Batman v Superman *spoilers from post 2434*

Mickeroo

Goldstein wrote: »

I must Google Jesse Eisenberg as I am obviously thinking of the wrong guy.

He's the guy from the Social Network.

Agent Coulson

Goldstein wrote: »

I must Google Jesse Eisenberg as I am obviously thinking of the wrong guy.

No thats the guy you're thinking of alright

Goldstein

Mickeroo wrote: »

He's the guy from the Social Network.

You're thinking of the wrong guy too!

Agent Coulson

Goldstein

I see what happened. There was a lot of noise at the announcement. What they actually said was "the guy with Jesse, you know Heisenberg". Easy mistake to make!

aidan_walsh

Huh. So Saverin became Spider-Man and Zuckerberg Luthor. Seems about right.

Oafley Jones

I like it, although a younger Luthor than I imagined. Thank **** it's not Cranston. Don't get me wrong, I love the guy, but nobody (particularly him) needs to see him playing that role again.

techdiver

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I see people defending the casting by comparing it to the reaction Heath Ledger's casting as The Joker got.

It's hardly the same thing.

In what way is it different? I am genuinely curious. A major character cast by an actor who is deemed unworthy by the minority of loud experts who scream and shout from the rooftops about it, despite the fact that movie studios and the majority of the movie going public couldn't give a **** about their opinion. There was also a big forora when Michael Keaton was cast as batman. So I hopefully look forward to another case of these "experts" being proven wrong.

It actually gets tiring with all the bitching and moaning that goes on by the anointed experts on the web when it comes to casting for major roles.

Do we even know what direction they are going with the character? People are polluted with their own ideal of what they think a character should embody based on their own likes and tastes and are unwilling to let go and try something new.

Many people who see this movie will only have the Gene Hackman Lex as a barometer for the character.

I wouldn't have thought of Eisenberg for the role, but I'm going to reserve judgement until I see the movie as oppose to going on an adolescent rant about it before a scene is even shot.

If you also look at the alternative names people bandy about, it revolves around either a bald actor of an actor who was bald for a role.

Brain Cranston (Bald in Breaking Bad)
Mark Strong (Bald)
Billy Zane (Bald)

Wow they should all be casting agents, they can really think outside the box!

Then you have John Hamm, who for some reason comic book nerds have a hard on for and wanted him cast as Superman and when that didn't happen Batman, and when that didn't happen Lex, etc, etc....

Oafley Jones

techdiver wrote: »

In what way is it different? I am genuinely curious. A major character cast by an actor who is deemed unworthy by the minority of loud experts who scream and shout from the rooftops about it, despite the fact that movie studios and the majority of the movie going public couldn't give a **** about their opinion. There was also a big forora when Michael Keaton was cast as batman. So I hopefully look forward to another case of these "experts" being proven wrong.

It actually gets tiring with all the bitching and moaning that goes on by the anointed experts on the web when it comes to casting for major roles.

Do we even know what direction they are going with the character? People are polluted with their own ideal of what they think a character should embody based on their own likes and tastes and are unwilling to let go and try something new.

Many people who see this movie will only have the Gene Hackman Lex as a barometer for the character.

I wouldn't have thought of Eisenberg for the role, but I'm going to reserve judgement until I see the movie as oppose to going on an adolescent rant about it before a scene is even shot.

If you also look at the alternative names people bandy about, it revolves around either a bald actor of an actor who was bald for a role.

Brain Cranston (Bald in Breaking Bad)
Mark Strong (Bald)
Billy Zane (Bald)

Wow they should all be casting agents, they can really think outside the box!

Then you have John Hamm, who for some reason comic book nerds have a hard on for and wanted him cast as Superman and when that didn't happen Batman, and when that didn't happen Lex, etc, etc....

Took the words right out of my mouth. It's hilarious really. Unfortunately, since you haven't presented your argument in the form of a GIF, what you've wrote is just bull****.

FlashD

Surprising....... Eisenberg is beginning to look like the most inspiring bit of casting in this CGI fest.

Something different is always good but could always go badly wrong too.

norrie rugger

who said billy zane??
Mark Strong and Cranston are great actors, and have played characters that prove their range can match Luthor. Also they need to be able to pull off being bald, on screen, even if that sounds silly.
I said Idris Elba as his turn in the Wire had him playing a dual character, fronting a business and ruthless as **** criminal.
Now tell me that Esinberg, who delivers the same performance in every film, can match them

Mickeroo

norrie rugger wrote: »

who said billy zane??
Mark Strong and Cranston are great actors, and have played characters that prove their range can match Luthor. Also they need to be able to pull off being bald, on screen, even if that sounds silly.
I said Idris Elba as his turn in the Wire had him playing a dual character, fronting a business and ruthless as **** criminal.
Now tell me that Esinberg, who delivers the same performance in every film, can match them

Maybe they want Luther to be more the Zuckerberg type. Would be an interesting way to update the character imo, the casting makes more sense the more I think of it. The baldness isn't that big of a deal really, he's been depicted as having a full head of hair before, would be no different than how they made Nick Fury black.

