Man Of Steel Ten Years Later - What’s Your Thoughts On It?

[Kuwagaton]

I think that was just the straw that broke the camel’s neck (couldn’t resist). You had Pa Kent saying “maybe” Clark should leave people to die + Pa dying in the tornado + the collateral damage that made Supes look callous/incompetent and then to end it all with the neck snap caused a huge backlash. It was too much. Didn’t help that Clark himself was a bore.

People are going to argue about these films forever but in the end Snyder & Goyer weren’t the guys to win the modern audience over to Superman. They failed and we just have to hope Legacy is better.

Yeah, don't mean to pretend that I don't see the comments about the tone in general and other choices. And it's understandable. I don't know that the general public took Man of Steel as hard as some comic fans though. Didn't read about an "out of body" experience elsewhere and people who saw the Avengers the year before probably weren't complaining about one guy who's never fought other aliens before taking on three of them as well as their Earth pounding machine. I think as a Superman reader I might wince more than the average person at the summer blockbuster carnage, and even then I have to admit that the comics aren't immune to that stuff either.

But man, two poorly received sequels (although I will defend BvS tbh) really were the worst case scenario for something so mixed

[Johnny Thunders!]

For me it’s the dialogue, some of it just sounds confused. Plus the storytelling, Jonathan Kent risks it all to save a dog, seconds later he tells Clark, don’t risk it all to save me. And Clark listens, it plays to Superman’s indecisiveness. Even if he’s a maniac, Batman has direction and agency. Clark seems so lost when he talks to Ma and Pa, that’s real, but it’s hard to say they bring out his best. It’s a somber, sad, and brutal movie. That’s kind of the point, but far from The Incredibles so to speak.

[Zagre]

I enjoyed it. Supes is a bit too passive in it but it mostly works as a character journey. It as a decent first step that had some misses (that tornado scene is terribly forced, personally, even if I get what it's trying to do) and should have gotten a proper sequel to build on its strenghts.

[Primal Slayer]

I LOVED the Krypton scenes. They're great and what fuel my rewatches.

The casting were great for the most part.

Still hate how moody it was. Krypton was moody, when we get to Earth it should've been the opposite.

[Doctor Know]

Loved the film. Still bummed it never got a proper sequel. Cavilman was spun off into ensemble films back to back, before TPTB decided their were done with competing with the Avengers.

I wish Cavil got a second crack at the whips to show his stuff.

Salute to Cavilman.

[All Star Superman]

It was before red kryptonite as we know it.


Different era, he lost the power at the end, no continuity emphasis back then, etc. There are many true things about how this comic was written that don't really change the fact that it was written. Doesn't sound all that fair if the idea is to argue about what isn't the right characterization in favor of there being no right characterization. Or that he's better than us. I can understand some of that point but that doesn't exclude him from being relatable, clearly. Pretty sure Mark Waid wrote the foreword for that archive.

The fact that it was written is irrelevant; the fact that it was a poor idea is. Same with Superman II (or, at least, what was filmed), Superman #22, and Man of Steel.

As for Waid, it's interesting that you mention that he wrote the foreword as if that somehow means he'd agree with you. Waid is a strong believer in the view that Superman should not kill and that the majority of his existence holds weight over the exceptions.

This is true, but I really hate this mindset that if we don't treat killing seriously then it is ok.

Precisely. If Superman is going to be used to address the morality of killing, it should be to illustrate that it isn't okay. Henry Cavill's overwrought scream did nothing to highlight this, especially when he let NotPaKent die and thousands of other people.

Yeah, don't mean to pretend that I don't see the comments about the tone in general and other choices. And it's understandable. I don't know that the general public took Man of Steel as hard as some comic fans though. Didn't read about an "out of body" experience elsewhere and people who saw the Avengers the year before probably weren't complaining about one guy who's never fought other aliens before taking on three of them as well as their Earth pounding machine. I think as a Superman reader I might wince more than the average person at the summer blockbuster carnage, and even then I have to admit that the comics aren't immune to that stuff either.

