Batman v Superman *spoilers from post 2434*

Dtp1979

FlashD wrote: »

Keaton as Batman in an adaption of 'The Dark Knight Returns', get Aronofsky to direct it, that's what I want.

He really was the batman by a mile. I'm only new to this thread. Is there actually any realistic rumours of Keaton returning?

aidan_walsh

Dtp1979 wrote: »

He really was the batman by a mile. I'm only new to this thread. Is there actually any realistic rumours of Keaton returning?

No.

norrie rugger

StarshipPooper wrote: »

Why does he have to be either?

Why bother calling him Luthor then?
There is only so much liberty that you can take, before it's no longer the character

RobbingBandit

norrie rugger wrote: »

Keaton as Bruce Wayne and Afleck as Terry McGuinness is it?

Rubber_Soul

norrie rugger wrote: »

Why bother calling him Luthor then?
There is only so much liberty that you can take, before it's no longer the character

And you think giving him different colour hair is taking too many liberties with the character?

aidan_walsh

Interesting fan art.

RobbingBandit

Jesse Eisenberg is about 5 foot 7, he is a worse choice than Kevin Spacey was for Lex, The character of Lex is a few years older than that of Superman not younger. He is the same or a similar height as Superman, he is rich, evil and a genius not a whiny little bitch. Mark Strong or Bryan Cranston should be playing this part, someone evil, jebus I would even give the part to Sir Ben Kingsley over Eisenberg.

Rubber_Soul

RobbingBandit wrote: »

Jesse Eisenberg is about 5 foot 7, he is a worse choice than Kevin Spacey was for Lex, The character of Lex is a few years older than that of Superman not younger. He is the same or a similar height as Superman, he is rich, evil and a genius not a whiny little bitch. Mark Strong or Bryan Cranston should be playing this part, someone evil, jebus I would even give the part to Sir Ben Kingsley over Eisenberg.

There's been loads of different iterations of the character. He's ranged from being a mad scientist to the president, from being skinny and bald to being huge and having hair. Why is it only the comics are allowed to alter the characters appearance?

RobbingBandit

It makes no sense to alter such a character, giving Lex hair is like giving Batman a gun, sure it works in one out of a thousand stories but it is character assassination imo.

Mickeroo

RobbingBandit wrote: »

It makes no sense to alter such a character, giving Lex hair is like giving Batman a gun, sure it works in one out of a thousand stories but it is character assassination imo.

RobbingBandit

Mickeroo wrote: »

One out of how many thousands of Batman Comics where he has a gun, guarantee the story doesn't end well.;)

Mickeroo

RobbingBandit wrote: »

One out of how many thousands of Batman Comics where he has a gun, guarantee the story doesn't end well.;)

It's not the only one actually, he always carried a gun in the early comics. He doesn't shoot anyone in that one though of course, though I'm not sure if he did back in the day or not.

Giving Lex hair is really not a big deal though nor anywhere on the same level as having Batman kill someone (or Superman for that matter....oh wait :mad:), he's been portrayed with hair loads of times, they could give him an afro for all I care, it's the character they have to get right and besides who's to say Eisenberg won't shave his head? It's more about staying true the character, everything else is fair game imo, unfortunately MoS proved that there's no guarantees there.

RobbingBandit

I know it's not the only one btw, I just don't think he is a good choice for the character, he may prove me wrong or they may get someone else to do the role, look at the guy who played Lex in Smallville, Michael Rosenbaum. With hair he looks nothing like the character.

krudler

Dtp1979 wrote: »

He really was the batman by a mile. I'm only new to this thread. Is there actually any realistic rumours of Keaton returning?

Don't go chasing waterfalls

Soft Falling Rain

aidan_walsh wrote: »

Interesting fan art.

Nice, could have fool me.

norrie rugger

StarshipPooper wrote: »

And you think giving him different colour hair is taking too many liberties with the character?

Don't be ridiculous. One small change alone is not a bad thing but they are changing the entire look of the character.
Luthor is a physically imposing, authoritative, forceful and charismatic (presidential) character that portrays a charming/smooth public persona but in secret is a dominating, vengeful, ruthless and twisted genius.

That is how I see Luthor: Of the traits that I quickly listed I can not see JE pull off physically imposing, authoritative, forceful and charismatic. Basically all of Luthor's common public facing persona.
I CAN see him as a dominating, vengeful, ruthless and twisted genius but, and this is a big BUT, without the public character traits I fear that it will be a typical JE performance of an annoying and whining "Geek done Well" performance. This, to me, is not Luthor tbh.

