Tyler Hoechlin is Clark Kent/Superman

[ArmsHeldOut]

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.

Again, verisimilitude relies on factors that better lend themselves to credibility or the perception of being real through an audience's lens (e.g., the use of Kevlar, a known synthetic material, in the Christopher Nolan Batman films). But the mild-mannered CK disguise, as it's generally presented across all mediums, is more of a straight-up fantasy like something out of a Mighty Mouse cartoon. Hence, a term like verisimilitude doesn't apply here in that there's a lack of inherent veracity from which to frame the context in the manner you speak of. It's perhaps better to say that suspension of disbelief allows it to make sense along those lines.

Don't get me wrong. From a creative standpoint, it's certainly fun to think about all the various ways that the disguise can be seen as more effective. We've all done this at one time or another. But the fact of the matter is that facial recognition remains the most common and easiest method of identifying someone, and no shift in posture or mannerisms will ever change that. Sure, some folks might fail to recognize you for various reasons, but the vast majority of people you interact with on a regular basis should have no problem seeing beyond the pretense.

There's a certain entertainment value in Reeve's take on the persona, but you're not being honest with yourself if you think it was convincing enough to fool Clark's closest associates and contemporaries.

 

[Time Captain]

Within the context of the narrative, it can be convincing enough to fool them. As long as there's a logic to it (verisimilitude) that's explained onscreen.

It's like time travel in science fiction. Generally an absurd and paradoxical concept, but as long as the rules for it are explained and the story sticks to them, there's a logic to it that the characters can accept.. and by proxy the audience (the audience lens as you put it) can accept.


All that being said, Donner also had the common sense for Lois to figure out the disguise by the start of Superman II. It would have been detrimental to the believability of her character to drag it out longer than that, especially with her having close associations with Superman and Clark by that time.

 

[Dr.]

It’s claimed that superheroes are mythically timeless. So modernizing a character from (say) the 1940s to the 1960s is a matter of minor alterations — updating the fashions, automobiles, telephones, etc. True to an extent. But sometimes, a certain convention or trope is a creature of a specific era or a specific approach to the material. And I think that’s the case for the (in)famous Clark/Superman disguise.

This trope worked fine when the stories were intended as lighthearted fantasy aimed at a preadolescent demographic. Likewise in Superman II (for example) where the implausibility of the disguise was actually lampshaded and played for laughs. But nowadays, modernizing often entails a more “realistic,” “gritty” and/or “grounded” interpretation of the subject. And under this rubric, the quaintly humorous and implausible “glasses ruse” doesn’t really hold up.

At best, you can decrease the dissonance via certain other concessions to the mythos. For example, in MOS, Lois knew about the secret identity (as it were) before it even existed. Therefore, the plausibility of the disguise (at least for her) becomes moot.

Analogously, in the S&L pilot, there was virtually no time to fret about Lois’s "gullibility" — inasmuch as the Lois and Clark meet cute, romance and Superman reveal were compressed into a skillfully elegant opening montage. Ironically, the expanded and more detailed version of their origin story (depicted in “A Brief Reminiscence In-Between Cataclysmic Events”) is where the disguise strained credulity. (Sometimes, glossing over stuff is good; sometimes, less is more. ) A similar dissonance happened in “O Mother, Where Art Thou?” with Lana not recognizing Superman as Clark.

It’s almost as if we can accommodate the artifice as long as it’s a latent, background concept. But flaunt it in a specific scene, and the willing suspension of disbelief shatters.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

Within the context of the narrative, it can be convincing enough to fool them. As long as there's a logic to it (verisimilitude) that's explained onscreen.

By this rationale, you should have no problem with Tyler's version then, as the mild-mannered Kent disguise is clearly fooling everyone within the context you describe here. I know what you'll say, but once again...

It's like time travel in science fiction. Generally an absurd and paradoxical concept, but as long as the rules for it are explained and the story sticks to them, there's a logic to it that the characters can accept.. and by proxy the audience (the audience lens as you put it) can accept.


All that being said, Donner also had the common sense for Lois to figure out the disguise by the start of Superman II. It would have been detrimental to the believability of her character to drag it out longer than that, especially with her having close associations with Superman and Clark by that time.

That's not what verisimilitude is. Verisimilitude is the appearance of being real, as it pertains to the audience. Ergo, the logic you speak of would have to be significantly greater than what we've been shown of Clark Kent in his many iterations thus far. To achieve proper verisimilitude, you'd have to do something radical in the vein of the Borden twin disguised as Fallon in 2006's The Prestige. Here, the artifice is given significant weight by means of heavy make-up and prosthetics, allowing it to transcend beyond the confines of the story and function as something more palatable from an audience POV.

