Tyler Hoechlin is Clark Kent/Superman

[jetage]

I know that we are only 2/3 into season one of this show, but after the shallowness of Dean Cain's Superman, the mediocrity of Tom Welling and the blandness of Henry Cavill, I think Hoechlin is now probably the best Clark Kent/Superman, ever. From his physical appearance to his performance, he really does hit all the notes, at least to me. Especially after his performance in 1/11.

He may be better than Chris Reeve, at least at this point, and I know how unpopular that opinion may be.

 

[DKDetective]

Honestly, I posted this picture awhile back, and would love to see this style as well. I'm just not a fan of his current hair style, I feel it does him no favors.

Yeah, Tyler's Superman is possibly my favourite live action version of the character to date despite not quite having what I considered the archetypal Superman. I never realized until today how much more classically Superman he looks with a better hairstyle. Hopefully this is something they could tweak for next season. There are plenty of examples of him with a better do:

They made the same mistake with Cavill from BvS on where they replaced a natural modern hairstyle with a fake looking overly slicked hair helmet that looks like a caricature of 1950s Superman.

 

[flickchick85]

Yeah, Tyler's Superman is possibly my favourite live action version of the character to date despite not quite having what I considered the archetypal Superman. I never realized until today how much more classically Superman he looks with a better hairstyle. Hopefully this is something they could tweak for next season. There are plenty of examples of him with a better do:
They made the same mistake with Cavill from BvS on where they replaced a natural modern hairstyle with a fake looking overly slicked hair helmet that looks like a caricature of 1950s Superman.

OMG, that was the most unflattering thing ever. It was actually distracting. IDK how anyone would take such a good-looking guy like Cavill, do THAT to him, and then say, "now you look more like Superman!" I actually can't fathom it, lol.

 

[DKDetective]

Yeah, I've said it before, but I'd love to see him grow his hair back out like he had it a decade ago:

View attachment 46730

View attachment 46732

View attachment 46733

We are so on the same page! Even using photo references from the same appearances.

The current style distorts Tyler's head shape. He needs more body to the sides around the temples.

Now if they could tweak the suit a little a bit in the direction of the Fleischer suit from the flashbacks (namely lower neckline, better cape attachment, larger S shield, and gold belt), we would have perfection!

 

[Karelia]

So does anyone here on Twitter wanna shoot some tweets to the Superman & Lois showrunners to get a new hair style for Supes? Haha.

 

[KillerMcQueen]

He may be better than Chris Reeve, at least at this point, and I know how unpopular that opinion may be.

Honestly I'm not a huge fan of Reeve's version, way too much camp for me, I like his Superman performance well enough, but he's probably my least favorite version of Clark, his Clark is a cartoon instead of a character and it kills the whole thing for me.

 

[herolee10]

 

[Time Captain]

Honestly I'm not a huge fan of Reeve's version, way too much camp for me, I like his Superman performance well enough, but he's probably my least favorite version of Clark, his Clark is a cartoon instead of a character and it kills the whole thing for me.

That's more preferable than playing Clark and Superman the same.

The ideal 'Reporter Clark' performance would allow the character to fade into the background at the DP, someone who Lois never notices... who was ironically Superman all along. That's the best way to make the disguise somewhat plausible in live action.

We have yet to see that done properly in live action. Though Brandon Routh's portrayal came the closest.

 

[KillerMcQueen]

That's more preferable than playing Clark and Superman the same.

The ideal 'Reporter Clark' performance would allow the character to fade into the background at the DP, someone who Lois never notices... who was ironically Superman all along. That's the best way to make the disguise somewhat plausible in live action.

We have yet to see that done properly in live action. Though Brandon Routh's portrayal came the closest.

Honestly that's a take that I can't say I have any desire to see done properly. It diminishes his humanity by treating Clark Kent as a disguise rather than a person. The disguise has never been all that plausible, it's just something that has to be accepted for what it is, I much prefer what's gained from Clark being a valuable member of the DP that works closely with Lois over what's gained from Clark shoving himself into the background, it's just not a take I find interesting.

