BvS Goyer Admits They Didn't Plan How 'Reporter Clark Kent' Could Make Sense

[Marvin]

I think this might be the best way to play it. I don't hate Goyer as much as some, but sometimes he takes things too far and makes them needlessly complicated.

The Clark Kent persona is part of the Superman story. An important part. The fact is, and even Goyer knows this judging by MOS's ending, that it can't be removed from the story. It just can't. It's a part of every Supes story in some capacity. The same with his flying, Lois Lane, etc. He can give some explanation, but there's no need to explain everything. Maybe Smallville just keeps the secret out of fear/respect or something. The military wouldn't give the public any details about an alien invasion. The general public doesn't know anything. Most people haven't seen Supes close up.

And forget about facial recognition software and crap like that. No need to get into it. There have and always will be people that take issue with the Kent disguise. Coming up with some complicated explanation wouldn't solve these issues. Those people would just pick apart every explanation made because they can't accept it and never did. Whatever. Forget about them. They'll probably still see the movie for Batman or the action or whatever. So there's no need to make the Kent disguise appeal to them.

This is a movie with Superman in it. There are some core pieces of him that must remain. If Goyer doesn't want to make a Superman movie, then he shouldn't.

I personally can't look at some of the criticism MOS took and think the film tried to explain "everything"
I mean just look at the subtle exposition on his powers and what it's reduced us to arguing over lately(sun based/atmosphere based). The problem is the producers can't win. They skim over some things people will complain, they indulge in others, then other people complain about over indulgence..Why even bother.

The irony is at the end of the day it's all there. This movie did present a double identity that did demand the audience suspend it's disbelief, right down to big give aways such as an easy trail back to the kent farm for anyone with the brains to look for it. What has that wrought? Pages of people arguing over the sense of it all

All fans can do is speak for themselves, which is all well and good but the way it's presented is as such: "the producers should listen to me because..."

 

[charl_huntress]

As someone who wears glasses and contact lenses, and people in my life who don't realise I wear one or the other regularly don't recognise me when they see me wearing or not wearing glasses for the first time, it annoys me that Goyer honestly thinks they're backed up into some corner over this.

Excellent point.

edit:

Like I've said before I think they only need one scene showing an effective misdirection and that's all. I also looked up the definition of a "stringer", which is what Perry introduces Clark as. It's a freelance writer meaning he will often be out of the office writing stories. He's not technically on the paper's payroll.

 

[MrsKent26]

I personally can't look at some of the criticism MOS took and think the film tried to explain "everything"
I mean just look at the subtle exposition on his powers and what it's reduced us to arguing over lately(sun based/atmosphere based). The problem is the producers can't win. They skim over some things people will complain, they indulge in others, then other people complain about over indulgence..Why even bother.

The irony is at the end of the day it's all there. This movie did present a double identity that did demand the audience suspend it's disbelief, right down to big give aways such as an easy trail back to the kent farm for anyone with the brains to look for it. What has that wrought? Pages of people arguing over the sense of it all

All fans can do is speak for themselves, which is all well and good but the way it's presented is as such: "the producers should listen to me because..."

That's what I mean. The filmmakers shouldn't try to indulge everyone and their need to have everything spelled out. Focus on the characters and human interaction, not making sure every possible doubt about the Kent identity can squashed. They'll never be able to do that. I am definitely a fan of making a somewhat grounded world, as I've said before. But there are certain things that are above it, if one wants to let Superman be Superman.

 

[Marvin]

That's what I mean. The filmmakers shouldn't try to indulge everyone and their need to have everything spelled out. Focus on the characters and human interaction, not making sure every possible doubt about the Kent identity can squashed. They'll never be able to do that. I am definitely a fan of making a somewhat grounded world, as I've said before. But there are certain things that are above it, if one wants to let Superman be Superman.

My point is, no matter what they do they will be accused of something else anyways.

 

[MrsKent26]

My point is, no matter what they do they will be accused of something else anyways.

Certainly. This is easily observed when one looks at the complains against Superman returns, what MOS delivered, and what complaints came about for MOS.

 

[Kevin Smith]

I think this might be the best way to play it. I don't hate Goyer as much as some, but sometimes he takes things too far and makes them needlessly complicated.

The Clark Kent persona is part of the Superman story. An important part. The fact is, and even Goyer knows this judging by MOS's ending, that it can't be removed from the story. It just can't. It's a part of every Supes story in some capacity. The same with his flying, Lois Lane, etc. He can give some explanation, but there's no need to explain everything. Maybe Smallville just keeps the secret out of fear/respect or something. The military wouldn't give the public any details about an alien invasion. The general public doesn't know anything. Most people haven't seen Supes close up.

