Lex Luthor is proving a surprisingly difficult character to get right.

I like James Gunn’s Superman movie.  But I’m a bit annoyed by how over half the discussion of the film is about the film’s Lex Luthor with many saying it has the most perfect understanding of the character, when for me how the film handled Luthor is what I liked the least. 

First of all, as someone who likes the CEO Lex Luthor, it bugs me how many modern takes seem to feel forced to include the CEO element when they really just want to do the Mad Scientist.  This is what the Zach Snyder and James Gunn's takes on Lex Luthor have in common, to them the time as a CEO is just a step in the origin they want to get out of the way as quick as possible.  

I want years, maybe even over a decade of Lex Luthor secure in his CEO position before any type of downfall or prison time happens, that’s what we got in the 80s-90s DC Comics and Superman The Animated Series.  Lois and Clark is an interesting middle ground where I’d ideally want multiple seasons in a TV Series but at least getting a whole 22 episode season is better than only one single movie.  For comparison David Xanatos in the Gargyles Cartoon is a good way to handle things. 

However there is another issue I have with this take on Lex Luthor that would apply whether it’s a CEO or Mad Scientist take on the character.   Which is why I still prefer Batman V Superman’s Lex to this one. 

I dislike the very thing so many people are praising right now.

I don’t want Lex to be single-mindedly obsessed with Superman in the way The Joker is with Batman. He should hate Superman only because he’s in the way, Superman currently takes up a large percentage of his energy, and it can over time become somewhat personal.  But this desire to make destroying Superman the only real goal he actually cares about is something I hate.

Gunn cited Allstar Superman as an inspiration and yeah that comic is largely where this way of characterizing Luthor comes from.  And I honestly don’t mind it so much in that story as its own stand alone Elseworld thing.  But as the primary characterization of Luthor in what’s supposed to now be DC’s main Cinematic Universe, it’s really dull and short sighted. 

In the early history of the CEO Lex Luthor I prefer the way he was written by Marv Wolfram over John Byrne, making him a CEO was Wolfman’s idea in the first place and Byrne it turns out was a Right Wing Conservative so always out of touch with why most Superman fans think Superman’s best enemies are Corporate War Mongers and Slum Lords.  After that I again liked how he was handled in season 1 of Lois and Clark and STAS. I liked Lionel Luthor on Smallville (at least the first 3 seasons) as a glimpse of what a fully developed Lex Luthor could be like. And interestingly enough I liked the take on Luthor in season 2 of The Joker Blogs which is not official but an internet Fan Film project taking off of The Dark Knight universe. 

Ya know what story originally with a non CEO Lex Luthor could easily be rewritten as a CEO Luthor story?  Superman IV The Quest for Peace.  Luthor’s plot in that film could easily lend itself to a corporate War Profiter, and then you could also make him the guy buying the Daily Planet as well. 

Frustration with DC's handling of Characters since 2006

I'm somewhat doing this inspired by this article.
http://www.fortressofbaileytude.com/new-costume-same-drama-deeper-shovel/
But I'll be more about DC in general here not just Superman, so plenty I'll say has little direct connection to anything Bailey said.

I too have been displeased by most everything since Infinite Crisis, but the details are different.  Like Bailey I became a DC fan during the Crisis to Crisis era (the name of the Podcast he co-hosts) however to a large extent I started much later in it.  But the first comics I read were old when I obtained them.  World Without a Superman was the first Story-line I read, via the trade paperback.

The new Costumes for DC's big Three which are superficially the starting point here don't bother me much because I know they're temporary, a brief publicity stunt to tie in with Convergence.  But there is no way once they start the Cinematic Universe in 2016 that they'll have those characters in the Comics in costumes unrecognizable as what potential new fans are seeing on the Big Screen.

I'm ok with the idea of less emphasis on the Shared Universe in the comics.  I'm excited to finally see one on the Big Screen, but I hate how comics over do it sometimes.  I'm also pissed that Batwoman's marriage was canceled because of some anti heroes getting married policy at DC.  But well before that it just seemed random to me that Batwoman's OTP wound up becoming a Superman supporting character, I like Maggie Sawyer being in Metropolis, interacting with Turpin and Superman and sometimes the Daily Planet cast of characters.

