Jesse Eisenberg cast as Lex Luthor

  • 68 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by sammyjenkis898 (28012 posts) -
#2 Posted by JML897 (33120 posts) -

Eisenberg is a good actor and all but....what?

#3 Posted by GazaAli (22492 posts) -

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Hollywood lost all substance and authenticity it seems. If it were up to me I'd pick one of these to play Lex Luther:

#4 Posted by Master_Live (14032 posts) -

Fvck it, let it die.

#5 Posted by Sword-Demon (6945 posts) -

Maybe if we stop believing in it, this movie will just cease to exist.

#6 Edited by Masculus (2825 posts) -

I can live with Ben Affleck, but this guy?, lol. He always play the shy sissy, how come he's playing a villain?

#7 Edited by LostProphetFLCL (17076 posts) -

What the actual fuck....

#8 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10837 posts) -

I love Man of Steel, but this is an unforgivable decision. He's too young and lacks the confident and calmly aggressive attitude of Lex Luthor.

#9 Edited by mccoyca112 (5433 posts) -

I see him pulling off a great introduction, but then he'll flop towards the end due to the script having him get all eisenberg crazy, and then the general idea of him being cast as lex will steadily come full circle throughout the film in a headache inducing way. Could be worse though. I'm sure of it. I'm still sick about affleck. Or the fact that superman hasn't even had his second movie out before batman steals what little thunder he built up.

#10 Posted by Master_Live (14032 posts) -

With that said, lets not forget prior head scratching casting decisions. You know, like Heath.

lacks the confident and calmly aggressive attitude of Lex Luthor.

How could know that without seeing the movie first?

#11 Edited by jimkabrhel (15417 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Hollywood lost all substance and authenticity it seems. If it were up to me I'd pick one of these to play Lex Luther:

<3

#12 Posted by Aljosa23 (24614 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef: I don't particularly care for this film but have you seen The Social Network? Eisenberg has plenty of confidence and can definitely portray an evil and supremely intelligent man. He is the same age as Henry Cavill, too. Give the dude a chance.

#13 Posted by sammyjenkis898 (28012 posts) -

Heath Ledger was not a head-scratcher. Even if he was, it's a tiresome example that fanboys like to give to defend any casting choice, no matter how shitty. It doesn't mean anything.

#14 Posted by Aljosa23 (24614 posts) -

Heath Ledger was not a head-scratcher. Even if he was, it's a tiresome example that fanboys like to give to defend any casting choice, no matter how shitty. It doesn't mean anything.

Yeah. The Joker casting made sense to anyone who knew Heath Ledger's filmography.

#15 Edited by BluRayHiDef (10837 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

@BluRayHiDef: I don't particularly care for this film but have you seen The Social Network? Eisenberg has plenty of confidence and can definitely portray an evil and supremely intelligent man. He is the same age as Henry Cavill, too. Give the dude a chance.

The confidence he portrayed in The Social Network was of the nerdy and quirky variety, not that of a businessman with swagger. Also, even though he's thirty, he looks like he's in his twenties. Furthermore, he doesn't have the type of physical appearance I associate with Lex Luthor; his face is too friendly and cowardly looking, and his height and physique aren't up to par.

This was a bad choice, but they still have time to change it.

#16 Edited by BluRayHiDef (10837 posts) -

@Master_Live said:

With that said, lets not forget prior head scratching casting decisions. You know, like Heath.

@BluRayHiDef said:

lacks the confident and calmly aggressive attitude of Lex Luthor.

How could know that without seeing the movie first?

My opinion about this casting decision is based on his performance in The Social Network.

#17 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

lol...terrible choice.

#18 Posted by dave123321 (33628 posts) -

Will give him a chance.

He has made me happy more then once

#19 Posted by Aljosa23 (24614 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

@BluRayHiDef: I don't particularly care for this film but have you seen The Social Network? Eisenberg has plenty of confidence and can definitely portray an evil and supremely intelligent man. He is the same age as Henry Cavill, too. Give the dude a chance.

The confidence he portrayed in The Social Network was of the nerdy and quirky variety, not that of a businessman with swagger. Also, even though he's thirty, he looks like he's in his twenties. Furthermore, he doesn't have the type of physical appearance I associate with Lex Luthor; his face is too friendly and cowardly looking, and his height and physique aren't up to par.

This was a bad choice, but they still have time to change it.

