Mike86

I agree that they probably are going for some tech geek turned billionaire and making him into a Zuckerberg like figure but I still think they could have chosen someone a bit better. When I see Eisenberg I see a geeky looking guy so that part fits but I have a hard time buying that he'll be threatening in any fashion. I just don't think he has what it takes to pull that aspect of the character off. Maybe I'm wrong about him but it just doesn't feel right to me. It's not like I dislike the guy as an actor or anything I just really have a hard time picturing him as Luthor.

Kicker_of_Elves

OldBoy

Abob Teff

Very correct ... Putting Eisenberg in this role over Cranston is like yanking the engine out of a Lamborghini and replacing it with bicycle pedals. Not interchangeable.

DaveyJoe

Jesus Christ, I love Breaking Bad as much as the next person, but Cranston as Lex Luthor is lazy. It's the same thing as the internet demanding Crispin Glover as the Joker for The Dark Knight. I'm glad we got Ledger despite the internet's outrage at the time of casting. Cranston's Lex would never match Cranston's Heisenberg because there wouldn't be enough time for the depth that Breaking Bad provided, do you really want to see Goyer/Snyder try to replicate Walter White as Lex Luthor? It would be a pale imitation, at least they're trying something new. Why do you people want to see the same thing over, and over, and over again?

nando820

Agreed we want Heisenberg not Eisenberg!

Mike86

While I agree that Cranston made the transformation from Walt to Heisenberg and did it very effectively due to Breaking Bad being a series and having time to build on itself, I still think Cranston could have pulled off a good Luthor. He may have not fit in with this vision of the character (if what everyone is speculating is true) but I do think he could have pulled off the role convincingly.

Also regarding Ledger in The Dark Knight let's be honest, I'm fairly certain that the only reason people were outraged at the choice was because of the fact that he had done Brokeback Mountain shortly before and people didn't want to see the gay cowboy playing The Joker. Really looking at him he wasn't a terrible choice looks wise he was the right type of build for how The Joker typically looks and he was going to be covered in makeup most of the film anyways. All he really had to do was prove that he could act insane.

robin2099

That had nothing to do with people not wanting to see Heath Ledger play the Joker. What made everyone immediately think "this is stupid" was the fact that they got someone who seemed completely out of left field. Before Brokeback his filmography consisted of 10 things I hate about you, The Patriot, The Order,Brothers Grimm, and Lords of Dogtown. And people were livid. I remember seeing stuff like "What why didn't they cast Mark Hammill!" "Ugh what a stupid casting idea. I can never see Heath Ledger as The Joker!" "Ugh why didn't they cast Crispin Glover!"

That's why I think it's stupid when someone gets cast in one of these movies and we immediately get "What this sucks! Why didn't they cast (insert name) instead!" The truth is we know nothing about the production, what the story is, what there screen test was like, etc. And yes comic book movies have got casting wrong before. But they have got a lot right also, and often the best choices were the out of left field ones.

Mike86

I disagree. I pretty much guarantee it was the fact that he did Brokeback Mountain shortly before. Honestly Ledger didn't have much of a chance to really define his career with a large filmography so it's a bit unfair in his case to say that his career wasn't that great. All actors start out somewhere and have to break out eventually (which unfortunately for him probably would have happened after The Dark Knight had he lived).

That's where I think a guy like Eisenberg it is a bit more fair to judge him because he's done his share of films and has had some good and some bad but is pretty solidified by now. I just don't think he's the right guy for the part. I might be wrong but he's a hard sell for me.

DaveyJoe

No, there were some gay cowboy jokes, but people were butthurt because their dream casting of Crispin Glover/Mark Hamill didn't happen.

Mike86

I know there were some people upset over a different actor not being chosen (I remember Glover being a name tossed around and also Paul Bettany I believe) but I do think the idea that the actor who played the gay cowboy as The Joker was a large part of what caused the initial outrage. I think that coupled with the fact that Ledger wasn't exactly very established as an actor who did serious roles aside from Brokeback Mountain or roles that were just for kind of throwaway movies is what made people skeptical on him.