I'm hoping that an emphasis on "Canon rather then Continuity" means they try to be consistent without worrying about constantly writing themselves into corners.

I'm also tried of them over doing big crossover events, I loved Infinite Crisis, and it's build up going back to 2003.  But it should have ended for awhile after Infinite Crisis.

I was not bothered by the notion of Superman being gone from Action Comics, Action Comics can't go back to being a true Anthology since comics have less pages now, but I kinda dislike it being a Superman solo title effectively when Superman does have several titles for his own world, same with Batman and Detective Comics.  But Superman being gone from his own Title for a year was indeed stupid.

I hate New 52 on several levels.  It's handling of Superman I have no direct knowledge of, from what I've heard......  I like that according to some sources they've tried to go back to Superman's rebellious personality from the Seigel and Shuster stories.  Even in the Crisis to Crisis era with the CEO Lex, it still did not result in superman returning to his anti-Establishment roots.  Characters like Luthor and Westfeild and Vinnie Edge represented Corruption within the system, but never the System itself being corrupt.

Particularly in how the early Post-Crisis years defined Superman and Batman's relationship, it wasn't going in the direction of DKR but clearly using that perceived difference as the starting point.  To me Batman is a Lawful good character, being Lawful can apply to a personally imposed code as much as it can an external one.  So that he works outside the Law of Gotham city doesn't change that he's about Law and Order.  To me if Superman and Batman are gonna disagree it should be the other way, Batman is fare more likely to become a totalitarian, however I don't believe he canonically ever fully would, he's learned how things like War Games and Brother Eye backfired.  But if someone wants to make an elseworlds tale that inverts the concept of DKR's last act, I'd read it.

Back to New52.  What I do not like is that recent comics seem to rarely use Clark Kent, if we're going to do a rebellious Superman well, his time working as a reporter is a key part of that.  And Clark should be who he really is, and the Kents the reason he is who he is.

DC's problem of late hasn't simply been their courting of New Fans over pleasing old ones.  It's that they also have no idea how to court new fans.

I'm someone for whom the first Superman Comics I read were those following the Death of Superman, while he was still Dead.  There was all kinds of Continuity lock-out, but that didn't bother me, the things I didn't get only made me more curious, and fellow Christian Nerd Rob Skiba expressed the same feeling about becoming a DC fan when that was going on.

They are also not appealing to potential new Female readers in the way they insist on treating their female Characters, constantly forgetting about Stephanie and Cassandra Cain.  And continuing to define Barbara Gordon by The Killing Joke in-spite of the protests of the people writing her current comic.

And you can make female characters look Sexy without looking completely objectified.  I as a straight male don't even find that controversial Spiderwoman cover titillating.  Even most men who are "ass men" (which I'm generally not), aren't turned on by the crack, they like it looking round.

What every good take on Superman has in common, whether they make him rebellious like the early Golden Age stories did or not, is that he is a truly Selfless character, which is why his Antithesis Luthor is the embodiment of Selfishness and Narcissism (that is what all good takes on Luthor have in common,, the Robur knock off, the Mad Scientist, the amusing Hakcman-Spacey version, but especially the CEO who becomes President).  Superman has godlike powers but sees himself as Human, Luthor is all too Human but sees himself as a god.

So I agree entirely with Bailey that Superman should never see himself as apart from Humanity.  I mostly agree that people in general shouldn't fear him, but there should be some who do, and Lex should seek to make himself the voice of those, even though his real objection to Superman is different.

Lex Luthor and The Joker

Since people love to contrast Batman and Superman so much (I could rant on that someday) in my view that parallelism/contrast doesn't entirely work without contrasting Luthor and The Joker also.  Because each of them is like every good Arch-nemesis should be the Antithesis to to the Heroes they oppose.

Batman embodies Order while The Joker embodies Chaos.  Superman embodies Selflessness while Lex Luthor embodies Selfishness.  There was a time when these contrasts were defined more superficially.  Superman is Brawn while Luthor is Brains.  Batman is good disguised as something scary, while Joker is evil disguised as something that delights children.  But nowadays no one wants Superman to be stupid and few want Lex to be a weakling (which is the complaint about Eisenberg not being Intimidating, but I'm all for it).  And Clowns are now universally considered scary in any context.

