I was thinking after reading a Supreme issue

[Soubhagya]

I was reading Supreme #45. (For the uninitiated that's the closest thing to a Superman run by the great Alan Moore. A must read for any Superman fan imo).

Its the issue where the 'Jimmy Olsen' character goes through a transformation. In the end of the issue, a Supreme automaton standing in for Supreme informs the office about him. Everyone is there including Ethan Crane who is secretly Supreme.

Diana sees Supreme for the first time and after he leaves, speaks with Ethan. She notes the resemblance between the two of them other then the height (apparently Supreme is taller then his alter ego Ethan Crane).

This got me thinking. Isn't this the best way for Superman to maintain his secret identity? I don't see any problems with this. Rather it brings more to the table.

Whether he shall have a secret ID is for another thread. (For me that's not even a question). Its about what in your opinion is the best way for Superman to keep his secret identity.

[Last Son of Krypton]

During the Silver Age, Superman compresses his spine to look shorter as Clark Kent.

I think that the All-Star route is the best way to differentiate Superman and Clark's height...

[Soubhagya]

During the Silver Age, Superman compresses his spine to look shorter as Clark Kent.

I think that the All-Star route is the best way to differentiate Superman and Clark's height...

Thanks for sharing this. I did not know this about Silver Age. (Or perhaps i forgot about this).

But anyway what i meant was how to maintain the secret ID? Not just the height.

I think in Golden Age he changed his face by using his hands. I think that's a more effective approach. While, All Star works nice and good does it really work in today's age? When even a kid has a phone in his hands by mobile phones.

John Byrne's was effective. He kept vibrating his face so that he couldn't be photographed. But then Superman happens to be a public figure. Often appearing in press conferences and events like that. This isn't practical.

I also watched Thor: Ragnarok today. There's a scene where Thor and Loki are dressed in civilian clothes and some people appriach Thor and take a selfie with him. It got me think a bit more. Doesn't Superman need a proper explanation? Its something which DCEU simply ignores. It does not work for DCEU at all.

In contrast, to this Superman The Movie actually explained how he does that. That's one reason why it worked. You see Superman and actually think he's living in the real world. But Man of Steel for all its saying that its set in the real world ends with him simply putting the glasses at the end. I have read quite a number of complaints about that. In comics, the audience does not scrutinize a lot. But in films meant for general people these things shall be more thorough to make people buy Superman.

I think the best idea for both comics and other media is using the robots.

[Kuwagaton]

I guess this is sort of similar to your question from a few months ago about the robots, right? Yeah, at various points he has used stand-ins or robots, and I do think it's the second best disguise. The most obvious give away tends to be whether or not you can see them in the same place a the same time, after all.

I'd say the first best line of defense is simply not giving people a reason to suspect that he has a secret identity. It's something we can't help but think about because we're viewers from outside of the story, but they don't really have to see superhero tropes as we do in the world of the comics.

During the Silver Age, Superman compresses his spine to look shorter as Clark Kent.

Wasn't that whole idea made up after the silver age? If they mean compress his spine as in slouch and act the way that a Reeve might, that works for me. Superhuman spine compression would fail when he can't use his powers, though.

[Last Son of Krypton]

Wasn't that whole idea made up after the silver age? If they mean compress his spine as in slouch and act the way that a Reeve might, that works for me. Superhuman spine compression would fail when he can't use his powers, though.

I think you're right, I found a reference to the "spine compression" in AC #500 (Bronze Age)...

spine.jpg

[Soubhagya]

I guess this is sort of similar to your question from a few months ago about the robots, right? Yeah, at various points he has used stand-ins or robots, and I do think it's the second best disguise. The most obvious give away tends to be whether or not you can see them in the same place a the same time, after all.

I'd say the first best line of defense is simply not giving people a reason to suspect that he has a secret identity. It's something we can't help but think about because we're viewers from outside of the story, but they don't really have to see superhero tropes as we do in the world of the comics.