And forget about facial recognition software and crap like that. No need to get into it. There have and always will be people that take issue with the Kent disguise. Coming up with some complicated explanation wouldn't solve these issues. Those people would just pick apart every explanation made because they can't accept it and never did. Whatever. Forget about them. They'll probably still see the movie for Batman or the action or whatever. So there's no need to make the Kent disguise appeal to them.

This is a movie with Superman in it. There are some core pieces of him that must remain. If Goyer doesn't want to make a Superman movie, then he shouldn't.

The superhero, the secret identity, all of that BEGAN with Superman. He IS that. To take that away is to take away him. So if there is one character who must have his secret identity and all that in tact, it is Superman.

So Goyer, get your ****ing **** together on the next one. If you pretend like it never happened, so will the audience. Just tell a Superman story, please.

 

[STARMAN]

He has his secret identity at the end of MOS.

 

[MrsKent26]

The superhero, the secret identity, all of that BEGAN with Superman. He IS that. To take that away is to take away him. So if there is one character who must have his secret identity and all that in tact, it is Superman.

So Goyer, get your ****ing **** together on the next one. If you pretend like it never happened, so will the audience. Just tell a Superman story, please.

I don't think there's a need to pretend it never happened. I think of it as a pre-Superman story. I look forward to seeing him rise from where MOS left him and become the greatest and first Superhero there ever was.

 

[Kevin Smith]

There are staples of Superman that you expect to get with Superman that make and define him as Superman that should be present in every incarnation - in fact if they are not present then it ceases to be Superman and becomes something else (same with Batman). The audience knows and expects this going in. It's why they buy a ticket. So just do that but tell a good story with some excitement, action, adventure, maybe a little romance, and voila - good movie.

You don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater like Goyer did with MOS. There were things he "fixed" about Superman that were never broken and were never a or "the" problem.

 

[MrsKent26]

He has his secret identity at the end of MOS.

He does. And that's awesome. Just don't spend the whole of the next film justifying why it's possible.

 

[InJustice]

The superhero, the secret identity, all of that BEGAN with Superman. He IS that. To take that away is to take away him. So if there is one character who must have his secret identity and all that in tact, it is Superman.

So Goyer, get your ****ing **** together on the next one. If you pretend like it never happened, so will the audience. Just tell a Superman story, please.

Who's taking away the secret identity from him, though?

 

[charl_huntress]

He does. And that's awesome. Just don't spend the whole of the next film justifying why it's possible.

Agreed.

I'm confused by these folks who keep saying the identity is not believable, but have no problem buying the flying or laser beams. In my view, if they can buy that they will buy the disguise and Clark's ability to fool people. I don't see why they don't think they would.

 

[Krumm]

The bigger deal for me in regards to the logic of Superman's secret identity has nothing to do with the glasses issue (which I think is pretty easy to side step in a whole bunch of ways) and has everything to do with the question of how Clark Kent got a job as an investigative journalist for a huge city newspaper with nationwide circulation without either a degree in journalism or any kind of prior experience in the field.

As for the glasses thing, Superman's face wasn't broadcast clearly to the world and the only people who ever saw his face are either people who already know his secret or people who aren't likely to ever bump into Clark Kent. As long as he never sits down for a photo-op or a TV interview or really ever let himself be photographed or recorded clearly when he's Superman, the glasses work just fine for me.

The journalism thing bothers me little. There is a large chunk of his life unaccounted for and he was clearly able to falsify a convincing enough identity to work on a military site.

 

[titansupes]

He does. And that's awesome. Just don't spend the whole of the next film justifying why it's possible.

Absolutely.

 

[MaceB]

I've never been a big fan of Clark honestly. To me, it's just a showing of Superman's need to fit in.. it's one of his weaknesses. If it were me, I'd like Superman to have the secret identity for several movies until doing the Doomsday death story. When Superman comes back from the dead, he puts the Clark identity behind him and becomes a global superhero full time. He'd kind of have to anyway.. there's no way you could reasonably explain the coincidental leave and return of Clark coinciding with Superman's death and return.

I hate how people get so caught up in the canon of what a Superman story "should" be.... as if it's not complete without checking off a certain number of boxes. The fact of the matter is that comic books are more serial, whereas cinema is more melodramatic and more dependent on characters that change throughout time. When it comes to Superman being on film, we shouldn't try to contain his story in this cartoon-like vacuum where nothing about him can change.

