John Martin, citizen & rightful ruler of the omniverse.
Guess a Lex-related controversial or unpopular opinion I have is I don't think Hackman is a bad Luthor. He's not like the one in the comics at the time but I thought he was good as a wannabe James Bond villain conman. Though like with Terrance Stamp and Zod, it's probably more Hackman doing a lot with a role that doesn't have much to it on paper.
Here's another one.
Elliot Magin's Luthor sucks and is a terrible take on the character.
Honestly, this is pretty much all I agree with. I always hated when certain interpretations tried to give him and Clark a past, as if they needed more reasons to be enemies. It's just as terrible as when it's done between Batman and the Joker (most notably the movie where he's the one who killed Bruce's parents)
For the most part I think Luthor is fine as he is in most modern interpretations. The shadowy, conniving CEO who's bent on proving why the world doesn't need Superman or any of his associates. Even if that means being the one who puts them all down.
I always kinda liked that angle for Luthor. He's the guy who's the villain because he's so desperate for the glory of being the hero. He genuinely cares about the world and his city. But he's also a narcissistic sociopath who thinks he's better than everyone and always knows what's best.
So even though I do prefer him as a villain, I guess my unpopular opinion is that I actually really liked his stint as an actual hero during Rebirth. If that had been the new status quo for him, I wouldn't have really been upset.
Last edited by BBally; 08-07-2020 at 04:14 PM.
No matter how many reboots, new origins, reinterpretations or suit redesigns. In the end, he will always be SUPERMAN
Credit for avatar goes to zclark
The only good version of Luthor in Smallville is the show Smallville. Because at least there there was some sort of semi-logical explanation for why he was there. His father sent him there to force him to learn to manage his business. Johns origin makes even less sense because his time in Smallville played no role in him becoming a villain.
Assassinate Putin!
I'm fine with bigotry as a motive since villains don't have to be "great". If he was "great", he wouldn't be a villain in the first place.
Even though I loved the Clark-Lex dynamic in Smallville, didn’t the ending also kinda also highlight how pointless it is? Lex (really just a clone of the still dead real Lex) loses his memory of Smallville and Clark. I didn’t read smallville season 11, but I get the sense that his feud with his old buddy Clark Kent doesn’t end up actually informing his feud with Superman, besides maybe some subconscious dejah-vu.
Last edited by OpaqueGiraffe17; 08-07-2020 at 07:33 PM.
The ending was a cop out because the show kind of went off the rails towards the end. He basically knew about Clark's powers and they needed some excuse for why he doesn't know Clark is Superman. I'm sure that wasn't the intention when the show started but they kind of boxed themselves into a corner.
Assassinate Putin!
Luthor’s got a similar “which interpretation is best” argument going on to the rest of Superman’s mythos... though I’d argue that he’s been proven flexible enough and had enough high quality turns in those versions that there’s a more consistent push to merge those interpretations of him than to reject them.
Mad Scientist Lex provides the best challenge and can be the most impressive as a villain... but Billionaire Lex can lurk in the background as a grand threat that’s a major part of the supporting cast as a villain. Totally cold and remorseless sociopath Lex provides the best contrast to Superman’s more “spiritual“ traits... while the more “twisted could-have-been-a-hero” version often has more admirable “evil virtues” that help him work as a villain. Metropolis born and bred Lex has an excellent coldness and makes a good contrast to farm boy Clark... but Smallville Lex emphasizes his personal agency in falling into villainy contrasted with Clark.
Part of the reason that Black Ring story works very well is because it tries, and largely succeeds, in merging as much of Lex’s variations into one character as it can: he’s a billionaire super scientist whole clearly narcisstic and apathetic towards others, but has a charisma and the echoes of empathy that makes his “sociopathy” feel more like a personal philosophy he has for probably tragic reasons that still in no way justify them... and he bears a grudge against Superman for the familiar selfish and delusional reasons, but then goes ballistic when he realizes Superman and Clark are the same person and his jealousy of the Kent’s comes to bear.
Lex is a very flexible character.
...I would agree the movies have by and large been a crapshoot for quite some time. For some reason, TV seems to handle him much better on a tenth of the budget with guys like John Shea and Michael Rosenbaum than movies do with even legends like Hackman.
Like action, adventure, rogues, and outlaws? Like anti-heroes, femme fatales, mysteries and thrillers?
I wrote a book with them. Outlaw’s Shadow: A Sherwood Noir. Robin Hood’s evil counterpart, Guy of Gisbourne, is the main character. Feel free to give it a look: https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asi...E2PKBNJFH76GQP
You can be smart in multiple areas and still be a bigot. Bigotry can be found anywhere.
There are people who are great inventors that die no richer than when they were born.The only way someone like Lex might be actually poor, would be if they didn't want to be rich. If Lex were real & applied any of his genius to aquisition of wealth, very shortly he would make Mansa Musa look like he was dirt poor.