Lol. You got that older one about robots. That one was simply about robots. This one is different in 'explanation of Superman's secret identity'. For a slightly mature Superman fan (the ones who have actually read some Superman) its a non-issue. Any explanation is good enough. Writers have addressed these questions since forever.

And i think some explanations are better then others. I think of them in three terms. Effectiveness, elegance and additive effect. The most effective one might be the face changing one of Golden Age. When the face itself is different there's no question. But it is not a very elegant one. Its weird. (But then that's debatable. Had this been the explanation in comics it wouldn't sound weird now). And what it adds to Superman is simply another power to explain his secret identity. I think that's why it does not have many fans. On the other hand, his acting as mild-mannered adds so much to his character that it is the favorable idea in general. I also love that it adds something more to Superman in terms of skills. His world class acting.

And the one you said, that people just don't see that Superman would think of having a secret identity is one of my favorites. It does not really add to Superman, but it is very elegant. Someone as powerful as Superman actually walks among us as an ordinary human. That's intriguing. Why would anyone want to lower oneself? No one in 'his' world thinks like that. Then in a roundabout way it adds something to his character.

And this robot one is really effective. I think second only to the face changing one. And it adds sufficiently to Superman. His intelligence. He does not need to be the smartest man of DC universe. But he can definitely be smart enough. Performing experiments in his Fortress for instance. Or in New 52 Action where i was reading about how he read all the medical books within 5 minutes. That is awe inspiring. And Superman of all characters shall be awe inspiring. His name is 'Super' man.

But then is the robot thing elegant? Its definitely effective. If that was what people saw on screen we wouldn't even be talking about this subject. People would find something else to complain about Superman. (Like say he is so intelligent that he is overpowered. You just can't satisfy one group of people). I don't see anything aesthetically pleasing. Though Superlad suggested that the crude versions of robots who don't look like Superman are weird and strange. Something along these lines- looking like unfinished robots they are weird and creepy looking as if they are half finished humans working together as in an Ant farm. There's something on an aesthetic level. Elegance. I say let most robots be like that. But keep a select few who can act as Clark Kent. To act as stand-ins from time to time. To allay any suspicions from people in general and the daily planet in particular.

I think this is the best idea to adopt everywhere. (And i want to hear something opposite to my proposition). For instance i am looking at robots and artificial intelligence. As they are becoming more and more relevant to our society, Superman comics has something to say about them. Say how bots are writing articles.

https://blog.reputationx.com/can-bot...t-articles-yet

Since, Bendis is going to put some light on the journalistic side of Superman/Clark Kent, he could definitely write a story in how good a.i. could be that's no match to rigorous journalism. But since Superman does not have these robots now he can't do that. Bendis won't even be able to think about something like this. Why take away positive attributes from Superman? If you can't use them at least keep them in the back burner. So, that somebody with imagination and talent could do something with that.

And topics like this when done well stay fresh. I am a big Stanley Kubrick fan. His Hal 2000 in 2001: A Space Odyssey (which directly deals with AI), or Dr. Strangelove's nuclear warfare are as relevant and fresh as they were so many decades ago. Apart from high quality if such things have an aspect which can talk with people over a long period of time, that's an admirable quality. Say there are some really good or great stories involving robots and A.I. their reputation will only increase with time.

It is the best explanation in today's day and age. The wider movie going/tv series watching audiences are more sophisticated. While your explanation about the world of Superman is good enough. I feel the modern audience is familiar to the tropes as superheroes are the craze right now. Such explanations can't put a full stop to such queries.

And the world of superheroes shall actually feel like its ours. If its a setting like Middle Earth people know what to expect. You can do so many things and get away from it. But superheroes even when set in imaginary cities are set in cities. And so there's a clash between the realistic and fantasy. Superman in Man of Steel, when he walks in as Clark Kent to Daily Planet is one such instance.

[Superlad93]

My favorite explanation for how Clark maintains a secret identity is the simple truth that Superman/Clark Kent is, logically speaking, the greatest method actor in the world.

