This thing of Clark Kent taking off his glasses and nobody recognizing him...

[dancj]

Prosopagnosia is an inability to recognize the faces of familiar people, typically as a result of damage to the brain. I would have Clark's glasses cause "prosopagnosia" to those who look at him. Not saying the glasses would cause brain damage or anything, but just give the symptoms of prosopagnosia. It could be explained in some sort pseudo-science that the glasses are Kryptonian/Alien/from the future/etc.

They've done this already: http://www.supermanhomepage.com/comi...view-pc-sup330

IMO it was a fairly crap story explaining something that didn't need explaining - and as far as I'm aware it was never mentioned again.

[Myskin]

Oh well, here we are again. Let's go.

1- The glasses camouflage originally worked for one simple reason: it was introduced in comic strips when comic books were way more naive than today, and the social implication of having a young man wearing eyeglasses were vastly different (eyeglasses= shy, weak, etc).

2- All the explanations which came out after the 1930s became necessary because comic books became more sophisticated and the original idea was too naive to survive.

3- Every single explanation which came out after the 1930s, every single conjecture, even the ideas proposed by the fans, are forced; and they work only if you absolutely want them to work. Even the explanations which came out in this thread. Sorry guys.

4- The weakest point IMHO is the following one: everyone who attempts to come up with an explanation, generally speaking, find one particular case of the disguise working and elevates this case to a general one. And that's why they were never really able to find a definitive explanation, and they always try to come up with another, more sophisticated explanation. Because they always focus on the single case, or the exception, and they come up with rules which don't take into consideration the general scheme. I'll present some examples of what I am saying. Do you remember the famous Luthor story where a computer discovers that Clark and Superman are one and the same, and Luthor refuses to believe it because nobody that powerful could want to live as a common man? Well, Byrne wanted to build that story basically as a morality tale (nobody is blinder...), but I always found the outcome of the plot incredibly flat and stupid. IMHO Luthor does not appear as a genius blinded by his own arrogance, but rather as an idiot. The computer comes up with an explanation he doesn't like, and he immediately dismisses the whole thing? There are dozens of alternative explanations for Superman to disguise himself among humans - explanations which maybe aren't even true, but which Luthor could consider acceptable, or at least acceptable enough not to abandon the investigation. One example: Superman could be the sleeper agent of an alien invasion, and he could want to live among humans for some inexplicable, but hostile purpose. Byrne simple wanted the story to be a standalone one, and he considered his explanation enough (but it isn't).

5- The celebrity analogy (if you meet celebrities walking down the street, you'll hardly recognize them) doesn't work. There are cases of celebrities in the street who ARE recognized. I mean, it happened to me, more than once. Even when they were wearing sunglasses - which, funny to say, are a better disguise than the normal eyeglasses worn by Clark Kent. And it doesn't matter that the passersby should prove it. I mean, the outcome of the story, once again, could be very different, and not limited to the necessity of proving that Superman is Clark Kent in a trial. If someone recognizes Superman in the street of Metropolis, they could simply cry: "Hey everybody, that's Superman", and draw everyone's attention to poor Clark. In my mind, this situation resembles Michael Keaton running naked in the street in Inarritu's Birdman movie.

6- The actor analogy doesn't work, because yes, there are very good actors who are human chameleons, but how many times did these actors play without a makeup in such fantastic, convincing ways that you - the public - weren't physically able to recognize them? Alec Guinness was a genius, and in 'Kind hearts and coronets' he plays something like 8 different roles. And he is great, but yes, that's Alec Guinness, and he is still recognizable. Because he is an actor, he wants you to recognize him, and admire his skills.

7- The Joker analogy (well, it's not exactly an analogy, but still), the one invented by Charlotte of Oz, doesn't work. It's not that the writers CAN'T come up with a believable Joker origin story if they wanted to. They could say that the Joker was raped by a clown when he was a little child, or he was a military who was injured in Afghanistan, or something like that. And maybe it could work. They don't want to write the story because they don't want to upset the readers, and because the character has a certain charm as long as you don't reveal his origins, or how he became mad (but is he really mad?). In addition, the character is a criminal, he belongs to a world of mystery, and a bit of secrecy about him seems to be appropriate. Plus, there are tons of criminals in films and literature who benefit from some mystery around them (do you remember Keyser Soze? or Soviet agent Karla in the movie 'Tinker, Taylor, Soldier and Spy'?). The same line of reasoning simply cannot be applied to Superman. Because of his background - Superman lives in a world of journalists, people who are accustomed to recognize celebrities and how come that nobody is able to spot that they are one and the same? Or even because of the fact that such explanation may provoke even more questions than answers - if the disguise doesn't have well-defined limits, is Clark recognizable when he takes his glasses off? What happens if someone sees him while he is wearing the costume? And so on. And more than everything, I find it difficult to ignore that such explanation would be proposed - in the real world, I mean - after decades of attempted and failed alternative explanations, and rather than a stroke of genius, it would appear as a surrender: we weren't able to come up with a good explanation, so f@ck off. We shouldn't forget that the act of seeing and recognizing someone belongs to the sphere of everyday stuff, it's something which we deal with every single day, and imposing that it cannot be done just because the writer says so is frustrating, not clever.