But in taking this kind of approach with the CK disguise, you run the risk of losing a certain whimsical quality that makes it such a fun talking point in the first place. What's more, the tone of your film, or in this case, TV show, would need to bend in the same direction so as to maintain narrative coherence. Now, if that's what you're looking for in S&L, more power to you. Personally, I'm fine with things as they are now.

Glad you mentioned this first bit about time travel, though, as I'll use it further illustrate my aforementioned point about verisimilitude. There's Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure time travel and then there's Interstellar time travel. The former is more akin to a children's cartoon in that its in-story logic, however flimsy, isn't meant to be taken seriously. The premise is so utterly ridiculous that it calls for audiences to turn off their brains for a spell and just go with it. Interstellar, on the other hand, is what you might call hard science fiction. Here, there's remarkable effort on the part of the filmmaker to imbue the material w/ what can be considered a true sense of verisimilitude, as it draws from well-documented theories on quantum mechanics, relativity and the like. In essence, given that the science has at least some basis in reality and is also treated with sufficient seriousness, the average moviegoer can accept it w/o having to suspend disbelief too much—if at all.

It's good that Kidder's Lois suspects that Superman and Clark are one and the same; I like that. However, once you show her scrutinizing his face and what have you, the jig should be up (right) there and then. Instead, the subterfuge is prolonged to almost comedic effect, and it's only when the "super" in the man becomes so painfully obvious that it finally comes together for her. Point being, once you doubt your own eyes, you've lost me, figuratively speaking. lol

 

[Time Captain]

By this rationale, you should have no problem with Tyler's version then, as the mild-mannered Kent disguise is clearly fooling everyone within the context you describe here. I know what you'll say, but once again...

The 'logic' of how Tyler's 'disguise' works has never been explained visually or in dialogue, so it's a tougher sell.

There were a few Reeve-esque exaggerated mannerisms during his first scene with Lois to throw her off, then after that he was basically just playing his real self.. with glasses on.

But in taking this kind of approach with the CK disguise, you run the risk of losing a certain whimsical quality that makes it such a fun talking point in the first place. What's more, the tone of your film, or in this case, TV show, would need to bend in the same direction so as to maintain narrative coherence. Now, if that's what you're looking for in S&L, more power to you. Personally, I'm fine with things as they are now.

For a niche show like this for a smaller existing fanbase, it isn't that big of a deal. The audience is already familiar enough with the character and how suspension of disbelief is needed.

For a future film version for mass audiences, they need to handle it in a much more logical and believable way.

It's good that Kidder's Lois suspects that Superman and Clark are one and the same; I like that. However, once you show her scrutinizing his face and what have you, the jig should be up (right) there and then. Instead, the subterfuge is prolonged to almost comedic effect, and it's only when the "super" in the man becomes so painfully obvious that it finally comes together for her. Point being, once you doubt your own eyes, you've lost me, figuratively speaking. lol

The comedic effect fit the tone of that film. To be fair, Clark made a pretty convincing argument to why he wasn't Superman by not saving her (in both versions), played to comedic effect..yes, but it made sense.

That's not what verisimilitude is. Verisimilitude is the appearance of being real, as it pertains to the audience. Ergo, the logic you speak of would have to be significantly greater than what we've been shown of Clark Kent in his many iterations thus far.

Not necessarily. Verisimilitude is what Donner specifically named as his approach to Superman, and even the CK disguise, and it worked. Audiences and Critics bought into it thanks to Donner's direction and Reeve's performance. To date, that film is the only universally-praised Superman live action project among mass audiences and fans. He essentially put forward a logic behind why the people of the DP (and the audience by proxy) would buy into the disguise through Reeve's 'DP Clark Kent' being an exaggerated façade.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

The 'logic' of how Tyler's 'disguise' works has never been explained visually or in dialogue, so it's a tougher sell.

There were a few Reeve-esque exaggerated mannerisms during his first scene with Lois to throw her off, then after that he was basically just playing his real self.. with glasses on.




For a niche show like this for a smaller existing fanbase, it isn't that big of a deal. The audience is already familiar enough with the character and how suspension of disbelief is needed.

For a future film version for mass audiences, they need to handle it in a much more logical and believable way.



The comedic effect fit the tone of that film. To be fair, Clark made a pretty convincing argument to why he wasn't Superman by not saving her (in both versions), played to comedic effect..yes, but it made sense.