I want to see Superman change and grow.. and I think part of that should be him growing past the need to be like a human. I'd have no problem with the identity of 'Clark the Daily Planet Reporter' being only an initial act in Superman's larger life story.

 

[titansupes]

I've never been a big fan of Clark honestly. To me, it's just a showing of Superman's need to fit in.. it's one of his weaknesses. If it were me, I'd like Superman to have the secret identity for several movies until doing the Doomsday death story. When Superman comes back from the dead, he puts the Clark identity behind him and becomes a global superhero full time. He'd kind of have to anyway.. there's no way you could reasonably explain the coincidental leave and return of Clark coinciding with Superman's death and return.

I hate how people get so caught up in the canon of what a Superman story "should" be.... as if it's not complete without checking off a certain number of boxes. The fact of the matter is that comic books are more serial, whereas cinema is more melodramatic and more dependent on characters that change throughout time. When it comes to Superman being on film, we shouldn't try to contain his story in this cartoon-like vacuum where nothing about him can change.

I want to see Superman change and grow.. and I think part of that should be him growing past the need to be like a human. I'd have no problem with the identity of 'Clark the Daily Planet Reporter' being only an initial act in Superman's larger life story.

Superman is the real identity. No doubt. However, the disguise of Metropolis Clark Kent - the guy that wears the glasses and carries the notepad - is as vital to the character as as the one that wears the cape and catches helicopters. It's not about some insecure need to 'fit in'. Ideally speaking - It's about maintaining a human point-of-view, when it would be so easy for him to watch the world from up in the sky, through the lens of all his super-sensory powers. "To Clark Kent, who never let me forget what it was like to be an ordinary, down-trodden man".

It's also about being able to share the point-of-view his various interactions as both Clark AND Superman grant him, without falling into being seen as a super-powered dictator. Metropolis Clark Kent is one of his greatest tools for causing change in the world around him.
That 'alien' perspective? All the great, breathtaking things and the horrible, ugly things he sees day to day? That's where his writing comes from. "Once you made the super more important than the man, that completely cost you your instinct. Take it back."

Not to mention, it just doesn't feel like the same character without him (because it wouldn't be). There's a reason the last scene of MoS is universally praised, whether you hated the move or not. And it's very much possible to give him a great character arc using both sides of the persona, that hasn't been attempted on film before. When we though we were getting a straight MoS2, the ideal scenario would have been Lex using his anti-Superman campaign while running for President. Superman knows well and good that Lex is evil, but, as in the comics... How can he express that as Superman? Couldn't that backfire on him (especially after the destruction in Metropolis and Lex's hate campaign). He finally figures out that he can express himself, attack Lex and defend (and learn something about himself) as Clark Kent.

 

[RAE072]

I've never been a big fan of Clark honestly. To me, it's just a showing of Superman's need to fit in.. it's one of his weaknesses. If it were me, I'd like Superman to have the secret identity for several movies until doing the Doomsday death story. When Superman comes back from the dead, he puts the Clark identity behind him and becomes a global superhero full time. He'd kind of have to anyway.. there's no way you could reasonably explain the coincidental leave and return of Clark coinciding with Superman's death and return.

I hate how people get so caught up in the canon of what a Superman story "should" be.... as if it's not complete without checking off a certain number of boxes. The fact of the matter is that comic books are more serial, whereas cinema is more melodramatic and more dependent on characters that change throughout time. When it comes to Superman being on film, we shouldn't try to contain his story in this cartoon-like vacuum where nothing about him can change.

I want to see Superman change and grow.. and I think part of that should be him growing past the need to be like a human. I'd have no problem with the identity of 'Clark the Daily Planet Reporter' being only an initial act in Superman's larger life story.

It's fascinating to see someone so completely miss the point of Clark Kent/Superman.

Clark Kent is who Superman is. Just like Batman is who Bruce Wayne really is.

That's the whole point of Superman. His humanity. Even though he's basically a god on Earth.

Man of Steel understood this, with the "I grew up in Kansas" line. A single line and it completely understood what Superman was truly about.

Superman giving up his humanity and embracing godhood is basically what Ultraman is. Or even, to a lesser extent, what Kingdom Come Superman was. Which was the moral of that story too. "Don't let these people take away your humanity" and all that.

 

[Tempest]

The topic of Clark's double-identity has always been silly. It's always been a dumb thing, and in "World's Funnest", they even address it by having Lois Lane squashed by a giant stack of newspapers with the headline, "Clark Kent is Superman! Lois Lane is Dumb!"