But man, two poorly received sequels (although I will defend BvS tbh) really were the worst case scenario for something so mixed

It doesn't matter if the general audience "took it that hard," though I have spoken with many non-comic readers in the last decade who did not enjoy the film. They didn't feel like it was a Superman movie and more than a few felt Captain America was more like Superman than the "Man of Steel." Of course, neither your analysis or mine includes a significant sample, but it's important to note nevertheless.

As for an "out of body experience," I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to the positive reaction many had to The Avengers? The feeling of optimism and goodwill they felt while watching? A truly faithful Superman adaptation would evoke the same, and probably even more, of a response. An inspirational Superman film doesn't have to be a carbon copy or sequel to the Reeve films, but it does have to include what those films did: a faithful adaptation of Superman's substantial character.

I LOVED the Krypton scenes. They're great and what fuel my rewatches.

The casting were great for the most part.

Still hate how moody it was. Krypton was moody, when we get to Earth it should've been the opposite.

I will admit that the casting and some of the SFX was great. That's made the film even more infuriating to me, as Costner and Lane should have been homeruns as Pa and Ma Kent. I was never a fan of Cavill, so he never worked for me, but a lot of his issues in the movie are based in the script and direction. Lawrence Fishburne was also great with the little he had, but I'd have liked to see him as Franklin Stern instead. I know Stern was never the editor, but he could have been acting editor while searching for a new editor. This would have been a nice change to the supporting cast.

[Vordan]

Yeah, don't mean to pretend that I don't see the comments about the tone in general and other choices. And it's understandable. I don't know that the general public took Man of Steel as hard as some comic fans thought.

If you mean the general public aren’t still debating the quality of MoS, or the ethics of him killing, then I agree. But if you’re arguing that the general public enjoyed the film a lot, it had a 65% drop off after the open weekend. It didn’t get good word of mouth or show good legs. Something was not connecting, and the film had a ton of interest at first. Its open weekend was around double what Superman Returns OW was. People wanted to go see a good Superman movie, but they didn’t judge MoS as in line with their expectations.

But man, two poorly received sequels (although I will defend BvS tbh) really were the worst case scenario for something so mixed

I don’t know why you would defend BvS, Supes is even worse in that and it’s all set up for Snyder’s quasi Injustice adaption with some cuckolding in the mix which would have finally killed Superman as a character for good. BvS getting ripped to shreds and JL flopping was the best thing that ever happened to Superman. Basically saved the character by prying him out of Snyder’s grip and getting us to where we are now.

[Kuwagaton]

The fact that it was written is irrelevant; the fact that it was a poor idea is. Same with Superman II (or, at least, what was filmed), Superman #22, and Man of Steel.

For one thing: a common defense for that scene revolves around the difference between lethal force/capital punishment and homicidal ideation. They aren't the same legally because they aren't the same ethically.

But ignoring that difference, between killing your clone out of jealousy and killing a terrorist with innocents in his sights, I guess we'd have to end up saying that these "bad ideas" are throughout the character's history.
https://www.cbr.com/superman-first-c...led-in-comics/

As for Waid, it's interesting that you mention that he wrote the foreword as if that somehow means he'd agree with you. Waid is a strong believer in the view that Superman should not kill and that the majority of his existence holds weight over the exceptions.

Coincidentally, I pulled out the Man of Steel archives for the first time since around this movie and volume 3 came out. And naturally the foreword didn't mention this bit. But you would be mistaken if you think the point was that I believe Waid agrees with me, I'm saying the opposite. That Man of Steel somehow was more egregious than what we've seen. Maybe the wrong thing to try to appeal to non readers, but absolutely rooted in the no kill debate of the source material.

It doesn't matter if the general audience "took it that hard," though I have spoken with many non-comic readers in the last decade who did not enjoy the film. They didn't feel like it was a Superman movie and more than a few felt Captain America was more like Superman than the "Man of Steel." Of course, neither your analysis or mine includes a significant sample, but it's important to note nevertheless.

