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

[Dispatch Ninja]

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.

Because he's an alien who's flying and shooting laser beams from his eyes. If he was a human doing these things then you'd have a point.

 

[Tempest]

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.

Oh, I agree that the comic books don't always allow their characters to grow. I would be much happier if Batman were allowed to just be happy every now and then, without some terrible tragedy that makes everything miserable all over again. Enough is enough.

But I disagree with you on the premise that Clark hampers Superman's growth. Especially in this new universe, where it is incredibly important for Clark to retain his humanity.

Besides, that, Superman disavowing his human side has happened several times in comics. It isn't a very interesting story. It's much more interesting to watch Clark try to fit in, than it is for him to be some super-powered ******* flying around.

The only way it would become necessary for Superman to "give up" Clark would be if his life span is much longer than a typical human's. When most, or all, of the people he loves are gone, I could see Clark finally retiring his human side (by faking his death), but I don't think he'd ever stop being Clark.

While it's true that Bruce Wayne is a more of a mask for Batman, Superman's identities are more cohesive, because he really IS Clark Kent, guy who grew up in Kansas, who loves Lois, who loves to write about truth. And he really IS Superman, a guy who can fly, and who uses his superpowers to do as much good as possible. Clark can exist without Superman, but I'm not so sure Superman could exist without Clark.

 

[Marvin]

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.

One might argue the opposite about All Star, the "clark kent" in that story is the superficial one Tarantino described in Kill Bill. The one that's a critique on humanity as superman sees us or whatever he went on about.

Based on the Donner paradigm.

Smallville and Lois&Clark argue the Clark first approach.

MoS is looking to present something new imo.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

While it's true that Bruce Wayne is a more of a mask for Batman, Superman's identities are more cohesive, because he really IS Clark Kent, guy who grew up in Kansas, who loves Lois, who loves to write about truth. And he really IS Superman, a guy who can fly, and who uses his superpowers to do as much good as possible. Clark can exist without Superman, but I'm not so sure Superman could exist without Clark.

Fine wording of something I've always felt was so obvious that I don't really understand why there are two sides to this arguement at all

 

[MaceB]

What? Do you mean his Clark Kent the Daily Planet reporter persona?

Correct - I'm suggesting that Superman put down the reporter identity after a few years. He'll always be Clark the farm boy to a certain extent, but he doesn't need to be Clark the Daily Planet Reporter forever.

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?

Sure I do... I don't quite understand the point you're trying to make though. Just because he was raised as Clark on a farm doesn't mean he might not someday naturally become Superman - the full-time protector of Earth.

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

I know. This is a very important point I think. Lots of people would like to say that Clark and Superman go hand in hand, but in fact... the theme of Superman tossing aside his human responsibilities is actually part of his story. Why are so many people afraid to portray that on screen?

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.

To each his own. I've seen the Clark Kent / Superman story at this point. It never changes - it gets old. I think that Superman has a lot more to offer, and I think you're doing him a huge disservice by arguing for a one-size-fits-all approach to him... especially when several stories have attempted the very thing I'm suggesting. Just not on the silver screen.

But I disagree with you on the premise that Clark hampers Superman's growth. Especially in this new universe, where it is incredibly important for Clark to retain his humanity.

If it's so important, than why not progress the theme by making his identity something he struggles with. Clark is a great way to connect with humanity at first, it's true, but for how long? Eventually, it'd be natural that the Clark personna would begin to show signs of wear. Because keeping secrets... not being able to tell your friends the truth... being stuck in the same job purposely forever... I doubt that's exactly the ideal way that Superman would like to retain his humanity.

Besides, that, Superman disavowing his human side has happened several times in comics. It isn't a very interesting story. It's much more interesting to watch Clark try to fit in, than it is for him to be some super-powered ******* flying around.

I disagree, though I do see your point of view... I just think it's not showing enough imagination. As you say, this story has been done before. More than that, I'd say it's the natural progression of Superman's third Act. Superman can struggle to fit in without the Clark personna; in fact, it'd be that much more difficult for him, creating even more of the human drama that you're calling for.

While it's true that Bruce Wayne is a more of a mask for Batman, Superman's identities are more cohesive, because he really IS Clark Kent, guy who grew up in Kansas, who loves Lois, who loves to write about truth. And he really IS Superman, a guy who can fly, and who uses his superpowers to do as much good as possible. Clark can exist without Superman, but I'm not so sure Superman could exist without Clark.

