Thread:Rodangizzardcrusher3/@comment-26687285-20160822213306/@comment-26687285-20170507220725

4. Who/what should the villain be besides Luthor?

Before I answer the question directly, let me just give my thoughts on the DCEU's Lex Luthor real quick.

Oh boy, Lexie Lexie Lexie. Now, I'll just say this up front. As much as you can bash this version of the character and as bizzare and questionable as many of the creative decisions taken with him are, I will say that Lex himself was one of the few things I actually thought was kind of compelling about BvS. Also, since Jessie was pretty much the only one besides Affleck who looked like he was enjoying himself or even gave a sh*t about the film he was making, it was kind of impossible not to get at least a little invested in his character. I also thought most of his monologues (even though they don't really mean anything because of how vague, inconsistent, and almost non-existent the film's themes and story are) were interesting and fun to listen to and were well delivered by Eisenberg.

Having said that. I don't know who he was supposed to be playing here, but it didn't feel anything at all like Lex Luthor!. And don't get me wrong, characters need to, and should, be reinvisioned or reinterpreted as time goes on. I'm not saying that we can only ever have one particular depiction of a given character. The problem here is that this Lex simply isn't intimidating enough to be a formidable bad-guy. All of his excentric mannerisms, his twitchy behavior, his high-pitched teenager voice, it all just makes him come off like some geeky high-school nerd desparately trying to come across as a brilliant and calculating mastermind, when really he's just being a dork.

Personally, I blame about 90% of the problems with this character on the casting. I was slightly perplexed, but openminded, about Batfleck, and I thought Gal Gadot was simply lazy and unimaginative. But THIS was the choice that absolutely stumped me!. This might be one of the most bizarre, head-schratching, and out of the blue casting choices that (and I mean this literally and not just as hyperbole) I have seen in my entire life. And you know, I used this example with Jai Courtney in T5 but I actually think it applies far better here. This really has to be the most confused and awkward villain performance since Vince Vaughn in the Psycho remake.

And I really reject the whole "They said that about Heath Ledger" argument here. Just because that kind of approach has worked in a certain cases doesn't mean you can just play that card with any random role and expect the same result. The reason why Nolan's Joker was such a surprise was because it showed that we clearly hadn't seen everything Ledger had to offer in terms of his versatility. More specifficaly, the reason why alot of people had reservations about Ledger wasn't that he was an obviously bad choice for the role, but more because he hadn't really clearly shown that he had the range neccessary to take on such a manic and out of control part. Jessie Eisenberg however, simply does not belong in that category. He is by no means an actor with any so-called "untapped potential". The fact is, Jessie Eisenberg is not intimidating! Like, at all! In any way whatsoever!. You simply don't hire a guy like him to play someone who is supposed to be a suave, brilliant businessman on the outside and an egomaniacal, crazed sadist on the inside. And I really don't understand why they did, or why they chose to alter the character this way.

Now to answer your question. I think it would be nice to see either Faora or Brainiac as the film's main villain. While she barely did anything for the story, Faora was pretty well realised in the first film. And much like Hela in Thor3, it'd be neat to have a female main-villain to add to a little variety to this franchise as well.

As for the casting of Brainiac, my pick would be either Jason Isaacs or (since he didn't get the Luthor role) Mark Strong.