Lois, Clark & Superman?

[Guy Gardener]

Here's some thought.

There's this villain called Superwoman, who is Lois Lane from a Mirror universe.

2 things.

1. Could Superwoman do such awful Hitler Like things, that "Clark" loses his boner for any version of Lois Lane Across the Mutiverse?

2. Superman comes home from a hard day beating up Superwoman, and then asks his Lois if she wants to dress up like Superwoman as foreplay?

 

[Mister Fandango]

In the movie, he never really adopts a secret identity. He adopts a hero identity.

That's fine. Clark as the real person is better anyway.

I wasn't talking about that at all.

The point I was trying to make is that in the movie, he never really was Superman. He was just some dude in a stupid pair of pajamas supposedly masquerading as alien armor (which looked even more silly when his opponents wore actual alien armor), and an off-hand comment here and there mentioning the word "super" in equally silly ways. It was only a Superman movie because we, the audience, knew he was supposed to be Superman, but in the movie, he never really was. Let alone Superman who needed a civilian persona -- whether it was who he really was or not -- in order to escape any fame or persecution he'd suffer when not out saving the world.

He was just some... dude.

 

[Enterprise is Great]

After 10 seasons of Clark Kent keeping his secret to absurd lengths it's a refreshing change. I'm just tired of heroes keeping their secret hidden from friends and family. Grimm has improved now that everyone but one character knows that Nick is a Grimm. The secret identity thing is way too played out for me. It bores and frustrates me now.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Well, secret identities do matter, just read Meltzer's & Morales "Identity Crisis" to refresh your memory about that.

In this particular case, however, I could live with it. It also reminded me of something I had read online years before, which I dug up again now: Jerry Siegel wanted Lois Lane to learn Superman's secret identity all the way back in 1940!

I wouldn't want Lois knowing Clark's secret from the get-go to be used that much in the future, though. For this one interpretation, I'm okay with it, but that's it. Have her learn later on.

 

[the G-man]

something I had read online years before, which I dug up again now: Jerry Siegel wanted Lois Lane to learn Superman's secret identity all the way back in 1940!

I've read about that before. At the same time, just because the creator had an idea for a long running character doesn't mean it was a good idea.

See, e.g., George Lucas and the prequels.

Really, at some point, the more you diminish the "secret identity" aspect of Superman, the less you have what makes him unique. He basically becomes Martian Manhunter, Capt. Mar-vell, or any of a dozen other super alien characters.

Of course, turning Superman into a generic superhero in the Nu-Marvel/90s Image mode seems to be exactly what DC wants to do.

 

[DEWLine]

...what makes him unique...?

 

[the G-man]

The specific aspects of his secret ID in the broader context of the character and taking into account that others have imitated this over the years.

 

[Thestral]

I wasn't talking about that at all.

He was just some... dude.

Ah, fair enough.

Really, at some point, the more you diminish the "secret identity" aspect of Superman, the less you have what makes him unique. He basically becomes Martian Manhunter, Capt. Mar-vell, or any of a dozen other super alien characters.

He's still raised from infancy by humans as a human. Essentially, the ultimate immigrant.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Here's some thought.

There's this villain called Superwoman, who is Lois Lane from a Mirror universe.

Actually, Superwoman is the evil counterpart of Wonder Woman - she just took the *name* Lois Lane.

 

[The Old Mixer]

I've read about that before. At the same time, just because the creator had an idea for a long running character doesn't mean it was a good idea.

See, e.g., George Lucas and the prequels.

He wasn't a long-running character when they considered doing it...he was only a couple of years old. Had they gone that route, Lois knowing Supes's identity would likely have gone on to become a traditional aspect of the mythos in the decades to follow...like the Daily Planet, Perry White, Jimmy Olsen, bald Luthor, and Kryptonite, all of which were either just being established around 1940 or yet to come.

The Star Wars prequel example doesn't apply it all. It's more akin to deciding that Vader would be Luke's father while making TESB.

 

[the G-man]

I've read about that before. At the same time, just because the creator had an idea for a long running character doesn't mean it was a good idea.

See, e.g., George Lucas and the prequels.

He wasn't a long-running character when they considered doing it...he was only a couple of years old....

As noted here, way back in Superman 45, Jerry Seigel wrote a story where he inexplicably decided that Superman was no also a telepath and a shapeshifter.

It was quickly forgotten. Should even more powers, and especially those powers, have become "a traditional aspect of the mythos in the decades to follow...like the Daily Planet, Perry White, Jimmy Olsen, bald Luthor, and Kryptonite"?

I'd say no. I suspect most people would say no.

But it was written by his creator.

Thereby proving that just because the creator came up with the idea doesn't mean it was necessarily a good one.