It's silly to complain that MOS somehow didn't make Clark's secret identity logical. It was NEVER logical to begin with. The writers for Superman know it and accept it, so everyone else probably should too.

Now that Clark is writing for a newspaper, he might be able to have some influence on the types of stories put out there about Superman. He, or Lois, could have a construct of some sort that will deflect some of the heat from Smallville.

Speaking of 'real world logic', there are people in this world who insist the Holocaust never happened, that 9/11 was staged from start to finish with mannequins and holograms, and don't forge the dozens of conspiracy theories about JFK's assassination. Can you imagine all the theories about Superman that would be out there? It would be easy enough to quash or diminish the validity of certain things with the right type of scathing article.

The Smallville problem could easily be solved with Superman saying that he was fleeing his captors and the battle ensued in Smallville. It's not quite the truth, but not quite a lie either.

 

[Tempest]

I've never been a big fan of Clark honestly. To me, it's just a showing of Superman's need to fit in.. it's one of his weaknesses. If it were me, I'd like Superman to have the secret identity for several movies until doing the Doomsday death story. When Superman comes back from the dead, he puts the Clark identity behind him and becomes a global superhero full time. He'd kind of have to anyway.. there's no way you could reasonably explain the coincidental leave and return of Clark coinciding with Superman's death and return.

I hate how people get so caught up in the canon of what a Superman story "should" be.... as if it's not complete without checking off a certain number of boxes. The fact of the matter is that comic books are more serial, whereas cinema is more melodramatic and more dependent on characters that change throughout time. When it comes to Superman being on film, we shouldn't try to contain his story in this cartoon-like vacuum where nothing about him can change.

I want to see Superman change and grow.. and I think part of that should be him growing past the need to be like a human. I'd have no problem with the identity of 'Clark the Daily Planet Reporter' being only an initial act in Superman's larger life story.

Double posting because I just saw this. Clark wants to fit in. He's desperate at times to 'just be a man'. It's been covered many times over in the comics.

This weakness is a good thing, because it makes Clark easier to relate to, but it also makes him more tragic. He is kindred, but not kind. He's similar to us, but he'll never really fit in, no matter how much he wants to. And when he's granted the opportunity to be a mere human and just be happy, he has to give it up.

It's one of the most intriguing aspects of his character. If he had no weaknesses, especially the emotional kind, he'd be an immensely boring character.

 

[InJustice]

I've never been a big fan of Clark honestly. To me, it's just a showing of Superman's need to fit in.. it's one of his weaknesses. If it were me, I'd like Superman to have the secret identity for several movies until doing the Doomsday death story. When Superman comes back from the dead, he puts the Clark identity behind him and becomes a global superhero full time. He'd kind of have to anyway.. there's no way you could reasonably explain the coincidental leave and return of Clark coinciding with Superman's death and return.

I hate how people get so caught up in the canon of what a Superman story "should" be.... as if it's not complete without checking off a certain number of boxes. The fact of the matter is that comic books are more serial, whereas cinema is more melodramatic and more dependent on characters that change throughout time. When it comes to Superman being on film, we shouldn't try to contain his story in this cartoon-like vacuum where nothing about him can change.

I want to see Superman change and grow.. and I think part of that should be him growing past the need to be like a human. I'd have no problem with the identity of 'Clark the Daily Planet Reporter' being only an initial act in Superman's larger life story.

Clark isn't just Superman's need to fit in, he's symbolic of Superman's morality and vulnerability. Superman is who he is because of Clark's understanding of what it means to be a human. If Clark lacked the fundamentals of humanity, he'd be Zod v.2.0 with no regard for anyone's life. Therefore, Clark isn't just some secret identity. Even Man of Steel hit this point hard. The best example is this comic:

 

[Boy Scout]

I don't see why one has to be real and the other has to be fake. I think he just emphasizes certain traits in both identities in order to make them seem different on the surface.

 

[MaceB]

I absolutely agree that the Clark identity is meant as way to strengthen Superman's connection with humanity, and that that's a very important thing. Part of Superman's charm is his understanding nature about the flaws of mankind, and trying to help out, whether its big or small. But I do think that in his older years, he is sometimes depicted as a disconnected agent of the government.. a sort of mightier than thou enforcer.
Just like this clip, when Supes is talking about his "orders"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx6l39BR_FM

So all I'm saying is allow that struggle to happen on screen. Maybe in a few films, he comes out to the world... a few films later and the signs of his disconnection begin to show. Then, you set the stage for an arch in which he goes too far, and he must reunite with humanity somehow..