What? He was not quirky at all as Zuckerberg. He portrayed him as a smart, yet detached kid that did have businessman swagger especially during the legal scenes in the present. Physical appearance sure, but this is a sequel to a rebooted franchise. There is nothing saying they must stick to the old portrayals. And in terms of his face, there is always makeup and they will likely change his hair. It's an interesting decision but you people are being over dramatic as usual.

#20 Posted by dave123321 (33628 posts) -

Maybe the internet just isn't for us alj

#21 Edited by StrifeDelivery (1334 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

@BluRayHiDef said:

@Aljosa23 said:

@BluRayHiDef: I don't particularly care for this film but have you seen The Social Network? Eisenberg has plenty of confidence and can definitely portray an evil and supremely intelligent man. He is the same age as Henry Cavill, too. Give the dude a chance.

The confidence he portrayed in The Social Network was of the nerdy and quirky variety, not that of a businessman with swagger. Also, even though he's thirty, he looks like he's in his twenties. Furthermore, he doesn't have the type of physical appearance I associate with Lex Luthor; his face is too friendly and cowardly looking, and his height and physique aren't up to par.

This was a bad choice, but they still have time to change it.

What? He was not quirky at all as Zuckerberg. He portrayed him as a smart, yet detached kid that did have businessman swagger especially during the legal scenes in the present. Physical appearance sure, but this is a sequel to a rebooted franchise. There is nothing saying they must stick to the old portrayals. And in terms of his face, there is always makeup and they will likely change his hair. It's an interesting decision but you people are being over dramatic as usual.

Nothing really to be over dramatic about. People think it is the wrong casting choice, and for very good reasons.

#22 Edited by thebest31406 (3320 posts) -

The first film was rubbish because the filmmakers threw far too much shit in it. The second will be trash for the same reason.

#23 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10837 posts) -

Eisenberg is only 5'7" tall. Unforgivable.

#24 Posted by Master_Live (14032 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

@BluRayHiDef said:

@Aljosa23 said:

@BluRayHiDef: I don't particularly care for this film but have you seen The Social Network? Eisenberg has plenty of confidence and can definitely portray an evil and supremely intelligent man. He is the same age as Henry Cavill, too. Give the dude a chance.

The confidence he portrayed in The Social Network was of the nerdy and quirky variety, not that of a businessman with swagger. Also, even though he's thirty, he looks like he's in his twenties. Furthermore, he doesn't have the type of physical appearance I associate with Lex Luthor; his face is too friendly and cowardly looking, and his height and physique aren't up to par.

This was a bad choice, but they still have time to change it.

What? He was not quirky at all as Zuckerberg. He portrayed him as a smart, yet detached kid that did have businessman swagger especially during the legal scenes in the present. Physical appearance sure, but this is a sequel to a rebooted franchise. There is nothing saying they must stick to the old portrayals. And in terms of his face, there is always makeup and they will likely change his hair. It's an interesting decision but you people are being over dramatic as usual.

People think it is the wrong casting choice, and for very good reasons.

Which are?

#25 Posted by platinumking320 (663 posts) -

@Masculus said:

I can live with Ben Affleck, but this guy?, lol. He always play the shy sissy, how come he's playing a villain?

Yeah. I know right. Okay so Eisenberg can display similar cold eccentricities and short tempered attitudes from the Social Network, but now the age range tween Luthor and Superman is gonna be off, and how many British actors do we have, that can do the same flawlessly, and probably would've taken that audition too?

#26 Posted by mccoyca112 (5433 posts) -

@Aljosa23: Ahhh. The reboot. I knew it could have been worse. Just make Lex black and everybody will loose their shit. It is 2014 after all. Samuel Jackson! Or on a more serious note(and I had to look up how to spell his name), Chiwetel Ejiofor. Damn fine actor, and he could pull it off. As campy as it is, serenity had him play a solid nemesis, given the script.

#27 Posted by Hallenbeck77 (14361 posts) -

They cast Michael Cera Light as Lex Luthor. Wow.

#28 Edited by sammyjenkis898 (28012 posts) -

@hallenbeck77 said:

They cast Michael Cera Light as Lex Luthor. Wow.

#29 Posted by Haziqonfire (36344 posts) -

#30 Edited by bobaban (10545 posts) -

"The casting director clearly misheard "Get me Heisenberg!""

