, I think that was one of those performances in cinema that is just lightening in a bottle. Once it's opened and the audience sees it come out, there is no duplicating it. And one key difference is that the back story whith that character was extremely limited - he was kind of an enigma and we really only had what was on screen in the present moment to go on. Whereas, from the article it seems like there will be a more fleshed-out backstory, explaining Luthor and his rise that could give too much information for the audience to accept a master-mind and hardened criminal rolled into one.

I don't know. It all smacks of doing to much; that instead they should pick an archetype and stick with it (which is what super heros and villains essentially are), especially with this casting.

The '90's animated Superman show had Lex as a genius Mafia type.

He was smart enough that he could have been real rich completely legitimately. But he's ruthless enough to kill for advantage or pride. And like Mafia types, he likes to keep a good public image. So he makes legit money, augmented by some illegal action on the side. He's got many points of contention against Superman over time, including his displacement as Metropolis' favourite son, Supes interference in his rackets, and a point of pride on being a self-made man, rather than an alien freak.

I suggest checking out "World's Finest", a Batman/ Superman 2-parter from the '90s.

Harley: "You aren't going to kill us, are you?"
Lex: "No. I abhor violence...... Mercy will." (Mercy is Lex's bodyguard and driver, occasionally assassin)

New Lex:

Lex was a gang-banger growing up, much smarter than average, created new designer drugs, pioneered ingenious smuggling methods, ran numbers rackets, did some computer hacking, and was socially intelligent enough to move up the ranks without getting shot. He gets busted, serves his time with good behaviour, and emerges as a changed man, legal, self-made entrepreneur, and favourite son of Metropolis with a great redemption story of bad kid gone good. Except he didn't go good, he just got more careful. All his time in prison, he was establishing connections, granting favours and developing new toys and drugs. Hell, maybe it was his plan all along!

I see the performance as layered. He'd have to be slick and charming enough that society at large sees him as a good guy, but occasionally show the audience that calculated cold-blooded willingness to slit a throat (or have someone else do it) to satisfy his greed or pride.

It's like this. Too many sources try and humanize Lex Luthor and make him seem believable, when really he can't work that way when he's supposed to be the arch-enemy and major antagonist to a character that is defined by being unbelievable (so to speak).

Lex Luthor done properly should be less of a "criminal" or "CEO" though he can be both of those things, and more of a mad scientist. His ability to work with, and manipulate, super science is what is supposed to make it practical for him to be a serious threat to Superman. These elements are always sort of there for Lex, but increasingly seem to be relegated to the backround with a bunch of goons doing all the innovation and stuff for him, which in a lot of respects cheapens the character when it's less him being a threat to Superman than his money.

As things stand now we've already seen the "Street Tough" Luthor in Smallville, while Lex was still from a rich family, he was defined as being a trouble maker and getting into all kinds of fights and crime related trouble prior to his moving out to Smallville. This version seems a lot like the same thing, except to give him a poor economic backround instead. Honestly it only really worked there because they powered Superman down so much that they virtually had to power Lex down as well. Going by the fights in "Man Of Steel" Lex needs to have a bit more going on than this movie synopsis implies.

Of course the problem here might also be that they want to do "Batman Vs. Superman" and at the end of the day there is a lot of overlap between Lex Luthor and Batman, as both are basically super-brains who can in theory match Superman with gadgeteering. I myself have argued more than once that given Lex being his arch enemy and having actually won rounds against Superman in the past, there is no way one could fairly define Batman as a true underdog since he'd ultimately wind up approaching Superman the same basic way Lex would (a trap backed by a lot of planning and gadgetry). Lex and Batman Vs. Superman would be kind of one sided, so they are in a position where they have to pretty much ruin one of those two characters, and given Batman's popularity, that means Lex.

Personally I think they should just do the movie without Lex Luthor and use him as a proper antagonist in a later film.

People, what we're forgetting here is that this is a Superman VS Batman movie.
Lex is not the star in this movie.
We're not going to see his origin story, and if we do, we're going to see very little of it.

This is, as usual, just PR speak or wishful thinking.
I cannot imagine that they are going to handle this well or that it will be as people imagine it.
Luthor will be a bitplayer and not get that much screentime since this is promoted as a Superman VS Batman movie. They are the stars of the show and their battle the main attraction.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
Register for a free account here