Superman: a radical (I assume) brainstormed idea

[Gaith]

I think it's fair to say that the whole Supes/Clark Kent identity thing feels awkward to many. If he loves and wants to win over Lois, per the Donner movies and SR, why does he do the nebbishy glasses thing? Standard answer is, I understand, that people would recognize him as Superman without the glasses and mild manner. (There was a non-Superman Bizarro comic once in which CK wore only colored contacts, and people started catching on.)

So, here's my idea: Clark finds/uses Fortress knowledge to build a Kryptonian gadget that modifies his facial appearance/morphs his face until he chooses to revert it. Now he can live a normal-ish life, and doesn't have to pretend to be a total goofball (as Reeve played it) or actually be a stammering nerd (per Returns). He can be as earnest yet self-assured as the Smallville CK without giving up the game, Superman's face becoming just another part of the costume.

Thoughts?

 

[Christopher]

I suggested a similar idea just six days ago in a Smallville review thread on another board. Clark was given a Legion ring by the Legion of Super Heroes members who came back from the future, and it occurred to me that if a Legion ring could have a "change appearance" feature, perhaps by altering observers' perceptions, it would explain how Clark could have a secret Superman identity in the Smallville universe where Lois, Jimmy, Lex, etc. have all seen him without glasses.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Nah, bring back Super Hypnosis from Superman vol. 1, #330 (Dec. 1978). See: http://progressiveruin.com/archives/2004_02_29_archive.html (scroll down a bit) and http://www.supermanhomepage.com/com...risis-mmrs-intro.php?topic=c-review-pc-sup330



Just kidding.

I've always preferred that Kent was as skilled an actor as Christopher Reeve being able to adopt different mannerisms in order to create two, separate identities. However, as christopher points out, such an idea may work in Smallville. As for the comics, it's one of those conventions that you accept like the fact that he can fly and repel bullets.

 

[Gaith]

I've always preferred that Kent was as skilled an actor as Christopher Reeve being able to adopt different mannerisms in order to create two, separate identities.

But why would he want Lois to accept a false and dweeb-ifying twisting of his true personality? It doesn't make dramatic sense.

This might work better on the page, where his CK mannerisms are less cringe-inducing than actuallly seeing and hearing them; as you suggest, different mediums produce different responses. I'm not a comics guy, so I'm not concerned with Superman comics, but I'd much rather see something along the lines discussed above than more movies featuring an artificially dorky CK.

 

[Kryton]

Actually, dorky Clark IS the real personality. Superman is the assumed identity...unlike with Batman who is psychologically damaged to the point that the cape and cowl are the REAL Wayne while Playboy Bruce is the total act.

 

[Christopher]

But why would he want Lois to accept a false and dweeb-ifying twisting of his true personality? It doesn't make dramatic sense.

Because he has a lot more people to worry about than just Lois. He can't have the world figuring out that Clark is Superman, so he has to make Clark seem as un-super as possible. It's a tradition right out of the adventure pulps on which Superman is based. The Scarlet Pimpernel, Zorro, the Shadow, etc. all adopted foppish or timid alter egos, people that nobody would suspect of being two-fisted adventurers or merciless avengers. (Well, the Pimpernel was a character in novels, not pulps, but as far as I know, he was the first dual-identity masked hero in popular culture, and an inspiration for later masked heroes, most notably Zorro.)

Besides, keep in mind that pre-Crisis, Superman was the real guy and Clark -- at least, bumbling Clark -- was a facade. If Superman had chosen to return Lois's affections, he would've done so as Superman (as seen in those "imaginary stories" where they did get married). So the fact that Lois didn't think much of Clark wouldn't have mattered that much to him. It was only post-Crisis, in the Byrne reboot, that Clark became the "true" personality and the one who was the focus of the romantic interaction with Lois. And in that version, Clark was less of a "dweeb" -- still something of a nerd and a klutz, but in a much less extreme fashion.

Actually, dorky Clark IS the real personality.

Not exactly. Post-Crisis, there are basically three identities: There's the real, confident, strong Clark Kent, the personality known to his parents, Lana, and others who know his true identity; there's the shy and clumsy Clark Kent persona he erects as a facade; and there's the Superman persona.

 

[Guy Gardener]

I liked it when some villain was saying that Clark the Bumbling fool is exactly what he really thinking of Humanity, that it's not a disguise but an attempt to blend in with the rest of the bumbling fools.

Gaith, you might as well be talking about a Martian Manhunter project. The ludicrousy of the "disguise" speaks psychologically of the awe maintained by the people surrounding Clark Kent, that it's impossible for him to be some one so insanely larger than life... Besides the element Krypton is an invisible, flavorless gas in it's natural state... His species was named appropriately from an artistic standpoint.

 

[jadcox@mindspring.com]

Maybe there's Kryptonian Tech in the costume that hides the identity? Naaa. That sort of dilutes the charm of the glasses bit, doesn't it? I think Smallville made a mistake staying away from the glasses.

 

[JoeZhang]

Not exactly. Post-Crisis, there are basically three identities: There's the real, confident, strong Clark Kent, the personality known to his parents, Lana, and others who know his true identity; there's the shy and clumsy Clark Kent persona he erects as a facade; and there's the Superman persona.