You can watch movies that star Daniel Day-Lewis, Christian Bale, and Ed Norton in them and intellectually understand that they are in fact Daniel Day-Lewis, Christian Bale, and Ed Norton, but you'd be hard pressed not to get sucked into their performances so completely that you nearly divorce the character from the actor.

Method acting is a technique of acting in which an actor aspires to complete emotional identification with a part. That sounds quite a bit like what Maggin envisioned the Clark/Superman distinction as, yes? Clark Kent had his own aspirations, likes, dislikes, and so on that were totally different from Superman. This was done by Superman aspiring to realize Clark with as much verisimilitude as possible.

But this doesn't completely apply to Clark/Superman these days, does it? But, I'd argue that method acting has to apply to Clark on at least some level. He has to pretend to be cold, hot, or ill. He has to remind himself to sneeze on occasion, and it all has to be second nature to him. This is still by nature acting even though Clark is still very much part of who Superman is as a person. So, it's very likely that he does what all great method actors do: he studies his part. He knows the exact sort of facial and muscular contortions that a human body goes through for a sneeze, and he recreates it in himself. This attention to detail and first hand experience (remember, he used to function as mostly human) prevents what is known as the uncanny valley when people look at him in motion.

And why is it that Superman knowing how to make Clark sneeze in a believable way stands as the most important part of the disguise and trumps all others? It's because humans are sympathetic/empathetic creatures by nature, and their sympathetic responses are at their height when dealing with other humanoid creatures or something that has clear human responses. Just look at what happens when you play a video game or watch a CGI movie. Regardless of how good or beautiful the computer generated effects are, the main thing that gets you as a human to care about a bunch of 1s and 0s is how often it gets you to recognize familiar human characteristics. This is why you can cry your eyes out after watching Find Nemo, but you think Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within is creepy to look at even though the designs are human. You can't quite articulate it, but the cartoon fish is far more human than the nearly photo realistic humans of FF.

Superman as Clark basically makes sure to garner that empathy just by his movements and body language. Then as Superman he can do things like stand unflinching in a blizzard, and have his eyes go blank for a moment as he watches cells divide. Because of this the people of the DCU are able to divorce the two in their minds, and shrug off the resemblance as nothing but a strange coincidence.

[Hopeful Hero]

My favorite explanation for how Clark maintains a secret identity is the simple truth that Superman/Clark Kent is, logically speaking, the greatest method actor in the world.

You can watch movies that star Daniel Day-Lewis, Christian Bale, and Ed Norton in them and intellectually understand that they are in fact Daniel Day-Lewis, Christian Bale, and Ed Norton, but you'd be hard pressed not to get sucked into their performances so completely that you nearly divorce the character from the actor.

Method acting is a technique of acting in which an actor aspires to complete emotional identification with a part. That sounds quite a bit like what Maggin envisioned the Clark/Superman distinction as, yes? Clark Kent had his own aspirations, likes, dislikes, and so on that were totally different from Superman. This was done by Superman aspiring to realize Clark with as much verisimilitude as possible.

But this doesn't completely apply to Clark/Superman these days, does it? But, I'd argue that method acting has to apply to Clark on at least some level. He has to pretend to be cold, hot, or ill. He has to remind himself to sneeze on occasion, and it all has to be second nature to him. This is still by nature acting even though Clark is still very much part of who Superman is as a person. So, it's very likely that he does what all great method actors do: he studies his part. He knows the exact sort of facial and muscular contortions that a human body goes through for a sneeze, and he recreates it in himself. This attention to detail and first hand experience (remember, he used to function as mostly human) prevents what is known as the uncanny valley when people look at him in motion.

And why is it that Superman knowing how to make Clark sneeze in a believable way stands as the most important part of the disguise and trumps all others? It's because humans are sympathetic/empathetic creatures by nature, and their sympathetic responses are at their height when dealing with other humanoid creatures or something that has clear human responses. Just look at what happens when you play a video game or watch a CGI movie. Regardless of how good or beautiful the computer generated effects are, the main thing that gets you as a human to care about a bunch of 1s and 0s is how often it gets you to recognize familiar human characteristics. This is why you can cry your eyes out after watching Find Nemo, but you think Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within is creepy to look at even though the designs are human. You can't quite articulate it, but the cartoon fish is far more human than the nearly photo realistic humans of FF.