Nicely said... but I'd slightly disagree. Clark CANNOT exist without Superman. That's exactly what MOS was about. The personna of Clark is one that is stuck in a rut. He can never truly connect with others because he's living a secret. In that way, Clark is both Superman's greatest tool to connect with humanity, but it's also his greatest hindrance. Because it's based on an inherent lack of trust in those around him. Jimmy might be Clark's good work friend; they might get a beer every now and again. But Clark can never tell Jimmy what he's really feeling about a given situation. For as long as he continues to hide, he'll always be that kid holding back while being heckled by bullies. Clark is doomed to that fate, whereas Superman doesn't have to be.

 

[Lencho01]

The Clark Kent Taratino described in Kill Bill doesn't exist. Only a villain can view Clark in such a negative view, hence Bill saying all that nonsense.

Clark's based on Pa Kent. A mild mannered nice guy who wears glasses.

 

[MaceB]

That is a damn awesome passage I must admit. I just don't think it's a very relatable message. Ask yourself.. how many of your best friends do you hide your work life from? Have you ever lived a double life? It aint fun.. ask those poor guys who couldn't ask or tell. The idea that Superman would be completely content with the same job for years, being ridiculed for his nerdishness, not being able to bare himself to anyone but Lois, hiding his face from the world.... well... those just doesn't seem like the acts of a Super Man to me. It's even found in that passage. "Superman even gave Clark a demon." Clark is a manufactured disguise, and no one is happy living a disguise.

Superman will ALWAYS be Clark; nothing can change that. That doesn't mean he couldn't one day open up to the world that Clark and Superman are one and the same. That's honestly the only way to resolve Superman's feelings of alienation as far as I see it.

 

[lc23]

The Clark Kent Taratino described in Kill Bill doesn't exist. Only a villain can view Clark in such a negative view, hence Bill saying all that nonsense.

Clark's based on Pa Kent. A mild mannered nice guy who wears glasses.

That excerpt completely contradicts Clark's actual background story. If Kal-El had arrived on earth as an adult or even a teen and decided to make it his home this would fit better. However, he was sent by his parents as a baby and raised by adoptive human parents as their own. I don't understand the point of some people bothering to even mention the Kents, if they're going to be so dismissive of the idea that their nurturing Clark into adulthood would have a huge effect on the person he became. They're as much his parents as Jor-El and Lara Lor-Van.

 

[Marvin]

People seem to be completely missing the fact that the persona that walks around the office knocking over chairs and books, isn't who the man is on the inside. It's that form of "clark kent" that is very much is present in american cinema that is just as fabricated as any costumed persona.

However that individual does go by the name of clark kent. Which leads to the assertion that the real version isn't the red eyed jolly god with arms crossed named superman nor the bumbling or unassuming mute with no backbone(see birth right). The real individual is a mix of both heritages and in his head he calls himself Kal.

 

[Tempest]

Correct - I'm suggesting that Superman put down the reporter identity after a few years. He'll always be Clark the farm boy to a certain extent, but he doesn't need to be Clark the Daily Planet Reporter forever.

Sure I do... I don't quite understand the point you're trying to make though. Just because he was raised as Clark on a farm doesn't mean he might not someday naturally become Superman - the full-time protector of Earth.

I agree, but disagree. One of the traits of Superman is that he's often a reluctant hero. He gets pushed into being a hero by Martha and Jonathan, or he chooses that route, and then he figures out that the price he has to pay is pretty steep. When he's given the opportunity to leave that behind, he take it and enjoys it.

Granted, I'm all for a change of characterization (hence my great enjoyment of Superman's portrayal in Earth One and MOS as an outsider), but I still think that Clark struggling to balance who he is against who Superman is, is a far more interesting story than a Superman who abandons his human side to be Superman 24/7.

I mean, if you have a story idea, I'd love to hear it. Maybe your take on it would be fabulous. It's just that by making Superman too alien, he becomes less interesting. The most interesting story I've come across so far that relates to this is in Superman/Batman, where all the aliens are manipulated (by having their own feelings of feeling out of place amplified) into deciding to take over Earth. Superman has a great, emotional struggle in that storyline, where he faces one of his biggest fears, and his greatest longings. He wants to be human, but he never really can be one...and he's afraid that people who say that they can accept who he is really don't.

This is more poignant to me than the idea of Clark abandoning who he is in favor of being Superman. Once that happens, I think the character arc is pretty much done. He may have other, great adventures, but god!Superman (which is what he'd basically be) is not that intriguing.