FlashD

FlashD wrote: »

Something different is always good but could always go badly wrong too.

So you've seen the film then.

Strong would be a great choice but he's already part of the DC universe and I imagine that rather than reboot the Green Lantern they will try and work it into Man of Steel 2 or 3 somehow.

techdiver

norrie rugger wrote: »

who said billy zane??
Mark Strong and Cranston are great actors, and have played characters that prove their range can match Luthor. Also they need to be able to pull off being bald, on screen, even if that sounds silly.
I said Idris Elba as his turn in the Wire had him playing a dual character, fronting a business and ruthless as **** criminal.
Now tell me that Esinberg, who delivers the same performance in every film, can match them

Did Cranston prove this range before Breaking Bad? He was magnificent in Breaking bad. I watched it from it's beginning and before the truly popular phenomenon it became. But when I found the show first I said to myself - "The Dad from Malcolm in the Middle"...

Actors rely on specific roles to challenge themselves to move beyond the perceived "range" they have.

Looks at the likes of Tom Hanks and very recently Matthew McConaughey. Some cringe worthy comedies and then boom! Cast in a role that allows them to step outside their type casting. They are Oscar winners and nominees as is Eisenberg by the way.

You do realise that they don't just go though a flip book and randomly pick an actor. They will screen test and read for the role. They then pick the person that suits their vision for a character the best. They are not trying to piss you off.

Also, who says that any of the aforementioned actors would accept any roles? No one knows what goes on behind scenes.

JP Liz V1

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Noooooooooooooo.

Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor and Jeremy Irons as Alfred

I'm done with it now.

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/jesse-eisenberg-cast-as-lex-luthor-in-supermanbatman-jeremy-irons-set-as-alfred-1201079902/

Really?

Nervous Wreck

techdiver wrote: »

Did Cranston prove this range before Breaking Bad? He was magnificent in Breaking bad. I watched it from it's beginning and before the truly popular phenomenon it became. But when I found the show first I said to myself - "The Dad from Malcolm in the Middle"...

Cranston's stint as Hal in Malcolm in the Middle remains one of the most amazing comedic performances I've ever seen. Every time I look back at an episode, I'm reminded of how truly gifted an actor he is.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

techdiver wrote: »

In what way is it different? I am genuinely curious. A major character cast by an actor who is deemed unworthy by the minority of loud experts who scream and shout from the rooftops about it, despite the fact that movie studios and the majority of the movie going public couldn't give a **** about their opinion. There was also a big forora when Michael Keaton was cast as batman. So I hopefully look forward to another case of these "experts" being proven wrong.

I don't pretend to be an expert on comics or super heroes. I will admit I probably do have ideas of certain characters in my head and find it difficult to picture someone so vastly different from my own ideas cast in the role.

However, I think this differs from the Ledger casting because Ledger was already established as a capable actor and although he may not have been what people imagined for the character I don't think there was any question as to his ability to play different characters and well.
My main issue with Eisenberg is that he's shown very little range in the films I've seen him in, I'm not entirely convinced he's that talented an actor AND the rest of the cast (from the Superman universe) are towards the older end of the age spectrum. Now, as I said, I'm not an expert on the comics, maybe there's some version of them where the characters are completely different to the ones that the majority of TV/Film incarnations have gone with. I can't see Eisenberg playing a charming business man or someone capable of intimidating someone like Henry Cavill or Ben Affleck.

Anyway, it's just my personal opinion, I didn't have any interest in Batman and don't remember in any great detail the reaction to Ledger, and I'm sure there are those people who will bitch and moan about everything that isn't exactly as they imagined it in their own minds, I'm not one of them. I just don't like any of the direction or choices this film seems to have made.

techdiver

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Cranston's stint as Hal in Malcolm in the Middle remains one of the most amazing comedic performances I've ever seen. Every time I look back at an episode, I'm reminded of how truly gifted an actor he is.

Yes, I agree. What I was trying to say was you wouldn't jump from Hal to Walter White. The argument was about range. I am a huge fan of his, but every actor has a development path and you shouldn't write off anyone.

It's no more of a jump for Eisenberg from other characters he played to Lex Luthor.