Not really - the reversion to the bumbler was a Geoff "look I''ve read a lot of old comics and I worked with Richard Donner" Johns thing and quite recent. He was a lot of things in the 1990s and early 2000s but shy and clumsy wasn't really one of them.

 

[JoeZhang]

This is what Superman thinks of his disguise:

 

[Broccoli]

Actually, dorky Clark IS the real personality.

Not exactly. Post-Crisis, there are basically three identities: There's the real, confident, strong Clark Kent, the personality known to his parents, Lana, and others who know his true identity; there's the shy and clumsy Clark Kent persona he erects as a facade; and there's the Superman persona.

And even that gets changed around depending on the writer and how they want to depict Clark/Superman.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Byrne's take on Clark - basically, he's just a guy who makes no effort to disguise a normal well-adjusted personality - was the best.

Geoff Johns has done the character no favors.

OTOH, Johns's take on Hal Jordan and the Green Lanterns is the best.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Not exactly. Post-Crisis, there are basically three identities: There's the real, confident, strong Clark Kent, the personality known to his parents, Lana, and others who know his true identity; there's the shy and clumsy Clark Kent persona he erects as a facade; and there's the Superman persona.

Not really - the reversion to the bumbler was a Geoff "look I''ve read a lot of old comics and I worked with Richard Donner" Johns thing and quite recent. He was a lot of things in the 1990s and early 2000s but shy and clumsy wasn't really one of them.

It also goes back to Birthright where Mark Waid tried to bring back elements of the Pre-Crisis Clark only to have that story negated by what was happening in the monthlies.

Byrne's take on Clark - basically, he's just a guy who makes no effort to disguise a normal well-adjusted personality - was the best.

Which Byrne based on the George Reeves portrayal of Clark Kent as a no-nonsense investigative journalist. While Johns bases his Clark Kent on Christopher Reeve's portrayal.

 

[Gaith]

The Scarlet Pimpernel, Zorro, the Shadow, etc. all adopted foppish or timid alter egos, people that nobody would suspect of being two-fisted adventurers or merciless avengers.

I've read the original Zorro story, and here's the key difference: Diego does his (main) wooing as Zorro, not the artificial bumbler. Notice that in The Mask of Zorro, Alejandro also primarily woos as Zorro/a "masked bandit".

As I said above, I don't care which comic writer writes how. I'm interested in what would work best on screen, with actors that move and speak playing in a drama. Case in point: X-Men comics had several characters that could fly like Superman, but in Singer's first X-movies, they couldn't. (I know, some hovered, but the point stands.) Guess I should have made my OP clearer.

Anyhow...

Actually, dorky Clark IS the real personality.

Comics aside, it certainly seemed in SR that that was the case, and it was, IMO, dramatically inert. It was an interesting approach, and I give Singer points for trying a tragic spin on the character, but I don't buy that anyone that strong, tall and handsome could end up such a wreck as SR showed. The Smallville Clark I've seen up to S4, on the other hand, is totally believable: square, sorta dull, but good-natured and easygoing, someone you'd like have a beer with, to invoke a tired metaphor.

If some sort of face-morphing could preserve that CK dynamic in a full-fledged Superman movie, maybe it should be tried.

 

[Christopher]

I've read the original Zorro story, and here's the key difference: Diego does his (main) wooing as Zorro, not the artificial bumbler.

Well, yes, that's exactly my point. Pre-Crisis, when Clark was portrayed as a bumbler, the "wooing" personality was Superman, not Clark. So it wasn't different at all. And when Byrne made Clark the "wooing" personality, he made Clark be just a normal guy.

 

[Gaith]

Huh, interesting. It could be amusing to see Superman vying for Lois' affections, and not necessarily getting them. That'd certainly make a change from what the movies have shown so far...

On the other hand, I think there's good reason why the movie Supes and Clarks are so different; if Clark acted normally, the mere-glasses disguise probably wouldn't be at all convincing. It could be tried, I guess, but it'd easily veer into comedy; see the Mystery Men scene where some characters argue the superhero's alter ego coudln't possibly be the hero himself because he wears glasses.

All's I know is, I didn't buy the romantic angle in either Donner's movies or SR...

Hey, I just wondered: how'd Dean Cain play Clark? I haven't seen the show since I was in lower school or something.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Dean Cain didn't even try to make a difference, it was ridiculous.

Teri Hatcher got his powers for an episode and no one could see through her thin disguise either, and the funny thing was that Lois wasn't even trying to disguise herself since she didn't think that anyone would not be able to recognize her.

Really, i think why they treat clark how thy treat clark just boils down to regional bigotry even though President Ross and president Luthor both went to Smallville High..

 

[Christopher]

Hey, I just wondered: how'd Dean Cain play Clark? I haven't seen the show since I was in lower school or something.

Pretty much the same, just a bit more... casual. Basically a George Reeves approach, where the voice is essentially unchanged and the only difference is that as Superman he's slightly more formal, striking more of a heroic bearing, that sort of thing.

What always struck me about Lois and Clark's version of Clark/Superman is that they reversed the hairstyles. In their version, Clark was the one with the curly forelock and Superman was the one with the slicked-back hair.

 

[Kryton]

It wasn't exactly the full "S-curl" on his Clark as much as it was errant locks in his face. Here's an interesting publicity shot.

 

[Christopher]

^^Yeah, but the general idea of the wavy forelock was there, which is what I meant.