8- The telepathy thing, the one invented by Pasko... Works. Funny to say, but it is the only one which really works. Because it concerns psychic powers, which don't exist, and therefore we can invent them and say that they work. The same line reasoning can be applied to Superman's powers. Kryptonians don't exist, therefore we can invent them, with a particular set of powers and weaknesses which fit the story which we want to tell. The problem is... It's an ugly explanation. Not in terms of reasoning, but story-wise. It involves some superpowers which we didn't know that Superman had, therefore the writers are 'morally' cheating, but if we accept that Superman really did have this particular power, well, the explanation works.

9- IMHO, the Clark Kent disguise worked only ONCE: in All-Star Superman, when Morrison explicitly said that Supes is able to force his own muscles and features to assume a different posture and appearance. The problem is, I am afraid that it would work only in the world of All-Star Superman. Nobody ever notices it, but Morrison's magnum opus takes place in an universe where everyday life rules responds to fantasy logic. The whole adventure is a bit over-the-top: when Superman reveals to Lois his secret identity, she still doesn't trust him, and this is a joke on Morrison's part: the writers plays with the old rules of the Silver Age - Lois trying to discover Clark's identity. And it is funny, and it works, but would it really work in a different context, in a more realistic story? I doubt it. Anyway, nobody really attempted to use the same idea in a different story so far.

10- IMHO, for a comic book disguise to be acceptable it should respond to very instinctive, immediate, discernible logic. If I see someone dressed as Batman while wearing his mask and cape, I don't recognize him. Of course, that doesn't imply that facial recognition wouldn't recognize him, or that someone with an extremely good memory for faces wouldn't be able to spot a particular wrinkle on Batman's upper lip. But these would be very peculiar cases, and they don't contradict the general rule: if a man wears a mask which covers 3/4 of his face, we can't recognize him, or at least it is very difficult to recognize him. And this rule works, even in real life. And it can be used in very different ways within the stories - how many times did we read stories where Batman wasn't really Batman, but someone who resembled him? How many times did we see a villain finding the body of Batman, and the hero was unconscious, but when the villain took his mask off, under the disguise there wasn't Bruce Wayne's face, but somebody else's? Plot twist!

11- Myskin's theorem. Let's suppose that a writer comes up with a new explanation about the disguise. I'd say that the explanation, once implemented within the story, will work if it responds to the following rules. Let's put a picture of Superman near a picture of Clark Kent. Both the photos are discernible, there is nothing strange with them, the faces are distinct. Well, I'd say that the disguise would work if, after looking at the pictures for, I don't know, one dozen times, we still aren't sure that they are the same guy. Of course, the artist should play fair (he shouldn't draw the characters with different styles) and the writer shouldn't cheat, or make the characters within the story say something like: "Hey, why is the photo of Clark near this photo of Superman? Jimmy!" (thus implying that they are completely different just because the characters say so - I remember an opening page by Dan Jurgens where Superman and Clark were side by side on the top of a building - they were completely identical, and nobody realized that: that's cheating IMHO, or at least stretching the disbelief way too much). There are probably more weak points in the 'theorem' which I haven't taken into consideration, but I hope that I made myself clear. Anyway, Batman would pass the test, Superman probably wouldn't.

[DrNewGod]

Yeah but those are essentially out the window. In the current continuity, Superman has been outed and that one news report from Superman at the beginning of the arc shows the glasses. I kinda checked out of the story, but was that touched any more?

To quote Whedon's Abigail Brand, [dripping sarcasm]"Yeah ... that'll last."

[Myskin]

By the way, now that I think about it, the Nicolas Cage photo comparison some pages ago - I suppose that it wasn't just a joke - doesn't prove that the disguise would work because different people can be similar to one another. Quite the contrary, it proves that the eyeglasses disguise doesn't work. If we didn't know that the gentleman in the black and white photo ISN'T Nicolas cage, we would probably think that they are the same guy. Because our mind works like that. If we see two guys who resemble one another except for some minor details, we instinctively think that they are the same person. Or that they are twins.

[Superlad93]

Hmmm I think I'll throw my hat in the ring of the great debate!

Note: Okay, so in order for this theory to work I'll need Superman to regain the use of his intrinsic/bio field. This field is key to the idea working.

So what if Superman could distort the visible light bouncing off him with his intrinsic field? What if he were able to warp the light as it hits his field and produce a fun house mirror effect? Conceivably Superman could distort the face of Clark Kent to look like another person. So the only people who could actually tell they were the same would be others with heightened senses. So when a couple of Kryptonians come knocking at the Daily Planet and call Clark out to fight, and they wondering why these foolish apes can't see through his disguise, it makes a little more sense, no?