Superman as Clark basically makes sure to garner that empathy just by his moments and body language. The as Superman he can do things like stand unflinching in a blizzard, and have his eyes go blank for a moment as he watches cells divide. Because of this the people of the DCU are able to divorce the two in their minds, and shrug off the resemblance as nothing but a strange coincidence.

A perfect summation as to what I was thinking in regards to the Superman/Clark Kent dynamic. And also very happy see another Maggin fan, Superlad.

[Superlad93]

Thanks! And Maggin's impact on the Superman myth can not be overstated, imo. His Superman is probably the undisputed most complex version of the character to date. The idea that Clark Kent is to Superman what art is to us is beyond words. Clark is Superman creating a painting or writing a book. THAT'S NUTS, and I love it.

A modern update to this would be all kinds of fascinating. Imagine the new parallels that can be made now that social media is a thing. Clark Kent then becomes the equivalent to an online avatar or Facebook page. An identity crafted for the express purpose of being interacted with and even judged, but also functioning like a thick layer of plastic that keeps you away from the actual person.

How people assume a fake and exaggerated persona, come on a forum, and then say Superman is too hard to relate to kind of makes me smile.

[Powerboy]

My favorite explanation for how Clark maintains a secret identity is the simple truth that Superman/Clark Kent is, logically speaking, the greatest method actor in the world.

Also, that whole explanation comes out of an era that was parodied in the Wonder Woman movie. Seriously? A pair of horn-rimmed glasses and putting her hair up and you expect everybody to pretend they can't tell she's the most gorgeous woman they've ever seen? Or you put this guy in a pair of horn-rimmed glasses and a suit and you can't tell he has movie star looks and spends two hours a day working out?

But within the context of the setting, glasses and being a great method actor work. This is a setting where, to this day, a character can wear a little mask that covers the area just around the eyes and not be recognized by people who know him in both identities, ala Robin, etc.

I think that, as adults, we spend too much time on silliness like how glasses hide his identity or how how his powers work. When my best friend's little girl wants to go explore the back yard for dinosaurs, she doesn't worry about how they got there or how they survive there. She just whispers conspiratorially, "Don't worry. We're just pretending. It's make-believe."

[Robanker]

I think that, as adults, we spend too much time on silliness like how glasses hide his identity or how how his powers work. When my best friend's little girl wants to go explore the back yard for dinosaurs, she doesn't worry about how they got there or how they survive there. She just whispers conspiratorially, "Don't worry. We're just pretending. It's make-believe."

Bingo. It can be fun as a thought exercise, but if we're going to task over it, no answer will be entirely satisfying.

[Soubhagya]

My favorite explanation for how Clark maintains a secret identity is the simple truth that Superman/Clark Kent is, logically speaking, the greatest method actor in the world.

You can watch movies that star Daniel Day-Lewis, Christian Bale, and Ed Norton in them and intellectually understand that they are in fact Daniel Day-Lewis, Christian Bale, and Ed Norton, but you'd be hard pressed not to get sucked into their performances so completely that you nearly divorce the character from the actor.

Method acting is a technique of acting in which an actor aspires to complete emotional identification with a part. That sounds quite a bit like what Maggin envisioned the Clark/Superman distinction as, yes? Clark Kent had his own aspirations, likes, dislikes, and so on that were totally different from Superman. This was done by Superman aspiring to realize Clark with as much verisimilitude as possible.

But this doesn't completely apply to Clark/Superman these days, does it? But, I'd argue that method acting has to apply to Clark on at least some level. He has to pretend to be cold, hot, or ill. He has to remind himself to sneeze on occasion, and it all has to be second nature to him. This is still by nature acting even though Clark is still very much part of who Superman is as a person. So, it's very likely that he does what all great method actors do: he studies his part. He knows the exact sort of facial and muscular contortions that a human body goes through for a sneeze, and he recreates it in himself. This attention to detail and first hand experience (remember, he used to function as mostly human) prevents what is known as the uncanny valley when people look at him in motion.

