These comments by Christopher Reeve get into why Clark has to be the disguise

[magha_regulus]

https://www.facebook.com/reel/245167...?s=yWDuG2&fs=e

[Kuwagaton]

I'm a little confused because I got the video where he talks about playing [Superman] with sincerity, was I supposed to scroll down or something?

[bat39]

https://www.facebook.com/reel/245167...?s=yWDuG2&fs=e

I don't see how that necessarily follows.

If anything, Reeve makes the case for the 'Superman' persona being a construct, while the real person is the orphan and alien with the 'generosity of spirit' to act as a hero. Now whether you call this 'real' person Clark Kent (not the bumbling Daily Planet reporter, but the boy raised by Jonathan and Martha Kent) or Kal-El (his true name, representing his alien heritage, which he discovers in the Fortress with hologram Jor-El) is the debate.

[Stanlos]

I don't see how that necessarily follows.

If anything, Reeve makes the case for the 'Superman' persona being a construct, while the real person is the orphan and alien with the 'generosity of spirit' to act as a hero. Now whether you call this 'real' person Clark Kent (not the bumbling Daily Planet reporter, but the boy raised by Jonathan and Martha Kent) or Kal-El (his true name, representing his alien heritage, which he discovers in the Fortress with hologram Jor-El) is the debate.

I interpreted it that way too, Bat!

[The World]

I don't see how that necessarily follows.

If anything, Reeve makes the case for the 'Superman' persona being a construct, while the real person is the orphan and alien with the 'generosity of spirit' to act as a hero. Now whether you call this 'real' person Clark Kent (not the bumbling Daily Planet reporter, but the boy raised by Jonathan and Martha Kent) or Kal-El (his true name, representing his alien heritage, which he discovers in the Fortress with hologram Jor-El) is the debate.

There's no way to take Reeve's words as saying Clark is real as the whole concept of Clark being real is based around the idea of treating the surface level details as the most important aspect of a character. Reeve is saying to really get the character and to bring out some magic and vitality have to consider all the things that make you different and how that for better or worse will inform you as a person. The notion of Clark being real is about laser focusing in on the fact that Clark Kent was raised on Earth by human beings and that he looks like a human being. Remember when Byrne pushed for Clark/Real,Superman/Fake narrative one of his main objectives was to wipe out anything that would have given him a childhood apart from the "average" American. He removed the Legion, Superboy in general, any memories of Krypton and any interaction from Krypton period, the bulk of his powers, etc were all removed so he could have what Byrne understood as a quaint and normal American childhood. The whole notion of Clark being real is centered around Clark not believing that anything separates him from anyone around him and embracing his own lack of individuality so that he can be part of the collective. Under the Clark is real doctrine things like being an orphan, an alien, or different aren't factors in his character as they aren't things he considers relevant to who he. He lives in an ignorance is bliss mindset which is rather ironic for a reporter.

[Vordan]

For the Reeve incarnation, “Clark” is definitely fake and “Superman” is his real self. If you compare the “real” person from before he puts on the costume to the two identities that come after, Superman is the personality that’s closer to what came before.

[Kuwagaton]

For the Reeve incarnation, “Clark” is definitely fake and “Superman” is his real self. If you compare the “real” person from before he puts on the costume to the two identities that come after, Superman is the personality that’s closer to what came before.

Definitely. That line of thinking was arguably the only understanding of Superman that existed at the time. But that's not what his words explain here and if we're just going by "it worked for the movie" then that puts Lex in a pretty weird place for one thing.

Remember when Byrne pushed for Clark/Real,Superman/Fake narrative one of his main objectives was to wipe out anything that would have given him a childhood apart from the "average" American. He removed the Legion, Superboy in general, any memories of Krypton and any interaction from Krypton period, the bulk of his powers, etc were all removed

With the Golden Age keep in mind that this is exactly what Siegel originally wrote across Action, Superman, and More Fun. The reboot concept was based on both taking Superman back to his core and ... actually rebooting. While the Legion of Superheroes resurfaced in less than a year, the point of restarting the character would have been lost if they complicated the backstory with the same details as before.

[Vordan]

Definitely. That line of thinking was arguably the only understanding of Superman that existed at the time. But that's not what his words explain here and if we're just going by "it worked for the movie" then that puts Lex in a pretty weird place for one thing.

I’ll say the strongest argument for Superman needing to be the “real” identity is that if Clark is “real” then he isn’t going to act any different from Superman. He’s going to be brave and righteous and compassionate because those things are intrinsic to who Superman is. Which means we end up with Clark just being Superman Lite rather than being his own identity. I suppose that’s in-line with the Marvelization of Superman that Byrne set out to perform, Peter Parker really isn’t that different from Spider-Man, his jokes just tend to be more deadpan and less obnoxious. Meanwhile Bruce and Batman tend to be very different.