So if Batman and Superman are somewhat opposite kinds of heroes, and Joker and Luthor are their total opposites.  Logic dictates they should be in some way be opposite kinds of villains.

I prefer to define Superman as the Rebel Seigel and Shuster wrote rather then the stupid Frank Miller perception (Chaotic Good rather then Lawful Good).  The Joker obviously is Chaotic Evil, he's become the definition of it.

Lex Luthor I have always felt works as an evil counter part to Batman better then any of the failed Batman characters created for that intent.  Both are about Order in a sense.  Batman has the best rouges gallery over all, but not a good Evil Counterpart, The Joker is a perfect antithesis, and many others have some parallels.  But the ones made to be Batman if he were Evil (like Zoom is for Flash and Sinestro is for Hal, and the Phantom Zone villains for Superman) tend to flop.

I read this article on The Joker
https://ladygeekgirl.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/sexualized-saturdays-the-joker/

And I hate it.  The Joker is not about control, that is Lex Luthor.  The Joker is about making other people lose control (Batman first and foremost but he will target others from time to time).  That's his blatant objective in both The Killing Joke and The Dark Knight.  Seeing someone who says they've read TKJ so monumentally misunderstanding it really annoys me.

Also The Joker is Asexual in my opinion, perhaps Homoromantic in relation to Batman but completely without any sex drive.  So no he did not rape or sexually assault Barbara Gordon in TKJ.

Lex Luthor however is a very sexual "Alpha-Male", the early CEO Lex who was very unattractive was the embodiment of why we have sexual harassment laws, when he later morphs into being more attractive he's more of a womanizer, which is an unfortunate implication since attractive people can be rapists too.  And slash shipping Lex and Clark on Smallville works very well.

The Batman villain who is a Sadist is Crane/The Scarecrow, but he gets off on psychological torture rather then physical torture, which is what Cillian Murphy captured perfectly in Batman Begins.  His parallel to Batman is that both use Fear as a weapon, one for good and one for evil.

Writers haven't put the same thought into how to contrast Luthor and The Joker they have into Batman and Superman.  Many Comic stories using both wind up seeming randomly lame.  However the World's Finest story-line on Superman The Animated Series did a decent Job.  I also enjoy their moment in Infinite Crisis, and I rather like what The Joker Blogs is doing.

What about the Pre-Crisis Lex?  Isn't he less Lawful and more Chaotic?  Maybe, but he's still about power and control, in that era his methods may have seemed more similar to some incarnations of The Joker, but the goals were still different.  As far as doing the Pre-Crisis Lex in a more developed way I enjoyed the Allstar Superman animated movie.  How he was in official continuity between losing the Presidency and Infinite Crisis also worked well.

Here is one interesting article on them that I mostly agree with
http://comicsalliance.com/ask-chris-188-lex-luthor-the-joker/

One finale important difference, that the article I just linked to didn't get.  The Joker has wanted to kill Batman in some stories but I prefer The Joker to never want Batman dead, he's more interested in making Batman break then killing him.  While Lex may want Superman alive at some times but ultimately his goal to be the one who kills Superman, which is why he was PISSED OFF at Doomsday.

Mercy Graves and The Amazons

It's never been included yet in any of Mercy's Animated or TV appearances. But in the Comics (at least Pre-Flashpoint) she (and the short lived character of Hope) are Amazons. This was first strongly hinted at in Secret Files: President Luthor and confirmed in Justice League: Cry for Justice. 

I'd speculated on this being relevant to this movie well before it was known if Mercy would even appear, just from knowing Wonder Woman would be in it. Now since the Actress playing Mercy is the same age as Gal Gadot, I'm thinking that supports them being perhaps counterparts to each other. 

In all likely hood she is not a Themiscirian Amazon. DC Comics does have at least one other Amazon tribe. Bana-Mighdall, it's location has inconsistently been refereed to as either Africa or the Middle East. 

For this film a set for an African looking city was built. They were originally supposed to film in Africa but the Ebola scare scrapped that plan. The City was still built in an African style. It has been speculated to be Themiscyria, but Gal Gadot's costume implies that her Amazon tribe is Greek in atheistic as usual. I'm thinking maybe that city is Bana-Mighdall. 