And why is it that Superman knowing how to make Clark sneeze in a believable way stands as the most important part of the disguise and trumps all others? It's because humans are sympathetic/empathetic creatures by nature, and their sympathetic responses are at their height when dealing with other humanoid creatures or something that has clear human responses. Just look at what happens when you play a video game or watch a CGI movie. Regardless of how good or beautiful the computer generated effects are, the main thing that gets you as a human to care about a bunch of 1s and 0s is how often it gets you to recognize familiar human characteristics. This is why you can cry your eyes out after watching Find Nemo, but you think Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within is creepy to look at even though the designs are human. You can't quite articulate it, but the cartoon fish is far more human than the nearly photo realistic humans of FF.

Superman as Clark basically makes sure to garner that empathy just by his movements and body language. Then as Superman he can do things like stand unflinching in a blizzard, and have his eyes go blank for a moment as he watches cells divide. Because of this the people of the DCU are able to divorce the two in their minds, and shrug off the resemblance as nothing but a strange coincidence.

Now that is a great explanation. Method acting.

I have not seen much of Daniel Day Lewis or Christian Bale. But i have seen the likes of Marlon Brando and Robert DeNiro. The earlier experts of method acting. After a while you forget that you are watching an actor.

I love the bold part. I had not thought like this. And it shows why Clark Kent is so important. You can do without a secret identity with a lot of characters. MCU has pretty much given this up. But for Superman its not simply a practical necessity but also an integral part of his character.

I still want those robots on top of method acting. Watching the sample of the smarts of Superman in Grant Morrison's run wants me to see more of that. Recently, i started reading DC Comics Presents. In #4, the guest stars were the Metal Men. And there's this panel where Superman arrives to stop the villain, and while i was expecting him to fight the villain and stop a missile to the sun. (And at that point of the story the villain was correcting his mistake and doing that to actually save the sun). Superman arrives and instead of fighting, corrects the complicated calculations on the blackboard in a jiffy, saying that this would actually endanger the sun. He flies fast and stops the missile at space by taking on the full blow of the missile. That's amazing. And of course there's Supreme.

I am loving the robots. And both of these ideas can and shall co-exist imho.

And it looks like i shall get some of Cary Bates and Maggin too. They have been in my list for sometime. But i don't think their works are available digitally. Looks like i will have to look at paperbacks as they aren't available digitally. Can anyone help?

[Kuwagaton]

For a trade paperback I'd say Superman Past and Future. Between Superman#295, 300, and the story of Superwoman I think it covers a lot of ground where the identity and presentation of Superman as an icon through Bates and Maggin (no 's' at the end) is concerned. There's not much else, the Superman in the Seventies trade is good but doesn't give much of what made those writers so good with these kind of issues. You end up with Terra Man and Captain Thunder as opposed to the iconic stories you find in the rest of the decade series. The two most significant stories get started with no follow up. Makes sense because of the available space but still.

The things all of the writers pulled off from then... I can get why Superman fans often like Supreme a lot but I'm put off by the notion that it's any substitute for the real steel deal.

[Jim Kelly]

Robots and great acting are the two things I always fall back on to explain it in the classic comics. And there are also times when others have subbed for Clark or Superman.

The question then becomes Why do people keep doubting Clark? Lois might have questioned it once, but she kept at this despite having proof that they are two different people. She should be the one insisting they are two different people, because it’s been proven so many times to her.

You could say that Lois suspects, because Superman has revealed all his tricks to her. She knows all the magician’s secrets. But that was something they never addressed in the classic comics. And it would put Clark in an impossible situation. He would have no cards left to play.

The truth is, in publishing a lot of comics on a tight schedule and a small budget, they used the secret identity plot over and over because it proved an entertaining one.

But in my book, Clark should have never let Lois see behind the curtain. Superman should not have been so public about so much of his methods (no one should have known about the robots or that he had a secret identity).

