No.88283914 ViewReplyOriginalReport
Since we were going to make Superman's adversary a redheaded smartass who's trying to manipulate the public and Batman into despising him, why wasn't Eisenberg used as G. Gordon Godfrey?

You don't need a high-recognition Superman rogue in a movie where you are already going to have a big fight with Batman AND a climactic battle with Doomsday. And Glorious Godfrey is a super obvious lead-in to Apokolypse.

You could literally name-switch the character Eisenberg ends up playing in the movie and it would be far more in character than Luthor. Glorious Godfrey is supposed to be a physically weak and unintimidating little bastard who loves to hear himself speak.
And it reconciles practically every bizarre plot development and out-of-character moment in the film. Godfrey's access to Apokalypse-tech would easily allow him to infiltrate the ship, and with tech/anti-life there's no need for some out-of-nowhere Kryptonian black project.

And you could play up Godfrey as a new media provocateur, and have an interesting sub-plot where Perry White and the Planet are trying to counteract his Fake News, instead of the pointless Senate sub-plot. As a bonus it gives Perry something to do besides look like a jackass in the movie.

You could even have had Bruce being driven to the brink by his conflict with criminal mooks who seem supernaturally vicious and who's bodies disappear afterward, a sort of demonic conspiracy that none of his P.D. allies would be able to buy into.