Not necessarily. Verisimilitude is what Donner specifically named as his approach to Superman, and even the CK disguise, and it worked. Audiences and Critics bought into it thanks to Donner's direction and Reeve's performance. To date, that film is the only universally-praised Superman live action project among mass audiences and fans. He essentially put forward a logic behind why the people of the DP (and the audience by proxy) would buy into the disguise through Reeve's 'DP Clark Kent' being an exaggerated façade.

Not really. Characters with multiple iterations, particularly the ones steeped in popular culture, don't need to retread the most basic details about their origins. People largely get how the mild-mannered CK disguise works.

That's the best way to play Clark when you're trying to flesh him out IMO. If there's no variation in the performance and it's all shtick, how is he to form any meaningful relationships with supporting characters? You might as well call him a bot then.


I'm open to that so long as the filmmakers don't try to take things too far in a grounded direction. But in saying so, I maintain that Reeve and Routh's respective performances weren't significantly more believable than Hoechlin's. If you want to say they were more consistent w/ the bumbling clown routine, I'm inclined to agree. I just don't think it behooves an actor to play the character like a cardboard cut-out in this day and age.


I feel like this is a bit of a strawman, as my larger point was that Lois should have no problem discerning that Clark is Superman when she's literally shown to be analyzing his face with her hands and her eyes. (I can't find a suitable GIF online, but you know the scene I'm referring to.) It's one thing to avoid suspicion by fading into the background, but when someone is already on to you and then second-guesses herself for no good reason at all, that's the textbook definition of a tough sell.


Yes, he talked about having "his own sense" of verisimilitude, which is nice and all, but it doesn't change what the word actually means. And, just to be clear, I personally enjoyed his Superman movies. That's not the issue here. We're discussing the efficacy of the CK disguise, as relates to mostly Hoechlin's performance in the role. For the record, though, let's not pretend that S&L hasn't been met with critical acclaim in its own right.

 

[Dr.]

...The Prestige. Here, the artifice is given significant weight by means of heavy make-up and prosthetics, allowing it to transcend beyond the confines of the story and function as something more palatable from an audience POV.

But in taking this kind of approach with the CK disguise, you run the risk of losing a certain whimsical quality that makes it such a fun talking point in the first place.

It’s more than just whimsy, though. The Clark/Superman duality speaks to a familiar male fantasy: notwithstanding a bland or seemingly ineffectual exterior, there’s a capable hero hidden within.

In the spitballing department, some have floated the notion of a new power for Supes — the ability to physically morph. This needn’t be anything radical and could be rationalized as an extension of “super muscle and skeletal control.” So perhaps a modest difference in facial structure; perhaps a small difference in height or physique. In live action, this would (presumably) entail using different actors for the two different personas. But while this solution would thoroughly address the “disguise problem,” it also undercuts the aforementioned “hidden hero” fantasy. It’s more like a “different person” fantasy. Which can work and does exist within the genre. Bruce Banner physically morphs; Billy Batson physically morphs. Yet this option seems fundamentally wrong for Superman (IMO). A nonstarter.

So that takes us back to square one. The glasses disguise.

It's good that Kidder's Lois suspects that Superman and Clark are one and the same; I like that. However, once you show her scrutinizing his face and what have you, the jig should be up (right) there and then. Instead, the subterfuge is prolonged to almost comedic effect...

This is a familiar, comedic scenario (used often in the Silver Age). But it makes Lois — accomplished investigative reporter — look like an idiot. At first she suspects (correctly!) that Clark is Superman. Then she’s convinced, by some whacky pretext, that she’s wrong. …Until the next time she suspects. Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

[Time Captain]

Not really. Characters with multiple iterations, particularly the ones steeped in popular culture, don't need to retread the most basic details about their origins. People largely get how the mild-mannered CK disguise works.

Do they? That seems rather myopic.

It makes sense that the audience of S&L would, that's a smaller, niche audience who have already had to accept much more bizarre things on their CW programming.

The general movie-going audience and film critics? It's not a concept they'll roll with blindly and suspend disbelief, without some level of logic to it.

That's the best way to play Clark when you're trying to flesh him out IMO. If there's no variation in the performance and it's all shtick, how is he to form any meaningful relationships with supporting characters? You might as well call him a bot then.

That's hyperbolic. What makes the disguise endearing is the true Clark Kent will sometimes come out from the disguise version, and a good actor can sell those emotions.. while also putting up the disguise so the audience and characters could buy the concept. So there would be variation to the performance.

As for meaningful relationships with other characters... That really depends how visible Superman should be in the same medium. If Superman is a very public figure, photographed upclose, intimate with Lois etc.. DP Clark really shouldn't be too close with any of the DP staff.

