Thanks for watching, y'all! Also check out our FULL breakdowns * SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE: ruclips.net/video/BPJqJpDwyGk/видео.html * SUPERMAN II and the Donner Cut: ruclips.net/video/kpf3hCUpZKc/видео.html * SUPERMAN III ruclips.net/video/EBP1jZH08Qg/видео.html * SUPERMAN IV: ruclips.net/video/To1R2QiIXaY/видео.html
The strange part is at 1:27 since the bumbling is supposed to be an act. This particular bumble gives away his invulnerability. It's not the only time something like this happens.
"Clark is the real person" didn't become the interpretation until John Byrne's Post-Crisis reboot. Before then, it was always "Superman, disguised as Clark Kent." This movie came out before the "Clark is the real person" interpretation even existed. Which interpretation do _I_ prefer? Neither. He's both. Everybody acts slightly differently in different contexts. It doesn't mean that one version of you is a "fake" you and another is the only true, "genuine" version of you. We are what we habitually do. If you're shy at the office but outgoing at parties, then the "real you" isn't the shy you or the outgoing you, but the you who is shy at the office but outgoing at parties. Clark Kent and Superman are just two facets of the same person.
I completely understand Superman’s point. You see, even as a young child/teenager, he had to “hide” who he TRULY is. Albeit, he was genuinely confused about his abilities in comparison to his peers. The final conversation with his dad (Jonathan Kent) just before he died, touches on this. Jonathan even mentions to Clark, the fears he and Martha had of people should they discovered young Clark’s powers. So, for Kal-El/Superman… “Clark” has been a disguise his entire life. Even BEFORE learning his Kryptonian name, or later being referred to as Superman... “Clark” is a disguise to him. However, after learning of his Krytonian heritage from his Krytonian father in the ‘Fortress of Solitude’… Kal-El decides to amplify Clark’s clumsiness, to publicly further distance himself from EVER being looked upon as a “man of strength.” He want people to view him as the MOST affable/weakest “Human Being” alive.
Those scenes in Superman of Jonathan speaking with his adopted son Clark right before he dies, and later when Clark has to leave his aged mother, are truly moving moments 😢 So well directed and acted. The actor who plays the younger Clark did such a good job along with Reeve (but of course, Reeve's voice was obviously dubbed in those scenes).
I have always preferred the idea that Superman is the primary and Clark is the disguise. He is biologically a Kryptonian. "Clark" is how he acted his whole life to hide his powers, and it was the identity his adopted parents gave him before he knew the truth. I can appreciate all interpretations though, as good story angles.
I have to disagree with you on this one gentleman. Clark Kent in Kansas is the real Clark or should I say Kal El. Clark Kent, mild mannered reporter for the daily planet is a character that Kal/Clark plays. Superman is also a character that Kal/Clark plays, but he’s closer to the real person. At least in this film. In the latest version, Superman and Lois, Clark and Superman are almost the same person.
And the shocker that he just take's off his Clark Kent clothes in public and becomes Superman. The show is done , but how would that effect his family in the long run?
Yeah, I get all that... it's just personally I'm not fond of how Superman refers to Clark in this scene as if he's literally a separate entity from himself. In Reeve's performance I've always seen shades of genuine vulnerability in Clark. Real self-doubt, real hesitation... especially when he's around Lois. So I don't buy that all the insecurity is 100% just an act. The clumsiness, slouching and all that... yes, of course all that is deliberate. But Reeve's performance was way more nuanced than that, I think.
I think the drastically different performance by Christopher Reeve as Clark compared to Superman really helped to sell the idea that nobody ever figures out his secret identity. Even by 1978 the whole “glasses disguise” had become a bit of a joke that everyone always made fun of, but Chris was able to really differentiate between the two in his performance alone, which went a long way towards making that convincing.
In the scene I'm gonna say he's speaking metaphorically and also that what I call Metropolis Clark is a modification of his actual self designed to create distinction between Clark and Superman. The mild mannered reporter and the superhero are extensions of the actual Clark/Kal-El. So it's not that Clark is just glasses or Superman is just a cape.
The challenge for Superman is that when he’s Clark he has to pretend he’s someone he’s not far more than when he’s Superman. Consider that when he’s Superman, the average person doesn’t wonder if he’s also an average guy with a normal job. It wouldn’t occur to them. His inherent Superman-ness is more impressive. As Clark, he has to pretend that he’s human, that hot coffee burns his tongue, that the clumsy person who stepped on his foot actually hurt him ... just think of all the everyday, normal interactions that requires Clark to think about and adjust his response. He would constantly be playing a part (even if he’s not as over-the-top as Reeve’s Clark). As Superman, he doesn’t have to do this. In a way, it would have to seem like far less work. I get the argument, especially starting with the Byrne run, that Clark is how Superman can “relax” and “be himself,” but I’m not quite sure that’s true.
Great conversation about his identities. I think he speaks of Clark as a separate person here to be clear with Lois that there is some theatre to the version of Clark she knows, but the aspects of his character that she admires are genuine. There is also an undercurrent here that he is completely at peace with his purpose and how he’s fulfilling it.
When the Tim Burton "Batman" came out, I recall an interesting article that spoke about the difference between Superman and Batman (and Superman and most superheroes). The article stated that Bruce Wayne's the reality, and Batman's the fiction, but with Superman, Superman's the reality, and Clark's the fiction. That's the perspective I imagine Donner took.
Superman's referral to Clark Kent (himself) in the third person is akin to Ben Kenobi in A New Hope talking about Obi-Wan in the third person, or referring to Darth Vader having murdered Luke's father (again, same person). He's speaking "from a certain point of view", and so is Superman.
Superman absolutely LOVES making "Clark" look like a fool - he intentionally EATS DOG FOOD in Superman III, when he is on the date with Lana. There is no way Superman didn't know it was dog food, but he went through the whole charade anyway. What a joker!
The Kent persona is Superman's disguise. The glasses don't disguise him obviously. It's the clumsy Clark Persona that disguises him. He is superman. Clark is his disguise. He is the opposite of other heroes. Peter Parker is Peter. Spiderman is his disguise. Same with Bruce Wayne and Batman. Batman is the disguise. Superman is Superman or Kal--El technically. Clark is just his disguise. His secret identity. The opposite of other heroes.
Hahaha... yes, I can't believe that Lois didn't let a "Clark" slip out. 😀 At least before he wiped her memory. Now do a discussion of where he got that crazy memory blocking ability. 😄
I enjoy this discussion about the dual identity& I agree with the dialogue from Louis & Clark “Superman is what I can do & Clark is who I am.” Love that show. I remember a episode where Clark goes back home he is tired frustrated & he tells his parents he is having trouble with the decision who to save, “ there is a fire 🔥 downtown people trapped at the same time there is a oil rig collapsing into the Atlantic who do I save?” His dad says son you can’t be everywhere people understand. Clark look at & said “don’t they?” It’s a very difficult situation to be in glad I’m just a mortal 😉 great show guys
@@morlockmeat I understand your point. However, his earthly parents only named him Clark. But, they “raised” him to be mindful of his abilities when around others. In essence… to hide those parts of himself, that’ll expose who he TRULY is (an alien on our planet). To them, he is their sweet, warm, caring and vulnerable son, that they loved dearly. Being a reporter is Clark’s “job.” That’s how he financially supports himself. That’s how he maintains the familiar upbringing given to him by his parents, in order to “blend in” with society. Being ‘Superman’ is not his “job”… that’s his “humanity” on display. He performs those acts of kindness freely. To his core, Clark/Kal-El/Superman is genuinely a kind person, that wants the BEST for everyone on the planet. He doesn’t view The United States as his home… he views the Earth as his home.