At one time, Superman existed in a world of super-heroes where half of them never made the effort at any disguise (e.g. Starman/Ted Knight). It was a convention of the comics that readers accepted going in.

And comic book art being minimalist, it was entirely possible there were specific details of face and body that would distinguish Clark from Superman. The artists only drew the most important and obvious details—so glasses—but there could be others that made them look as different as Cary Grant and Clark Gable.

As long as the comics never made a point of it, it was easy to suspend disbelief and accept that the disguise worked in the comic book world. However, as soon as they made it a question, that challenged what rules governed this reality. Because sometimes other characters see they are identical and sometimes they don’t.

But the secret identity plot twist was so attractive, I understand why they wanted to exploit it.

[Soubhagya]

For a trade paperback I'd say Superman Past and Future. Between Superman#295, 300, and the story of Superwoman I think it covers a lot of ground where the identity and presentation of Superman as an icon through Bates and Maggin (no 's' at the end) is concerned. There's not much else, the Superman in the Seventies trade is good but doesn't give much of what made those writers so good with these kind of issues. You end up with Terra Man and Captain Thunder as opposed to the iconic stories you find in the rest of the decade series. The two most significant stories get started with no follow up. Makes sense because of the available space but still.

The things all of the writers pulled off from then... I can get why Superman fans often like Supreme a lot but I'm put off by the notion that it's any substitute for the real steel deal.

Oh well my mistake about Maggin. Corrected it. Thanks for the info. I will look it up. A shame that these stories are not as easily available. I have heard a lot about them.

And yes you are right. Supreme is not a substitute for the real deal. I was interested not in Supreme himself but rather Alan Moore's Supreme. I think that its tragic that we did not get a Superman run by Alan Moore. In my opinion he is one of the greatest Superman writers even if his contribution to Superman is only two stories. Both the stories are greats and very famous. Often cited as one of the best Superman stories of all time.

I came to know about his Supreme run from these articles. I think you might have read them but i am posting them anyway.

http://comicsalliance.com/ask-chris-...gning-supreme/

http://comicsalliance.com/ask-chris-...ison-vs-moore/

Robots and great acting are the two things I always fall back on to explain it in the classic comics. And there are also times when others have subbed for Clark or Superman.

The question then becomes Why do people keep doubting Clark? Lois might have questioned it once, but she kept at this despite having proof that they are two different people. She should be the one insisting they are two different people, because it’s been proven so many times to her.

You could say that Lois suspects, because Superman has revealed all his tricks to her. She knows all the magician’s secrets. But that was something they never addressed in the classic comics. And it would put Clark in an impossible situation. He would have no cards left to play.

The truth is, in publishing a lot of comics on a tight schedule and a small budget, they used the secret identity plot over and over because it proved an entertaining one.

But in my book, Clark should have never let Lois see behind the curtain. Superman should not have been so public about so much of his methods (no one should have known about the robots or that he had a secret identity).

At one time, Superman existed in a world of super-heroes where half of them never made the effort at any disguise (e.g. Starman/Ted Knight). It was a convention of the comics that readers accepted going in.

And comic book art being minimalist, it was entirely possible there were specific details of face and body that would distinguish Clark from Superman. The artists only drew the most important and obvious details—so glasses—but there could be others that made them look as different as Cary Grant and Clark Gable.

As long as the comics never made a point of it, it was easy to suspend disbelief and accept that the disguise worked in the comic book world. However, as soon as they made it a question, that challenged what rules governed this reality. Because sometimes other characters see they are identical and sometimes they don’t.

But the secret identity plot twist was so attractive, I understand why they wanted to exploit it.

I agree with you. Such things shall not be revealed to the world so easily. And i think those two things shall be part of stories today which would then be taken up in other media. When you see something like this, you shall get the robots.



Its perfectly explained by acting and the explanation by Superlad. But would there even be questions like this if the robot explanation was an add on? This acting thing was last done well in the Reeve films. Is it done well anywhere else after that?