Artemis, who was Daina's temporary 90s Anti-Hero replacement was also from Bana-Mighdall in origin. The Bana-Mighdall Amazons do not share the Immortality of the Themsicyrian Amazons, which is one of the main reasons Mercy is more likely to descend from them. I wonder if there is a tall Blond woman in the cast who's role isn't known yet who could possibly be Artemis? 

The Joker can easily be overexposed

The Dark Knight was a big deal because we hadn't seen The Joker on the big screen in 19 years.  And in 89 we hadn't in 23 years.  After The Dark Knight I was prepared to be perfectly content if it did take that long or longer to get a third cinematic Joker (2027-2031).  And TDK achieved that with him having only 35 minutes of screen time out of a 2 hour and 24 minute film (not counting the closing credits in the run-time).

Now I've heard that Leto's contract signs him on to appear in 3 Suicide Squad films, 3 Solo Batfleck films, a Joker film with him and Robbie as the leads, and possible cameos in Justice League films.

If you're thinking "it's not a problem to see Batman in that many films" Batman was designed to be the main character.  Yet some people do think he's overexposed, being in at least 1 Animated film every year, sometimes all 3 Animated films DC does.  And now Batman elements are a core part of 2 Prime-Time TV shows.  Gotham and Arrow which get numerous lesser known Batman characters plus Ra's Al Ghoul. And soon Teen Titans will have Dick Grayson and Oracle/Batgirl.  A growing minority of people are getting sick of Batman.

And if you know me from my Internet activity elsewhere you might be thinking "You're ok with Lex being in every Superman film, and Dr.Doom in every F4 film, and Magneto in every X-Men film, and so on".

Well those are sagas that don't have the variety of awesome villains Batman has. And those Nemeses are also more human characters, who have personal relationships with the heroes.  Each has at least in some depictions been a Friend first.  There is no Frenimy vibe with The Joker, no teaming up against a greater threat, in TDK The Joker is the greater threat that causes Maroni to help the good guys.

But beyond that The Joker is not a run of the mill villain or Arch Nemesis "When Supervillians want to scare each other, they tell Joker stories".

In terms of what seeing The Joker show up in a Batman story should mean, I don't consider him comparable to Lex Luthor but rather to Brainiac.

Harley Quinn being in that many films I'm fine with.  In fact I think it may hurt Harley's character that Robbie's version of her will never be seen without The Joker.  Her relationship with Ivy is something I definitely want to see.  And Harley herself can be a reminder that The Joker exists without actually seeing him.

Even seeing The Joker is every Batman film of the future series I feel is bad, because how will other Bat-Villains truly get to shine if they're always in the shadow of The Clown Prince of Crime?  Lex appearing with other villains is different because he is designed to be (the CEO version anyway) an arc villain,  The Joker is the Wildcard that characters like Lex would want locked up just as much as Batman does.

But beyond that, is the idea of The Joker being in non Batman films.  I was iffy on him being in Suicide Squad to begin with.  Assault on Arkham works because those Animated films are supposed to be outside the box experiments.  Introducing the Suicide Squad to non Comic readers with The Joker's shadow hovering over them shows a certain lack of faith in the property, if Guardians of The Galaxy didn't need Loki then SS shouldn't need The Joker.  If however for all the hype Leto winds up being in the film no more then Thanos was in GotG then I might consider that a relief.

But now that it sounds like he may be in all 3 Suicide Squad films?  How does this even remotely represent the kinds of stories the Suicide Squad usually deals with?  They usually don't even operate within the US.  They should be like Mission Impossible but with a team of villains.

And a Joker solo film...... yes there have been Comics with The Joker as the Title Character.  Their appeal has always worn off pretty quickly.

A film with Harley and Ivy as the leads, that could work.  But ideally of characters who are Batman antagonists it's Catwoman who is best at carrying her own stories.  But of course Executives think the Halle Berry film failing means Catwoman can't carry a movie.  Rather then simply blaming that film's failure on being Catwoman in name only.

The Joker in a Justice League film could work maybe if they do a Legion of Doom story, but the LoD has never existed in the actual Comics, closest analogue is the Secret Society of Supervillians from the Infinite Crisis lead in.  Infinite Crisis issue #2 explains why The Joker wasn't asked to join that.  So I wouldn't want The Joker as a LoD member but as a Wild Card.