The thing is that Pre-Crisis he did see himself as Kal-El first and foremost. That's why the essay about Clark Kent is a critique on humans, which Tarantino used, was a mostly accurate assessment. Namely the part where Superman (Kal-El) is the real person and Clark is the disguise. Since he retained memories of being on Krypton as a toddler, that's how he defined him. The films were trying to explain it in a somewhat simple way. The Post Crisis era really made it easier, most notably when Neil Gaiman had him appear in the final issue of his Sandman series and his dream self was Clark Kent and Bruce was Batman.
Regarding Lois not "slipping up" and calling him by the wrong name, it always seemed natural to me to view him as Clark when he's in normal clothes and Superman when he's in the uniform. If I see him flying up to the office window in the blue and red suit, it wouldn't even occur to me to call him Clark, even if I knew who he was because to me, that's "Superman". Annette O'Toole who played Lana in Superman III has this great story about seeing Christopher Reeve in the suit for the first time and completely loosing her shit because he was "Superman" at that point. It was a totally different experience from seeing him in his normal Clark Kent clothing. ruclips.net/video/hdp8FpQPMZQ/видео.html
I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with this dialog or this interpretation of Superman, in fact I think it's absolutely fascinating and an essential part of this franchise. Any superhero adopting two identities must choose which one is going to be "the real them" and which one is the "character". To me, it's so clear what happens in this version of Superman: Clark spent his childhood covering up his true magnificent self and pretending to be weaker in order to fit in, which must have been frustrating. So when he moved to Metropolis he took the opportunity to have a new start, separating these conflicting sides of his personality out into two, creating a new bumbling "Clark" character, while becoming his full and glorious true self as Superman. When Clark is about to reveal his identity to Lois, he stands upright as he takes off his glasses. This is the REAL man we're seeing. But I don't think Clark is a complete invention. I think we all have multiple sides to our personality, and Superman clearly does have a nerdy and goofy side, which he can't really indulge when he's standing in the office of a public figure like Superman. So I think Clark is just an exaggerated version of one aspect of his personality. He has to make the Clark persona quite different in order to define a clear distinction between the two men in his mind, making it easier to slip into character as Clark. Plus we also need to take into account his INCREDIBLE sense of humor. I'm sure he absolutely loves playing Clark and gets a huge kick out of it. It gives him an opportunity to fool around, to feel like a normal person, and to see things from human perspective. I think the only real question is "what is his name?" Does he think of himself as "Clark" or "Superman". And to answer this, I think it's important to remember that there are not two personas in these films but THREE. First, we have Superman - the truest representation of his personality. Then we have the exaggerated goofy Clark. But we must not forget that there is also the original "Clark" from his childhood, the "Clark" when he's around his parents. This "Clark" is essentially the "real man" except with powers mostly hidden. Therefore it seems rather clear to me that Superman DOES consider himself "Clark" and calls himself that name in his head. But "Clark" also happens the name of a character he plays. This would all probably be easier to understand if he hadn't chosen to use his birth name for the bumbling character and instead called himself, say, "Arthur Kent" (perhaps to rhyme with his mother's name). Then it would be clear that there was a man whose name was Clark but could never be fully himself growing up. He could be fully himself as Superman, but could also have some fun playing a goofier version of himself as Arthur.
He's an Alien hiding in plain sight. If he did anything egotistical he'd stick out. Therefore showing a vulnerable human being is the best way to hide.
When Kal-El is acting as Clark Kent, he knows that he has to hold back, on EVERYTHING. And, must do more to act clumsy and naive, to appear the exact opposite of what he really is because of the superpowers. Some people who have to act under an assumed name and personality talk about that personality in the 3rd person to separate it from who they really are, in their mind.
Either Clark is the person and Superman is the disguise or Superman/Kal EL is the person and Clark is the disguise. It really can be either or. Every actor who has played Clark/Superman, from Kirk Allen, George Reeves, Chis Reeve, Dean Cain etc. all have played it differently and none of them are wrong. As long as it's written and acted well.
When you get really deep in Clark Kent/Superman even though they are the same person Clark Kent goes through an excessive amount of learning and basically training by taking up acting classes in highschool and he practices being two different people to the point of almost split personality disorder technically he's is two different people and most people don't realize that he pushed himself to the point of being two alternate people and it's when he is in Smallville at home he can truly be himself with his parents and friends it's crazy when you think about how much work he has done to be Clark Kent that everyone else sees and knows and then to be Superman.....
Clark at Daily Planet is the disguise. The young Clark from Smallville doesnt wear glasses and is not clumsy. So yes what Supes says in II is correct.......from a certain point of view.
I suppose I give it a pass as in this version, Clark is so bumbling and awkward (wonderfully acted) that it obviously isn't his true self. The true Clark is a farm boy from Kansas but isn't an idiot. Almost like theres three identities at play - Clark, Daily Planet Clark and Superman
I didn’t find it fair in the Donner movies that Clark wanted Lois to date the bumbling mild-mannered reporter knowing she was in love with Superman. It’s like he wanted to have his cake and eat it too. It feels like he was leading her on as Superman and then, as Clark, chastising her for not being interested in him.
a bit off topic, but in that scene you show last of him outside the window of the Daily Planet, for the longest time I thought he was flying/hovering in that scene. It's only very recently I noticed he's actually standing on one of the flag poles!
but on-topic, I would say that in this version, the "real" him is somewhere between CK and Superman, it's more that the "projected Clark" is what he's talking about, which is why he also describes himself in the third person - he doesn't see it as "himself", he sees it as a character he plays. It would have been nice for the memory erasure to not happen and perhaps see Reeve's take on a non-fumbling version of Clark whilst alone with Lois. That would have been nice
I look at it a different way: he's not being his authentic self here either because he's trying to impress Lois. His characterisation of Superman/Clark is very insecure; he wouldn't have even told Lois had she not worked it out and tricked him. I think he's afraid that Lois is in love with Superman and not Clark and is being like "hey that ridiculous character I play isn't really me...". Superman is an escape for him. Don't take what he says here literally just because he said it. I think the lyrics to the Billy Joel song The Stranger are quite applicable. It's all about wearing different faces like masks and only ever really showing our true selves when we're alone: "Though we share so many secrets, there are some we never tell". I don't even think he's doing it intentionally either; he's just very "human".
That’s a GREAT way to think of it. I’ve always felt there is way more nuance in Reeve’s performance than there is in the actual script. Some of his awkward Clarkness is put on, clearly, but quite a lot of it feels genuine to me.
@prodigioussaps thinking about what Reeve is thinking as an actor is actually how I came to this interpretation. Great actors add nuance to a performance like how a writer adds subtext to a story. Perhaps the writer and actor are working in unison here; perhaps Reeve is adding this to his performance; or maybe I'm an idiot on the internet 😅
Actually both are a disguise... Smallville Clark is the real him that he grew up being. The Clark in Metropolis is essentially a disguise as well as Superman.
