Why is Lex Luthor is so lame in the films?

[Jim Kelly]

What is at issue, is it the performance by Gene Hackman or the script?

In my opinion, Hackman does a great acting job in both Superman movies. Luthor has his own sense of humour, but he's not hamming it up and there's a real sense that he is highly intelligent and convinced of his own greatness.

The script, intentionally, gives Luthor the kind of scheme that is just a hair over from the standard James Bond villain plot and it's meant to be ridiculous--yet brilliant in its own fashion. That Hackman plays this straight and doesn't oversell the lines, proves his worth as an actor.

Now if you hired a painter to paint your walls blue and he painted them orange, you'd have a reason to complain. But the writers and the actor are doing the jobs they were paid to do. Maybe someone watching SUPERMAN or SUPERMAN II for the first time has been misled and thinks they're going to see OTHELLO--but that's on you, because most people know what kind of movies the Donner/Lester movies are supposed to be. Certainly in the 1970s and the 1980s, audiences weren't deceived and they got the kind of comic book movie they expected.

From that standpoint, I have to defend even Jesse Eisenberg. I really did not like his Luthor at all--but he gave the perfomance he was hired to give. It's clear Snyder wanted Lex to be this insufferable bug who you absolutely loathe and who does more and more disgusting things--so you're angry with the guy and you just want to shake him. But that's what the director and writers wanted from the character. So I can't really hold it against Eisenberg that he did the job he was hired to do. He painted the walls yellow.

[The Overlord]

What is at issue, is it the performance by Gene Hackman or the script?

In my opinion, Hackman does a great acting job in both Superman movies. Luthor has his own sense of humour, but he's not hamming it up and there's a real sense that he is highly intelligent and convinced of his own greatness.

The script, intentionally, gives Luthor the kind of scheme that is just a hair over from the standard James Bond villain plot and it's meant to be ridiculous--yet brilliant in its own fashion. That Hackman plays this straight and doesn't oversell the lines, proves his worth as an actor.

Now if you hired a painter to paint your walls blue and he painted them orange, you'd have a reason to complain. But the writers and the actor are doing the jobs they were paid to do. Maybe someone watching SUPERMAN or SUPERMAN II for the first time has been misled and thinks they're going to see OTHELLO--but that's on you, because most people know what kind of movies the Donner/Lester movies are supposed to be. Certainly in the 1970s and the 1980s, audiences weren't deceived and they got the kind of comic book movie they expected.

From that standpoint, I have to defend even Jesse Eisenberg. I really did not like his Luthor at all--but he gave the perfomance he was hired to give. It's clear Snyder wanted Lex to be this insufferable bug who you absolutely loathe and who does more and more disgusting things--so you're angry with the guy and you just want to shake him. But that's what the director and writers wanted from the character. So I can't really hold it against Eisenberg that he did the job he was hired to do. He painted the walls yellow.

I think the problem with these characters is the writing, though I think Jesse Eisenberg is miscasted.

Here's the thing, this is like someone hiring someone to paint their walls orange and then that person tries to sell that house, knowing a lot of people do not like orange walls and expects the buyer to pay for the expense of repainting

I know what they were going with these Silver Screen versions of Lex, but I think they are bad characters, they are just cartoonish one dimensional bad guys who do not seem like they are worthy foes for Superman, they have no character depth and seem more like an annoyance then a real threat to Superman. The problem is more with the writing, then the actors.

In terms of comic movie villains, I would rate most of the versions of Lex near the bottom.

Well that's not a fair comparison Marvel made a point starting with the FF to create more "realistic" heroes compared to the rest of heroes in the Silver Age which were heavily affected by the comic code in the 50's. In many ways the creation of Marvel led to the Bronze Age which was a revamp of DC characters taking on a more serious with Superman being slightly depowered and updating the Daily Planet, Batman going back to his Dark Knight roots, Green Lantern and Arrow being teamed up and GA being reinvisioned as a hero of the left and downtrodden.

