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

[DarkSentinel]

Actually, I found that a simple pair of glasses changed Cavill quite up. Cav-El to Henry if you will With that galoofy (aloof/goofy, sue me, I had to make up a word ) half-grin of his, I thought it really changed up his look. I'd buy that as a first impression.

But only as a first impression. They established that Lois is fully aware of who Clark is, so she becomes the solution to "Daily Planet Clark". She's a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist, she probably knows a thing or two about blending in.

They also have a huge opportunity to go more "local" with MOS2/WF/BvS. Clark should still be on "stringer" duty at the start of the film, so we can see him get a feel for Metropolis and blending in among the crowd. This is a very good chance for Henry to showcase some serious skills.

Point is, Goyer didn't "write himself into a corner" or whatever. He gave himself and the filmmakers an opportunity to reinvent one of the core elements of the Superman character.

 

[J.Drangal]

It would have been cool to have Clark as a free-lance reporter at the beginning of the film. Imagine him specialized in maybe UFOs and other strange stories, as a cover to looking for some answer of who he really is. In his trips, he needs to sometimes use his powers to help people, and such events lead the famous Lois Lane on the trail of the mysterious hero.
We would had a game of cat and mouse that could have been interesting, and foreshadowing their future relationship before Zod's arrival.
And this manner, at the end of the movie, Perry White would have received an article about Superman, and amazed by the style of the author and after have checking his anterior work, he had decided to hire this young Kent to put in a team with Lois, thus combining the advantages of a field reporter (Lois in the first line in the destruction of Metropolis) and a reporter for effective pen.
Anyway, just an idea to make Clark's job at the Daily Planet something more believable, or more fluid. But to be honest, It doesn't bother me the way it is. One line or two in the next film can precise why Clark works here without any problem.
About the glasses, I think we have to not forget that in almost every fiction and in particular in superhero genre, there's a deal between creators and spectators, a little something that they share, to create a link between them and to give the audience the feel to be advantaged in order to maintain the interest. Here, Clark and his glasses. No need to nitpicking about the "realistic" aspect of the movie, the glasses are just a gimmick, a classic element. Nobody ever asks how Peter Parker takes pictures of Spiderman in weird angles and incongruous places.

 

[sf2]

TBH I always said the best way to deal with this 'issue' is just completely ignore it and let the audience deal with it.

Clark Kent wears glasses as a disguise. This is such a well known fact about Superman that I just don't see how anyone will bat an eye lid when it's in this film as well.

Any attempts at 'explaining' the disguise will actually draw MORE attention to how unrealistic it is.

bingo. we got a winner.

 

[Lily Adler]

NEVAH GONNA HAPPEN. At least it wouldn't have during the years when CBMs took the Nolan approach, but with the rise of Marvel and the leniency of 'teh realism' I agree.

 

[Afrobean]

He is more like a celebrity, not a loch ness monster. People would recognize him.

Celebrities do not fly high above the city. They can not speedily destroy any camera that might capture them. Celebrities are famous for having their faces in movies, etc., but Superman would be famous for being heroic. Do you know what even one member of "Seal Team Six" who took down bin Laden looks like, could you identify them if you saw them on the street?

Furthermore, celebrities can and do go out into the world without people recognizing them. Some people might notice it's a celebrity through the lack of makeup, drab attire, sunglasses, etc., but they're still likely to think "there's no way I just saw that person." Not that it matters anyway since almost no one knows what Superman's face looks like anyway.

 

[jonathancrane]

This reinforces what I have said for a while: Goyer does not understand the character. At all. I am far from a Superman expert or hardened fan (even though I love Superman Returns,) but the glasses and Clark Kent chameleon image are part of the fantasy, like Batman's red telephone to police headquarters or Ollie Queen having his Arrow-Cave (or to borrow a name from Harley Quinn from the Injustice comic, Quiver,) beneath his club. Trying to explain them exhaustively causes these artistic crystal to shatter.

 

[DA_Champion]

Also, why would it be any grounds for concern? MOS is a ground zero film in which Kal-El's identity is to be explored before he can accept his "humanity" (for lack of a better term). The whole Clark Kent dichotomy in an origins story is beaten to death (SR to a lesser extent, and SI). Though, what's especially interesting is that the older movies overemphasized the Clark Kent side while ignoring the implications of his alien lineage. On the other hand, this film is placing more emphasis on the alien side than the human side. It's a breath of fresh air.

The reason the human side has been emphasized over the alien side is that the human side is more interesting and more relateable.

Further, even if it were worthwhile to focus on the alien side, Goyer didn't do a very good job of exploring the alien side at all, so that point is moot. The world-building on Krypton was shallow and inconsistent. It was basically a barrage of exposition, infantile bad-assery (Jor-El easily beating up Zod, etc), CGI, undeveloped concepts, and contradictions. They told us Clark was bullied as a child, but it was stated matter-of-factly, they didn't show him as being different at all. He looked the same, behaved the same, and behaved the same as any 9 year old boy would as far as the audience was concerned.