But "Metropolis Clark" or "Daily Planet Clark" with the glasses isn't his true self. That's the disguise, Superman is who he is, that's when he is not hiding who he is anymore. I don't get why this is confusing. The only thing that would make one think otherwise would be the post crisis reboot of the character in the comics or as you mention the Lois and Clark show. For most of the character's history, Clark Kent with the glasses is the disguise, that's when he puts up an act. As you mention he grew up as "Clark" but that's before he developed the whole glasses thing. During his time in Smallville he didn't have the disguise figured out and only later on did he decide the disguise once he starts operating in Metropolis.
I also like the “Superman is what I can do, but Clark is who I am” line, though even in that scene Clark Kent is wearing glasses he doesn’t need to convey a human weakness he doesn’t possess. I think that concept works well with a Superman is who analogous to a celebrity sports star or performer. A lot of the best actors and comedians are actually nothing like their screen personas. Steve Martin, for example, is not a wild and funny guy in person. He’s actually quite reserved. I think thematically this is a good take on Superman/Clark, but Steve Martin, when he’s at home, never has to pretend that he can’t be funny if he needs to. Kelly Clarkson doesn’t have to pretend she can’t hit a note when around her *closest friends.* My brother in law and a good friend is a cop/doctor respectively. If either can’t drink or have to leave suddenly in the middle of an event (or can’t make the event at all), I know that it’s because they’re on call at their jobs. They don’t have to pretend that they got sick and had to bail or just flaked (thus presenting as someone who is unreliable, compared to someone who has an important job). I suppose I question when Clark claims that ‘Clark” is the “real him” when he’s putting up barriers and presenting a different version of himself to the people close to him.
( Kal El is who he really is; He has supernatural abilities and others that are not natural and he has disguised himself as a fellow human being as Clark Kent respectively.
I can understand what Kal-El means. An actor who is known for portraying a character many times speaks about the fictitious character as a real person. They will explain why the character thinks/behaves a certain way. Kal-El has been portraying the earthling Clark Kent. While the Kents have raised Clark, they knew he was, in fact, another begin pretending to be an earthling. In fact, in Superman (I), just before Jonathan Clark dies, he has a conversation with Clark, which mentions that just because Clark has extraordinary abilities, there are reasons he shouldn't use them. Jonathan knows his son needs to portray being someone he isn't.
I always liked that scene, it's yes, very Sweet! I Love how when he squeezes open the champagne and says I thought we might uh, POP! abandon the orange juice for once. Yep he not flyin tonight! Hey make Momosas!!
I felt that Clark was kinda "weird" as a kid growing up, and he was ostracized by he other kids in school, as shown in the scene in Superman The Movie, where he is supposed to be stacking the teams equipment, and the following scene when he meets up again with the car. I think this is because he had to hide his abilities, and couldn't participate in sports and such. I felt that this made Clark, even as an adult socially awkward, and hence the way he acts when he is in the Daily Planet. The thing that was rather odd, is that when Clark loses his powers and confronts the bully in the diner, he has his Superman confidence and personality, when he really should be reverting back to his introverted Clark personality. (though that would have not made a good scene)
He's not really Clark or Superman. Both of those identities are manufactured. He's Kal-EL. He becomes Superman whenever necessary because that's the name the people of earth gave him because of what he can do. He becomes Clark because that's what his foster parents gave him to help him blend in. But he's Kal-EL whenever he's not pretending to be Clark or Superman or anyone.
Your commentary on how hard it would be to not call Clark by his Earth name... One of the reasons I couldn't stand to watch the Supergirl series occurs during the first season. Jimmy Olson is visiting Supergirl for some reason. By then, Linda Danvers has revealed to her best friend that she is Supergirl. But, at that stage, that's the only secret her friend knows. In the scene, the friend is in the room while Jimmy is talking to Linda. Jimmy proceeds to refer to "your cousin Clark" which prompts the friend, a super-smart guy, to say, "What? Clark is your cousin...? You mean, Clark Kent, the reporter who works with you at The Daily Planet? But, Superman is her cousin...Clark Kent is Superman?!" It took me right out of the story that Jimmy could be so stupid, so careless, as to let this incredibly important secret slip. When you have to force a supposedly smart character make such a stupid mistake, it's hard to respect the writing.
Clark is a pretend person (or persona). Superman is the real person. So, in that sense, Clark and Superman are two different people, two different personalities. Christopher Reeve plays both characters extremely well.
But there is also a real Clark as well, the person he grew up as, that this dialog doesn’t acknowledge. That’s the one thing I don’t like about this scene.
The one thing that sort of disgusted me with Lois in the diner scene was that Lois only seemed interested IN SUPERMAN. Once he lost his powers and became JUST CLARK, she seemed bored with him to the point where she became domineering with him ("Come on", she says to him outside the diner). Then she seemed disinterested in him after he gets beaten up saying she wanted the man she fell in love with......meaning Superman! She just wants the shiny object! BTW, what a wimp Superman is without his powers. I thought it was a mistake to portray him that way. The essence of "Superman" should be vested within the man....not the powers. It's like he's only heroic and noble if he's got a superior ability. Lois is really skinny and not so attractive in the scene where they're talking about Superman being Clark. This must have been one of the last shots taken because she looks even skinnier than she did in the reshoots of the supervillain/Daily Planet scenes.
I fully agree with the Christopher Reeve/Richard Donner of how they portrayed Superman/Clark, Clark was a disguise and had to be the opposite of Superman.... so that dialogue was about him being two totally different people... I love that. Reminds me of myself a little... i can ve a bit clumsy and goofy a lot of tre time, but a couple of beers abd that all changes! Lol... not too many though!
2:11 Nerd hackles rising… I think all of these versions are perfectly valid. When someone is married to a single interpretation, the others may cause you to bristle. The idea that Clark is who he is is fine if you have a L&C-version of Clark, who isn’t a bumbling buffoon. That is flipped on its head when he is “theatrical-izing “ Clark to be more dim than he really is, to preserve the secret. In that world, maybe Superman is closer to who he is. I mean, who you are included what you can and choose to do. And that leads to the last version, the ideal version, in which there is simply Kal-El, to be extra haughty nerd about it, the combination of those two personas. We cannot truly know who he is without incorporating both sides in almost a PAD-Hulk run fashion. But that version is kind of denied to him and is in most iterations of his mythology. So, we pick and choose.
I never said it wasn’t “valid”. These are two of my favorite movies of all time, after all. Just talking about which Clark/Superman interpretation I prefer. Lower those nerd hackles, monsieur.
@ I didn’t say you did. I said that if one is married to a particular interpretation of the character, others may cause you to bristle. Maybe that’s the wrong word to. But we’re talking about this because of someone’s (I don’t know which of you I’m talking to) pushback against this version or interpretation. If not, I don’t know what we’re talking about anymore. And the “hackles” comment was with tongue firmly in-cheek.
We basically got 3 "personalities" here, cause he was born Kal-El and he was still that when he was found by the kents, they raised him as "Clark Kent" even though they already knew he wasn't exactly "from around here" as they said. So even before his *graduation* into Superman after meeting his real dad. He was always Kal-El hiding under the Clark Kent persona that while growing up was just a *regular* teenager but as an adult he differentiated from what would be his Superman side. So there's no contradiction that I see between the "Lois & Clark" and the Reeve movies, cause in both cases, Superman is what he can do, but in the TV show (and almost every depiction since) there's been no real difference between Clark and Superman except a pair of glasses, but Reeve separated them as to Superman pretending to be Clark cause that is the disguise that he grow up as, and Superman is what he does to help.
