Superman (casting, rumors, pix till release)

[Gojira]

The thing about the Clark/Superman nobody-sees-through-the-disguise-thing is, we, the audience, know it, of course. But why would anyone in-universe think Superman had a secret identity? He's not wearing a mask.

And so, that journalist with the glasses looks a lot like Superman. But could it be him? Seriously, though, why would Superman, of all people, work at a newspaper. That's like, I don't know, seeing someone who looks like Matt Damon working in an office. Yeah, he looks like him, but there's no way. Maybe some even think about it enough to tell him "Hey, you know, you look a lot like Matt Damon", but he just says: "Yeah, I get that a lot. Even thought about doing some look-alike appearances, but I got little enough leisure time as it is."

The thing is in real life it is so easy to recognize people with their glasses off. It is one of the weakest disguises in superhero lore.

Somehow I get the feeling you really didn't get my point.

It's not about the glasses. It's about "Why the heck would Superman live as a normal man working as a journalist". Remember, to anyone in-universe (Silver Age-Lois aside), Superman has no secret identity.

John Byrne even did a story in which Lex Luthor has a computer working on the relation between Superman and Clark Kent, and when the computer tells him that they are the same person, he trashes the computer because to him it makes no sense that someone as powerful as Superman would disguise himself as a normal man.

It wasn't the first time something went over my head.

You do make a good point.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

You know, as much as I liked that story as a one-off, it struck me as increasingly silly that Luthor never followed up on it as years became decades.

I think Byrne did it for characterization purpose on Luthor. The man who is so hungry for power he is so blinded he can't imagine anyone wanting to be someone less powerful.

It became rubbish when the editors and writers forgot about this story when it was actually still canon. When Luthor became president, he found out about Clark being Superman. The previous story was never referenced, when it really should have been.

On the other hand, you could make a good argument that even if Lex Luthor did know, it wouldn't be particularly useful information. It's not like knowing Batman is Bruce Wayne, where you can destroy his supporting infrastructure or attack him when he's weak, like Bane did. Superman is never weak.

You blow up Clark Kent's apartment building or the Daily Planet, you just have an ashy invulnerable man floating in the sky. You kill Lois Lane, all you've done is remove any thought of restraint from the most powerful person on Earth. This assuming you could even sneak up on him in the first place, which you couldn't.

I guess you could try to destroy Clark Kent's life, but only to a pathetic degree. Like, is it very plausible that anyone is going to try to fine the Planet for paying an illegal alien, revoke a marriage license for being entered into under a false name, or commence deportation proceedings for a living god? Even if that worked, all you've accomplished is exiling Kent and Lane to the North Pole where they can devote their entire lives to fucking you up. If anything, letting Clark Kent exist is good for Luthor, since the time off Superman needs to be Clark, hold a job (however tenuously), and somehow maintain his marriage (despite being a terrible husband) at least levels the field a little bit.

Which is probably why President Luthor never used that information, even before Superman erased that memory of his.
Just read the Daredevil book "Born again", and think of Superman in the role of Matt Murdock. That would have been ugly.

Although, I think it actually was done in some way.

Spoiler: Joe Kelly wrote this story where

Manchester Black tricked Superman into believing that he killed Lois, to prove that Superman was not morally better than him. He was so disappointed by Superman not taking revenge, he actually commited suicide.

Man, I miss Joe Kelly on Superman. He actually got what Superman was about. Not many writers in the past two decades actually did, even though working on the character.

You do make a good point.

Thank you.

 

[Myasishchev]

Only Joe Kelly I know is the guy who wrote Supergirl. That guy could barely string two word balloons together and have them make sense. Also he penned the phrase "red wavelength UVB lights," which is the dumbest phrase ever uttered by human beings since Isaac Newton put a prism in a windowsill. But! Better than Jeph Loeb.

Also that spoiler sort of butts up against the details of the Max Lord situation. Incidentally, I know I've said this before, but his condemnation of Wonder Woman for not letting herself be heat vision super-sped Krypton-punched to death may be the unsung lowest moment in Superman history. Even if by that point they had retconned his execution of three unarmed prisoners, it's still unbelievably bad.