FlashD

Deleted User wrote: »

So you've seen the film then.

....... my advice is to enjoy the build up and speculation. Like most Synder fare, it will probably will be the best part.

pixelburp

techdiver wrote: »

In what way is it different? I am genuinely curious. A major character cast by an actor who is deemed unworthy by the minority of loud experts who scream and shout from the rooftops about it, despite the fact that movie studios and the majority of the movie going public couldn't give a **** about their opinion. There was also a big forora when Michael Keaton was cast as batman. So I hopefully look forward to another case of these "experts" being proven wrong.

It actually gets tiring with all the bitching and moaning that goes on by the anointed experts on the web when it comes to casting for major roles.

Bit passive aggressive there to just trash the opinions of those not immediately joyous or thinking the casting makes sense; how is your hyperbole better than that which you complain about? I think most of us here are smart enough to think 'wait and see' is broadly the best policy, but that doesn't mean they should just say nothing when a surprising piece of casting pops up like this one. And it's definitely surprising. Especially when on the face of it, it kinda flies against what I believe is known of the character.

I'm not an expert on the Superman mythos, but my understanding of Lex Luthor is that he's a physically imposing, charismatic genius, who yes, happens to be bald. The previous iterations from Hackman and Spacey were quite far from this apparent true representation; playing him in a much campier fashion & as a 2D villain. Seems to me like Luthor requires a leading-man magnetism that I just don't see in Eisenberg myself.

As for the comparisons with Ledger's casting, well to be honest Ledger showed himself to have a fairly wide range prior to Dark Knight & people mainly got annoyed over his perceived 'pretty boy' status. Playing 'crazy' also seems like one of those roles actors relish so it wasn't too much of a surprise Ledger did so well. Eisenberg? Well honestly he seems cut from the same cloth as someone like Michael Cera: fine within a certain subset of roles but not apparently possessing the kind of charisma needed to be an imposing politician / scientist I believe Luthor should be. Like I said, this is a man who got himself elected to President

Besides, based on what I saw in the first film, the casting of Lex Luthor is the least of this film's potential problems

Otacon

Personally, I'm not as against the JE casting as some here are. He is actually a genuinely good actor IMO who can pull off the arrogant intelligence bit quite well. The one aspect of Luthor I don't think he can get is the physicality. Luthor is not only smart but he thinks of himself as the pinnacle of man.

Still, I'm more interested to see this now as I want to see what he does.

techdiver

pixelburp wrote: »

Bit passive aggressive there to just trash the opinions of those not immediately joyous or thinking the casting makes sense; how is your hyperbole better than that which you complain about? I think most of us here are smart enough to think 'wait and see' is broadly the best policy, but that doesn't mean they should just say nothing when a surprising piece of casting pops up like this one. And it's definitely surprising. Especially when on the face of it, it kinda flies against what I believe is known of the character.

Just to be clear, I wasn't aiming my analysis directly at anyone in particular here.

I wanted to comment on the usual over the top internet reaction that follows these casting announcements. Like the idiots who set up petitions to have actors fired from roles that they were cast for.

norrie rugger

Luthor may be arrogantly intelligent but also has a maniacle personality just barely contained. Can JE pull that off in an imposing, threatening and non whining manner? I just have my doubts.

norrie rugger

techdiver wrote: »

Yes, I agree. What I was trying to say was you wouldn't jump from Hal to Walter White. The argument was about range. I am a huge fan of his, but every actor has a development path and you shouldn't write off anyone.

It's no more of a jump for Eisenberg from other characters he played to Lex Luthor.

Did you not see how easily Hal could turn hard and menacing, even in a comedy show, if the family was anyway threatened.
Good point was when his father in law gave the kids a live grenade. The way that he threatened the father in law was amazing, especially within the requirements of Hal

techdiver

pixelburp wrote: »

I'm not an expert on the Superman mythos, but my understanding of Lex Luthor is that he's a physically imposing, charismatic genius, who yes, happens to be bald.

That is one incarnation of the character over the years. He has had many different guises. He has been the business man, mad scientist, or criminally insane, etc. I actually like the idea of a modern version of the business man Luthor, perhaps in the guise of a dot com billionaire.

pixelburp wrote: »

The previous iterations from Hackman and Spacey were quite far from this apparent true representation; playing him in a much campier fashion & as a 2D villain.

Agreed, they were more a loose narrow version of the silver age Luthor.

pixelburp

techdiver wrote: »

Just to be clear, I wasn't aiming my analysis directly at anyone in particular here.

I wanted to comment on the usual over the top internet reaction that follows these casting announcements. Like the idiots who set up petitions to have actors fired from roles that they were cast for.