I appreciated in the new Superman & Lois show, they sort of revered the Mank-Donner concept of Clark being a sort of mask for his true super-identity. In the show, Clark sincerely IS a massive nerd. He just seems to favour his confident, authoritative side when in costume. It is an interesting dynamic that I’ve never seen done with Superman before.😊
In terms of the Richard Donner Superman - I actually like the idea that Superman & Clark are separate. Not the Clark of Smallville but the Clark that Superman creates in Metropolis. I have always thought of this as one of the many Superman hidden powers which sort of explains why the whole of Metropolis cannot see what we can see: that Clark is Superman. If Metropolis Clark is the same as Superman but just with an act - how is this disguise supposed to be convinving? Yes - we as the viewer can see through the disguise. But Superman has created (using his powers) a Clark personalilty and physical form that is clearly not Superman. Of course, I imagined this in the 1970s... when I was a kid. So how stupid am I? !!! But it also helped with Superman III and the fight of good Clark v Evil Superman....
You're not stupid! You might have even gotten some ideas like that from the comics themselves! In the past, to cover how the disguise doesn't seem like enough, he has had some extra powers in some stories. Like super muscular control, to actually contort himself into looking different, or super hypnotic powers, to make people _think_ he looks different. I'm sorry I don't know what time periods those example powers were from, let alone the issues, but maybe you'd heard of such things before, and latched onto that?
@prodigioussaps I respectfully disagree. Donner and Mank talk about this very thing in the feature length commentary. In fact, after I first found your channel I listened to it not more than a week ago.
I would think that it's the uniform that is her reminder that he is Superman, if he has a cape on... Superman... or, lack there of, he's Clark. He was Clark Kent, first, in various versions he doesn't even know about his Kryptonian name until nearly adulthood. In most versions he doesn't even know he's an alien until his late teens. He created Superman so he could stop wreaking his clothes and have a normal life. (that is carried to the point of absurdity in a short animation film called "Man of Tomorrow") In "Smallville" they do some weirdness about his Kryptonian identity I just don't understand. It's as if there is a spirit of Kal-El that takes Clark Kent over and alienates him from his family and humanity. It's as if Kal El = Superman= super powers? In " Lois and Clark" there is a funny scene where Clark (he's wearing his jeans and tee shirt) explains to his parents that he is having an impossible time dealing with two romantic interests - Lois Lane and Mayson Drake (district attorney) Lois is in love with Superman but just likes Clark Kent. Mayson Drake is attracted to Clark Kent (actually in love with him) but despises, nearly, hates Superman. It's complicated. Mayson is one of the tragedies of the series. He doesn't want to hurt her but he's smitten by Lois. His mother is taking adult education classes (psych 101) and says she has been afraid that this would happen. What? He would start talking about himself in third person. How would a man who has three Identities handle it? Kal-El is his birth name and his name when he is talking to fellow Kryptonians or other aliens. It might also be how he interiorly thinks of himself. Otherwise, Clark Kent is his normal or primary Identity... and, Superman is his identity when he is doing Super things. The only way that would change is if Clark "Died". The question would be ... if you were standing 5 feet from the gentleman from Krypton .. you called "Clark, come here?" then "Hey Superman?" Then "Kal-El?" Which name would he answer to quicker?
Batman always refers to him as Clark even though he knows his birth name from krypton. during a fight between batman and superman in which batman uses a kryptonite ring to be able to land blows without shattering his hand his inner monologue says Your a nice guy clark but im not. gotta love Batman. I may have that quote wrong if I do please correct me. Cheers
I want to add to this some of the late Smallville conversations. One that Clark has with Chloe Sullivan in which the lter tell Clark how he has to be so magnificent all the time (smething like that anyway), Chloe is not being objective 'cause she has a crush on Clark since day one. But that conversation towards the end of the series seems to be the seed for the awkward and clumsy Clark Kent.
Did you really interpret what he was saying as he is referring to himself as a different person? Dude, come on. It's clear that he is not saying he is not Clark. He is just referring to himself in a third person, because in that moment, he's Superman. Clark is who he is but he wasn't acting like Clark, so it's evident that's what meant.
He is for the first time in his life being selfish. He's trying to look cool in front of the girl he likes by acting like he's somebody he isn't. III is uneven but he goes home to smallville and is himself, the real Clark, or at least he is that way thru the best parts of that movie. "Clark" is also who defeats the darker version of himself not "Superman".
@ Even you have to admit that the majority of your videos about Superman II, you’re either putting something down, making fun of it, or criticizing it. I bet you gave all three of those lame Nolan Batman movies a pass and they are as screwed up and imperfect as any other movie!!!
Wrong again! My point was we nitpick and criticize EVERYTHING, even movies we love, like this one. It's FUN. And no movie gets a "pass" from us, certainly not Nolan's take on Batman.
"If it weren't for [Clark], I never would've met you." Always figured he just meant he'd never have met her if he didn't keep up an everyday life. He wouldn't have applied for a job, so he wouldn't have had coworkers.
The film is pretty old now. It was pretty cool. LET IT GO, lol. 😂 Maybe try something new. Like a book or a series. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge; hope's strength resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)
In regards to Lois and Clark: The New Adventures Of Superman what was missing from the series was Clarks clumsy behavior. I don't recall him being a Jack tripper at all LOL! Ditto for Tom Welling on Smallville albeit this was before he would meet Lois and work at the Daily Planet. 🪐🦸♂🦹♂🌎
Am I a film fan or a Superman film fan. We are the ones who know that ones means more than one, or in other woreds....EVERYONE!!!!* * in this voice- ruclips.net/video/74BzSTQCl_c/видео.html.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for watching, y'all! Also check out our FULL breakdowns
* SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE:
ruclips.net/video/BPJqJpDwyGk/видео.html
* SUPERMAN II and the Donner Cut:
ruclips.net/video/kpf3hCUpZKc/видео.html
* SUPERMAN III
ruclips.net/video/EBP1jZH08Qg/видео.html
* SUPERMAN IV:
ruclips.net/video/To1R2QiIXaY/видео.html
The strange part is at 1:27 since the bumbling is supposed to be an act.
This particular bumble gives away his invulnerability.
It's not the only time something like this happens.
"Clark is the real person" didn't become the interpretation until John Byrne's Post-Crisis reboot. Before then, it was always "Superman, disguised as Clark Kent." This movie came out before the "Clark is the real person" interpretation even existed.
Which interpretation do _I_ prefer? Neither. He's both. Everybody acts slightly differently in different contexts. It doesn't mean that one version of you is a "fake" you and another is the only true, "genuine" version of you. We are what we habitually do. If you're shy at the office but outgoing at parties, then the "real you" isn't the shy you or the outgoing you, but the you who is shy at the office but outgoing at parties. Clark Kent and Superman are just two facets of the same person.
@@thisxgreatxdecay in Lex Luthor's words: What a wonderful explanation!
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players.
I completely understand Superman’s point. You see, even as a young child/teenager, he had to “hide” who he TRULY is. Albeit, he was genuinely confused about his abilities in comparison to his peers.
The final conversation with his dad (Jonathan Kent) just before he died, touches on this. Jonathan even mentions to Clark, the fears he and Martha had of people should they discovered young Clark’s powers.
So, for Kal-El/Superman… “Clark” has been a disguise his entire life. Even BEFORE learning his Kryptonian name, or later being referred to as Superman... “Clark” is a disguise to him.