I'm open to that so long as the filmmakers don't try to take things too far in a grounded direction. But in saying so, I maintain that Reeve and Routh's respective performances weren't significantly more believable than Hoechlin's. If you want to say they were more consistent w/ the bumbling clown routine, I'm inclined to agree. I just don't think it behooves an actor to play the character like a cardboard cut-out in this day and age.

Worked fine for Christian Bale playing 'playboy Bruce' in TDK. That was an invented disguise, a facade, .. just the same as Kal playing 'DP Clark Kent.' Both played up for levity, but also to logically throw everyone off within the context of the film.

Yes, he talked about having "his own sense" of verisimilitude, which is nice and all, but it doesn't change what the word actually means. And, just to be clear, I personally enjoyed his Superman movies. That's not the issue here. We're discussing the efficacy of the CK disguise, as relates to mostly Hoechlin's performance in the role. For the record, though, let's not pretend that S&L hasn't been met with critical acclaim in its own right.

That's not much of a comparison. CW TV show with a niche audience and a few TV blogger critics. Major motion picture that influenced the genre and was a 4 quadrant hit at the time, and still is beloved by the general public.

And just to clarify, yes my previous posts were going by Donner's definition of 'verisimilitude' as it pertains to his Superman depiction. As that is most relevant to this discussion. Not necessarily the textbook definition of the term.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

Do they? That seems rather myopic.

It makes sense that the audience of S&L would, that's a smaller, niche audience who have already had to accept much more bizarre things on their CW programming.

The general movie-going audience and film critics? It's not a concept they'll roll with blindly and suspend disbelief, without some level of logic to it.

Does it? Allow me to reiterate with greater clarity then. The continued use of characters like Batman, Spider-Man and yes, Superman in pop culture has become so pervasive that they aren't just for the niche crowd anymore. That's why we need not keep getting the death of the Waynes for every Batman movie, or the murder of Uncle Ben as relates to Spider-Man. Creatively speaking, you can include those details if you wish, but as the general audience already has some idea about them, there isn't such a stringent requirement to do so nowadays. Come to think of it, I don't recall getting a satisfying explanation for how the disguise works in the '70s and '80's Superman flicks either.

And yes, you'll argue that the "logic" comes in the performance. We've been over this point already, so you know where I stand on that. But I'll indulge you again to illustrate that Hoechlin's version actually does manage to achieve what you're expecting of him in his own way. But before I get to that, here's a quick point on physical appearance since it clearly contributes to the flimsy in-story logic behind said disguise. Consider that Hoechlin's mild-mannered Clark not only comes with his own pair of glasses but also a slightly different hairstyle than that of his Superman. By this visual yardstick, he's no less convincing than Reeve and Routh in their respective takes on the character. Now, getting back to the actor's aforementioned performance (as mild-mannered Clark, that is), even you had to give him credit for displaying certain "Reeve-esque" mannerisms on occasion (e.g., the scene from an earlier football-heavy episode where he adopts a wimpy façade just for Sarah's benefit). Your main complaint seems to be that he doesn't accomplish this in a way that's in keeping with Reeve's more unrelenting approach to the persona, or rather the more blatantly goofy aspects about it. And that's rather subjective.

Further, I think it's important to note that Tyler's Superman comes across notably more confident and formal in his dealings with other characters. Hopeful Sue touched on this just the other day.

With all of the above in mind, one could say that Hoechlin's already fulfilled the requirement of providing the in-story "logic" (as you call it) even if that doesn't entirely resonate with you for the reasons you've described. If it's good enough for other viewers—and I can attest that there are hardcore fans and general audience members alike who are perfectly fine with it on the basis of a willing suspension of disbelief—then it has purpose. Now, I'm not in the business of trying to quantify that sort of thing w/ statistics and the like, but if that's your bag, have at it.

That's hyperbolic. What makes the disguise endearing is the true Clark Kent will sometimes come out from the disguise version, and a good actor can sell those emotions.. while also putting up the disguise so the audience and characters could buy the concept. So there would be variation to the performance.

As for meaningful relationships with other characters... That really depends how visible Superman should be in the same medium. If Superman is a very public figure, photographed upclose, intimate with Lois etc.. DP Clark really shouldn't be too close with any of the DP staff.

You see, even in those moments where Reeve's "true Clark" emerges, I still feel like his overall mild-mannered performance is a bit outdated in the sense that too much emphasis on the character's ineptitude makes him come across like something of a caricature. Now, this isn't a flawless comparison, but Tyler's Clark, to me, has more in common (stylistically speaking) with the Randal character from This is Us. Randall's a total dork in that he can come across embarrassingly awkward at times, but this is rarely if ever a detriment to his outward masculinity. Like Tyler, he's essentially more of a three-dimensional character—not some walking-talking stereotype from a bad Revenge of the Nerds flick.