This could even have other applications like making him undetectable to equipment or "stealth modes" and so on. At the end of the day visible light is just a matter of perspective and isn't really concert. The color red is an illusion haha (sort of).

I think it's pretty simple and uses what we already know about Superman, and also adds a bit for other stories. It also reinforces the Sun god aspects of the character without (hopefully) being too of model. Thoughts?

[Superlad93]

In case anyone was interested, I got the idea from Grant Morrison's run on Action Comics. He says that he had Rags draw Clark's eyes a lot wider than Superman due to the thickness of his glasses. So I thought what if Superman had thick prescription glasses around his whole face!! Hahaha thank you, Morrison and Rags!

[llozymandias]

Most of the people on this seem to be a bit naïve. They seem to think that faces are as unique as fingerprints. Sorry but, they are not. It would take more (than just wearing a mask, even if it completely covers your face) to keep close friends & family from recognizing you. You would need alter your voice & your body language. For decades DC has made it clear that Superman does many things to make it seem obvious that Clark is a separate person (at least obvious to someone who does not know the truth) like compressing his spine to make Clark at least 3 inches shorter than Kal. And of course altering his voice & body language.

[Jim Kelly]

I think Clark's adoption of the glasse becomes more difficult when you have SMALLVILLE, MAN OF STEEL and the Byrne Superman--where he's spent most of his young life living in the public eye without glasses and never trying to create a distintion between his super self and ordinary self.

It makes more sense that Clark would create a disguise for Superman rather than creating a disguise for himself in those continuities. Pre-Crisis Superman, on the other hand, made sense, because Clark and the Kents had decided when he was eight that he was going to be a super-hero and they worked from then on to maintain the illusion that Clark Kent and Superboy were two different people.

[Myskin]

I think Clark's adoption of the glasse becomes more difficult when you have SMALLVILLE, MAN OF STEEL and the Byrne Superman--where he's spent most of his young life living in the public eye without glasses and never trying to create a distintion between his super self and ordinary self.

I'd say that the more you put Superman in a realistic context, the more the problems of the disguise become evident - and Superman is certainly not the only example.

[manduck37]

Perhaps everyone really does know that Clark is Superman and plays along. Otherwise they risk making Superman angry...

[Ascended]

Perhaps everyone really does know that Clark is Superman and plays along. Otherwise they risk making Superman angry...

There was a "text from superheroes" like that, where Metallos texts Lex and is all "Holy crap I know who Superman is!" and Lex tells him to to shut up, that everyone else already knew, and no, they're not going to attack Clark at the Planet when "his defenses are down". Lex's reasoning, at least with the secret identity Superman is out of their hair for a few hours each day.

It was funnier than my description would indicate, obviously.

[sunofdarkchild]

The thing to take from this thread is that the glasses are never the sole reason the secret identity fools people. There are always other factors, whether they be hypnosis, muscle contortion, acting differently, slouching, facial vibrations, or Clark and Superman having been seen and filmed in the same place at the same time removing suspicion altogether. The glasses are only one part of a much bigger strategy on Clark's part.

[manduck37]

There was a "text from superheroes" like that, where Metallos texts Lex and is all "Holy crap I know who Superman is!" and Lex tells him to to shut up, that everyone else already knew, and no, they're not going to attack Clark at the Planet when "his defenses are down". Lex's reasoning, at least with the secret identity Superman is out of their hair for a few hours each day.

It was funnier than my description would indicate, obviously.

I like that. It's a cute play on the whole secret identity.

[llozymandias]

Evert so often someone becomes convinced that Clark Kent & Superman are the same guy. Superman uses a clever trick or ploy to prove (to that person's satisfaction) that he is not also Clark. Pre-coie that was one of their oldest most frequent story ideas. Sure his powers enable him to make Clark shorter, thinner (as well as sound different) than Superman. But every so often someone takes his powers into account & realizes what he is doing. It's just that nobody could prove to anyone.

[Powerboy]

Can anyone think of a solution to that problem? A 14-karat no-prize will go to the winner.

(While you're at it, you might also figure out why someone can't use face-recognition technology to identify Superman.)

Why can Robin/ Green Arrow/ Green Lantern, etc., wear a little mask that barely covers a little area around their eyes and nobody can see it's the same person? Why doesn't facial recognition technology reveal it is the same person?

The only difference is that Superman wore the mask (glasses) in his secret identity instead of his super identity.

Why can't people that know Batman and Bruce Wayne just glance at Batman and wonder why Bruce is wearing a Batman mask? Or at Bruce and realize they saw him the other day in the Batman costume?

I remember coming to work one cold day wearing a ski mask and, of course, everyone said hello to me by name and I joked, "I knew that secret identity stuff didn't work".

Granted we all (I think) know that none of this stuff would work in reality. But I guess sometimes I wonder why Superman gets singled out for this when there is a list of characters a mile long who use just about exactly the same technique and it is just as unrealistic in terms of real life.