 

[Time Captain]

Honestly that's a take that I can't say I have any desire to see done properly. It diminishes his humanity by treating Clark Kent as a disguise rather than a person. The disguise has never been all that plausible, it's just something that has to be accepted for what it is, I much prefer what's gained from Clark being a valuable member of the DP that works closely with Lois over what's gained from Clark shoving himself into the background, it's just not a take I find interesting.

The 'real' Clark is the one on the farm.

The DP Clark has to be a invented disguise or altered persona, otherwise there's zero versimilitude to it (as Donner put it) for a live action medium. The concept works fine for the comics or animation, but falls apart for live-action if not done correctly.

If DP Clark works closely with Lois and the others, it literally makes them look like fools when they can't recognize him as Superman. DP Clark shouldn't be a confident, assertive character that people notice.. that's Superman. DP Clark ideally fades into the background and people can't believe that someone so mundane could be Superman.

Kal has always had three identities; DP Clark, Real Clark (on the farm), and Superman.

 

[Sithborg]

Nah, the idea of the duality of Clark Kent is hogwash. Clark is Superman. There is no two people, or personas, at least in this show. They are both goofy dorks. Which is just perfect.

I get the need for people to explain away the disguise. The disguise is always going to need just a little bit of suspension of belief.

Honestly, I've seen enough evidence of people putting celebrities on high pedals, and then being unable to recognize them in person to be fine with glasses totally working.

 

[Karelia]

Does anyone remember when Henry Cavill literally wore a Superman shirt under a huge BVS banner in NYC and no one recognized him.... lol.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

Does anyone remember when Henry Cavill literally wore a Superman shirt under a huge BVS banner in NYC and no one recognized him.... lol.

Native New Yorkers, particularly those who reside in or regularly pass through Manhattan, tend to be rather nonchalant insofar as celebrities (and other unusual sightings) are concerned. And even to this day, Cavill isn't exactly what you'd call a household name. Hence, it's not that people outright failed to recognize him. Either they didn't know who he was in the first place, or they just kept their cool about it. You know who didn't have this problem, though? Those nerds from the local comic book shops he later visited the same day. lol

 

[Dark Raven]

That's more preferable than playing Clark and Superman the same.

The ideal 'Reporter Clark' performance would allow the character to fade into the background at the DP, someone who Lois never notices... who was ironically Superman all along. That's the best way to make the disguise somewhat plausible in live action.

We have yet to see that done properly in live action. Though Brandon Routh's portrayal came the closest.

Honestly that's a take that I can't say I have any desire to see done properly. It diminishes his humanity by treating Clark Kent as a disguise rather than a person. The disguise has never been all that plausible, it's just something that has to be accepted for what it is, I much prefer what's gained from Clark being a valuable member of the DP that works closely with Lois over what's gained from Clark shoving himself into the background, it's just not a take I find interesting.

I prefer the take they took that Lois fell in love with Clark for who he is and not Superman. It was refreshing and made Lois seem less self absorbed and more caring in addition to being a great reporter. In the Reeve Superman movies she dismisses Clark and mistreats him to such an extent that it stretches believability and makes her look like a terrible person. The Reeve Clark is also such a wet blanket and comes across so incompetent that you'd have to wonder how he could even ever make it as a journalist.

I prefer Clark to be more similar to his portrayals in Superman the Animated Series or Lois and Clark. Even The Adventures of Superman (with George Reeves) had a more competent Clark, although there he seemed a little too confident and was exactly the same as Superman. I think the present day Hoechlin Clark whom we've seen around Smallville and isn't overly goofy is a good balance.

 

[Time Captain]

The problem with "Lois and Clark" was Dean Cain played Daily Planet Clark as the 'real person.'

So ultimately he played DP Clark and Superman exactly the same. It was weird.


I'm all for Lois eventually discovering the real Clark over time, but his persona in the DP (for the sake of some credibility with the disguise) needs to be an invented facade. Otherwise the logic of the whole thing falls apart.

 

[Dark Raven]

The problem with "Lois and Clark" was Dean Cain played Daily Planet Clark as the 'real person.'