If it's so important, than why not progress the theme by making his identity something he struggles with. Clark is a great way to connect with humanity at first, it's true, but for how long? Eventually, it'd be natural that the Clark personna would begin to show signs of wear. Because keeping secrets... not being able to tell your friends the truth... being stuck in the same job purposely forever... I doubt that's exactly the ideal way that Superman would like to retain his humanity.

Perhaps MOS's approach is going to be less about secrets. Think about it; some people in the military might be able to figure it out, Perry might, Smallville probably knows why the aliens were there...

This could be a total change in the Superman secret-identity story. The secret identity isn't so secret...but it's protected by people who value both Clark and Superman.

That would be awesome. I like that kind of change. You can play around with it.

I disagree, though I do see your point of view... I just think it's not showing enough imagination. As you say, this story has been done before. More than that, I'd say it's the natural progression of Superman's third Act. Superman can struggle to fit in without the Clark personna; in fact, it'd be that much more difficult for him, creating even more of the human drama that you're calling for.

Perhaps as a final, final moment in Superman's story. I like Clark/Superman. It'd be fun if they had Clark actually do something besides be a reporter. I loved in MOS that he did do other things; dishwasher, working a fishing trawler. I can easily envision him in other jobs, whereas pretty much all Clark ever has been in comics is a reporter. MOS did a good thing by not having Clark Kent, reporter, be in the story until the end.

What is a storyline you would do with Superman giving up Clark?

Nicely said... but I'd slightly disagree. Clark CANNOT exist without Superman. That's exactly what MOS was about. The personna of Clark is one that is stuck in a rut. He can never truly connect with others because he's living a secret. In that way, Clark is both Superman's greatest tool to connect with humanity, but it's also his greatest hindrance. Because it's based on an inherent lack of trust in those around him. Jimmy might be Clark's good work friend; they might get a beer every now and again. But Clark can never tell Jimmy what he's really feeling about a given situation. For as long as he continues to hide, he'll always be that kid holding back while being heckled by bullies. Clark is doomed to that fate, whereas Superman doesn't have to be.

Interesting! But I would say that Superman is the tool, not Clark. We each see what we like best, obviously. It's a fun debate!

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I think the fact they painted Clark's life as something of a chore and like he was totally unhappy was one of the things I disliked about MOS.

In the incarnations I enjoy most, Clark is a fully formed person living his life, making friends and having dreams and passions, and even exploring the world - but there is just this thing missing, this one part of himself that he can't openly show the world (his powers, and his desire to use them to help people).

Superman is that one part of Clark, and it's a side he absolutely loves being able to let out... And I don't think he'd ever be able to stop now.

But being himself (Clark) isn't depressing to him.

It's just BETTER being able to be Superman as well.

 

[Micromind]

I will explain the whole issue of identity as -

Superman on Krypton (or with other kryptonians on other planets) is not Kal El (they call him s Kal El) but, he views himself as Clark kent.

Clark kent in Superman costume is still Clark Kent, the rest of the world call him as Superman, but to him he is still Clark.

When I say Clark Kent, I mean Clark in Smallville, not the goofy reporter Clark Kent.

So to Clark, Superman and Kal El are just names given to him, he is just Clark, not any other persona.

 

[Micromind]

Perhaps MOS's approach is going to be less about secrets. Think about it; some people in the military might be able to figure it out, Perry might, Smallville probably knows why the aliens were there...

This could be a total change in the Superman secret-identity story. The secret identity isn't so secret...but it's protected by people who value both Clark and Superman.

That would be awesome. I like that kind of change. You can play around with it.

good points.

Perhaps as a final, final moment in Superman's story. I like Clark/Superman. It'd be fun if they had Clark actually do something besides be a reporter. I loved in MOS that he did do other things; dishwasher, working a fishing trawler. I can easily envision him in other jobs, whereas pretty much all Clark ever has been in comics is a reporter. MOS did a good thing by not having Clark Kent, reporter, be in the story until the end.

Undercover reporter ?

 

[Tempest]

I think the fact they painted Clark's life as something of a chore and like he was totally unhappy was one of the things I disliked about MOS.

In the incarnations I enjoy most, Clark is a fully formed person living his life, making friends and having dreams and passions, and even exploring the world - but there is just this thing missing, this one part of himself that he can't openly show the world (his powers, and his desire to use them to help people).

Superman is that one part of Clark, and it's a side he absolutely loves being able to let out... And I don't think he'd ever be able to stop now.