So, you're basically suggesting that Clark shouldn't have any meaningful relationships with anyone apart from the woman he's sleeping with? lol Umm yeah... I'm gonna have to say no to that. Snyder already tried the whole cypher approach with the character, and that really isn't for me. I prefer a Clark that's capable of having friends, or at the very least some noteworthy acquaintances.

Worked fine for Christian Bale playing 'playboy Bruce' in TDK. That was an invented disguise, a facade, .. just the same as Kal playing 'DP Clark Kent.' Both played up for levity, but also to logically throw everyone off within the context of the film.

That's not much of a comparison. CW TV show with a niche audience and a few TV blogger critics. Major motion picture that influenced the genre and was a 4 quadrant hit at the time, and still is beloved by the general public.

I'm not all that crazy about Bale's take on 'playboy Bruce' either if I'm being honest, as I'd rather a slightly more complex approach to the persona that accommodates for the character's more philanthropic pursuits and such. Also, I'd argue that his costumed disguise, as it's presented in the TDK trilogy, is a good bit more concealing than a simple pair of glasses. In other words, given the presence of sufficiently conducive factors, audiences are far more likely to accept the in-story logic behind an effete performance designed to throw off prying eyes.

You misunderstand. I'm not looking to suggest that one iteration is better than another by virtue of these kinds of critical or commercial success factors. What I am saying, however, is that S&L has merely achieved this to some degree. You can try to diminish that all you want by insisting that the show holds no appeal for anyone outside of its niche audience, and while I'm sure that's demonstrably false, it still holds value either way.

And just to clarify, yes my previous posts were going by Donner's definition of 'verisimilitude' as it pertains to his Superman depiction. As that is most relevant to this discussion. Not necessarily the textbook definition of the term.

Fair enough, but if a director uses a term that doesn't conform with or runs contrary to the textbook definition, I find it ill-suited for objective analysis/discussion.

 

[Time Captain]

Good talk.

It sounds like we're both in agreement that the largely fanboy audience of CW's "Superman and Lois" would buy into the identity as presented, as implausible and awkward as it is. Most would have a pre-existing familiarity with the concept and all the other ridiculous stuff in the CW verse.

When it comes to a future movie version, however, for the mass mainstream audience.. that's when they really need to utilize the type of verisimilitude that Donner described. To make such a baffling concept have some level of internal logic to it, for audiences and critics to buy.

All that being said, this is WB. So they'll probably screw up Superman again theatrically. Not the best track record. Makes this entire discussion moot, but it was enjoyable.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

Good talk.

All that being said, this is WB. So they'll probably screw up Superman again theatrically. Not the best track record. Makes this entire discussion moot, but it was enjoyable.

Right back atcha! Good discussion.

 

[Dr.]

In terms of the superhero genre, I take “verisimilitude” to mean the following: given its fantastical premise — a superpowered hero (plus, usually, a superpowered villain to provide a commensurate threat) — everything else is more-or-less realistic. Verisimilitude, however, is relative. For its time, Superman The Movie scored well in this department. But that was because the last high-profile exemplar of the genre was the campy Adam West Batman series (and film). So any distance from that model would be considered a more serious interpretation of the material.

Regarding Superman, in particular, we might add a proviso to our definition: given the fantastical premise that no one can see through Clark Kent’s glasses disguise, everything else is more-or-less realistic. And by this specific measure, S&L has relatively robust verisimilitude. (It’s certainly more grounded and realistic than Supergirl. Or maybe any other DC/CW show.)

But now we circle round to a previous point. It’s because S&L is more serious in tone, execution, atmosphere, etc. that the implausibility of the glasses disguise is more conspicuous. Whereas, the same implausibility in the lighthearted STM is treated as endearing and humorous. We don’t demand as much realism in that instance because the “verisimilitude index” is lower. In S&L, it’s higher.

 

[Time Captain]

Yeah, it's because the emotional beats in S&L are played as very grounded and real, so it's a bit jarring to juxtapose that against a woman who is unable to recognize her lover without glasses. That interview scene was so weird.

Anyway, I'm sure there will be a lot to discuss about Hoechin's Superman as we get closer to the return of the series. Hopefully more promotional material this week, to promote this show for new audiences and take advantage of the hiatus.

 

[Dark Raven]

In Smallville, Clark once had to wear glasses in an early season. Chloe, who didn't know his secret identity then, had seen him without glasses all that time before. When she saw him with glasses the first thing she said wasn't "who are you?" but "nice glasses Clark." She barely batted an eyelid about that though.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

It’s more than just whimsy, though. The Clark/Superman duality speaks to a familiar male fantasy: notwithstanding a bland or seemingly ineffectual exterior, there’s a capable hero hidden within.

