Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Obiwanshinobi, Jan 30, 2011.
It wasn't the first time something went over my head.
You do make a good point.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Willing suspension of disbelief. You just have to go with it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
^ Sometimes fans need to suspend their disbelief of impossible things...
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?
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.
I have no doubt that this addresses everything we need to know.
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
Separate names with a comma.