Rubber_Soul

norrie rugger wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous. One small change alone is not a bad thing but they are changing the entire look of the character.
Luthor is a physically imposing, authoritative, forceful and charismatic (presidential) character that portrays a charming/smooth public persona but in secret is a dominating, vengeful, ruthless and twisted genius.

That is how I see Luthor: Of the traits that I quickly listed I can not see JE pull off physically imposing, authoritative, forceful and charismatic. Basically all of Luthor's common public facing persona.
I CAN see him as a dominating, vengeful, ruthless and twisted genius but, and this is a big BUT, without the public character traits I fear that it will be a typical JE performance of an annoying and whining "Geek done Well" performance. This, to me, is not Luthor tbh.

No, the iteration of Luthor you happen to like is a physically imposing, authoritative, forceful and charismatic (presidential) character that portrays a charming/smooth public persona but in secret is a dominating, vengeful, ruthless and twisted genius. And as I've already said, there's been many different iterations of the character down throughout the years.

You haven't seen the script, for all you know Eisenberg could be playing this version of Luthor as everything you've described, just minus the physically imposing part.

norrie rugger

Well then they may as well play Bats as they did in the 60's, as that's down the years too.

Luthor has undergone changes to his character at different stages to become what he is portrayed as today. All comic book characters do but they are gradual (for the most part). Luthor has been like the above for as long as I can remember, at this stage.
In TODAY'S world Luthor has evolved to the above, that is his character and by so drastically changing that character he would no longer be recognisable as a representation of Luthor.


If you bothered to read my post fully I am stating that I do not believe that JE is capable of portraying those characteristics, even if they do go with the modern character.

Mickeroo

norrie rugger wrote: »

Well then they may as well play Bats as they did in the 60's, as that's down the years too.

Luthor has undergone changes to his character at different stages to become what he is portrayed as today. All comic book characters do but they are gradual (for the most part). Luthor has been like the above for as long as I can remember, at this stage.
In TODAY'S world Luthor has evolved to the above, that is his character and by so drastically changing that character he would no longer be recognisable as a representation of Luthor.


If you bothered to read my post fully I am stating that I do not believe that JE is capable of portraying those characteristics, even if they do go with the modern character.

The traits that you mention are what I would associate with Luthor too, but I think there's potential in making him more like the Gates/Zuckerberg type billionaires as it's more relevant to the world we live in. Whether they will actually pull it off convincingly is the real worry.

norrie rugger

I totally get what they are trying to do but I think that they have the wrong actor. There is nothing wrong with having a .com billionaire but I think that JE is the wrong actor to portray. He just has not shown the ability to have the gravitas of Luthor.
So I am speculating that they are rewriting the essence of Luthor to match JE, rather than cast an actor that can encompass the character

One of Luthor's key reasons for hating of Supes is that he views himself of the best of humanity: both mentally and physically. He hates the power that Superman has, as humans can not have that power naturally.

norrie rugger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIntDen7fv0

Soft Falling Rain

Singer gave an interesting interview recently, said that Darkseid would have been the villain in a "world destroying" sequel to SR.

RobbingBandit

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

Singer gave an interesting interview recently, said that Darkseid would have been the villain in a "world destroying" sequel to SR.

No way, only one man could have played him too, Michael Ironside.

brevity

It could be an inspired piece of casting but I just don't have a lot of faith in the director. Especially after the mess that was his first Superman movie.

Soft Falling Rain

brevity wrote: »

It could be an inspired piece of casting but I just don't have a lot of faith in the director. Especially after the mess that was his first Superman movie.

It could be genius or a disaster, I don't reckon there will be an in between.

All the hate for Eisenberg comes across as little more than fanboys getting their knickers in a twist. I said it before and I'll say it again, the online community have given their list of idea actors and the common thread seems to be baldness.

Eisenberg may not be how people see Luthor but is that a bad thing? I'd be far more interested in a film where Luthor was like a malevolent threat behind the scenes, someone who is pulling the strings rather than being right at the fore. We've had so many Superman tales with Luthor and honestly I think making him a big villain would be a huge mistake. Eisenberg could be great in the role if it's written right. He's proven that he can play an unlikeable dick whose a genius and able to control those around him and as such could be ideally suited for this.