He didn't have a different development curve either intellectually, emotionally, or physically (aside from hidden superpowers other kids would not know about). Under the hands of a better writer who was both more competent and did wish to explore the alien side, Clark might have spoken in a manner that used slightly different rules of grammar, had different circadian rhythms, had a different physical development cycle (i.e. can't walk until age 4), and different emotional responses, etc. Then you would have an explored alien side. You need to have substance for the alien side to be explored.

All writers have some kind of difficulty at some point, especially in blockbusters. The most famous being that Nolan and Goyer had no idea how to progress the story in the third act of TDKR. Does that mean that Goyer and Nolan aren't up to task because they had writer's block and couldn't figure out how to conclude Bruce's character arc? I'll leave that up to debate.

They concluded Bruce Wayne's character by giving him a happy ending. The general audience loved it, but die hard fans of the character didn't because it was original and they think that Bruce Wayne should be Batman for 15,000 nights of his life rather than a more compelling ~300 nights.

And that is hardly the "most famous" case of writer's block.

 

[Kevin Smith]

In MOS, with facial recognition software, the military would know who he was right away.

Not to mention that the Kryptonians go the Kent's farm, etc.

But I really don't care that they didn't go there.

It's also ridiculous that nobody knows Bruce Wayne is Batman, even in the Nolanverse, but I'm totally fine with it. It's just just one of those fun nonsensical things that's part of superheroes: that nobody can figure out who they really are despite how obvious it always is.

--------

As for how they treat the Daily Planet stuff, I'll be fine with a number of ways:

1. They use the realistic route that everyone starts to recognize him on his first day.

2. It's explained why they wouldn't recognize him, etc, and they try to play it straight and make it believable to the audience.

3. They sell the realistic explanation in-universe, but it's played for laughs with the audience, where it's extremely obvious.

I like your way of thinking, but I don't see why the secret identity must be played for complete laughs or strictly laughs. There can be a lot of great moments with it too, take Superman: The Movie for instance where right after Superman drops Lois off from the first flight with her as the camera watches Superman leave the camera, as Lois collects herself, there's a knock at her door, and who is it but Clark Kent! <<< That is fantastic, a moment like that, and I laugh but not in like a "har! har!" way, but it is humor that does not disrupt the movie and fits very appropriately with the characters and enhances them, not a "boy are they sure stupid huh huh!" way, but in a "this is our (the audience) secret" sort of way, which is how it should play, IMO.

I would just play the secret identity thing as very mater of fact and just leave it at that. It is a staple of Superman and has to be there. It is what should be in a Superman movie, naturally.

 

[The Valeyard]

Then unfortunately you watched the wrong movie because that is what they were going for.

Also, he was traveling for a specific reason. He was looking for evidence of UFOs and stuff like that. He also he had to move a lot because whenever he used his powers then he had to go. Simple.

That wasn't addressed onscreen.

It was a coincidence that he was at the same bar as the military officers talking about the crashed ship. He wasn't actively researching his origins and seeking clues out. If he was, it wasn't established well in the few scenes they provided.

It's not about logic, though. It's about suspension of disbelief and the beauty/inherent sadness/relevance of someone being overlooked because most people can't or don't look below the surface of a person. That's always what the concept has been about.

It has never been about LOGICALLY being able to fool people with a pair of glasses, a different hairstyle, slouching, etc.

And you can apply logic to anything. That doesn't invalidate the strength of the actual concept as a storytelling device.

As for them not doing anythng with it...Clark Kent in that final scene didn't exactly scream "Superman" to me. So I think they did "do something" with it, albeit in a more subtle sense than we're historically used to. We just haven't seen Clark's whole "plan" for blending in. Which makes sense, since that sequence is essentially just a tease to say "See, Clark has a plan for blending in".

There has to be a logic within the context of the film's own universe though, as to how the disguise works and how the other characters are fooled by it.

Without that, it's hard to perceive the other characters as anything more than idiots. There needs to be Donner's concept of verisimilitude. At least in the sense of there being a logic to the disguise within the context of the MoS world, even if it's harder to swallow in our own real world.

 

[charl_huntress]

That wasn't addressed onscreen.

Dude...you clearly weren't watching the movie. Jonathon told him he NEEDED to look for the answers to WHY he was here on earth. Heck! You could even say Jonathon sent him on the quest.

Done with you.

 

[The Valeyard]

Actually, I found that a simple pair of glasses changed Cavill quite up. Cav-El to Henry if you will With that galoofy (aloof/goofy, sue me, I had to make up a word ) half-grin of his, I thought it really changed up his look. I'd buy that as a first impression.

He looked exactly the same. Exactly.

The jawline makes it obvious. His hairline and hairstyle makes it obvious. His voice was the same. His mannerisms were similar enough.

Nothing was really changed except for the addition of the glasses, which on their own do nothing.

Point is, Goyer didn't "write himself into a corner" or whatever. He gave himself and the filmmakers an opportunity to reinvent one of the core elements of the Superman character.

Despite the fact that he admits in the interview that it's a "corner." They didn't plan it out. They sidestepped it in MoS and now they're going to have to try and contrive something together.