But being himself (Clark) isn't depressing to him.

It's just BETTER being able to be Superman as well.

Yeah, but I don't think Clark was unhappy, or that he viewed his life as a chore. I think his life, just like ours, was filled with difficult things that he had to work through. He did so with more grace than most of us do. He has one of the more difficult secrets to keep, and he could have become totally isolated or worse, become a bully. But he took the hard knocks life handed out to him, pushed through them, and came out on top. I would say that's more inspirational than depressing.

 

[The Guard]

I would've just stuck with the red sun/yellow sun explanation.

I'm pretty sure they did.

Didn't we have a scientific/astronomy debate about this a while back?

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Didn't feel that way to me, but that's the beauty of art - creates different emotions in different people

What I saw was a man who was so lost in life that he didn't have friends, he didn't have a home he felt he could stay in, and the only 'purpose' he gave to his existence was finding out why he was here - literally exiling himself from having as few connections to humanity as possible.

Lois seems to be the first real friend he ever made in his life.

When he put that suit on and handed himself in to the military, it didn't feel like he was giving anything up, or that there was this risk he might 'loose it all' if he revealed himself.

It only felt like he was deciding whether NOW was the 'right time' his dad always talked about.

I find that sad. I don't think he placed any value on his human life whatsoever, and in the context of the film I kind of get it because it didn't seem like there was much joy to be found in human life for him... Every event we saw from his childhood was a negative one.

I'm just hoping that as 'Metropolis Clark', this incarnation of Clark might actually make some friends and enjoy having a job and being a part of the world... And then realise that being human is something he needs to be happy as well.

 

[Marvin]

I will explain the whole issue of identity as -

Superman on Krypton (or with other kryptonians on other planets) is not Kal El (they call him s Kal El) but, he views himself as Clark kent.

Clark kent in Superman costume is still Clark Kent, the rest of the world call him as Superman, but to him he is still Clark.

When I say Clark Kent, I mean Clark in Smallville, not the goofy reporter Clark Kent.

So to Clark, Superman and Kal El are just names given to him, he is just Clark, not any other persona.

If what you are suggesting rang true in the hearts and minds of fans everywhere, then this idea that "we didn't see Clark Kent" till then end of the film would be irrelevant. People just just assume he was "clark" the entire movie.

But that's not the case, unfortunately. For all intents and rant threads forthcoming, we got "clark" at the very end of MOS and we're not even sure if we are going to get "him" in the sequel. It's a matter of persona.

Thus I say it plainly, "Clark Kent" as the cinematic audience refers to him is that construct that disguises the real character from 9-5. The real character isn't superman. Batman calls him Clark in their personal discussions. Wonder Woman Kal, Flash Superman.
What he calls himself it probably what matters most.

 

[STARMAN]

In MOS, Clark felt disconnected from the human race. When Zod makes his threat, Clark doesn't immediately come to earth's defense without hesitation. Instead, he had to talk to the priest and think about it. In this version Clark doesn't trust the human race due to his childhood experiences.

Hopefully, Clark's trust of Lois will spread to the rest of the human race. Thus embracing his role as earth's protector.

 

[Micromind]

Lois seems to be the first real friend he ever made in his life.

I think Lana and Pete were his friends in Smallville.

When he put that suit on and handed himself in to the military, it didn't feel like he was giving anything up, or that there was this risk he might 'loose it all' if he revealed himself.

It only felt like he was deciding whether NOW was the 'right time' his dad always talked about.

I think that the movie shows Pa Kent giving guidance to young Clark about using his powers and deciding what he should do with those powers, for example -

"You just have to decide what kind of man you want to grow up to be, Clark. Whoever that man is, he's going to change the world."


" I have to believe that you were... that you were sent here for a reason. All these changes that you're going through, one day... one day you're gonna think of them as a blessing; and when that day comes, you're gonna have to make a choice... a choice of whether to stand proud in front of the human race or not. "

So, I think he actually helps Clark to realize what he should be doing in future.

 

[godisawesome]

Which is why I'm hoping the biggest difference between Clark and Superman in BvS is that Clark's what he is when he's relaxed, calm, and just being friendly. So not necessarily shy, but definitely quieter and more humble. I cannot stress enough how much I don't want to see him as the bumbling idiot trying to deceive everyone around him. I hate that character decision, even if Reeves managed to make it tolerable. Superman is him with his game face on and extreme awareness of his responsibilities towards others. His civilian life is a freelance reporter with coworkers but few huge requirements; as Superman he has to act more conventionally assertive and strong willed.