However, after learning of his Krytonian heritage from his Krytonian father in the ‘Fortress of Solitude’… Kal-El decides to amplify Clark’s clumsiness, to publicly further distance himself from EVER being looked upon as a “man of strength.” He want people to view him as the MOST affable/weakest “Human Being” alive.
Those scenes in Superman of Jonathan speaking with his adopted son Clark right before he dies, and later when Clark has to leave his aged mother, are truly moving moments 😢 So well directed and acted. The actor who plays the younger Clark did such a good job along with Reeve (but of course, Reeve's voice was obviously dubbed in those scenes).
@ I totally agree with you! Those may be small moments in the movie but, they’re extremely powerful and moving.
Very well put.
I have always preferred the idea that Superman is the primary and Clark is the disguise. He is biologically a Kryptonian. "Clark" is how he acted his whole life to hide his powers, and it was the identity his adopted parents gave him before he knew the truth. I can appreciate all interpretations though, as good story angles.
I have to disagree with you on this one gentleman. Clark Kent in Kansas is the real Clark or should I say Kal El.
Clark Kent, mild mannered reporter for the daily planet is a character that Kal/Clark plays.
Superman is also a character that Kal/Clark plays, but he’s closer to the real person. At least in this film.
In the latest version, Superman and Lois, Clark and Superman are almost the same person.
And the shocker that he just take's off his Clark Kent clothes in public and becomes Superman. The show is done , but how would that effect his family in the long run?
Thank you for this comment.
Yeah, I get all that... it's just personally I'm not fond of how Superman refers to Clark in this scene as if he's literally a separate entity from himself. In Reeve's performance I've always seen shades of genuine vulnerability in Clark. Real self-doubt, real hesitation... especially when he's around Lois. So I don't buy that all the insecurity is 100% just an act. The clumsiness, slouching and all that... yes, of course all that is deliberate. But Reeve's performance was way more nuanced than that, I think.
I think the drastically different performance by Christopher Reeve as Clark compared to Superman really helped to sell the idea that nobody ever figures out his secret identity.
Even by 1978 the whole “glasses disguise” had become a bit of a joke that everyone always made fun of, but Chris was able to really differentiate between the two in his performance alone, which went a long way towards making that convincing.
In the scene I'm gonna say he's speaking metaphorically and also that what I call Metropolis Clark is a modification of his actual self designed to create distinction between Clark and Superman. The mild mannered reporter and the superhero are extensions of the actual Clark/Kal-El. So it's not that Clark is just glasses or Superman is just a cape.
The challenge for Superman is that when he’s Clark he has to pretend he’s someone he’s not far more than when he’s Superman. Consider that when he’s Superman, the average person doesn’t wonder if he’s also an average guy with a normal job. It wouldn’t occur to them. His inherent Superman-ness is more impressive. As Clark, he has to pretend that he’s human, that hot coffee burns his tongue, that the clumsy person who stepped on his foot actually hurt him ... just think of all the everyday, normal interactions that requires Clark to think about and adjust his response. He would constantly be playing a part (even if he’s not as over-the-top as Reeve’s Clark). As Superman, he doesn’t have to do this. In a way, it would have to seem like far less work. I get the argument, especially starting with the Byrne run, that Clark is how Superman can “relax” and “be himself,” but I’m not quite sure that’s true.
In Superman 4, we see the "real" Kal El a few times. He has his glasses off, but isn't in Superman costume either.
In these movies, Superman is the truth and Clark is the costume. In Brandon Routh's movie, Clark is the truth and Superman is the costume.
Great conversation about his identities. I think he speaks of Clark as a separate person here to be clear with Lois that there is some theatre to the version of Clark she knows, but the aspects of his character that she admires are genuine. There is also an undercurrent here that he is completely at peace with his purpose and how he’s fulfilling it.
No. The young Clark is not the adult Clark, that is a bumbling, clumsy coward who is so far from the super powerful kryptonian - who he actually is.
When the Tim Burton "Batman" came out, I recall an interesting article that spoke about the difference between Superman and Batman (and Superman and most superheroes).
The article stated that Bruce Wayne's the reality, and Batman's the fiction, but with Superman, Superman's the reality, and Clark's the fiction.
That's the perspective I imagine Donner took.
Superman's referral to Clark Kent (himself) in the third person is akin to Ben Kenobi in A New Hope talking about Obi-Wan in the third person, or referring to Darth Vader having murdered Luke's father (again, same person). He's speaking "from a certain point of view", and so is Superman.
Superman absolutely LOVES making "Clark" look like a fool - he intentionally EATS DOG FOOD in Superman III, when he is on the date with Lana. There is no way Superman didn't know it was dog food, but he went through the whole charade anyway. What a joker!
Yep. My favorite is him pretending to crush his thumb in Lois's orange juice squeezer.
Clark Kent was so different from Superman in these movies that they even parted their hair on different sides.
He parts left to right as Superman. Manly
Right to left as Kent. Feminine
One minor peeve I have is when he says "Lois, I never lie." He lies EVERY DAY...as Clark.
And as Superman! "Clark? Who's that, your boyfriend?"
You guys would love Superman and Lois, it was a (I cannot stress this enough) perfect iteration of the character for a modern audience
I've watched a lot of it, and yeah, Tyler Hoechlin does a fantastic job with the character.
The Kent persona is Superman's disguise. The glasses don't disguise him obviously. It's the clumsy Clark Persona that disguises him. He is superman. Clark is his disguise. He is the opposite of other heroes. Peter Parker is Peter. Spiderman is his disguise. Same with Bruce Wayne and Batman. Batman is the disguise. Superman is Superman or Kal--El technically. Clark is just his disguise. His secret identity. The opposite of other heroes.
Hahaha... yes, I can't believe that Lois didn't let a "Clark" slip out. 😀 At least before he wiped her memory.
Now do a discussion of where he got that crazy memory blocking ability. 😄
I enjoy this discussion about the dual identity& I agree with the dialogue from Louis & Clark “Superman is what I can do & Clark is who I am.” Love that show. I remember a episode where Clark goes back home he is tired frustrated & he tells his parents he is having trouble with the decision who to save, “ there is a fire 🔥 downtown people trapped at the same time there is a oil rig collapsing into the Atlantic who do I save?” His dad says son you can’t be everywhere people understand. Clark look at & said “don’t they?” It’s a very difficult situation to be in glad I’m just a mortal 😉 great show guys
Thanks Eric! 👊
He was, after all, raised as Clark Kent, therefore he IS clark Kent. Superman is kinda like his job. 😄
@@morlockmeat I understand your point. However, his earthly parents only named him Clark. But, they “raised” him to be mindful of his abilities when around others. In essence… to hide those parts of himself, that’ll expose who he TRULY is (an alien on our planet). To them, he is their sweet, warm, caring and vulnerable son, that they loved dearly.
Being a reporter is Clark’s “job.” That’s how he financially supports himself. That’s how he maintains the familiar upbringing given to him by his parents, in order to “blend in” with society. Being ‘Superman’ is not his “job”… that’s his “humanity” on display. He performs those acts of kindness freely. To his core, Clark/Kal-El/Superman is genuinely a kind person, that wants the BEST for everyone on the planet. He doesn’t view The United States as his home… he views the Earth as his home.