Soft Falling Rain

As as I said already, the physically imposing Lex always seemed a bit redundant to me. Snyder usually gets his casting spot on if nothing else, I've no doubt that him, Goyer and possibly Affleck have written a fascinating new take on Luthor that Eisenberg will kill.

norrie rugger

that's great Darko but the character that you're describing isn't Lex.
I would have preferred that they not even have Lex to be honest as the've never gotten it right.
Bring on Darkseid or Doomsday :-)

pixelburp

Deleted User wrote: »

All the hate for Eisenberg comes across as little more than fanboys getting their knickers in a twist. I said it before and I'll say it again, the online community have given their list of idea actors and the common thread seems to be baldness.

That's more than a little unfair to people who don't think this smart casting; if you don't like something then you must be an unreasonable fanboy. I'm not a fanboy of comics in general - plus honestly, I find Superman an utterly boring, charmless character - but to me this seems like a poor choice of casting, just being different for the sake of it. I think it's a fair criticism that based on the character's current iteration, physicality and personality, Eisenberg seems to fly in the face of it. Time will tell etc. etc. but an initial reaction of 'well that doesn't quite make sense' isn't being a fanboy, it's just feeling that this doesn't seem like casting that makes a lot of sense.

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

That's more than a little unfair to people who don't think this smart casting; if you don't like something then you must be an unreasonable fanboy. I'm not a fanboy of comics in general - honestly I hate Superman, the character's dull and completely uninteresting - but to me this seems like a poor choice of casting, just being different for the sake of it. I think it's a fair criticism that based on the character's current iteration, physicality and personality, Eisenberg seems to fly in the face of it. Time will tell etc. etc. but an initial reaction of 'well that doesn't quite make sense' isn't being a fanboy, it's just feeling that this doesn't seem like casting that makes a lot of sense.

But those who don't think it's smart casting have no idea what sort of character he will be in the film. It's like they cast Daniel Craig as Bond or Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher. People instantly jumped to their keyboards and spouted rubbish. There have been so many variations of Luthor that it's impossible to know which, if any version that they are aiming for.

Eisenberg is not an actor I think all that highly of but I'm not going to judge him till I see the film. Ledger got a similar level of vitriol directed his way when he was cast as the Joker. Once people saw the film they were falling all over themselves to proclaim it the greatest piece of casting ever. It's one thing to say that you find the casting a little odd but the way some people have been going on, you'd swear that he'd came around their house and beat them.

norrie rugger

norrie rugger wrote: »

that's great Darko but the character that you're describing isn't Lex.
I would have preferred that they not even have Lex to be honest as the've never gotten it right.
Bring on Darkseid or Doomsday :-)

Lex's defining attribute is his intelligence and how he uses it. That and his hatred for Superman are what define him as a character and as scuh you can do pretty much anything you want with him and present him how you wish

Mr Freeze

JE might be alrite, depending on what the writers have in mind for their version of Luthor, but Irons as Alfred.

I hate Irons, he is brutal now, all I can picture is him playing him like the Borgia Pope (had to ditch that show because him).

Alfred can't really be in it much anyways.

pixelburp

Deleted User wrote: »

But those who don't think it's smart casting have no idea what sort of character he will be in the film. It's like they cast Daniel Craig as Bond or Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher. People instantly jumped to their keyboards and spouted rubbish. There have been so many variations of Luthor that it's impossible to know which, if any version that they are aiming for.

Obviously it's all conjecture, but it shouldn't mean we can't theorise based on first reactions without being dismissed as fanboys. There's nothing wrong with making some guesses based on an actor's CV vs. the modern, long-standing iteration of a character - because that's the most likely jumping off point In general though, just because a casting director goes against the considered template of the source material doesn't mean the production is being creative or unique - sometimes it's just a bad decision from the outset. For every Daniel Craig as Bond, there's a George Lazenby. You mention Jack Reacher, but casting has messed up crime thriller adaptations before: for me personally, I'm a big fan of the Rebus series of novels yet when John Hannah took the role initially it was a disaster.

Adaptations of pop culture are a tricky beast, books and comics especially. It's the fans and readers who thrust these commodities into the limelight so that they get film adaptations in the first place: it's not unreasonable that they get upset when a production company shows poor potential consideration for the material; it's not like Hollywood doesn't have previous on that score either.