In making that particular remark, I wasn't speaking to the general duality of the character, but rather the means by which his disguise is presented. In other words, the premise is sort of whimsical in its far-fetched simplicity, and I'd rather that not be lost in taking an overly cerebral approach to the mythos.

In terms of the superhero genre, I take “verisimilitude” to mean the following: given its fantastical premise — a superpowered hero (plus, usually, a superpowered villain to provide a commensurate threat) — everything else is more-or-less realistic. Verisimilitude, however, is relative. For its time, Superman The Movie scored well in this department. But that was because the last high-profile exemplar of the genre was the campy Adam West Batman series (and film). So any distance from that model would be considered a more serious interpretation of the material.

Regarding Superman, in particular, we might add a proviso to our definition: given the fantastical premise that no one can see through Clark Kent’s glasses disguise, everything else is more-or-less realistic. And by this specific measure, S&L has relatively robust verisimilitude. (It’s certainly more grounded and realistic than Supergirl. Or maybe any other DC/CW show.

The thing is, that even along those lines, the internal consistency of the story has to feel real to the viewer. And yes, this too is relative, but it's still not quite the same thing as a willing suspension of disbelief, whereby the audience sees a depiction of fantasy for what it is and chooses to accept it within the broader context of the narrative. Hence, the challenge is to present the mild-mannered disguise in a way that isn't terribly discordant with the settings you've defined for him, all the while remaining faithful to the source material. And although it's fair to say that Superman: The Movie does an admirable job of trying to make us "believe that a man can fly", I'd argue that the fantasy component is still so pronounced that it falls short of achieving what would otherwise be a more seamless balance with the realistic/grounded elements therein.

This is just my opinion, but superheroes like Iron Man and Spider-Man are a little more suited to a verisimilar approach in that they both lend themselves to sci-fi based interpretation, whereas Superman seems to do better when there's a stronger element of fantasy involved.

And to quote Rod Serling, "Fantasy is the impossible made probable. Science fiction is the improbable made possible."

But now we circle round to a previous point. It’s because S&L is more serious in tone, execution, atmosphere, etc. that the implausibility of the glasses disguise is more conspicuous. Whereas, the same implausibility in the lighthearted STM is treated as endearing and humorous. We don’t demand as much realism in that instance because the “verisimilitude index” is lower. In S&L, it’s higher.

By this logic, if Tyler were to mimic Reeve's performance, we'd still be in the same boat then. See what I've been getting at?

 

[Superherofan123]

I would love to see this Superman interact with the Justice League. Maybe each season have like a three episode arc where the Justice League worked together. This might also be our best chance to get a live action World’s Finest in the next 5 years.

 

[Dr.]

...This is just my opinion, but superheroes like Iron Man and Spider-Man are a little more suited to a verisimilar approach in that they both lend themselves to sci-fi based interpretation, whereas Superman seems to do better when there's a stronger element of fantasy involved.

And to quote Rod Serling, "Fantasy is the impossible made probable. Science fiction is the improbable made possible."

The Nolan trilogy — as a standalone entity — has a higher degree of verisimilitude because everyone is normal/mortal/human. Once you introduce superpowers, however, the realism index (by definition) drops a few notches.

Technically, characters like Superman, Flash, Captain America, Hulk, et. al. are sci-fi based. Whereas, Wonder Woman, Scarlet Witch, Doctor Strange, et. al. are magic based. But since both groups are so far removed from realism, there’s virtually no practical difference between sci-fi and fantasy. IMO.

By this logic, if Tyler were to mimic Reeve's performance, we'd still be in the same boat then. See what I've been getting at?

A Reeve caliber performance isn’t the only scheme to make the disguise (slightly) more plausible. One way to address the “problem” is to avoid it. For example: It might be supposed that there’s lots of video footage of Superman in circulation. So why don’t Clark’s fellow DP employees notice the strong resemblance? Well, by rights, they should notice. But if you never depict this scenario, it doesn't rise above a kind of backburner nitpick. Whereas, Lana not recognizing Supes as her high school sweetheart is more blatant, more “in your face.” The latter requires much suspension of disbelief; the former, less so.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

The Nolan trilogy — as a standalone entity — has a higher degree of verisimilitude because everyone is normal/mortal/human. Once you introduce superpowers, however, the realism index (by definition) drops a few notches.

Correct. Here, the in-story logic is sufficiently bolstered to meet the all-important requirement of verisimilitude, i.e., seeming real to the viewer.