P.S. Born Again was so great. Man, talk about missing people, I miss David Mazzuchelli doing superhero work. Or just drawing in that style. Have you seen Asterios Polyp? Looks like Marjane Satrapi drew it. People did not like Persepolis because of its pretty picutres, Dave! Just because you can still work miracles with panel layout and graphic design does not give you license to stop drawing things well! And indie comics do not have to look like rushed New Yorker cartoons! Berlin is maybe the best drawn non-J.H. Williams comic of the last decade. Jason Lutes would never sacrifice the awesomeness of his art, why did you?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

John Byrne even did a story in which Lex Luthor has a computer working on the relation between Superman and Clark Kent, and when the computer tells him that they are the same person, he trashes the computer because to him it makes no sense that someone as powerful as Superman would disguise himself as a normal man.

Yeah, Byrne made a point of that in interviews - why the hell would Superman ever acknowledge to anyone that he spent much of his life in street clothes trying to pass as a normal human being? It would just make his disguise that much more challenging.

In the final analysis, Superman's "secret identity" is a storytelling conceit - you accept as a given that it works, and if you don't there's no amount of explanation or rationalization (including Byrne's own "Superman constantly vibrates his face at superspeed to blur his likeness" foolishness) that will make it plausible.

I mean, we buy that he flies and that bullets bounce off him. Heck, we go along with the notion that Batman can swing down out of nowhere to kick guns out of a couple of guys' hands while clinging one-handed to a cord which is the apparent diameter of one of Bruce Wayne's patent leather formal shoelaces. Why not accept the glasses?

 

[JarodRussell]

I mean, we buy that he flies and that bullets bounce off him. Heck, we go along with the notion that Batman can swing down out of nowhere to kick guns out of a couple of guys' hands while clinging one-handed to a cord which is the apparent diameter of one of Bruce Wayne's patent leather formal shoelaces. Why not accept the glasses?

Because one is technological/physical, and the other is social. Everyone knows that (s)he would recognize the guy despite the glasses.
Not everyone knows what material that cord is made of or what Bruce Wayne's martial art skills are. Bullets bouncing of Supes are also because of his invincible skin, however that might work.

 

[Myasishchev]

You want some science? I can go to the titty bar, make it rain science and my currency will be accepted. Lois Lane has prosopagnosia. That's science wedged between your hip and your g-string, baby. But you don't really believe a man can fly, do you?

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Only Joe Kelly I know is the guy who wrote Supergirl. That guy could barely string two word balloons together and have them make sense. Also he penned the phrase "red wavelength UVB lights," which is the dumbest phrase ever uttered by human beings since Isaac Newton put a prism in a windowsill. But! Better than Jeph Loeb.

Haven't actually read the Supergirl comics, but apparently, it's the same Joe Kelly. Can't judge his work on Supergirl, but his work on Action Comics and JLA was brilliant. He got the Clark Kent as a writer, utterly fantastic superhero stuff, and he could actually do a Superman who really was inspiring, not just one saying he had to inspire.

Also that spoiler sort of butts up against the details of the Max Lord situation. Incidentally, I know I've said this before, but his condemnation of Wonder Woman for not letting herself be heat vision super-sped Krypton-punched to death may be the unsung lowest moment in Superman history. Even if by that point they had retconned his execution of three unarmed prisoners, it's still unbelievably bad.

As much as I like Greg Rucka, especially his work on WW, but that stuff really only served to set up Infinite Crisis. Would have been one thing if the big three actually did drift apart over the years and the writers wanting to work it out, but that wasn't there when they started out, they just set it up. And to do that they really had to twist the characters.

 

[JarodRussell]

You want some science? I can go to the titty bar, make it rain science and my currency will be accepted. Lois Lane has prosopagnosia. That's science wedged between your hip and your g-string, baby. But you don't really believe a man can fly, do you?

Actually, something about Supermans aura causing temporary prosopagnosia was suggested in one of the comics, I believe. It's like dreaming of people, you can't remember the faces.

Doesn't explain photographs of Superman, though.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Willing suspension of disbelief. You just have to go with it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Because one is technological/physical, and the other is social.

That is a completely unpersuasive and silly attempt to draw a meaningless distinction.

You don't buy the disguise? Avoid the comics, TV, and movie versions of the character then. All of them. Clark uses glasses to disguise himself, period. He always has.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Joe Kelly's work was brilliant on JLA? Since when? That's praise that I don't remember during his run from the majority of fans I talked to. The only interesting thing that he ever did on JLA was tease the Batman and Wonder Woman relationship, which was also of course being teased on "Justice League Unlimited" at the time. I remember the rumour was that DC brass didn't want these two getting together romantically for whatever reason and nixed both arcs. JLA #90 is one of my favourite issues since it gives a peak into possible relationship timelines. Probably my favourite piece of Kelly's work.