DaveyJoe

I think the outrage over Eisenberg shows that people want obvious casting.

Mike86

Not obvious. In fact I would have been fine if they had gone with a somewhat unknown for the part. At least with an actor who's not very well known you don't have an idea in your head of what they're capable of so you just trust the people making the decisions and sometimes it works out and sometimes it doesn't. Picking a big name like Eisenberg gives him a lot to live up to for a role like this.

DaveyJoe

Yes, obvious casting. How else do you explain all of the rumors that WB was talking to Cranston when actually, WB had never approached Cranston? Even Cranston thinks it's obvious:

Mike86

I'm not sure I understand your argument. So because Cranston is known for playing a bald bad guy in a popular series that makes him a bad choice? He was someone I could have seen for the role if they wanted to go that direction and I think he'd have been a good choice. Maybe a bit obvious yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean it would have been a bad choice. He's played a similar role and probably would have pulled it off damn well if they weren't going in a different direction with the character.

I just think that if they didn't want to go that direction they could have picked someone other than Jesse Eisenberg. If they're going the tech geek turned billionaire like a Zuckerberg character isn't that sort of obvious too since he played that in The Social Network? Like I said I would have preferred they picked someone who's up and coming and needs a break or something rather than going with a known name who doesn't really seem to fit the qualities of a character like Lex Luthor.

RocShemp

Nonso Anozie would have been badass as Lex Luthor. He can play intelligent, be charming, be menacing, and exudes gravitas. And he's relatively unknown (in the US at least) so he wouldn't have been deemed an "obvious" choice.

Artman

That certainly wasn't it for me. It was the shape of his face, the voice, etc.. just didn't match what I had in my head as the joker.

Solid Snake

Really? The shape of his face? That's weird.

I don't think I had much of an opinion on him for The joker casting. Liked him in Brokeback... So I thought he was a solid actor. Physically speaking he didn't not have the chance to rock the look for me.

Artman

I think visually most of the time, probably not the norm for most...so that's understandable. I get paid for it at least

Abob Teff

You are absolutely right! I am SO glad they picked Jessie Eisenberg to play the Facebook guy again!

I don't think Cranston's Luthor would have been a rehash of Breaking Bad. I think it would have given him an opportunity to bring in a touch of his comedic talents to show us a true megalomanaic versus the "man pushed to the brink" that Walter White was.

I love it when a casting choice comes out of leftfield and proves us wrong (such as Michael Keaton as Batman). The problem here is this: the casting choices aren't coming out of leftfield. They are simply shoe-horning in recognizable names ala the crappy Joel Schumacher Batman movies.

Michael Corvin

Exactly. To think Cranston would give us Heisenberg 2.0 is absurd.

DaveyJoe

Yeah, I don't think people are pissed because Eisenberg might be type-casted, but because they're reinterpreting the Luthor character. Cranston just spent 5 years playing a villain, I'm excited to see him try something new, I've never seen Eisenberg play a villain and I think the new direction they're taking might be intriguing. I think we should just wait and see. Cranston would have been boring, he's a great actor, but I don't think the writers could have done anything as remotely interesting as the Walter White character.

Mike86

My thing is I don't care if they're going in a different direction with Luthor, if they want to modernize the character by making him a tech geek turned billionaire type whatever that's fine. My biggest thing with Eisenberg is that he's a pretty small guy who doesn't look intimidating in the slightest and I can't see having the presence to seem like a viable threat. Granted Lex isn't exactly some muscle bound type villain or anything but he definitely has a presence and can seem threatening.

DaveyJoe

I can understand that, and I've been wondering how much they're even going to use Luthor. I would have to imagine that the meat of the film is going to be the interactions between Superman and Batman, in fact I think they will actually antagonizing each other for a lot of the film. And I believe there have been rumors of another villain such as Metallo, so how much time does that even leave for Luthor? My guess, is that he may not have to be that intimidating.

PhantomStranger

The movie is going to end up being Bruce Wayne versus Lex Luthor, with both billionaires attempting to manipulate the naive, all-powerful Superman. That is the type of edgy spin that Hollywood will give them.

I feel a great disturbance in the universe.