Perhaps this is a fossilized way of thinking on my part, but I just don't see it as a term that's meant to be so casually applied to any work of fiction.

Technically, characters like Superman, Flash, Captain America, Hulk, et. al. are sci-fi based. Whereas, Wonder Woman, Scarlet Witch, Doctor Strange, et. al. are magic based.

Not exactly. As discussed before, the "alien" component in Superman's origin isn't based on a practical understanding of extraterrestrial intelligence. It's widely used as something of a misnomer for "superhuman." Likewise, Kryptonians in general are what you might call anthropomorphic. They ultimately have much more in common with mythological deities like Zeus, Apollo and Ares.

But since both groups are so far removed from realism, there’s virtually no practical difference between sci-fi and fantasy. IMO.

I'd argue that there's a stronger accessibility factor that comes with the presentation of superpowers by way of scientific means. Provided the fiction behind that isn't too ridiculous or far-fetched, audiences (not to be confused with the "niche fanbase", specifically those like yourself, who are more versed in theoretical superhero science) can relate to it a little better. But with respect to the average viewer, a flying alien from another planet who looks like a man and relies mostly on a pair of glasses to conceal his true identity demands more of the imaginative faculty IMHO.

A Reeve caliber performance isn’t the only scheme to make the disguise (slightly) more plausible.

I made that remark w/ Time Captain's reasoning in mind. It seems like he was suggesting that a full-on Reeve-esque performance is enough to make Tyler's mild-mannered Kent appear more convincing. But given the moderately grounded nature of the show, that probably wouldn't change a whole lot.

One way to address the “problem” is to avoid it. For example: It might be supposed that there’s lots of video footage of Superman in circulation. So why don’t Clark’s fellow DP employees notice the strong resemblance? Well, by rights, they should notice. But if you never depict this scenario, it doesn't rise above a kind of backburner nitpick. Whereas, Lana not recognizing Supes as her high school sweetheart is more blatant, more “in your face.” The latter requires much suspension of disbelief; the former, less so.

I always felt like that's what Snyder was going for with his approach to the disguise, as certain characters like Pete Ross and Perry White seemed to be in the know—well, sort of anyway. However, this too isn't the most ideal of solutions.

 

[herolee10]

 

[Dr.]

...As discussed before, the "alien" component in Superman's origin isn't based on a practical understanding of extraterrestrial intelligence. It's widely used as something of a misnomer for "superhuman." Likewise, Kryptonians in general are what you might call anthropomorphic. They ultimately have much more in common with mythological deities like Zeus, Apollo and Ares.

I'd argue that there's a stronger accessibility factor that comes with the presentation of superpowers by way of scientific means. ...audiences...can relate to it a little better.

Another tangent. (But Superman related. Hopefully, Hoechlin won’t mind. )

My view: if the fiction uses certain science-y trappings and jargon, it gets the sci-fi label. And by that measure, Superman qualifies. He comes from another planet; he arrived on Earth via spaceship; and his powers are “explained” via scientific pretexts and extrapolation. (Originally, Supes’ abilities were due to Earth’s lower gravity. Subsequently, yellow star radiation was invoked as a kind of turbo-charged photosynthesis. And gravity and photosynthesis are real phenomena.) Of course, sci-fi exists on a continuum (from “hard” to “soft”). Then there’s the whole “science fiction” vs. “science fantasy” debate. Indisputably, the Superman “science” is very soft (and mostly impossible, not just implausible). Even so, it exists in clear distinction (at least conceptually) to “magic based” fantasy fiction. For example, Wonder Woman was formed from clay (alternatively, the daughter of Zeus); her preternatural strength seems to be of divine origin; and she utilizes various enchanted tools and weapons. Nothing about this evokes science or even a “science fantasy” equivocation. It’s pure magic.

So, ostensibly, Superman and Wonder Woman represent different (sub)genres of superhero fiction: sci-fi and fantasy. What happens when you mix the genres? Well, they’re apparently compatible — inasmuch as the Justice League exists and has for a long time. To the extent there is a conceptual conflict, Clarke’s Third Law seems to resolve some of it. I.e., since the abilities of both characters are so highly fantastical, the practical distinction between magical “science” and true magic is largely irrelevant. Therefore, compatibility…?