Are you saying Silver Age Lex was a badly written and one dimensional villain?

Here's the thing, I can forgive Hackman being a goofy one dimensional villain, he was first major comic book movie villain, so things were still experimental at the time and I still like the first Superman even though I think it has 2 flaws in it (Lex being a weak villain and the time travel ending being a cop out). I am more annoyed by later film makers copying the Hackman blue print and making Lex a goofball in later films, the Donner Lex characterization felt totally dated when they brought it back with Spacey in 2006. I wish some film maker would make more serious version of Lex.

Frankly I think Zod is my favorite villain from the Donner era Superman films, sure he was kinda goofy and over the top, but with him, his humor never undermined his menace and with Zod the writers revamped him from his comic book counter part at the time.

[DochaDocha]

To be fair, Eisenberg in general just seems to do a good job of being a detestable guy on screen.

[Vordan]

What is at issue, is it the performance by Gene Hackman or the script?

In my opinion, Hackman does a great acting job in both Superman movies. Luthor has his own sense of humour, but he's not hamming it up and there's a real sense that he is highly intelligent and convinced of his own greatness.

The script, intentionally, gives Luthor the kind of scheme that is just a hair over from the standard James Bond villain plot and it's meant to be ridiculous--yet brilliant in its own fashion. That Hackman plays this straight and doesn't oversell the lines, proves his worth as an actor.

Now if you hired a painter to paint your walls blue and he painted them orange, you'd have a reason to complain. But the writers and the actor are doing the jobs they were paid to do. Maybe someone watching SUPERMAN or SUPERMAN II for the first time has been misled and thinks they're going to see OTHELLO--but that's on you, because most people know what kind of movies the Donner/Lester movies are supposed to be. Certainly in the 1970s and the 1980s, audiences weren't deceived and they got the kind of comic book movie they expected.

From that standpoint, I have to defend even Jesse Eisenberg. I really did not like his Luthor at all--but he gave the perfomance he was hired to give. It's clear Snyder wanted Lex to be this insufferable bug who you absolutely loathe and who does more and more disgusting things--so you're angry with the guy and you just want to shake him. But that's what the director and writers wanted from the character. So I can't really hold it against Eisenberg that he did the job he was hired to do. He painted the walls yellow.

I agree. I don’t blame Jesse, I blame Snyder and Terrio. They clearly didn’t get the character, apparently they offered the role to Adam Driver who is a great actor but again, not a good fit for Lex. It’s really pathetic how badly they botched the character.

[Sacred Knight]

The script was definitely the problem, not Hackman. Hackman could have done a more comics-accurate Luthor no problem. But, unfortunately, that's not the character that was written for him to perform.

[dancj]

Hackman is perfect casting for Luthor. It's really unfortunate that they gave me a crappy version of Lex Luthor to play.

I actually liked Jesse Eisenberg's Luthor though.

[stargazer01]

Hackman is perfect casting for Luthor. It's really unfortunate that they gave me a crappy version of Lex Luthor to play.

I actually liked Jesse Eisenberg's Luthor though.

Me too. His confrontation with Superman in BvS was intense. He broke him with pics of his mom being tormented. That's Lex. He doesn't need powers to give Supes a challenge. All he needs is his brilliant mind and hate.

All the movie versions, despite some campy or over the top elements, gave Superman a challenge worth of the Man of Steel. Hackman was excellent, tho Otis hurt him a bit, but it works for its time. At least Superman himself was taken seriously. Same for Spacey who was more brutal and vengeful when he beat up Supes. And Eisenberg manipulated everyone throughout the whole movie. I think he enjoyed playing the character the most. He was totally into it. His only flaw for me was that he was a bit too neurotic at times, but I think it works for a origin story (based on Birthright). Later he turns colder and more vengeful. I would never think that movie Luthor is lame.

[Adekis]

I'll admit that "my" Luthor has never been in a movie, but the Luthor who does show up is definitely based on textual sources, and very well executed, so I don't feel like I have the right to complain too much.