So ultimately he played DP Clark and Superman exactly the same. It was weird.


I'm all for Lois eventually discovering the real Clark over time, but his persona in the DP (for the sake of some credibility with the disguise) needs to be an invented facade. Otherwise the logic of the whole thing falls apart.

If anything, I think it should be Superman who is the invented facade. He spends more time as Clark and it's easier to just be himself most of the time. As Superman, he already is seen as this larger-than-life figure so he could play that up. And he often just flies into a scene to save someone and then is gone, so there's not even much chance for interaction.

He could easily either put on a bigger or even different personality and maybe even a different accent for that short time instead of having to be bumbling Clark for the entirety of his work day.

 

[Time Captain]

Conceptually perhaps.

But in live-action execution, it's hard to believably have Superman as an 'invented facade' if everyone can see and hear him upclose and he's on the front cover of every newspaper. He's definitely not the character that fades into the background and goes unnoticed.

The only way around that is to pull a Smallville 'Blur' and have Superman be a mysterious figure that no one ever sees. Which limits the storytelling potential.


It's also hard to tell whether Kal spends more time as DP Clark or Superman. I mean theoretically, Superman doesn't get much downtime. He's literally needed to save people throughout the world at most hours throughout the day. The Planet gives him a good means to be Superman and be aware of the goings-on in the world around him.

This is a guy that doesn't get much downtime, but he spent a decade in the fortress training for this.

 

[Dr.]

I’ve been feeling wordy lately…

Some folks tell of encounters with a celebrity (or even a friend) who they failed to recognize at first. And the reason has to do with a relatively modest change of appearance. Perhaps it’s clothing (e.g., a uniform vs. civilian garb), a new haircut, a new beard (or a new clean shave), makeup (its presence or absence) or, yes, even eyeglasses. And it’s on this basis that the Superman/Clark Kent disguise gains some measure of plausibility. It must be said, however, that this sort of misidentification is tenuous. It can work given a casual or inattentive first glance; but recognition usually dawns with a second look.

Of course, this is at odds with the classic Lois/Clark/Superman dynamic. There, the conceit is that Lois regularly and repeatedly interacts with Clark and Superman and fails to notice that they’re one and the same.

Now, most fans accept this artifice. But many also want some additional pretext to facilitate the “willing suspension of disbelief.” And, arguably, this was best provided by Christopher Reeve and his impressively disparate Clark/Superman performances. But this was largely achieved by making Clark a bumbling, comedic figure — the polar opposite of Superman. Except… nowadays, folks want Clark to be a thoughtful, accomplished journalist in his own right — a worthy partner for the celebrated Lois Lane. Needless to say, it then becomes tricky to depict both Clark and Superman as professionally similar (i.e., serious, focused and proficient) and still have Lois clueless by virtue of a pair of glasses.

Clearly, S&L decided to just “drink the Kool-Aid” and embrace the glasses-as-effective-disguise trope. Thus, it doesn’t matter that Clark and Supes have the same voice, mannerisms, smile or five-o’clock shadow. For better or worse, take it or leave it, it’s the glasses that matter.

 

[Time Captain]

Now, most fans accept this artifice. But many also want some additional pretext to facilitate the “willing suspension of disbelief.” And, arguably, this was best provided by Christopher Reeve and his impressively disparate Clark/Superman performances. But this was largely achieved by making Clark a bumbling, comedic figure — the polar opposite of Superman. Except… nowadays, folks want Clark to be a thoughtful, accomplished journalist in his own right — a worthy partner for the celebrated Lois Lane. Needless to say, it then becomes tricky to depict both Clark and Superman as professionally similar (i.e., serious, focused and proficient) and still have Lois clueless by virtue of a pair of glasses.

Who wants that though? Just the niche comics fanbase who like that dynamic from the comics and animation, because it works in those mediums and doesn't require suspension of disbelief.

For the mass general movie-going audiences, they likely wouldn't mind if 'DP Clark Kent' was an invented persona. It's been embraced before. If anything, it would help them buy into the verisimilitude of the concept a lot more.