The thing is that Pre-Crisis he did see himself as Kal-El first and foremost. That's why the essay about Clark Kent is a critique on humans, which Tarantino used, was a mostly accurate assessment. Namely the part where Superman (Kal-El) is the real person and Clark is the disguise. Since he retained memories of being on Krypton as a toddler, that's how he defined him. The films were trying to explain it in a somewhat simple way.
The Post Crisis era really made it easier, most notably when Neil Gaiman had him appear in the final issue of his Sandman series and his dream self was Clark Kent and Bruce was Batman.
I think to have 2 completely separate personas you would have to have that hard demarcation line to keep from having slip-up.
That’s a good point!
Regarding Lois not "slipping up" and calling him by the wrong name, it always seemed natural to me to view him as Clark when he's in normal clothes and Superman when he's in the uniform. If I see him flying up to the office window in the blue and red suit, it wouldn't even occur to me to call him Clark, even if I knew who he was because to me, that's "Superman". Annette O'Toole who played Lana in Superman III has this great story about seeing Christopher Reeve in the suit for the first time and completely loosing her shit because he was "Superman" at that point. It was a totally different experience from seeing him in his normal Clark Kent clothing. ruclips.net/video/hdp8FpQPMZQ/видео.html
But once he’s in his custom with that big S on his chest, it’s pretty hard to call him Clark! 😂
I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with this dialog or this interpretation of Superman, in fact I think it's absolutely fascinating and an essential part of this franchise. Any superhero adopting two identities must choose which one is going to be "the real them" and which one is the "character". To me, it's so clear what happens in this version of Superman:
Clark spent his childhood covering up his true magnificent self and pretending to be weaker in order to fit in, which must have been frustrating. So when he moved to Metropolis he took the opportunity to have a new start, separating these conflicting sides of his personality out into two, creating a new bumbling "Clark" character, while becoming his full and glorious true self as Superman. When Clark is about to reveal his identity to Lois, he stands upright as he takes off his glasses. This is the REAL man we're seeing.
But I don't think Clark is a complete invention. I think we all have multiple sides to our personality, and Superman clearly does have a nerdy and goofy side, which he can't really indulge when he's standing in the office of a public figure like Superman. So I think Clark is just an exaggerated version of one aspect of his personality. He has to make the Clark persona quite different in order to define a clear distinction between the two men in his mind, making it easier to slip into character as Clark.
Plus we also need to take into account his INCREDIBLE sense of humor. I'm sure he absolutely loves playing Clark and gets a huge kick out of it. It gives him an opportunity to fool around, to feel like a normal person, and to see things from human perspective.
I think the only real question is "what is his name?" Does he think of himself as "Clark" or "Superman". And to answer this, I think it's important to remember that there are not two personas in these films but THREE. First, we have Superman - the truest representation of his personality. Then we have the exaggerated goofy Clark. But we must not forget that there is also the original "Clark" from his childhood, the "Clark" when he's around his parents. This "Clark" is essentially the "real man" except with powers mostly hidden.
Therefore it seems rather clear to me that Superman DOES consider himself "Clark" and calls himself that name in his head. But "Clark" also happens the name of a character he plays.
This would all probably be easier to understand if he hadn't chosen to use his birth name for the bumbling character and instead called himself, say, "Arthur Kent" (perhaps to rhyme with his mother's name). Then it would be clear that there was a man whose name was Clark but could never be fully himself growing up. He could be fully himself as Superman, but could also have some fun playing a goofier version of himself as Arthur.
He's an Alien hiding in plain sight. If he did anything egotistical he'd stick out. Therefore showing a vulnerable human being is the best way to hide.
I think that he was referring to the Clark he protrayed as a bumbling idiot, because he wasn't the bumbling idiot he protrayed.
When Kal-El is acting as Clark Kent, he knows that he has to hold back, on EVERYTHING. And, must do more to act clumsy and naive, to appear the exact opposite of what he really is because of the superpowers. Some people who have to act under an assumed name and personality talk about that personality in the 3rd person to separate it from who they really are, in their mind.
Either Clark is the person and Superman is the disguise or Superman/Kal EL is the person and Clark is the disguise. It really can be either or. Every actor who has played Clark/Superman, from Kirk Allen, George Reeves, Chis Reeve, Dean Cain etc. all have played it differently and none of them are wrong. As long as it's written and acted well.
Well said.
*Lois call him Soup!* 😆
When you get really deep in Clark Kent/Superman even though they are the same person Clark Kent goes through an excessive amount of learning and basically training by taking up acting classes in highschool and he practices being two different people to the point of almost split personality disorder technically he's is two different people and most people don't realize that he pushed himself to the point of being two alternate people and it's when he is in Smallville at home he can truly be himself with his parents and friends it's crazy when you think about how much work he has done to be Clark Kent that everyone else sees and knows and then to be Superman.....
Clark at Daily Planet is the disguise. The young Clark from Smallville doesnt wear glasses and is not clumsy. So yes what Supes says in II is correct.......from a certain point of view.
I suppose I give it a pass as in this version, Clark is so bumbling and awkward (wonderfully acted) that it obviously isn't his true self. The true Clark is a farm boy from Kansas but isn't an idiot. Almost like theres three identities at play - Clark, Daily Planet Clark and Superman
I didn’t find it fair in the Donner movies that Clark wanted Lois to date the bumbling mild-mannered reporter knowing she was in love with Superman. It’s like he wanted to have his cake and eat it too. It feels like he was leading her on as Superman and then, as Clark, chastising her for not being interested in him.
@@waitwhat6059 That's so he could maintain the illusion, that's all.
Superman is who he is, not Clark Kent.
Both are him.
@ Some people seem to think he’s more one than the other. I just simply play along.
a bit off topic, but in that scene you show last of him outside the window of the Daily Planet, for the longest time I thought he was flying/hovering in that scene. It's only very recently I noticed he's actually standing on one of the flag poles!
but on-topic, I would say that in this version, the "real" him is somewhere between CK and Superman, it's more that the "projected Clark" is what he's talking about, which is why he also describes himself in the third person - he doesn't see it as "himself", he sees it as a character he plays. It would have been nice for the memory erasure to not happen and perhaps see Reeve's take on a non-fumbling version of Clark whilst alone with Lois. That would have been nice
I agree, that would have been cool. Cheers 👊
I look at it a different way: he's not being his authentic self here either because he's trying to impress Lois. His characterisation of Superman/Clark is very insecure; he wouldn't have even told Lois had she not worked it out and tricked him. I think he's afraid that Lois is in love with Superman and not Clark and is being like "hey that ridiculous character I play isn't really me...". Superman is an escape for him. Don't take what he says here literally just because he said it. I think the lyrics to the Billy Joel song The Stranger are quite applicable. It's all about wearing different faces like masks and only ever really showing our true selves when we're alone: "Though we share so many secrets, there are some we never tell". I don't even think he's doing it intentionally either; he's just very "human".
That’s a GREAT way to think of it. I’ve always felt there is way more nuance in Reeve’s performance than there is in the actual script. Some of his awkward Clarkness is put on, clearly, but quite a lot of it feels genuine to me.
@prodigioussaps thinking about what Reeve is thinking as an actor is actually how I came to this interpretation. Great actors add nuance to a performance like how a writer adds subtext to a story. Perhaps the writer and actor are working in unison here; perhaps Reeve is adding this to his performance; or maybe I'm an idiot on the internet 😅
He is Superman. His disguise is Clark Kent.