Fair enough, though in this case I'd argue the negative reaction isn't entirely undeserved. Lex Luthor's swagger and physicality seems utterly at odds with Eisenbergs schtick of playing neurotic, introverted characters in the Michael Cera spectrum of acting. We shall see.

I myself won't get too het up about it, film seems like a bloody mess already what with the burgeoning cast of characters and the fact Man of Steel was an offence to the senses

johnny_ultimate

Zack Snyder is directing the film. Frankly, they could cast Daniel Day Lewis, Denis Lavant and a freshly resurrected Jimmy Stewart in the lead roles and I'd still put my money on it being a steaming pile of ****.

norrie rugger

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Zack Snyder is directing the film. Frankly, they could cast Daniel Day Lewis, Denis Lavant and a freshly resurrected Jimmy Stewart in the lead roles and I'd still put my money on it being a steaming pile of ****.

haha
QFT

Goldstein

I'm picturing Schneider at home on his laptop with a massive bag of popcorn laughing his ass off while he plans the Justin Bieber as the Flash casting announcement.

Worth remembering we're talking about the sequel to the movie we all voted the most disappointing film of last year, only this time no Michael Shannon and lots of Ben Affleck. Safe to predict we're not looking at the next The Dark Knight no matter who they cast so I think most reactions are ones of mild surprise than disappointment.

Goldstein

Goldstein wrote: »

I'm picturing Schneider at home on his laptop with a massive bag of popcorn laughing his ass off while he plans the Justin Bieber as the Flash casting announcement.

Worth remembering we're talking about the sequel to the movie we all voted the most disappointing film of last year, only this time no Michael Shannon and lots of Ben Affleck. Safe to predict we're not looking at the next The Dark Knight no matter who they cast so I think most reactions are ones of mild surprise than disappointment.

Nothing wrong with Ben Affleck. He's proven himself more than capable and is the sole reason that I think this could be good. I'm hoping that the delay in shooting means that Affleck will be doing some work on the script as he's shown that he's a damn good writer, especially when it comes to adaptations.

Soft Falling Rain

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Zack Snyder is directing the film. Frankly, they could cast Daniel Day Lewis, Denis Lavant and a freshly resurrected Jimmy Stewart in the lead roles and I'd still put my money on it being a steaming pile of ****.

Snyder is nowhere near as bad as some like to suggest, and MOS is no where near the turkey some like to say it is. But keep trotting out the populist barbs by all means.

TBH this casting, while obviously jarring at first, doesn't bother me. I always saw Lex, as the physical specimen, as a bit redundant tbh. I mean he could be ripped to bits, but it still means absolutely **** all going up against Superman. So if Eisenberg is playing it as an arrogant and egotistical little twerp I can definitely get behind that.

Otacon

Saw this on Twitter and I lol'd

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Goldstein wrote: »

Worth remembering we're talking about the sequel to the movie we all voted the most disappointing film of last year, only this time no Michael Shannon and lots of Ben Affleck. Safe to predict we're not looking at the next The Dark Knight no matter who they cast so I think most reactions are ones of mild surprise than disappointment.

Personally.... I quite liked MoS and think the Bale Batman films are awful so I am in no way looking for the next The Dark Knight.

Dman001

Goyer did say, while promoting Man of Steel, that he would like to explore a 'Bill Gates-type' of Lex Luther for the films. It's not so surprising that they cast Eisenberg if that's the direction they plan to take.

Liger vs Tigon

Dman001 wrote: »

Goyer did say, while promoting Man of Steel, that he would like to explore a 'Bill Gates-type' of Lex Luther for the films. It's not so surprising that they cast Eisenberg if that's the direction they plan to take.

Yes it is surprising, he looks like a 12 year old boy. He simply doesn't look powerful or intimidating. Crazy casting.

Goldstein

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Personally.... I quite liked MoS and think the Bale Batman films are awful so I am in no way looking for the next The Dark Knight.

On that metric at least Snyder is sure to exceed all expectations.

pixelburp

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

Snyder is nowhere near as bad as some like to suggest, and MOS is no where near the turkey some like to say it is. But keep trotting out the populist barbs by all means.

'populist'? Amazing as it might seem, many of us aren't looking for validation through ganging up on a film, we just genuinely thought the film was pants The production design & soundtrack was decent - I particularly liked the organic, giger'esque design of Krypton - but as a film, a narrative and story about Superman, Man of Steel was abysmal. The third act was so horribly mishandled, borderline distasteful & so broken on every level of storytelling I thought it might have been a parody. In trying to pull a Dark Knight, smearing the plot with angst and misery, they corrupted the Superman mythology beyond recognition really.