 

[DEWLine]

As regards the idea of Lois being "in the loop" diminishing Clark's "uniqueness" as a character?

I say thee nay.

 

[davejames]

The point I was trying to make is that in the movie, he never really was Superman. He was just some dude in a stupid pair of pajamas supposedly masquerading as alien armor (which looked even more silly when his opponents wore actual alien armor), and an off-hand comment here and there mentioning the word "super" in equally silly ways. It was only a Superman movie because we, the audience, knew he was supposed to be Superman, but in the movie, he never really was. Let alone Superman who needed a civilian persona -- whether it was who he really was or not -- in order to escape any fame or persecution he'd suffer when not out saving the world.

He was just some... dude.

You mean just some dude... who can fly, shoot laser beams out of his eyes, lift a bus-load of kids out of the water, battle a bunch of supervillains all by himself, and who saved the entire planet from being destroyed?

Issues with the movie aside, he sure looked and acted a lot like Superman to me.

And he was hardly wearing a pair of pajamas. It was just the regular suit every Kryptonian wore, upon which you could also attach some armor when you went into battle (or other regalia if you were a senator or dignitary of some kind).

 

[The Old Mixer]

I've read about that before. At the same time, just because the creator had an idea for a long running character doesn't mean it was a good idea.

See, e.g., George Lucas and the prequels.

He wasn't a long-running character when they considered doing it...he was only a couple of years old....

As noted here, way back in Superman 45, Jerry Seigel wrote a story where he inexplicably decided that Superman was no also a telepath and a shapeshifter.

It was quickly forgotten. Should even more powers, and especially those powers, have become "a traditional aspect of the mythos in the decades to follow...like the Daily Planet, Perry White, Jimmy Olsen, bald Luthor, and Kryptonite"?

I'd say no. I suspect most people would say no.

But it was written by his creator.

Thereby proving that just because the creator came up with the idea doesn't mean it was necessarily a good one.

If you'd used that phrasing in the first place, I wouldn't have contested it. But your previous argument involved describing 1940 Superman as a "long running character", which is flat out wrong.

So that temporary bit of business you cite went the way of the Daily Star, George Taylor, Luthor with hair, and other things that didn't stick. That doesn't change the point. Had they let Lois in on the secret that early, and had it stuck, we would now consider Lois knowing the secret to be a traditional aspect of the Superman mythos.

Superman was still very much a young character in development in 1940...many things that are now considered traditional aspects of the mythos were just coming into being or even still years away. Likening developments in the growth of a two-year-old character to Lucas revisiting Star Wars two decades later is apples to oranges.

 

[A beaker full of death]

There actually was a valid literary point to Lois not knowing that Clark was Superman.

For about 50 years one of the main themes of Superman if not the main theme was the idea of the secret hero inside of us that others could not see.

Lois was the symbol-the human face-of all of that. She was the woman that Clark loved but whom he could not share his secret with.

It added a certain tragedy to the character. It also harkened back to classic and powerful myths about Gods in disguise.

When Lois knows Clark is Superman all of that is out the window.

SO MUCH this.

It occurs to me though... the way secret identities are falling out of favor (anyone remember Donald Blake) seems to coincide with the erosion of the very concept of a private life in our society. Or is it a coincidence at all?

 

[Silvercrest]

Like I asked before: WHY CAN'T he share his secret with Lois? I've got no problem with secret identities, but there are serious contradictions with keeping it secret from her. And no concrete, unequivocal reason why he should.

 

[Anwar]

There actually was a valid literary point to Lois not knowing that Clark was Superman.

For about 50 years one of the main themes of Superman if not the main theme was the idea of the secret hero inside of us that others could not see.

Lois was the symbol-the human face-of all of that. She was the woman that Clark loved but whom he could not share his secret with.

It added a certain tragedy to the character. It also harkened back to classic and powerful myths about Gods in disguise.

When Lois knows Clark is Superman all of that is out the window.

SO MUCH this.

It occurs to me though... the way secret identities are falling out of favor (anyone remember Donald Blake) seems to coincide with the erosion of the very concept of a private life in our society. Or is it a coincidence at all?

It's a coincidence. And the Clark/Lois/Superman triangle ran its course decades ago and nowadays just makes Clark look like a douchebag.

Of course, a lot of those "Gods in Disguise" stories were from eras where those Gods were douchebags themselves...

 

[The Old Mixer]

Stan the Man started the "no secret identity" trend back in 1961.

 

[davejames]

I think the secret identity thing made perfect sense for the early comics, when artists drew most men and women the same it was much harder to differentiate characters.

But in live action when you can clearly see the same actor playing both roles, the idea becomes a lot harder to swallow.

 

[Guy Gardener]

The cartoon characters don't see cartoon characters, they see realistic people like we see realistic people.