The Nerdz Lounge.

To me, Lex Luthor is a character with a duel image. He is undoubtedly evil, but that side of him isn't really seen much by the public at large. The average citizen only see's him as a genius business man, a Steve Jobs like figure. So I think playing him as a visually evil looking man is the wrong move. Bryan Cranston, is only good if you are going obviously evil. I think Timothy Olyphant would fit the role a bit better. Besides, if there is a scene were Lex has to get his hands dirty, A younger and more in-shape actor would be better suited.

​

 

Both Olyphant & Cranston are good choices IMO. Before Breaking Bad Cranston was looked at as more of a lightweight & comedic actor. Remember he was the dad in Malcolm in the Middle. One hundred & eighty degrees from Walter White, so he could pull off the "good guy" front that Luthor puts out for the general public.

 

Here's my outside the box choice for Lex Luthor actor Michael Cerveris. Has the acting skill to pull of the dual faces of Luthor.

 

Cranston doesn't get enough credit

Even Walter white had a good side

 

True. Fucked as his getting involved in the meth trade was, it was motivated by his love for his family & making sure they had some financial stability due to his cancer diagnosis.

 

The first actor I had ever seen play Lex Luthor was Lyle Talbot, he appeared in Atom Man Vs. Superman with Kirk Allyn. He played it like he is played now. A businessman and a scientist. like the Devil, he is pleasant enough, yet you had no idea he intends to change minds and take over the world. I think you could add Patrick Stewart to that list, too,if he can get away from The X-Men. Stewart would bring something forcefully ruthless to the role like Kevin Spacey did in Superman Returns.

 

Zack Snyder and Warner Brothers just announced that, Ben Affleck is the new Batman! In the anticipated Batman/Superman movie.




I'm still processing this, but my first impression is

http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=824406

 

Ben Affleck is a good choice to play Batman. He once played actor George Reeves in the film Hollywoodland(I highly recommend that film). George Reeves played in the show The Adventures Of Superman for several years. But, it was the mystery behind his death that was the real story. Affleck did an excellent job. Then Affleck did DareDevil along with his future wife Jennifer Garner(he was the other half of Bennifer. He was engaged to Jennifer Lopez at that time). Ben and Jennifer Garner had great chemistry in DareDevil. So, I think Ben can pull this off and do it well.

 

Meh. Good actor but not Batman. He was okay as Daredevil. My guess is they won't be doing any more Batman solo pics for quite awhile, so they went with a big known actor for the part just to establish there is a Batman. Now who's going to be the new Lex Luthor?

 

Batman and supes?

Aww shit

 

Now that I've had a few hours to think about it. Ben Affleck as Batman isn't the worst idea ever. He isn't my choice, but if he gets into the gym and packs on some muscle. He might be able to pull it off.

 

Here's the trick with playing any superhero. Any good actor/actress can play one. It's the scripts & directors for any movies that will actually make or break them based on how they present the characters. Crappy scripts and directors not really knowing what the characters are about lead to superhero movie bombs. See George Clooney & Brandon Routh as prime examples of actors who should have been great as Batman and Superman respectively but ended up come off as sub par choices because of script & director's vision.

 

No No No.
This superman batman movie will suck on ice!!!
It was doomed to fail before affleck was selected because of the massive differences in powers but to select affleck. That's just a big middle finger to DC fans.


The only chance is for it to be cancelled or..... they do a the dark knight returns!

 

Batman working with superman goes way back

I don't think the film was doomed because someone wanted to pay homage to an iconic duo

 

Isn't the movie called batman vs superman and not batman works with superman?


I'm aware that they have worked way back but I thought the movies was going to be one against the other and not like a world's finest event.


[YOUTUBE]_KfsAK3fIQo[/YOUTUBE]

 

It's called batman vs superman?

Didn't know but u can expect them to work together

The studio would be insane not to have that bromance for the ultimate nerdgasm

 

It can be both. When they did the first big reboot of the DC Universe back in the 1980's the first thing they established was that both Batman & Superman were leery of each other so much so that Superman naively went to Gotham in an attempt to capture the "feared & menacing vigilante" Batman. They slowly built their relationship into one of mutual respect and finally trust if not a full on friendship. That's how Batman ended up with the only piece of Kryptonite in existence (at that time anyway) because Superman as able to finally get the Kryptonite Ring that Luthor had on his person to keep Superman at bay from physically ever touching him, because Superman gave it to him trusting Batman to keep it out of anyone else's hands & to use it only if he ever went rogue.

 

I expect the film to play out that way

Enemies at first then building to friendship

That's the trend these days like thor in the avengers film

 

I don't know. I just don't see it doing good. Ben affleck isn't exactly a good selection. Batman isn't a power house. You'll need two villains to handle the two and a very good cut scene. There is hope that it will be cancelled of course.:smt042

 

Umm....What comic books have you been reading or not been reading more precisely? Or cartoons even? You're sounding like the whole idea of Superman & Batman together, even going head to head for a time, in the same movie is some crazy idea.


And Ben Affleck as Batman isn't going be what makes or breaks this movie.