As for Snyder himself, well I can't speak for others but I don't think he's the worst thing since alternate-universe sliced bread, but he dropped the ball completely for Man of Steel. I still think he did a decent job on Watchman considering that was a no-win production, and his Dawn of the Dead remake is still an excellent horror film. I think he just loses the run of himself and is in need of a better editor / producer, but for Man of Steel he failed.

FlashD

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Personally.... I quite liked MoS and think the Bale Batman films are awful so I am in no way looking for the next The Dark Knight.

If you hated the Batman films so much, why did you continue to go after the first one? Did you really expect things to change so much in 2 & 3?

That would be like me watching Transformers 2 & 3 or Iron man 2 & 3. Never going to happen.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

FlashD wrote: »

If you hated the Batman films so much, why did you continue to go after the first one? Did you really expect things to change so much in 2 & 3?

That would be like me watching Transformers 2 & 3 or Iron man 2 & 3. Never going to happen.

I didn't. I watched the first one and couldn't bring myself to watch the others. Obviously I can't say whether the quality improved or not after the first one and maybe I should have phrased my original comment differently to make it clear that I only watched the first one, but I think my point stands. I saw nothing at all in the first Bale Batman film that made me want to come back for more. So in regards to the new Superman franchise I am not one of seemingly many who hate it and wanted it to be more like Batman.

Mickeroo

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I didn't. I watched the first one and couldn't bring myself to watch the others. Obviously I can't say whether the quality improved or not after the first one and maybe I should have phrased my original comment differently to make it clear that I only watched the first one, but I think my point stands. I saw nothing at all in the first Bale Batman film that made me want to come back for more. So in regards to the new Superman franchise I am not one of seemingly many who hate it and wanted it to be more like Batman.

That's interesting, one of the main flaws of MoS for me (apart from all the basic storytelling stuff it got wrong) was that they wanted to make it too much like Nolan's Batman or even Batman in general, I got the feeling Snyder didn't really get what makes Superman tick as a character much to the film's detriment.

I would recommend giving The Dark Knight a look even though you didn't like BB, it's got a different feel to it and much higher stakes than BB plus it's probably a modern classic at this stage and deserves a chance even if you end up disliking it regardless. I know plenty people who didn't like the first one but love TDK.

Zubeneschamali

Goldstein wrote: »

Safe to predict we're not looking at the next The Dark Knight

Good.

RobbingBandit

A Black Perry White worked well for the first film but I just don't see this guy working for Lex Luthor, if they go with him still having hair Lex was/is a red head, Eisenberg with red hair would not work let alone him being bald for the role.

krudler

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I didn't. I watched the first one and couldn't bring myself to watch the others. Obviously I can't say whether the quality improved or not after the first one and maybe I should have phrased my original comment differently to make it clear that I only watched the first one, but I think my point stands. I saw nothing at all in the first Bale Batman film that made me want to come back for more. So in regards to the new Superman franchise I am not one of seemingly many who hate it and wanted it to be more like Batman.

You should check out TDK purely for Ledger's performance, like Mickeroo said it's a different feel to Begins, less comic book and more set in a real world setting (well in the context of a comic movie anyway). I actually prefered Begins' protrayal of Gotham though, it was equal parts real city and fantastical setting, wherease TDK you're just watching Batman run around Chicago and New York in the third movie.

I watched it over Christmas as I hadn't seen it in a few years and it's easy to forget just how immense Heath Ledger was in it. For all the ninjas and exploding trains and Bane's theatrics in the third movie it's the simple threats that Joker makes and psychological games that carry so much more weight than all the setpieces in the other ones.

Rubber_Soul

RobbingBandit wrote: »

A Black Perry White worked well for the first film but I just don't see this guy working for Lex Luthor, if they go with him still having hair Lex was/is a red head, Eisenberg with red hair would not work let alone him being bald for the role.

Why does he have to be either?

aidan_walsh

Duggy747

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I didn't. I watched the first one and couldn't bring myself to watch the others.

I didn't like Batman Begins much and still don't. TDK I found to be a much better and relatively grounded film to the universe they were putting Batman in, the comedy was more macabre thanks to The Joker's inclusion rather than some of the goofy jokes in Begins.

The 3rd film, though, I found to be muck and forgettable.

Bullseye1

They announced JE as Lex to take the heat away from Affleck. They will announce Kristen Stewart in a week or two as Cat Woman to take the heat away from JE.

Dtp1979

I'd like to see Michael Keaton as batman again

norrie rugger

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

FlashD

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