I find this idea that Clark the reporter MUST be in every Superman movie extremely dogmatic, and it disallows Superman from experiencing real growth.

This weakness is a good thing, because it makes Clark easier to relate to, but it also makes him more tragic. He is kindred, but not kind. He's similar to us, but he'll never really fit in, no matter how much he wants to. And when he's granted the opportunity to be a mere human and just be happy, he has to give it up.
.

Yes... you're absolutely right, it's where the drama comes in. But in films, a sense of resolution is very important! These weaknesses might be a good thing because they'll wind up teaching him a lot, but he must move beyond them before the final end. Superman deserves to be a unified human being - not to have to hide himself away from having a life. Living two lives is no resolution. He can connect with humanity in other ways besides Clark, and - in fact - I think that's probably his story. His feelings of alienation can hurt him a lot more than kryptonite, and by the end, we want our protagonist to succeed, to beat the demons from within and without. Clark is a manifestation of the problem.

As I see it - a whole bunch of fans want their comic book characters to ALWAYS be a certain thing and a certain way.. because comic books work based upon a timeless repetitive model that doesn't want their characters to get older. We're accustomed to seeing Superman at the Daily Planet, to Batman brooding in the cave, etc.. That might work great in TV, in comics, and in books.. but with movies, you're doing a disservice by not letting the characters breath, grow, change, and develop in complexity from film to film. Otherwise... it just becomes Superman 27, and they're all the same.

There's no harm at all to only having Superman pretend to be Clark for the first ten years. The opposite would be true - you'd open the character to a whole bunch of new stories and you'd bring his struggle with alienation to new, interesting places where it could change for worse and for better.

 

[lc23]

I absolutely agree that the Clark identity is meant as way to strengthen Superman's connection with humanity, and that that's a very important thing. Part of Superman's charm is his understanding nature about the flaws of mankind, and trying to help out, whether its big or small. But I do think that in his older years, he is sometimes depicted as a disconnected agent of the government.. a sort of mightier than thou enforcer.
Just like this clip, when Supes is talking about his "orders"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx6l39BR_FM

So all I'm saying is allow that struggle to happen on screen. Maybe in a few films, he comes out to the world... a few films later and the signs of his disconnection begin to show. Then, you set the stage for an arch in which he goes too far, and he must reunite with humanity somehow..

I find this idea that Clark the reporter MUST be in every Superman movie extremely dogmatic, and it disallows Superman from experiencing real growth.



Yes... you're absolutely right, it's where the drama comes in. But in films, a sense of resolution is very important! These weaknesses might be a good thing because they'll wind up teaching him a lot, but he must move beyond them before the final end. Superman deserves to be a unified human being - not to have to hide himself away from having a life. Living two lives is no resolution. He can connect with humanity in other ways besides Clark, and - in fact - I think that's probably his story. His feelings of alienation can hurt him a lot more than kryptonite, and by the end, we want our protagonist to succeed, to beat the demons from within and without. Clark is a manifestation of the problem.

As I see it - a whole bunch of fans want their comic book characters to ALWAYS be a certain thing and a certain way.. because comic books work based upon a timeless repetitive model that doesn't want their characters to get older. We're accustomed to seeing Superman at the Daily Planet, to Batman brooding in the cave, etc.. That might work great in TV, in comics, and in books.. but with movies, you're doing a disservice by not letting the characters breath, grow, change, and develop in complexity from film to film. Otherwise... it just becomes Superman 27, and they're all the same.

There's no harm at all to only having Superman pretend to be Clark for the first ten years. The opposite would be true - you'd open the character to a whole bunch of new stories and you'd bring his struggle with alienation to new, interesting places where it could change for worse and for better.

What? Do you mean his Clark Kent the Daily Planet reporter persona? Otherwise, you do know that his growing up on a farm, raised by his human parents in Smallville, is as much a part of his real identity as the rest of the Superman stuff, right?

And it's not like there haven't been plenty of Superman stories where he abandons earth and humanity for places beyond.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

If hiding from the public was as easy as wearing glasses, then we wouldn't have candid celebrity photos in glasses... But we do.

Just google a celebrity's name + glasses.

---

but who cares. It's a fun part of the character that can fit in the movies, no matter how 'realistic' the rest of the movie is.

I'd be fine if they just did it the same old way. I'd be fine if went another route with it as well.

 

[DA_Champion]

I would rather watch a clark kent movie without superman than the other way around.

I saw the justice League cartoon recently and I know what superman is without clark kent: unbelievably boring.