Actually both are a disguise... Smallville Clark is the real him that he grew up being. The Clark in Metropolis is essentially a disguise as well as Superman.
But "Metropolis Clark" or "Daily Planet Clark" with the glasses isn't his true self. That's the disguise, Superman is who he is, that's when he is not hiding who he is anymore. I don't get why this is confusing. The only thing that would make one think otherwise would be the post crisis reboot of the character in the comics or as you mention the Lois and Clark show. For most of the character's history, Clark Kent with the glasses is the disguise, that's when he puts up an act. As you mention he grew up as "Clark" but that's before he developed the whole glasses thing. During his time in Smallville he didn't have the disguise figured out and only later on did he decide the disguise once he starts operating in Metropolis.
I also like the “Superman is what I can do, but Clark is who I am” line, though even in that scene Clark Kent is wearing glasses he doesn’t need to convey a human weakness he doesn’t possess. I think that concept works well with a Superman is who analogous to a celebrity sports star or performer. A lot of the best actors and comedians are actually nothing like their screen personas. Steve Martin, for example, is not a wild and funny guy in person. He’s actually quite reserved. I think thematically this is a good take on Superman/Clark, but Steve Martin, when he’s at home, never has to pretend that he can’t be funny if he needs to. Kelly Clarkson doesn’t have to pretend she can’t hit a note when around her *closest friends.*
My brother in law and a good friend is a cop/doctor respectively. If either can’t drink or have to leave suddenly in the middle of an event (or can’t make the event at all), I know that it’s because they’re on call at their jobs. They don’t have to pretend that they got sick and had to bail or just flaked (thus presenting as someone who is unreliable, compared to someone who has an important job). I suppose I question when Clark claims that ‘Clark” is the “real him” when he’s putting up barriers and presenting a different version of himself to the people close to him.
( Kal El is who he really is; He has supernatural abilities and others that are not natural and he has disguised himself as a fellow human being as Clark Kent respectively.
I can understand what Kal-El means.
An actor who is known for portraying a character many times speaks about the fictitious character as a real person. They will explain why the character thinks/behaves a certain way.
Kal-El has been portraying the earthling Clark Kent. While the Kents have raised Clark, they knew he was, in fact, another begin pretending to be an earthling. In fact, in Superman (I), just before Jonathan Clark dies, he has a conversation with Clark, which mentions that just because Clark has extraordinary abilities, there are reasons he shouldn't use them. Jonathan knows his son needs to portray being someone he isn't.
I always liked that scene, it's yes, very Sweet! I Love how when he squeezes open the champagne and says I thought we might uh, POP! abandon the orange juice for once. Yep he not flyin tonight! Hey make Momosas!!
I felt that Clark was kinda "weird" as a kid growing up, and he was ostracized by he other kids in school, as shown in the scene in Superman The Movie, where he is supposed to be stacking the teams equipment, and the following scene when he meets up again with the car. I think this is because he had to hide his abilities, and couldn't participate in sports and such. I felt that this made Clark, even as an adult socially awkward, and hence the way he acts when he is in the Daily Planet. The thing that was rather odd, is that when Clark loses his powers and confronts the bully in the diner, he has his Superman confidence and personality, when he really should be reverting back to his introverted Clark personality. (though that would have not made a good scene)
He's not really Clark or Superman. Both of those identities are manufactured. He's Kal-EL. He becomes Superman whenever necessary because that's the name the people of earth gave him because of what he can do. He becomes Clark because that's what his foster parents gave him to help him blend in. But he's Kal-EL whenever he's not pretending to be Clark or Superman or anyone.
And then once Kal El gets involved...🤯🤯🤯
Your commentary on how hard it would be to not call Clark by his Earth name...
One of the reasons I couldn't stand to watch the Supergirl series occurs during the first season. Jimmy Olson is visiting Supergirl for some reason. By then, Linda Danvers has revealed to her best friend that she is Supergirl. But, at that stage, that's the only secret her friend knows. In the scene, the friend is in the room while Jimmy is talking to Linda. Jimmy proceeds to refer to "your cousin Clark" which prompts the friend, a super-smart guy, to say, "What? Clark is your cousin...? You mean, Clark Kent, the reporter who works with you at The Daily Planet? But, Superman is her cousin...Clark Kent is Superman?!"
It took me right out of the story that Jimmy could be so stupid, so careless, as to let this incredibly important secret slip. When you have to force a supposedly smart character make such a stupid mistake, it's hard to respect the writing.
God, I hated what they did to Jimmy’s character in that show. That whole “I wanna be a superhero too” thing. I checked out not long after that.
Clark is a pretend person (or persona). Superman is the real person. So, in that sense, Clark and Superman are two different people, two different personalities. Christopher Reeve plays both characters extremely well.
But there is also a real Clark as well, the person he grew up as, that this dialog doesn’t acknowledge. That’s the one thing I don’t like about this scene.
The one thing that sort of disgusted me with Lois in the diner scene was that Lois only seemed interested IN SUPERMAN. Once he lost his powers and became JUST CLARK, she seemed bored with him to the point where she became domineering with him ("Come on", she says to him outside the diner). Then she seemed disinterested in him after he gets beaten up saying she wanted the man she fell in love with......meaning Superman! She just wants the shiny object!
BTW, what a wimp Superman is without his powers. I thought it was a mistake to portray him that way. The essence of "Superman" should be vested within the man....not the powers. It's like he's only heroic and noble if he's got a superior ability.
Lois is really skinny and not so attractive in the scene where they're talking about Superman being Clark. This must have been one of the last shots taken because she looks even skinnier than she did in the reshoots of the supervillain/Daily Planet scenes.
That's what I liked about Man of Steel. Lois knew all along. I think it's better that way.
I fully agree with the Christopher Reeve/Richard Donner of how they portrayed Superman/Clark, Clark was a disguise and had to be the opposite of Superman.... so that dialogue was about him being two totally different people... I love that. Reminds me of myself a little... i can ve a bit clumsy and goofy a lot of tre time, but a couple of beers abd that all changes! Lol... not too many though!
2:11 Nerd hackles rising…
I think all of these versions are perfectly valid. When someone is married to a single interpretation, the others may cause you to bristle.
The idea that Clark is who he is is fine if you have a L&C-version of Clark, who isn’t a bumbling buffoon.
That is flipped on its head when he is “theatrical-izing “ Clark to be more dim than he really is, to preserve the secret. In that world, maybe Superman is closer to who he is. I mean, who you are included what you can and choose to do.
And that leads to the last version, the ideal version, in which there is simply Kal-El, to be extra haughty nerd about it, the combination of those two personas.
We cannot truly know who he is without incorporating both sides in almost a PAD-Hulk run fashion.
But that version is kind of denied to him and is in most iterations of his mythology. So, we pick and choose.
I never said it wasn’t “valid”. These are two of my favorite movies of all time, after all. Just talking about which Clark/Superman interpretation I prefer. Lower those nerd hackles, monsieur.
@ I didn’t say you did.
I said that if one is married to a particular interpretation of the character, others may cause you to bristle.
Maybe that’s the wrong word to. But we’re talking about this because of someone’s (I don’t know which of you I’m talking to) pushback against this version or interpretation.
If not, I don’t know what we’re talking about anymore.
And the “hackles” comment was with tongue firmly in-cheek.
What about Tarantino‘s view on superman and Clarke Kent? That Clark Kent is superman’s critique of the world.