Non readers said it didn't feel like the Superman that they non-read. Fair enough. There are millions of people with unique opinions, even if I think the basis can be a bit oxymoronic for some.

As for an "out of body experience," I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to the positive reaction many had to The Avengers? The feeling of optimism and goodwill they felt while watching?

No, not talking about the Avengers. More like:

“Some crazy guy in front of us was muttering ‘Don’t do it…don’t do it…DON’T DO IT…’ and then Superman snapped Zod’s neck and that guy stood up and said in a very loud voice, ‘THAT’S IT, YOU LOST ME, I’M OUT,’ and his girlfriend had to literally pull him back into his seat and keep him from walking out and that crazy guy was me. That crazy guy was me, and I barely even remember doing that, I had to be told afterward that I’d done that, that’s how caught up in betrayal I felt. And after the neck-snapping, even though I stuck it out, I didn’t give a damn about the rest of the movie.”

Probably seems like I harp on him a bit, but just hoping this drives home what I was saying in reference to a very well known and resourceful person with regards to the character who took exception to this hot button issue.

If you mean the general public aren’t still debating the quality of MoS, or the ethics of him killing, then I agree. But if you’re arguing that the general public enjoyed the film a lot, it had a 65% drop off after the open weekend. It didn’t get good word of mouth or show good legs. Something was not connecting, and the film had a ton of interest at first. Its open weekend was around double what Superman Returns OW was. People wanted to go see a good Superman movie, but they didn’t judge MoS as in line with their expectations.

Well, I shouldn't argue about what I might assume countless others think. Just taking a stab in saying that I'm sure it garnered some respect before the word of mouth largely went sour. For me the DCEU was... imagine if the MCU debuted with First Avenger, then went directly to Civil War and then to Infinity War/Endgame. For all of the inherent good I think that line would be insanely hard for most people to connect with.

I don’t know why you would defend BvS, Supes is even worse in that and it’s all set up for Snyder’s quasi Injustice adaption with some cuckolding in the mix which would have finally killed Superman as a character for good. BvS getting ripped to shreds and JL flopping was the best thing that ever happened to Superman. Basically saved the character by prying him out of Snyder’s grip and getting us to where we are now.

Injustice isn't similar and said cuckold never happened. So judging it by what we got instead of how I feel about Snyder's headspace, there was some good and some bad, and the bad simply doesn't makee forget the good. I just wish the JL got cut to put more into Superman if he wasn't getting a direct sequel

[bat39]

Yeah. I'm really not knocking this movie as an example but... Aquaman. It's surprising how good some of his runs were because his biggest testament now is this Marvel-lite sort of vehicle for an incidental hunk, and for all of the liberty and reconstruction it went with this basic, inoffensive story. I think there's a formula you can use to net a decent sized audience but as someone who likes really interesting movies and happens to be a big Superman fan, I personally, sincerely don't want that. I don't want forced banter, a story wrapped with a bow, etc. I'm fine with a Superman movie ending at a table with apple pie, but that has to be in respect to the rest of the story that was told.



Right, they made a decision on the spot to raise a personification of Pandora's box. Aside from that they were just regular people, no training or knowledge etc.

And maybe the impression I can give on other topics is that I deny Byrne's love of Murica. I think it can be exaggerated, but it's good to not forget the character's roots and relevant to MoS in that people just give Steve a pass they maybe don't give Clark. America and her politics aren't the same.




It was decently successful in money and here we are ten years later talking about it. How many superhero movies from 2003-2023 are under the bridge?

Superman is an American character and I have no problem with that being respected. Removing "the American Way" from "Truth and Justice" (and then replacing it with "A Better World") is virtue-signalling 'woke' posturing at its worst.