Clearly, S&L decided to just “drink the Kool-Aid” and embrace the glasses-as-effective-disguise trope. Thus, it doesn’t matter that Clark and Supes have the same voice, mannerisms, smile or five-o’clock shadow. For better or worse, take it or leave it, it’s the glasses that matter.

Reminds me of something that happened on Smallville.

The producers made a statement saying Tom Welling's DP Clark would be the real person, and Superman would be the invented exaggerated persona, in their universe.

However, when it finally came to Season 10.. they realized they couldn't pull that off in a believable manner.

They had to let Lois in on his secret beforehand. Mindwipe Lex Luthor completely. And have Tom Welling play the bumbling 'DP Clark' persona.

 

[Dr.]

Deuxième partie…

The disguise is more plausible and the suspension of disbelief more sustainable if the two spheres of Clark’s existence never (or only rarely) intersect. For example: If dude at STAR Labs regularly deals with Superman — but never Clark — then there’s no direct visual comparison to make. Likewise, if someone at the DP only knows Clark but has never seen Supes in person.

However, disbelief becomes less… suspended when certain characters (Lois, Lana, Jimmy, etc.) know both Clark and Superman and yet can’t see the bleedin’ obvious. Of course, this wasn’t a big concern in the Silver/Bronze Age when the secret identity shenanigans were tongue-in-cheek.

But it’s more problematic when this playful trope is transplanted to an ostensibly modern, grounded iteration. Conversely, the problem largely vanishes if some of the supporting characters (Lois especially) are in on the secret from the get-go.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

That's more preferable than playing Clark and Superman the same.

Not to me. I'd much rather have a Clark that is a full and complicated human being outside of being Superman I'm fine with the rational that they alluded to when Clark asked the women in the street what Superman looked like and she said 'like a guy in a cape who could fly' or something like that.

Though I do think it was silly to admit on camera that he'd been sent here as a kid. It's like literally saying 'I have a secret identity but I'm not telling

The problem with "Lois and Clark" was Dean Cain played Daily Planet Clark as the 'real person.'

So ultimately he played DP Clark and Superman exactly the same. It was weird.


I'm all for Lois eventually discovering the real Clark over time, but his persona in the DP (for the sake of some credibility with the disguise) needs to be an invented facade. Otherwise the logic of the whole thing falls apart.

I definitely don't think his Clark and Superman were played exactly the same.

As Clark he is himself. As Superman he has to put on a different persona, the superhero, the celebrity, the alien. He puffs his chest out, crosses his arms and refers to people in a distanced and formal way as 'Miss' or 'Sir', nodding at them dutifully.

He's quite vocally pretending that he doesn't have a life outside of being Superman, and certainly that he's not had a human life. When he gives Lois that first exclusive, he tells her everything he knows about his alien origins in order to create this other worldly character. That's what leads Lois to wonder if he even eats for example.

He even talks about Superman in the third person a lot because of that. Because Superman is this character he has created and he has to hold back who he really is when he's in the suit. Superman can't do this. Superman has to be this. These references to himself in the third person are at some points commented on by people around him too, pointing out how much he views Superman as separate from himself. A creation. A disguise.

I'm not saying that he always kept up the performance perfectly, but there is a really distinct difference to me between how he was as Superman and how he was as Clark.

 

[KillerMcQueen]

Not to me. I'd much rather have a Clark that is a full and complicated human being outside of being Superman I'm fine with the rational that they alluded to when Clark asked the women in the street what Superman looked like and she said 'like a guy in a cape who could fly' or something like that.

Though I do think it was silly to admit on camera that he'd been sent here as a kid. It's like literally saying 'I have a secret identity but I'm not telling


I definitely don't think his Clark and Superman were played exactly the same.

As Clark he is himself. As Superman he has to put on a different persona, the superhero, the celebrity, the alien. He puffs his chest out, crosses his arms and refers to people in a distanced and formal way as 'Miss' or 'Sir', nodding at them dutifully.

He's quite vocally pretending that he doesn't have a life outside of being Superman, and certainly that he's not had a human life. When he gives Lois that first exclusive, he tells her everything he knows about his alien origins in order to create this other worldly character. That's what leads Lois to wonder if he even eats for example.