 

[JarodRussell]

Because one is technological/physical, and the other is social.

That is a completely unpersuasive and silly attempt to draw a meaningless distinction.

Since this is the way I see it, your comment almost comes of as insulting.

Superman flying: buy it.
Superman taking a human to the moon without oxygen: stupid.
Superman being obviously Clark Kent's "twin brother" and nobody recognizing it: stupid.

Ships flying faster than light: buy it.
Red Matter: buy it.
Promoting cadet to captain after one mission: stupid.

Alien robots with personalities transforming into cars: buy it.
A human getting hit by such a robot's punch, without a single scar: stupid.

Jedi and the Force: buy it.
Lightsabers: buy it.
Anakin mercilessly killing the Sandpeople and Padme simply ignoring it like nothing happened: stupid.

John McClane getting into the same shit twice on Christmas Eve: buy it.
Hand grenades taking 30 seconds to detonate: stupid.

And so forth. There simply is some very basic knowledge and stuff that I can't deny for myself.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Because one is technological/physical, and the other is social.

That is a completely unpersuasive and silly attempt to draw a meaningless distinction.

Since this is the way I see it, your comment almost comes of as insulting.

Superman flying: buy it.
Superman taking a human to the moon without oxygen: stupid.
Superman being obviously Clark Kent's "twin brother" and nobody recognizing it: stupid.

.

The chances that no one notices Clark looks alot like Superman is much more plausible than a guy flying under his own power.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

That is a completely unpersuasive and silly attempt to draw a meaningless distinction.

Since this is the way I see it, your comment almost comes of as insulting.

Superman flying: buy it.
Superman taking a human to the moon without oxygen: stupid.
Superman being obviously Clark Kent's "twin brother" and nobody recognizing it: stupid.

.

The chances that no one notices Clark looks alot like Superman is much more plausible than a guy flying under his own power.

I think you're missing his (or her) point by just a tad. When you go into a superman flick, you know that a guy will fly under his own power, just as you know a starship will fly at warp in a Trek film. These things go with the territory. What doesn't go with the territory is having Lois breathe in space near the moon, that takes it too far.

 

[Admiral_Young]

^ Sometimes fans need to suspend their disbelief of impossible things...

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

That is a completely unpersuasive and silly attempt to draw a meaningless distinction.

Since this is the way I see it, your comment almost comes of as insulting.

That's unfortunate, since I find your reasoning completely unpersuasive and the distinction that you're drawing between two kinds of implausibilities to be silly and meaningless.

Do you think that when you present an argument people are only going to respond to it in order to agree?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Sorry for the abstract mathematical phrasing, but this is the only way I can nail this point on the head.

If you regard Superman as impossible, then the only method that makes sense mathematically to maximize the plausibility of a Superman story is to maximize the plausibility of everything except the single impossible element, or a select few impossible elements.

But this method doesn't produce the best stories, if Superman is impossible, because it can lead to stylistic incongruities that are more of a negative than can be outweighed by what is at best an infinitesimal boost in overall plausibility. The boost gained by this method is overall infinitesimal at best, because any gain is floored by the impossibility of Superman in the first place.

The way to get the most enjoyable story is therefore not strictly to maximize the plausibility of everything other than Superman.

On the other hand, if you are claiming that Superman isn't really impossible, so that the gains gotten by adjusting the plausibility of the other elements will be overall non-infinitesimally positive, well I think you've got an uphill battle to fight, to prove that Superman is possible.

 

[Broccoli]

I have no doubt that this addresses everything we need to know.

 

[Admiral_Young]

^ YES!

 

[Nerys Myk]

Since this is the way I see it, your comment almost comes of as insulting.

Superman flying: buy it.
Superman taking a human to the moon without oxygen: stupid.
Superman being obviously Clark Kent's "twin brother" and nobody recognizing it: stupid.

.

The chances that no one notices Clark looks alot like Superman is much more plausible than a guy flying under his own power.

I think you're missing his (or her) point by just a tad. When you go into a superman flick, you know that a guy will fly under his own power, just as you know a starship will fly at warp in a Trek film. These things go with the territory. What doesn't go with the territory is having Lois breathe in space near the moon, that takes it too far.

I don't recall mentioning Lois breathing in space in my response. A guy flying and folks not seeing that Clark is Superman are both expected in a Superman film. To call one stupid and "buying" the other doesn't make sense. That was my point