That said, I do think Byrne overdid the whole patriotic aspect - Having Clark be born on earth and thus be a "natural-born American citizen", Jonathan telling Clark that he's an "American citizen" who has responsibilities being what begins Clark's career as a (covert) superhero, Superman telling Lois that he feels "as American as anyone else", Superman being deputized by the mayor and being ordered to "do his duty" and arrest Luthor etc.

And yeah, you're right - no one's debating Thor The Dark World ten years later. Or Iron Man 3. Or The Wolverine. But we're still talking about Man of Steel. So that's something.

Funny how these "exceptions" are the original version of the character as envisioned by his creators, the cinematic version that almost everyone keeps trying to emulate (and woe betide anyone who dares do otherwise) and the one that reimagined Superman for modern comic audiences.

I won't even get into how the only time Superman fans care about him killing is when the villain is human or looks human.

This.

When you exclude so many versions of the character, including the original version, as "exceptions to the rule", then you really have to wonder what "the rule" is and whether it really even is the rule

Pretty sure this is a misreading.military demands that you follow their order,fall in line and commands authority.Superman didn't do any of it...Civilians can get put under life threatening situations as well and has taken life.

In fact, Cavill's Superman is the least deferential incarnation of the character, which is another thing I love about him. Even when he agrees to be handcuffed, he makes it clear that he's the one in control of the situation, albeit he's willing to respect the authority of the other party to hear them out. The scene at the end where he knocks the spy satellite out of the sky is another great example of this. Even the way he presents himself to Congress in BvS. Hell, as recently as the Black Adam post-credit scene...while Superman has been sent to talk to Black Adam by Waller, it's very clear, even if not stated out loud, that he's not another Waller flunkie (like Hawkman sadly was in this film) and that he's there for a genuine dialogue with Adam as he empathizes with him.

[godisawesome]

In my opinion, it’s still the best of the Superman movies, though not by as much as I used to try and argue, or as much as I wish, primarily because while it doesn’t fortunately doesn’t have “Charlatan Clark” (which is my single biggest characterization beef with the Reeves movies, since I’ve always regarded more exaggerated Clark’s as mean spirited in some way), it still lacks a Clark identity. And I still tend to think that if it had a competent, Clark-focused sequel and leaned more towards the more optimistic aspects of the film (which often get overlooked).

I think it has the best villain, mythos, and conflict of the Superman films on a structural level, and that the supporting cast has superior characterizations here compared to the Reeves, Lester and Singer films - with the exception of Pa Kent. I just think the more overtly Silver Age character of the older films are hurt by the flaws of the Silver Age, while seeing a Lois who’s competence is emphasized, a Daily Planet staff that feels both more believable but also more heroic, a more complex but still ultimately optimistic Smallville, and a likeable set of military characters makes those part of the film a treat. Shannon’s Zod *is better than Stamp’s, and the fact of the matter is we’ve had “meh” Luthors overall on the big screen, while Faora and even the other Phantom Zone baddies are fun little background villains.

But yeah, Pa Kent having some kind of pseudo-objectivist and insular fear for his son and having the “Boomers want him dead” curse does suck, especially since (again) the Rest of the Smallville scenes are actually shockingly optimistic, as ar e most of the other humanity scenes; a lot of the film’s darker tones with humans comes almost strictly from Pa Kent.

And overall, I can’t help but feel that maybe if the film had Clark already wear the glasses, already run a blog, and establish a civilian rapport with Lois early on before she deduces who he is, it would have gone a long way. What parts of Cavill’s Porto-Clark are on screen is good, and his Superman is great… but I think the film sort of suffers a similar issue to the Reeves Superman from the Jesus allegory the films keep going back to, simply subbing out the broad humor and inherently facile approach to the Clark Kent identity that the Reeves films had with a lonely outsider trope that isn’t any better, and doesn’t have anything to compensate for the humor that Reeves fans enjoyed (and that I don’t.)

I have a similar issue with Mark Waid’s Birthright and it’s Clark, as well as Earth One’s; really, it’s almost odd how much both creators who approach Clakr form the “disguise” and “real deal” aspect can sort of skip right past realizing that a likeable, fully developed Clark is probably better overall.