He even talks about Superman in the third person a lot because of that. Because Superman is this character he has created and he has to hold back who he really is when he's in the suit. Superman can't do this. Superman has to be this. These references to himself in the third person are at some points commented on by people around him too, pointing out how much he views Superman as separate from himself. A creation. A disguise.

I'm not saying that he always kept up the performance perfectly, but there is a really distinct difference to me between how he was as Superman and how he was as Clark.

Cain's Clark and his interactions with Lois and the DP staff were also by far the best part of the show, so the idea that Clark has to be an act that fades into the background just because Donner did it that way doesn't work for me.

 

[Time Captain]

Not to me. I'd much rather have a Clark that is a full and complicated human being outside of being Superman I'm fine with the rational that they alluded to when Clark asked the women in the street what Superman looked like and she said 'like a guy in a cape who could fly' or something like that.

Though I do think it was silly to admit on camera that he'd been sent here as a kid. It's like literally saying 'I have a secret identity but I'm not telling

That really doesn't make any sense.

The woman on the street didn't even see Superman upclose and barely interacted with Clark. Meanwhile Lois and others would (under your circumstances) interact with Clark very closely over a long, long time... while also seeing Superman upclose.

If you're already a DC fanboy, you can roll with the suspension of disbelief. For mass general audiences, it's a concept that doesn't work without some level of verisimilitude.

I definitely don't think his Clark and Superman were played exactly the same.

As Clark he is himself. As Superman he has to put on a different persona, the superhero, the celebrity, the alien. He puffs his chest out, crosses his arms and refers to people in a distanced and formal way as 'Miss' or 'Sir', nodding at them dutifully.

He's quite vocally pretending that he doesn't have a life outside of being Superman, and certainly that he's not had a human life. When he gives Lois that first exclusive, he tells her everything he knows about his alien origins in order to create this other worldly character. That's what leads Lois to wonder if he even eats for example.

He even talks about Superman in the third person a lot because of that. Because Superman is this character he has created and he has to hold back who he really is when he's in the suit. Superman can't do this. Superman has to be this. These references to himself in the third person are at some points commented on by people around him too, pointing out how much he views Superman as separate from himself. A creation. A disguise.

I'm not saying that he always kept up the performance perfectly, but there is a really distinct difference to me between how he was as Superman and how he was as Clark.

It was basically the same, save for crossing his arms as Superman. Hence why Cain's Superman portrayal really isn't remembered outside of a few nostalgic fans. There wasn't much that separated that portrayal from Clark.

He played DP Clark as the real person, as assertive and noticed by everyone.. but he also played Superman the same way.

You can't honestly tell me it didn't make all the other characters look beyond stupid, especially Lois..

Of course, tonally.. "Lois and Clark" was a super cheesy and campy show, that didn't take itself seriously. So I suppose it worked in that context, like in the clip above.


Conversely, "Superman and Lois" goes for a more somber, grittier approach with realistic emotional beats.. so the suspension of disbelief with the dual identity falls apart here.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

The 'real' Clark is the one on the farm.

The DP Clark has to be a invented disguise or altered persona, otherwise there's zero versimilitude to it (as Donner put it) for a live action medium. The concept works fine for the comics or animation, but falls apart for live-action if not done correctly.

If DP Clark works closely with Lois and the others, it literally makes them look like fools when they can't recognize him as Superman. DP Clark shouldn't be a confident, assertive character that people notice.. that's Superman. DP Clark ideally fades into the background and people can't believe that someone so mundane could be Superman.

Kal has always had three identities; DP Clark, Real Clark (on the farm), and Superman.

Verisimilitude is better applied to fictional elements that already have some basis in reality, rather than those that border on the extreme or highly improbable. And dress it up or treat it with as much seriousness as you want, but putting a pair of glasses on Superman will never make for an effective disguise to most people. Fortunately, it doesn't matter all that much. The character is so firmly entrenched in the public consciousness that we're more than willing to suspend our disbelief for an hour or two.

