On the portrayals of Lex Luthor

[Adekis]

There seems to be a trend in modern Superman comics, especially for Grant Morrison, to portray Luthor as a completely remorseless and petty monster.

In one recent Superboy comic, he cured his paralyzed sister of her paralysis, but gave her a counter-serum and re-paralyzed her, explaining to
Superboy that nobody gets to benefit from his genius until Superman dies.

In the even more recent fourth issue of Morrison's Action Comics run, Metropolis is being attacked by Brainiac's Terminauts, and Superman is knocked down. Luthor is escaping in a truck, but turns around and runs the Man of Steel over just because before continuing his escape.

Does anybody else think these are horrible interpretations of Luthor's character compared to the not-totally-evil Luthor we had until something like 2006? I don't dislike most modern Superman stuff, unlike quite a few of my fellow members on this board, but I just despise this trend.

I personally prefer a less spiteful, more anti-villainous portrayal of Luthor, like in "The Einstein Connection"..

But what do you guys all think?

[India Ink]

I guess it's good to know that I'm not missing anything by skipping the current crop of DC comics. I thought that Morrison might pay homage to the Silver Age, as he did in All-Star--and that would have been hard to resist--but Morrison seems to be going in a different direction.

My favourite version of Luthor was Edmond Hamilton's. In his stories, he showed that Lex was capable of doing good. Frankly, a Luthor who is totally bad isn't interesting. When Lex showed signs of humanity, it gave Superman a good reason to try and rehabilitate his old friend. And that always kept the interaction of these two characters worth reading.

[llozymandias]

     The best version of Luthor  (for me anyway) is done by Jerry Siegel.  He is pretty much evil incarnate.  He is a super-genius who can do basically anything.  His main desire is conquest.  He hates Superman for two main reasons.  1.) Superman keeps getting in his way.  2.) Superman keeps sending him back to prison.  He was still able to do good things, when it suited his purposes.  In the gold & silver ages Luthor´s main goals were conquering the world/universe, & killing/destroying Superman.  In the bronze age Luthor became a threat only to Superman. 


     Too many writers seem to see Luthor as a mis-guided-good-guy.  Superman´s answer to J Jonah Jameson.  As Superman´s archenemy Lex Luthor needs to be capable of great evil.  Also he needs to do big things.   


     

[Shazam!]

I liked him best in Smallville.   Not totally bad, just misguided and obsessed.  Now Luthor's old man Lionel, he was a jerk. In the animated series, He was a wacko to a point where he became a stark raving lunatic. I didn't like him as President at all. The corruption, the buying of votes to get there and the snuffing out the little guy.  He looked all big and awesome before the campaign but like every politician they go back and welch on what they promised by not delivering.  Somebody go get that man a hat or a rug, the glare off the top of his head is too bright..

[llozymandias]

     Smallville was intended to be Clark Kent before he became Superman.  And Lex Luthor before be became a supervillain & Superman´s archenemy.  


    Luthor works best (for me) when he is a villain who has grand goals.  His complaint about Superman should not be that ¨he is an interfering alien, who is stunting humanity´s growth¨.  It should be that Superman is always getting in his way.  In the 40s, 50s, & 60s that was Luthor´s main reason for hating Superman.  It was in the 70s, that writers like Maggin changed that.  I have read the origin Jerry Siegel did for Lex Luthor in 1960.  Lex does blame Superboy for the lab accident.  He does not like that his hair is gone.  But he treats that as a side issue.  He is really angry because Kal has ruined his (until then) greatest experiment.  He decides to use his genius to outdo Superboy.  He invents several things.  Each invention backfires.  They work too well.  Lex becomes convinced that Superboy was sabotaging his inventions.  This was when Lex swore to destroy/kill Superboy.  In Maggin´s version of Siegel´s story,  the hair loss by itself was what made Lex hate Kal.  


    Why do so many writers & fans want Lex to be anything other than the character Jerry Siegel created?  Even the most evil people have good qualities.  However the archenemy of the greatest hero needs to be at least one of the greatest villains.  Not a mis-guided-good-guy.  

[Ruby Spears Superman]

I like the idea of an all evil Luthor. It's a perfect contrast to Superman's all good persona. The idea behind their rivalry is the idea of brains versus brawn, so I like the idea of all good versus all evil. It works. A psychopath with no conscience is the perfect foil for a man who has everything and would easily give it up for others. Whenever they would show a Luthor that could be redeemed it was a little depressing knowing that it would never happen because then the character would end. The writers have no incentive to go that route.

But if Luthor is a sociopath or a psychopath who actually enjoys human suffering, then you have the complete anti-Superman. He becomes everything Superman isn't. Morrison wasn't the first to play with this idea. This is also the version portrayed in the movies. A man who didn't just want to make money and conquer but enjoyed hurting others in the process. It also creates the idea of a villain who can't be satisfied. While most are out for power or money, you have one who just wants to hurt others for the sake of hurting others and because he enjoys it. He has a permanent motivation.

I don't think the recent comic book versions made him that way. I think they just made him arrogant and insecure. No matter how smart or powerful he becomes, Superman will always be something he can never achieve. And he's so humble about it that he takes it for granted. This is an interesting way to go, but it's not the complete antithesis to what Superman is. Malevolent for the sake of being malevolent is more the polar opposite of Superman.

[jason77520]

In the script I wrote to follow up Superman Returns, I changed how Lex had been portrayed through any of the movies.  I'm not sure if any writers in the comics had done this, so please feel free to comment on it, but I liked writing him as a cold, determined man doing what he believed was right.  Arrogant and remorselessly standing by what he believed in no matter the costs.  He feels threatened by the alien pressence and is determined to rid America (and one day the world) of him and be prepared for any other possible threats.  He wants to move to the top as fast as possible and will manuver and sacrifice the pieces he has set up to accomplish it.

I've hated that in the Donner movies he was a real estate crazed eccentric with a bumbling sidekick.  And the Singer film was attrocious.  Really dude?  All the knowledge of Krypton at your disposal and you want to create a new continent?

[Adekis]

But if Luthor is a sociopath or a psychopath who actually enjoys human suffering, then you have the complete anti-Superman. He becomes everything Superman isn't.

Well I suppose that's the thing. I don't think Luthor should be the opposite of Superman. There should be a bit of that sadism in Metallo, or even Brainiac, but Luthor? I'd rather keep him a little more complex than "the worst humanity has to offer all the time".

Makes him more interesting when he's not totally evil, whether his motivation is simply to prove he's better than Superman or if he wants to take over the world. Not "redeemable" in that sense that Darkseid might be under the most unlikely of circumstances, but actually having straight up heroic aspects to his character.