[bat39]

In my opinion, it’s still the best of the Superman movies, though not by as much as I used to try and argue, or as much as I wish, primarily because while it doesn’t fortunately doesn’t have “Charlatan Clark” (which is my single biggest characterization beef with the Reeves movies, since I’ve always regarded more exaggerated Clark’s as mean spirited in some way), it still lacks a Clark identity. And I still tend to think that if it had a competent, Clark-focused sequel and leaned more towards the more optimistic aspects of the film (which often get overlooked).

I think it has the best villain, mythos, and conflict of the Superman films on a structural level, and that the supporting cast has superior characterizations here compared to the Reeves, Lester and Singer films - with the exception of Pa Kent. I just think the more overtly Silver Age character of the older films are hurt by the flaws of the Silver Age, while seeing a Lois who’s competence is emphasized, a Daily Planet staff that feels both more believable but also more heroic, a more complex but still ultimately optimistic Smallville, and a likeable set of military characters makes those part of the film a treat. Shannon’s Zod *is better than Stamp’s, and the fact of the matter is we’ve had “meh” Luthors overall on the big screen, while Faora and even the other Phantom Zone baddies are fun little background villains.

But yeah, Pa Kent having some kind of pseudo-objectivist and insular fear for his son and having the “Boomers want him dead” curse does suck, especially since (again) the Rest of the Smallville scenes are actually shockingly optimistic, as ar e most of the other humanity scenes; a lot of the film’s darker tones with humans comes almost strictly from Pa Kent.

And overall, I can’t help but feel that maybe if the film had Clark already wear the glasses, already run a blog, and establish a civilian rapport with Lois early on before she deduces who he is, it would have gone a long way. What parts of Cavill’s Porto-Clark are on screen is good, and his Superman is great… but I think the film sort of suffers a similar issue to the Reeves Superman from the Jesus allegory the films keep going back to, simply subbing out the broad humor and inherently facile approach to the Clark Kent identity that the Reeves films had with a lonely outsider trope that isn’t any better, and doesn’t have anything to compensate for the humor that Reeves fans enjoyed (and that I don’t.)

I have a similar issue with Mark Waid’s Birthright and it’s Clark, as well as Earth One’s; really, it’s almost odd how much both creators who approach Clakr form the “disguise” and “real deal” aspect can sort of skip right past realizing that a likeable, fully developed Clark is probably better overall.

I kinda like the fact that the film doesn't really have the traditional 'Clark Kent' identity until the very end. We don't really get bogged down in the whole "Who is the real person?" debate and I feel it allows the film room to breathe and provide a more organic character arc for Clark/Kal-El as he comes to terms with his powers, his heritage, and ultimately the fact that he's been outed to the world so he'll have to save lives publically now.

In fact, this film is very much in line with how I see Superman's identity and its development. I always talk about the 'real Clark Kent', the man raised by the Kents and the man behind both the reporter Clark Kent and the heroic Superman. Well, this movie is pretty much all about 'real Clark Kent'. He has no dual identity. He was raised as a human, but knew pretty early on that he wasn't one and that he had some alien heritage which was the source of his powers. He was hiding his powers from the world, but using them to help out secretly. Then he learns about his alien heritage and his birth name of Kal-El, and gets the suit, and almost immediately after Zod comes calling. But all through this he's just Clark, the same guy he's been all his life, except that now he knows his birth name Kal-El and is going by that name when he engages with the authorities publically while wearing the suit. Lois knows his name, but she keeps it a secret (and the motivation for Clark to keep his identity secret from the authorities is likely more about protecting Martha than about creating a secret identity for himself...as it is, it's an open secret in Smallville it seems). And Clark ultimately uses his powers to save the world and gets dubbed 'Superman' by a few impressed soldiers. But he's just being himself.