Having said that, I get what you're saying. While I wouldn't go so far as to espouse a full-blown return to the bumbling idiot shtick made famous by Christopher Reeve in the late '70s and '80s Superman films, there's definite value in taking a more creative approach to the Clark Kent disguise. I'm sure that the writers toyed around w/ a couple of different ideas to that end, but this is the CW we're talking about here. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Hoechlin appeared with baggy clothes and foggy, oversized glasses (so as to mute the natural color of his eyes à la Waid's reinterpretation of the mythos in Superman: Birthright). And further to that argument, let's imagine that he played the character as more of a soft-spoken introvert. What would that look like on-screen? Would the actor stand out like he does now or would he come across wooden and unlikeable? It's hard to say. But when you're tasked with carrying a primetime series—on a weekly basis, no less—you definitely don't want to come anywhere near the latter.

As an alternative, I suppose the writers' room could come up with some contrived sci-fi explanation to account for the illusory effect of the glasses. The geek in me actually finds this intriguing. But at the same time, I feel like part of the charm gets lost in trying to change something that's been functioning just fine for 80-plus years.

That brings us back to the goofball approach. Look, I love what Reeve brought to the character, generally speaking. It's just that his take on mild-mannered CK is a little too outdated for my taste. If you're gonna go dorky, you want to find a good balance between subtlety and exorbitance (and I truly think we're getting this to some degree in Hoechlin's performance). Otherwise, you're just bringing unwanted attention to yourself.

 

[Time Captain]

Verisimilitude is better applied to fictional elements that already have some basis in reality, rather than those that border on the extreme or highly improbable. And dress it up or treat it with as much seriousness as you want, but putting a pair of glasses on Superman will never make for an effective disguise to most people. Fortunately, it doesn't matter all that much. The character is so firmly entrenched in the public consciousness that we're more than willing to suspend our disbelief for an hour or two.

Having said that, I get what you're saying. While I wouldn't go so far as to espouse a full-blown return to the bumbling idiot shtick made famous by Christopher Reeve in the late '70s and '80s Superman films, there's definite value in taking a more creative approach to the Clark Kent disguise. I'm sure that the writers toyed around w/ a couple of different ideas to that end, but this is the CW we're talking about here. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Hoechlin appeared with baggy clothes and foggy, oversized glasses (so as to mute the natural color of his eyes à la Waid's reinterpretation of the mythos in Superman: Birthright). And further to that argument, let's imagine that he played the character as more of a soft-spoken introvert. What would that look like on-screen? Would the actor stand out like he does now or would he come across wooden and unlikeable? It's hard to say. But when you're tasked with carrying a primetime series—on a weekly basis, no less—you definitely don't want to come anywhere near the latter.

As an alternative, I suppose the writers' room could come up with some contrived sci-fi explanation to account for the illusory effect of the glasses. The geek in me actually finds this intriguing. But at the same time, I feel like part of the charm gets lost in trying to change something that's been functioning just fine for 80-plus years.

That brings us back to the goofball approach. Look, I love what Reeve brought to the character, generally speaking. It's just that his take on mild-mannered CK is a little too outdated for my taste. If you're gonna go dorky, you want to find a good balance between subtlety and exorbitance (and I truly think we're getting this to some degree in Hoechlin's performance). Otherwise, you're just bringing unwanted attention to yourself.

The verisimilitude allows it to make sense within the context of the narrative and for the characters.

If Real Clark Kent decides to alter his voice, mannerisms, posture, personality, and appearance (glasses, hair , old-fashioned clothing that masks his physique, etc).. to create this 'DP Clark' disguise, it makes it more plausible to the characters within the world.. that they wouldn't recognize him as Superman.

Reeve's goofball approach was very reflective of the film's tone and the time it came out. Routh took the same 'DP Clark Kent' disguise and made it more subtle. Even during his return on COIE, he played it in a way so that the difference between Daily Planet CK and Supes would be plausible to characters within the universe.



* I'm not gonna post any of the videos of him fighting Hoechilin. The comment sections are brutal.

Nolan applied the same kind of verisimilitude with Bruce Wayne's playboy disguise, and it worked so well.