They always pass up obvious choices for Lex for comedic ones.
Whoever thought of putting tattoos on Jared Leto's Joker should have been banned from Hollywood. Some of the dumbest decision-making I've ever seen in film.
Lex Luthor worked in the animated series since he was a corrupt CEO who had a lot of good publicity which worked well for him to make him a threat since Superman couldn't touch him without making himself look bad.
That's the thing. I've seen a ton of Superman media, and Luthor works best on the small screen.
Like he could work on the big screen, it's just that modern DC can't do Superman and his characters well.
Same with making the makeup on Leto look similar to a child
I have to blame Watchmen's deconstructive take for why they can't handle Superman these days, especially with Zack Synder. Synder's DC movies are him trying to make sequels to Watchmen, which is why Superman keeps acting like Doc Manhattan in them and why Batman is obsessively violent. Except, and no studio executive seems to realize this, Supes is not a cynical, uncaring god-man nor is Bats that hateful towards most criminals.* While Synder is a 45 year-old teenager about it, that cynical disbelief towards the idea that a person can be naturally moral is a common belief in most people. This belief actually breaks Supes as a character because he's an aspirational hero contrasted to a cynical city.
It was very weird seeing Snyder say that he wanted to make a film about what happened if Superman was in the real world, when he had previously made a film that addressed that.
Lois is BPD thinspo queen. Clark's innocence is the most endearing thing about him.
Well, the Watchmen movie was still Moore's work (despite his denial). Zack Synder just stuck his editing into it. MoS and on is mostly Synder's sensibilities, which is why I call him a 45 year old teenager. By trying to be more mature and edgy, those movies show just how immature they are.
Even beyond that something that grinds my gears is people using the same takes from the 60s about marvel being better because "its about humans being heroic" while DC is still painted in a silver age brush.
I feel the issue with that perception, especially with Superman is that people don't seem to want to make a movie that portrays Superman as an actual human, especially Zack Snyder who wanted to make Superman Jesus which isn't really his character
I feel it's put up there due to how low the bar is for many of DC's films. The DCEU is a complete mess with most of the films being awful that a decent film looks like gold in comparison.
Zack fucked his whole character up hard, MoS was shit for a bunch of reasons. Its been canon since the 80s that Clark gets his idea to be a hero from his adoptive parents rather than his birth parents. Which makes a lot more sense, adopting isn't something someone does lightly, the hoops you jump through as well as the burden you're knowingly undertaking (most people aren't giving up their kids willingly unless they're even worse than ethan ralph and the courts only take them away from habitual criminals) means very few people are willing to do it, its a mass negative on a person unless you're a child molester basically. for fucks sake you can't even adopt a cat unless you're proven to be the type that would lift a car or pull a bus from the water or run out to save one from a tornado. So the Kents being the ones to inspire his vigilantism makes sense. I understand the whole "people keeping you down, tall poppy syndome, be who you were meant to be" concept but its a shitty message especially the idea of his parents keeping him down. plus it makes the audience hate a big part of his supporting cast. Imagine a reverse, with the kents being those types that are always volunteering at bake sales or food kitchens, always helping stack chairs after assemblies and chaperoning field trips, constantly putting their nose where it doesn't belong. Thats the type that would raise someone to fight for truth, justice, the american way.
Bruce became judge, jury and executioner when he started branding criminals. He knew the brand would attract violence in prison. It was just another way of taking out his rage on Superman and justifying it to himself.
I thought Luthor was paying prisoners to kill the branded to frame him? Otherwise why would being captured by Batman make a criminal a target of other criminals?
I'm pretty much in agreement with you.
I don’t have a problem with Batman killing. What I do have a problem with is turning him into a character like Azreal.
Yea, this film was fun, but in the end no one’s really going to care. It doesn’t have a mostly coherent universe to be able to attach itself to. And the Ayer version kinda blew it. It butchered what the Suicide Squad were supposed to be in the first place. The Gunn film got it right. Assault on Arkham and Hell to Pay got it right. Why didn’t the Ayer film get it right? And now the Gunn film suffers for it.
Her back must hurt from carrying the entire DCEU on it.