#31 Posted by chessmaster1989 (29079 posts) -

Is this a fvcking joke?

#32 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10837 posts) -

I think this needs to be said again: Eisenberg is only 5'7" tall! Unforgivable!

#33 Posted by VaguelyTagged (10077 posts) -

what? i thought it was supposed to be Bryan Cranston.

#34 Edited by LittleMac19 (1638 posts) -

I think this needs to be said again: Eisenberg is only 5'7" tall! Unforgivable!

Hey, I take a offense to that, I'm 5'7 :(

#35 Edited by Shottayouth13- (6727 posts) -

@bobaban said:

"The casting director clearly misheard "Get me Heisenberg!""

LOLOLOL!

Seriously though, this is a horrible choice.

#36 Edited by BluRayHiDef (10837 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

I think this needs to be said again: Eisenberg is only 5'7" tall! Unforgivable!

Hey, I take a offense to that, I'm 5'7 :(

I'm 5'7.5" myself, so don't take it personally. I just don't think a guy as short as you and me is up to par.

#37 Edited by LJS9502_basic (150066 posts) -

Sucks. I think they care more about the name and less about the actual character.

#38 Posted by Serraph105 (27747 posts) -

Well then........they should go ahead and cast Clint Eastwood as Robin and Peter Dinklage as Gordon.

#39 Edited by LittleMac19 (1638 posts) -

@LittleMac19 said:

@BluRayHiDef said:

I think this needs to be said again: Eisenberg is only 5'7" tall! Unforgivable!

Hey, I take a offense to that, I'm 5'7 :(

I'm 5'7.5" myself, so don't take it personally. I just don't think a guy as short as you and me is up to par.

I was being sarcastic but yea I agree, terrible choice.

#40 Posted by ferrari2001 (16755 posts) -

Yea, I don't know how DC plans to keep up with Marvel at this pace. You gotta make good casting decisions if you want to top the box office like Marvel has been doing.

#41 Edited by SaintLeonidas (25914 posts) -

Jeremy Irons is great, and casting him as Alfred is probably...no is definitely...the only smart thing this production has done. As for Eisenberg...I cannot fathom how the fuck he is supposed to be Lex Luther.

#42 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

He sure is an ugly dude.

#43 Edited by Hallenbeck77 (14361 posts) -

Jeremy Irons is great, and casting him as Alfred is probably...no is definitely...the only smart thing this production has done. As for Eisenberg...I cannot fathom how the fuck he is supposed to be Lex Luther.

Casting Irons is a good choice, but it seems like he's above doing genre pieces. Maybe I'm just reading too much into it.

#44 Edited by BluRayHiDef (10837 posts) -

We need to kidnapp Eisenberg and hide him long enough to force WB to choose another actor in light of Eisenberg's absence. When the film is complete, we'll release Eisenberg.

#45 Edited by sammyjenkis898 (28012 posts) -

#46 Posted by Hallenbeck77 (14361 posts) -

You're just working those Photoshop skills today, aren't you?

#47 Posted by sammyjenkis898 (28012 posts) -

You're just working those Photoshop skills today, aren't you?

Ha, I'm not good with Photoshop. Gotta love the internet.

He still looks too young.

#48 Edited by Hallenbeck77 (14361 posts) -

@hallenbeck77 said:

You're just working those Photoshop skills today, aren't you?

Ha, I'm not good with Photoshop. Gotta love the internet.

He still looks too young.

I posted this on another board, but this is how I feel about the latest Superman movie and the upcoming sequel:

I tried to enjoy Man of Steel, I really did. It wasn't a horrible movie, it wasn't even a bad one. What it was to me, was a disappointing one. It felt way too bleak for my tastes, and having Pa Kent try to convince Clark not to use his powers for fear of being shunned in society, just didn't seem right somehow. I unserstand that not every comic book movie needs to be bright and have tons of humor to it, but I always thought that Superman always gave people that sense of optimism or hope--and Man of Steel to me just didn't have either of that.

With that said, the more I read about this follow-up, I got a feeling this movie is either going to surprise its naysayers, or just wind up being one hell of a hot mess. I don't think there's to to be any middle ground whatsoever.

#49 Edited by k--m--k (994 posts) -

shitty actor

skipping on this movie.

#50 Posted by Haziqonfire (36344 posts) -

He sure is an ugly dude.

That's the most important part about this casting choice. How he looks.