It's only right at the end that he creates this public 'Clark Kent' persona with the glasses, to get a job at the Daily Planet. And unfortunately, in BvS, we never really get to dive into how he deals with this double-life. But there's stuff we can infer based on what we get. Clark is anyway living with Lois who's in on the secret. And Clark as a reporter pretty much acts as...himself. Certainly no 'mild-mannered' there. He's doing the bare minimum to keep his secret. The secret identity barely factors into the plot at all (Lex and Bruce knowing it is barely even remarked upon). So I think when it comes down to it, Cavill's take on the character is just himself. He's not bogged down by dual identities or which side is real. The glasses are just a way for him to work as a reporter without being recognized as Superman - nothing more or less. He's just Clark, whose birth name is Kal-El, and when he wears the suit publically the media and the authorities call him 'Superman'.

[Kuwagaton]

I have a similar issue with Mark Waid’s Birthright and it’s Clark, as well as Earth One’s; really, it’s almost odd how much both creators who approach Clakr form the “disguise” and “real deal” aspect can sort of skip right past realizing that a likeable, fully developed Clark is probably better overall.

Yeah if the idea is that Clark is just a disguise, then he's kind of a waste of time in the narrative. I always feel like Adventures of Superman is too dated for me, but when I turn it on I get into Reeves playing both sides and it's so easy to understand why that work is so relevant while being short lived. Reeves chose to not play Clark as annoying filler and in that case he was absolutely right.

In fact, Cavill's Superman is the least deferential incarnation of the character, which is another thing I love about him. Even when he agrees to be handcuffed, he makes it clear that he's the one in control of the situation, albeit he's willing to respect the authority of the other party to hear them out. The scene at the end where he knocks the spy satellite out of the sky is another great example of this. Even the way he presents himself to Congress in BvS. Hell, as recently as the Black Adam post-credit scene...while Superman has been sent to talk to Black Adam by Waller, it's very clear, even if not stated out loud, that he's not another Waller flunkie (like Hawkman sadly was in this film) and that he's there for a genuine dialogue with Adam as he empathizes with him.

Well, Katar Hol is my second favorite DC character and I only feel more justified in skipping that movie. But at some point I'm gonna wander into a discussion about Hawkman and someone is gonna describe him as a flunky in red pants, so I guess I still lose.

Cavill's Superman has probably my favorite character trait in that he sincerely tries to avoid conflict. He didn't resist the government and wore kid gloves with Batman. He's invincible, after all, and I'm very much okay with showing the downside of that strength: the emotional burden because he can still be hurt on the inside, and approaching Batman in a way that makes him a bigger threat than he should be. Also in avoiding conflict he ends up quite passive aggressive if we look at what he did to the truck. Didn't like that, but the important thing for me is understanding it.

[bat39]

Yeah if the idea is that Clark is just a disguise, then he's kind of a waste of time in the narrative. I always feel like Adventures of Superman is too dated for me, but when I turn it on I get into Reeves playing both sides and it's so easy to understand why that work is so relevant while being short lived. Reeves chose to not play Clark as annoying filler and in that case he was absolutely right.

The Reeves Superman is probably the best adaptation of Siegal and Shuster's original character. About the only major difference is that Reeves' Clark doesn't pretend to be a weakling or a coward, or even particularly mild-mannered, when around Lois, or the rest of the supporting cast.

I think Henry Cavill tried to do the same thing in BvS with his 'reporter Clark', though I think he did a better job distinguishing between how Clark and Superman portrayed themselves. But ultimately there wasn't much of a 'hard line' between the two identities and you felt all along that it was the 'real Clark' i.e. the guy we saw throughout MOS, who now that he was out in the world had to present himself slightly differently in the two identities. And I think that's really in the spirit of the Siegal/Shuster Superman. The Donner Superman, and a lot of the Silver Age/Bronze Age Superman on the other hand, leaned towards the idea of 'Clark Kent' not being real, at least once he put on the glasses, and the real identity being Kal-El/Superman.