I'd love to see Bruce actually display some jealousy of that fact, since I want to see Batman being more real to his personality than in the previous films. Not the entire core of his personality, mind you, but enough that he does feel like an angry loner struggling to overcome his trust issues. Since Batman clearly has resources, a turf to protect, and is clearly mortal, he has to make his disguise stronger and more convincing, while Clark's alien nature and humble origins, combined with his high mobility, make a simpler masquerade like the glasses and attitude change easier and more conducive to a healthy lifestyle.

 

[Marvin]

I find that sad. I don't think he placed any value on his human life whatsoever, and in the context of the film I kind of get it because it didn't seem like there was much joy to be found in human life for him... Every event we saw from his childhood was a negative one.

This is where we will disagree. For starters, he loves his parents and the experiences they've had. Adding a few friends to that mix doesn't change the fundamental reality. Had he landed in a cave and was raised by wolves...

More importantly, what you have outlined is why this is different from what came before(something you've been doing from the start). I never actually see how it's bad or more to the point flawed. For example, this approach might paint him as more disconnected than usual, a very logical extension on the original concept mind you, but this could be viewed as a good thing. You seem to imply he needs a very real connection to man before he can conceivably care.
That's like saying I need a pet dog and great experiences with said friend, before I can be passionate about animal rights, before I can be the greatest champion animal rights have ever seen. That implication is what I find sad imho

I can see how it makes sense(one it comes to crafting a basic narrative) but I can also see a story about a man that's never owned a pet, a man that has had nothing but less then enjoyable encounters with all sorts of animals(including jelly fish), growing into the a valiant champion for all creatures, dolphins and lions in particular. "Sad" as that may be, it's also poignant, heroic and..different. Almost like Peter Parker saving bullies 4 times in a month.

This film doing things differently seems to be the biggest detraction imo.

 

[Marvin]

Which is why I'm hoping the biggest difference between Clark and Superman in BvS is that Clark's what he is when he's relaxed, calm, and just being friendly. So not necessarily shy, but definitely quieter and more humble. I cannot stress enough how much I don't want to see him as the bumbling idiot trying to deceive everyone around him. I hate that character decision, even if Reeves managed to make it tolerable. Superman is him with his game face on and extreme awareness of his responsibilities towards others. His civilian life is a freelance reporter with coworkers but few huge requirements; as Superman he has to act more conventionally assertive and strong willed.

If that happens:
Prepare for more backlash,

of the 'lack of fun and spirit' nature.

 

[DrCosmic]

Hiding in plain sight.

There are many people who resemble famous rich celebrities, no one suspects that such a celebrity could be living a double life (ordinary life)

Similarly, people view Superman as God, he wears no mask, why would he work as a reporter in a newspaper office ?

They will think it is more likely a coincidence that Clark kent has some resemblance to Superman in looks.

Hiding in plain sight only works when your identities are not both public figures that are closely associated.

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.

Isn't the point of not wearing a mask that he can interact normally with the public and be trusted? It doesn't make much sense to not wear a mask if he doesn't want anyone to ever see his face. I'm really not interested in a film about a Superman that is hiding from the public as Superman, much less in a Bizzarro world where no one tries to get pictures of Superman.

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.

If you don't want to make a great film that makes sense at least internally, then you shouldn't make a Superman movie either. Why bother spending $200M on an homage to superman comics if it's not a great film on its own?

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.

It's not an excellent point, because the Daily Planet people will see him more than "at first."

The idea that Clark will not be in the office is actually a good point, and the biggest and most important step in having the secret identity without having a huge stupid ball for everyone at the DP.

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.

Flying and laser beams have an explanation, the disguise ability does not. Things that can't happen with explanation are more believable than random things that can't happen without explanation. The former is called science fiction, the latter is called a plot hole.

 

[Boy Scout]

I'm pretty sure they did.

I meant I wouldn't have had the atmosphere play a part at all.

Didn't we have a scientific/astronomy debate about this a while back?

Dunno. It's not one I care to participate in.

 

[Micromind]

Hiding in plain sight only works when your identities are not both public figures that are closely associated.

I agree with you that Superman is a public figure but Clark Kent ?

Clark Kent is hardly a public figure, he is not a news channel reporter or a news reader who is constantly in front of a camera. How many people actually know how a news reporter really looks like in real life ?

If Clark becomes a freelance journalist who rarely visits the Daily Planet Office then the rest of the staff will not see him on a daily basis.