Superman has kind of long side burns and as Clark no side burns! Ever notice!? I guess it's a super ability to extend!?
They said christopher reeve wore wigs and was really bald
He had alopecia, it wasn't until 3 and 4 it flared up again and wore wigs in those movies.
We basically got 3 "personalities" here, cause he was born Kal-El and he was still that when he was found by the kents, they raised him as "Clark Kent" even though they already knew he wasn't exactly "from around here" as they said. So even before his *graduation* into Superman after meeting his real dad. He was always Kal-El hiding under the Clark Kent persona that while growing up was just a *regular* teenager but as an adult he differentiated from what would be his Superman side.
So there's no contradiction that I see between the "Lois & Clark" and the Reeve movies, cause in both cases, Superman is what he can do, but in the TV show (and almost every depiction since) there's been no real difference between Clark and Superman except a pair of glasses, but Reeve separated them as to Superman pretending to be Clark cause that is the disguise that he grow up as, and Superman is what he does to help.
I appreciated in the new Superman & Lois show, they sort of revered the Mank-Donner concept of Clark being a sort of mask for his true super-identity.
In the show, Clark sincerely IS a massive nerd. He just seems to favour his confident, authoritative side when in costume. It is an interesting dynamic that I’ve never seen done with Superman before.😊
Are you guys going to talk about why Superman is missing the curl in his hair by the fourth film in the franchise? 🦸♂🤔🧐🎥
In terms of the Richard Donner Superman - I actually like the idea that Superman & Clark are separate. Not the Clark of Smallville but the Clark that Superman creates in Metropolis. I have always thought of this as one of the many Superman hidden powers which sort of explains why the whole of Metropolis cannot see what we can see: that Clark is Superman. If Metropolis Clark is the same as Superman but just with an act - how is this disguise supposed to be convinving? Yes - we as the viewer can see through the disguise. But Superman has created (using his powers) a Clark personalilty and physical form that is clearly not Superman.
Of course, I imagined this in the 1970s... when I was a kid. So how stupid am I? !!!
But it also helped with Superman III and the fight of good Clark v Evil Superman....
You're not stupid! You might have even gotten some ideas like that from the comics themselves! In the past, to cover how the disguise doesn't seem like enough, he has had some extra powers in some stories. Like super muscular control, to actually contort himself into looking different, or super hypnotic powers, to make people _think_ he looks different. I'm sorry I don't know what time periods those example powers were from, let alone the issues, but maybe you'd heard of such things before, and latched onto that?
Donner and Mank did _not_ write this dialogue, guys. The dialogue in that scene was written by David and Leslie Newman.
Regardless it's in the Donner Cut and it is definitely representative of how Donner and Mankiewicz thought of the character.
@prodigioussaps I respectfully disagree. Donner and Mank talk about this very thing in the feature length commentary. In fact, after I first found your channel I listened to it not more than a week ago.
I would think that it's the uniform that is her reminder that he is Superman, if he has a cape on... Superman... or, lack there of, he's Clark. He was Clark Kent, first, in various versions he doesn't even know about his Kryptonian name until nearly adulthood. In most versions he doesn't even know he's an alien until his late teens. He created Superman so he could stop wreaking his clothes and have a normal life. (that is carried to the point of absurdity in a short animation film called "Man of Tomorrow") In "Smallville" they do some weirdness about his Kryptonian identity I just don't understand. It's as if there is a spirit of Kal-El that takes Clark Kent over and alienates him from his family and humanity. It's as if Kal El = Superman= super powers?
In " Lois and Clark" there is a funny scene where Clark (he's wearing his jeans and tee shirt) explains to his parents that he is having an impossible time dealing with two romantic interests - Lois Lane and Mayson Drake (district attorney) Lois is in love with Superman but just likes Clark Kent. Mayson Drake is attracted to Clark Kent (actually in love with him) but despises, nearly, hates Superman. It's complicated. Mayson is one of the tragedies of the series. He doesn't want to hurt her but he's smitten by Lois. His mother is taking adult education classes (psych 101) and says she has been afraid that this would happen. What? He would start talking about himself in third person.
How would a man who has three Identities handle it?
Kal-El is his birth name and his name when he is talking to fellow Kryptonians or other aliens. It might also be how he interiorly thinks of himself.
Otherwise, Clark Kent is his normal or primary Identity... and, Superman is his identity when he is doing Super things. The only way that would change is if Clark "Died".
The question would be ... if you were standing 5 feet from the gentleman from Krypton .. you called "Clark, come here?" then "Hey Superman?" Then "Kal-El?" Which name would he answer to quicker?
Batman always refers to him as Clark even though he knows his birth name from krypton. during a fight between batman and superman in which batman uses a kryptonite ring to be able to land blows without shattering his hand his inner monologue says Your a nice guy clark but im not. gotta love Batman. I may have that quote wrong if I do please correct me. Cheers
I want to add to this some of the late Smallville conversations. One that Clark has with Chloe Sullivan in which the lter tell Clark how he has to be so magnificent all the time (smething like that anyway), Chloe is not being objective 'cause she has a crush on Clark since day one. But that conversation towards the end of the series seems to be the seed for the awkward and clumsy Clark Kent.
Did you really interpret what he was saying as he is referring to himself as a different person? Dude, come on. It's clear that he is not saying he is not Clark. He is just referring to himself in a third person, because in that moment, he's Superman. Clark is who he is but he wasn't acting like Clark, so it's evident that's what meant.
He is for the first time in his life being selfish. He's trying to look cool in front of the girl he likes by acting like he's somebody he isn't. III is uneven but he goes home to smallville and is himself, the real Clark, or at least he is that way thru the best parts of that movie. "Clark" is also who defeats the darker version of himself not "Superman".
Just admit it, you guys hate Superman II.
Nope. Following that logic we’d hate every movie ever made.
@ Hating Superman II means you hate every movie ever made? Make it make sense.
What makes you think we hate the movie?
@ Even you have to admit that the majority of your videos about Superman II, you’re either putting something down, making fun of it, or criticizing it. I bet you gave all three of those lame Nolan Batman movies a pass and they are as screwed up and imperfect as any other movie!!!
Wrong again!
My point was we nitpick and criticize EVERYTHING, even movies we love, like this one. It's FUN.
And no movie gets a "pass" from us, certainly not Nolan's take on Batman.
What did Lois call him when they were in bed together?
@@BigNoseDog Honey… 😊💕
"If it weren't for [Clark], I never would've met you."
Always figured he just meant he'd never have met her if he didn't keep up an everyday life.
He wouldn't have applied for a job, so he wouldn't have had coworkers.
Nitpicking
Nitpicking???! Where?!? 😉
The film is pretty old now. It was pretty cool. LET IT GO, lol. 😂 Maybe try something new. Like a book or a series.
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
"Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge; hope's strength resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again."
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
--Diamond Dragons (series)
We have HOURS of material on other topics, and much more is coming. But I appreciate your concern.
In regards to Lois and Clark: The New Adventures Of Superman what was missing from the series was Clarks clumsy behavior. I don't recall him being a Jack tripper at all LOL! Ditto for Tom Welling on Smallville albeit this was before he would meet Lois and work at the Daily Planet. 🪐🦸♂🦹♂🌎
Am I a film fan or a Superman film fan. We are the ones who know that ones means more than one, or in other woreds....EVERYONE!!!!*
* in this voice- ruclips.net/video/74BzSTQCl_c/видео.html.