Well, Katar Hol is my second favorite DC character and I only feel more justified in skipping that movie. But at some point I'm gonna wander into a discussion about Hawkman and someone is gonna describe him as a flunky in red pants, so I guess I still lose.

Cavill's Superman has probably my favorite character trait in that he sincerely tries to avoid conflict. He didn't resist the government and wore kid gloves with Batman. He's invincible, after all, and I'm very much okay with showing the downside of that strength: the emotional burden because he can still be hurt on the inside, and approaching Batman in a way that makes him a bigger threat than he should be. Also in avoiding conflict he ends up quite passive aggressive if we look at what he did to the truck. Didn't like that, but the important thing for me is understanding it.

Fortunately for you its Carter Hall and not Katar Hol in the movie

Honestly I enjoyed Aldis Hodge's portrayal of the character. And him working for ARGUS kinda makes sense given the context of the JSA's founding in the comics, where they were founded under the aegis of the US Government under the FDR administration. But it is jarring to see the JSA, and Carter in particular, being go-fers for a shady black-ops leader like Waller. And even moreso to see Carter literally being the embodiment of US foreign policy in Kahndaq and spouting off about the importance of due process while Black Adam was taking on the corrupt Intergang-aligned government.

Anyway, back on topic - the truck thing is something I also see the Siegal/Shuster Superman doing, but he'd do it differently. He'd probably show up in costume, give that molester a sound thrashing, and then smash up the truck and make it clear why he's doing it. Cavill's Clark took a subtler approach, but that makes sense - he's hiding his powers and doesn't even have the suit yet. Honestly, its not hard to imagine Golden Age Clark, maybe sometime in 1937 or early 1938 when he hasn't figured out the whole 'Superman' thing yet, seeing some jerk harass a waitress at a bar, and quietly trashing that guys truck when he left

[godisawesome]

Here’s some thoughts I have on the Clark identity and how it relates to the strengths and weaknesses of MOS.

All three of the major interpretations of his self-identity have certain types of advantages and weakness:

- The “Clark is a disguise” idea benefits from usually having an earlier deployment of Superman as a public identity, the more comedically you portray Clark, and works well the more you integrate surviving Kryptonians as recurring characters, like in Kandor, or when every other month someone escapes from the Phantom Zone. It’s weakness is that the human cast generally gets relegated to “Superdickery” clichés, especially with Lois, which seriously hampers a lot of emotional stories for him.

- The “Superman is a disguise” idea benefits tremendously from getting him to Metropolis and at the Daily Planet fast as possible, and immediately engaging in banter and snark with Lois, as giving the Clark persona a solid personality and attitude allows Lois and Clark to immediately introduce rom-com elements. It’s weakness is generally straining some of the suspension of disbelief more, since there’s less difference between the two identities, and that the more “Earthly” storylines aren’t as immediately fantastical.

- The “neither identity is fully formed” idea tries to split the difference, and kind of can, though interestingly, it’s usually the most “outsider” of the POVs, and can just as easily end up suffering the weaknesses of the other two approaches as it can their strengths.

Man of Steel mostly manages to do the last idea well, even if I still think the second approach should have been integrated more. Having Lois investigate and discover who he is alleviates a lot of the issues, even if it also circumvents them doing any romcom stories.

[bat39]

Here’s some thoughts I have on the Clark identity and how it relates to the strengths and weaknesses of MOS.

All three of the major interpretations of his self-identity have certain types of advantages and weakness:

- The “Clark is a disguise” idea benefits from usually having an earlier deployment of Superman as a public identity, the more comedically you portray Clark, and works well the more you integrate surviving Kryptonians as recurring characters, like in Kandor, or when every other month someone escapes from the Phantom Zone. It’s weakness is that the human cast generally gets relegated to “Superdickery” clichés, especially with Lois, which seriously hampers a lot of emotional stories for him.