Sad Professor

I’m not so sure about Irons but Eisenberg is an inspired bit of casting as Luthor. Shame he’s going to be wasted in a Batman-Superman-Wonder-Woman-and-god-knows who-else-mishmash of a sequel-cum-springboard for Warner’s Justice League mega-franchise.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Sad Professor wrote: »

I’m not so sure about Irons but Eisenberg is an inspired bit of casting as Luthor. Shame he’s going to be wasted in a Batman-Superman-Wonder-Woman-and-god-knows who-else-mishmash of a sequel-cum-springboard for Warner’s Justice League mega-franchise.

I'm not sure I'd agree it's inspired casting but the rest of what you say is true. I lost interest in this "sequel" a few announcements ago.

PunkFreud

Sad Professor wrote: »

I’m not so sure about Irons but Eisenberg is an inspired bit of casting as Luthor. Shame he’s going to be wasted in a Batman-Superman-Wonder-Woman-and-god-knows who-else-mishmash of a sequel-cum-springboard for Warner’s Justice League mega-franchise.

I suspect they're trying to move away from Caine's cockney Alfred, with the much more "English" Irons. I think it's a great bit of casting.

Surely his role must be a relatively substantial one if they're casting an Academy Award winner. Or are they just throwing money at this film, hoping that it'll fix itself (like the Irish Govt did with the HSE - HAR HAR).

Mickeroo

pixelburp wrote: »

Obviously it's all conjecture, but it shouldn't mean we can't theorise based on first reactions without being dismissed as fanboys. There's nothing wrong with making some guesses based on an actor's CV vs. the modern, long-standing iteration of a character - because that's the most likely jumping off point In general though, just because a casting director goes against the considered template of the source material doesn't mean the production is being creative or unique - sometimes it's just a bad decision from the outset. For every Daniel Craig as Bond, there's a George Lazenby. You mention Jack Reacher, but casting has messed up crime thriller adaptations before: for me personally, I'm a big fan of the Rebus series of novels yet when John Hannah took the role initially it was a disaster.

Adaptations of pop culture are a tricky beast, books and comics especially. It's the fans and readers who thrust these commodities into the limelight so that they get film adaptations in the first place: it's not unreasonable that they get upset when a production company shows poor potential consideration for the material; it's not like Hollywood doesn't have previous on that score either.

I liked On Her Majesty's Secret Service

pixelburp

Mickeroo wrote: »

I liked On Her Majesty's Secret Service

It had a lot of things going for it, and definitely did a lot of things right; casting Lazenby as Bond was not one of them!

PirateShampoo

This fan art mock up looks pretty ok to me.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

^ That doesn't even look like Eisenberg though, it looks like his eyes, maybe, and someone else's head entirely.

Bacchus

Agreed. Doesn't look like him. Cover his bald head and look at the face. It has traces of Eisenberg but it's been shopped to sh*t.

Chris_Heilong

I would have liked to see Josh Brolin cast as Batman, think about it.

IncognitoMan

Just seen on twitter that dc are rumoured to be releasing the name of this in a few hours.

Apparently it's going to be called man of steel 2: fight or flight.

That sounds like sh1t.

Corholio

IncognitoMan wrote: »

Just seen on twitter that dc are rumoured to be releasing the name of this in a few hours.

Apparently it's going to be called man of steel 2: fight or flight.

That sounds like sh1t.

They couldn't get it that wrong?....right? Thats terrible.

pixelburp

Hmm, aside from being clunky by combining both a sequel number & sub-title, it doesn't ring true to me. If it is, I'm more surprised that they're keeping the 'Man of Steel' portion, given how the film's essentially Justice League by any other means...

Bacchus

Rumours that Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson might be playing the Green Lantern. It's only a rumour based on some twitter comment he posted. Might not even be for this movie.

Mr Freeze

IncognitoMan wrote: »

Apparently it's going to be called man of steel 2: fight or flight.

I can't see that happening, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Negative fan reaction will probably make them drop the sub title anyways.

Soft Falling Rain

Not exactly an indication of raising the stakes like the title "The Dark Knight" was is it?

Sounds like something JJ Abrams would dream up.

Penn

IncognitoMan wrote: »

Just seen on twitter that dc are rumoured to be releasing the name of this in a few hours.

Apparently it's going to be called man of steel 2: fight or flight.

That sounds like sh1t.

It's a film with Batman and Superman.

I'd demand my money back if there wasn't at least one fight and one flight.

Corholio

So apparently Luthor could be a tattooed skin head who was once in a street gang?

http://latino-review.com/2014/02/exclusive-just-exactly-lex-luthor-batman-vs-superman/