 

[The Valeyard]

Dude...you clearly weren't watching the movie. Jonathon told him he NEEDED to look for the answers to WHY he was here on earth. Heck! You could even say Jonathon sent him on the quest.

Done with you.

His time as a drifter didn't showcase that. He's 33, so we can assume he's been drifting for several years, yet his big break only came when he conveniently overheard a conversation by those military officers at the bar he was working at?

Doesn't sound like he was actively researching or seeking out his origins. He just stumbled on to them when the plot called for it.

His time on the boat and the Oil Rig didn't have much to do with him actively seeking out his origins either.

He was portrayed as drifting for the sake of drifting, mainly for plot convenience and surface similarities to Batman Begins.


Back on topic, my point is that they could have gone many different ways with those years. A way that would facilitate the reporter 'Clark Kent' alter ego better.

 

[charl_huntress]

You clearly need to watch the movie again, or your trolling for arguments when the answers you want are actually in the film.

I can't get down with you, dude.

You're on your own.

 

[DA_Champion]

His time as a drifter didn't showcase that. He's 33, so we can assume he's been drifting for several years, yet his big break only came when he conveniently overheard a conversation by those military officers at the bar he was working at?

Doesn't sound like he was actively researching or seeking out his origins. He just stumbled on to them when the plot called for it.

His time on the boat and the Oil Rig didn't have much to do with him actively seeking out his origins either.

He was portrayed as drifting for the sake of drifting, mainly for plot convenience and surface similarities to Batman Begins.


Back on topic, my point is that they could have gone many different ways with those years. A way that would facilitate the reporter 'Clark Kent' alter ego better.

That's the way I understood, he didn't know what to do with his life, so he took odd jobs, like working on a fishing boat.

Fortune favoured him, and one of his old jobs brought him in close proximity to an alien ship excavation, and because Lois Lane was there, information leaked to the local radio stations.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

His search for his origins is not the reason why he's drifting, and he's not drifting for 'no reason'.

He moves from city to city, taking new names, etc, because he's trying to 'cover his tracks' after using his powers.

He does owe it to himself "to find out what that reason is", as Jonathan says, but that only comes into play when he overhears the news up north.

 

[The Valeyard]

You clearly need to watch the movie again, or your trolling for arguments when the answers you want are actually in the film.

I can't get down with you, dude.

You're on your own.

I pointed up above as to why the 'drifting' aspect of the film was poorly defined.

And sadly, that was just one of the many elements of the film that were poorly executed. I'm in agreement with this review: http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/vi...egade-cut/41364-the-trouble-with-man-of-steel

Decent concepts, poor execution.

Both of you are wrong.

He's not actively 'searching' for his origins, and he's not drifting for 'no reason'.

He moves from city to city, taking new names, etc, because he's trying to 'cover his tracks'.

He does owe it to himself "to find out what that reason is", as Jonathan says, but that only comes into play when he overhears the news up north.

I'd buy that as a more logical reason, but even that was weakly defined onscreen.

 

[charl_huntress]

Why did he have the damn key around his neck then? You think he carried it for good luck?

 

[RAE072]

Doubt it would happen, and it’s still a big logical jump – like people having no clue at all who he is, but I still quite like the idea people *know* Clark is Superman, but let him live his double life. The big-time trust factor. Superman is all about trust. The Daily Planet staff honoured to have him around their workplace and go along with his act.

 

[RAE072]

A man who the general public barely ever sees in real life, wearing clothes people don't wear ever(his supersuit), flying around and doing super stuff would look very different if you put him on the ground, changed his posture, put him in normal, every day clothes, changed his hair, and gave him glasses.

It's very simple and very plausible.

 

[TheBat812]

I kind of like the idea that it could sort of be a case of 'don't ask, don't tell' with clark and those who actually know him. It shouldn't be overtly obvious that he's superman, but to those who know him, it would be interesting to see them question it: "Do you think Clark is Superman?" "Nah, no way." Lord knows we could use a fresh take on his 'disguise,' it's only been what, 70 years... Having said that, I hardly think it's important enough to this story to be a point of interest unless it involves Bruce figuring it out.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Why did he have the damn key around his neck then? You think he carried it for good luck?

I sort of doubt that he was working on that fishing boat so that he could look in the Ocean for spaceships.

I also doubt he worked at that bar because he thought there might be spaceships nearby.

 

[TheBat812]

It seemed to me he wore it because it was the only piece of his heritage he actually had left (that was wearable).

 

[DA_Champion]

His search for his origins is not the reason why he's drifting, and he's not drifting for 'no reason'.

I can't find the words 'no reason' in my post.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

I can't find the words 'no reason' in my post.

Sorry, referencing two different users here.

 

[Bigjxxx]

I pointed up above as to why the 'drifting' aspect of the film was poorly defined.

And sadly, that was just one of the many elements of the film that were poorly executed. I'm in agreement with this review: http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/vi...egade-cut/41364-the-trouble-with-man-of-steel

Decent concepts, poor execution.




I'd buy that as a more logical reason, but even that was weakly defined onscreen.

This is why the next movie should be directed and written by two persons.