- The “Superman is a disguise” idea benefits tremendously from getting him to Metropolis and at the Daily Planet fast as possible, and immediately engaging in banter and snark with Lois, as giving the Clark persona a solid personality and attitude allows Lois and Clark to immediately introduce rom-com elements. It’s weakness is generally straining some of the suspension of disbelief more, since there’s less difference between the two identities, and that the more “Earthly” storylines aren’t as immediately fantastical.

- The “neither identity is fully formed” idea tries to split the difference, and kind of can, though interestingly, it’s usually the most “outsider” of the POVs, and can just as easily end up suffering the weaknesses of the other two approaches as it can their strengths.

Man of Steel mostly manages to do the last idea well, even if I still think the second approach should have been integrated more. Having Lois investigate and discover who he is alleviates a lot of the issues, even if it also circumvents them doing any romcom stories.

I think that's a great summary of the major approaches.

"Clark is a disguise" is pretty much the approach taken by the Silver Age, Bronze Age and the Donner/Lester films.

"Superman is a disguise" was the centerpiece of Byrne's approach in his reboot, and a lot of adaptations based on the Post-Crisis take have leaned towards it, notably Lois & Clark.

When it comes to the third approach, I don't think "neither identity is fully formed" is the best way to describe it. Rather, I think it comes down to "It's the same person who's just leading a double-life, and acts slightly differently in different situations". And in MOS we get to see this perhaps better than in most other adaptations/interpretations because almost the entire film is set before Clark has any concept of having a dual identity. So we follow the character arc of this one guy named Clark, who also discovers his birth name of Kal-El, and is then nicknamed 'Superman' by a bunch of soldiers. It's only right at the end of the film that, in order to have a civilian life, he puts on glasses and creates this identity of Clark Kent as a reporter. You could argue that leans towards "Clark is a disguise", but even so, even if "reporter Clark" is a disguise, the guy we've been following for the entire film very much identifies as Clark Kent throughout. That's still his base identity. And as we see in BvS, Clark is very much his real self even with the glasses on. Of course it helps here that the glasses are pretty much there to fool Perry and his Daily Planet co-workers...Lois is in on the secret from Day 1 so there's no "triangle for two" there.

But again, MOS is a unique case here. If you consider something like the Golden Age or the Reeve show, I think they're also in line with the third option, albeit in different ways. Siegal/Shuster wrote him as fundamentally being Clark Kent (I mean, he grew up as Clark, and it's not like he had any other identity, since he didn't know about his Kryptonian heritage), but he then 'creates' the identity of Superman and and of reporter Clark Kent. And as Superman he acts like his true self. Even as Clark, he acts as his true self, except when Lois or Perry (rather, George) or someone else he knows is around. The Reeves show has a similar dynamic, except that there, he doesn't even pretend to be particularly mild-mannered or weak even around Lois, Perry, Jimmy and other people he knows.

This is why, in general, I think the balance shifts towards Clark at least being 'real'. Either he's always 'real', whether he's in the Superman suit or wearing glasses. Or there's a 'real' man behind the Superman and reporter Clark personas, who identifies as Clark Kent. Frankly, the only versions where "Clark is a disguise" really applies in the true sense are the ones where his Kryptonian identity as Kal-El is so dominant that it subsumes everything else. In the Silver Age, this made a kind of sense (not that they really explored it in any depth) - Kal-El apparently had 'super memory' and so always remembered his Kryptonian name and heritage right from childhood. He also became Superboy as a pre-teen and was used to living a double-life from that age. It's no surprise then that later in life, especially once he'd already been Superboy/Superman for a decade, and the Kents were dead, 'Clark Kent' just became a disguise, while he was Kal-El/Superman. Then there's the Donner film which is another interesting case - he grows up as Clark for the first 18 or so years of his life and doesn't have any other name or any idea about his true heritage. But he then discovers the Fortress and spends 12 years(!) with Jor-El's hologram. By the end of that process, he's become Superman (and Kal-El), and from that point on, it seems that 'Clark Kent' is just a disguise.