[Kuwagaton]

Spider-Man and Batman were "created." It's not the death of Pa that gives him anything that he doesn't have and even if you argue that it was his motivation, then there's also the idea that he never becomes something that he hadn't always been.

A lot of people love the idea of him having this pubescent experience. And some push it to an extreme where he feels his powers kicking in, freaking him out and isolating him in the process. But that's not the cake of the origin, just some frosting or toppings.

That's my long winded way of saying "marvelization" is a misnomer, lol. The idea of defining Superman by himself or a different version of himself is separate from defining him by characters or ideas that came later.

[JBatmanFan05]

I don't see how that necessarily follows.

If anything, Reeve makes the case for the 'Superman' persona being a construct, while the real person is the orphan and alien with the 'generosity of spirit' to act as a hero. Now whether you call this 'real' person Clark Kent (not the bumbling Daily Planet reporter, but the boy raised by Jonathan and Martha Kent) or Kal-El (his true name, representing his alien heritage, which he discovers in the Fortress with hologram Jor-El) is the debate.

Well put Bat39. And so much disagreement on the net and social media is a good bit of semantics, really a confused/unacknowledged dispute on this fundamental nomenclature debate.

I've said it many times before, but Superman/Clark (Private/Public)/Kal-El is part of why I today moreso get away from overly simplistic dualities with Superman, following Morrison's criticisms of superhero duality framings. Batman could similarly perhaps be looked at as Batman/Private Bruce/Public Bruce, perhaps being all in one rather unlabelable being.

[Jon Clark]

Well put Bat39. And so much disagreement on the net and social media is a good bit of semantics, really a confused/unacknowledged dispute on this fundamental nomenclature debate.

I've said it many times before, but Superman/Clark (Private/Public)/Kal-El is part of why I today moreso get away from overly simplistic dualities with Superman, following Morrison's criticisms of superhero duality framings. Batman could similarly perhaps be looked at as Batman/Private Bruce/Public Bruce, perhaps being all in one rather unlabelable being.

I've been saying it is a semantic issue for years

There is some core personality that was present prior to his adopting a costume and a superhero name. The problem is that some people label it Clark (because that was that he was called by everyone at the time), other people call it Superman (because he acted more natural in that role), and others think of it as Lal-El (since that personality exists prior to either Clark or Superman as names).

The problem is that some of us don't use Clark/Superman/Kal-El in the same way. If Clark is the real identity then what do you call the person Jimmy Olsen and Perry White would describe as Clark? If the Kents are dead and he hasn't let Lois in on the secret- who ever meets the real person (since everyone who knows "Clark" has no idea about the man behind the secrets). Superman seems an easier catch-all...except then what do we call the guy who isn't heroic 24/7 (always brave and in charge). And can we have a Kal-El if the character isn't embracing his Kryptonian heritage (but still feels that he isn't the same as "that farmboy from Smallville")

[manwhohaseverything]

[Kman2]

Well, I think it of like this. Superman only exist to help people. Clark kent is who he was raised as, Clark kent is the one with a job Clark kent is the one with relationships, Clark kent is who he is when he’s allowed to relax and just enjoy life That’s a big reason why I didn’t like that smallville scene, he doesn’t need to give up being Clark kent and make him a disguise. And why I prefer lois and Clark’s and maybe Superman and lois take on it, but I’m not sure if he supposed to be putting on act in that show. I know he fakes how weak he is, but I think most of the time he’s being genuine as Clark

I prefer Clark the daily Planet reporter and the alien from smallville to act the same. And I like clumsy goofy Clark kent and think they could just make that his actual personality like anime protagonist. When relaxed they are goofy, but when it’s time to be serius they are extremely confident and competent like Superman. The only thing he should be faking as Clark kent is his ability.

[Stanlos]

I’ll say the strongest argument for Superman needing to be the “real” identity is that if Clark is “real” then he isn’t going to act any different from Superman. He’s going to be brave and righteous and compassionate because those things are intrinsic to who Superman is. Which means we end up with Clark just being Superman Lite rather than being his own identity. I suppose that’s in-line with the Marvelization of Superman that Byrne set out to perform, Peter Parker really isn’t that different from Spider-Man, his jokes just tend to be more deadpan and less obnoxious. Meanwhile Bruce and Batman tend to be very different.

Soooooooooooo, what does Superman as the main identity and Clark as the disguise really look like? Does he arrive on earth as a late teen andspends time observing people on screens to develop the affectation those around him call Clark?

[Vordan]

Soooooooooooo, what does Superman as the main identity and Clark as the disguise really look like? Does he arrive on earth as a late teen andspends time observing people on screens to develop the affectation those around him call Clark?

You’re being facetious but Clark being the disguise and Superman being real was the norm until Byrne flipped it. Plenty of examples of what that looks like if you want to read it. If you want to see what that looks like just go check out any Pre-Crisis comic, or watch the Donner Superman films. Heck go read All-Star Superman, that has the traditional dynamic of Superman being the true self and “Clark” being the cover.