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

Another tangent. (But Superman related. Hopefully, Hoechlin won’t mind. )

My view: if the fiction uses certain science-y trappings and jargon, it gets the sci-fi label. And by that measure, Superman qualifies. He comes from another planet; he arrived on Earth via spaceship; and his powers are “explained” via scientific pretexts and extrapolation. (Originally, Supes’ abilities were due to Earth’s lower gravity. Subsequently, yellow star radiation was invoked as a kind of turbo-charged photosynthesis. And gravity and photosynthesis are real phenomena.) Of course, sci-fi exists on a continuum (from “hard” to “soft”). Then there’s the whole “science fiction” vs. “science fantasy” debate. Indisputably, the Superman “science” is very soft (and mostly impossible, not just implausible). Even so, it exists in clear distinction (at least conceptually) to “magic based” fantasy fiction. For example, Wonder Woman was formed from clay (alternatively, the daughter of Zeus); her preternatural strength seems to be of divine origin; and she utilizes various enchanted tools and weapons. Nothing about this evokes science or even a “science fantasy” equivocation. It’s pure magic.

So, ostensibly, Superman and Wonder Woman represent different (sub)genres of superhero fiction: sci-fi and fantasy. What happens when you mix the genres? Well, they’re apparently compatible — inasmuch as the Justice League exists and has for a long time. To the extent there is a conceptual conflict, Clarke’s Third Law seems to resolve some of it. I.e., since the abilities of both characters are so highly fantastical, the practical distinction between magical “science” and true magic is largely irrelevant. Therefore, compatibility…?

Superman's largely fantasy based with minor sci-fi elements IMO.

Literally heading out the door, but these excerpts from Writer's Digest sum up my thoughts quite succinctly. Hope this helps. If not, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

In science fiction, your creations need to make sense within the natural laws of the universe (our universe.) Going back to Superman, how does he fly? Does he have a jet pack? Wings? Does his body fill with helium? No, he simply wills himself to fly, and he does so because Earth's yellow sun gives him superpowers (Krypton's sun was red). This is pure fantasy. There is no scientific reason for Superman's powers, thus he'll remain an icon of the fantasy genre.

How then, can a screenplay with super-powered characters remain science fiction? Simple, create a scientific reason for the powers to exist. Yes, this is possible. Take The Matrix for example. By the film's end, Neo can fly, stop bullets in mid-air and move with superhuman speed. The real question is, how? We learn that Neo's world is a neurally based interactive simulation-basically a virtual reality video game in which the entire population of Earth lives out their lives. As we all know, rules in computer simulations and video games can be broken, allowing characters to fly and have other god-like powers. Science rules the world of The Matrix, a perfect example of superpowers within the realm of pure science fiction.

Basically, if the fantastical elements in your story can't be explained by science, then it's not pure science fiction. And if you're not writing strictly science fiction, then you've got a whole new ballgame called fantasy.

What Defines Fantasy?
Fantasy is anything you create from your imagination that has no scientific reason for existing. In the world of fantasy, things just are. You don't need to explain why one character can fly, while another breathes fire; they're accepted as facts because, in the world of fantasy, anything is possible.

As with Superman, most people make the assumption that superheroes are generally science fiction. This is not true. In most superhero comic books, whether they are D.C., Marvel, or Image comics, fantasy rules the universe. Let's look at the Justice League by D.C. Comics and separate the characters into sci-fi and fantasy categories. While the Justice League as a whole has not been seen on the silver screen, all have appeared on TV in the 1970's Super Friends series and most recently on the Cartoon Network's Justice League animated series.

• Superman: We already know where he stands, and until someone explains how exactly Kal-El's alien biology allows him to fly, he will remain a figure of fantasy.
• Green Lantern: He wears a powerful ring that allows him to create solid objects and energy beams by simply imagining them. How does the ring know what GL is imagining? How does the ring create solid objects? Science can't explain these things. GL is fantasy.
• Wonder Woman: She's an Amazon princess with super-strength, an invisible jet (the old school Wonder Woman anyway), the skill and speed to block bullets with wrist bands, and a magic lasso. Fantasy!
• The Flash: He gained his powers when chemicals spilled on him, speeding up his metabolism and giving him super speed. There is a scientific explanation for how he got his powers but there is no explanation of how they work internally, how his human body withstands the punishment of speed. Flash falls into the fantasy category.
• J'onn J'onzz, the Martian Manhunter: He's an alien. Good science fiction, right? Well, he also has telepathy, can transform into objects and people, is super strong, can phase through solid objects, and can fly. Why? Just because he's an alien? That's not a scientific answer. J'onn's fantasy as well.
• Aquaman: He can breathe underwater (without gills) and can communicate mentally with sea creatures. Fantasy.
• Batman: He uses high-tech gadgets, is a master of martial arts as well as a super sleuth using the advanced technology of his own creation. He obeys every natural law of physics (except in Batman IV, ugh). Batman is the only member of the Justice League who is pure science fiction.

There is a fine line between what is science fiction and fantasy, and if you cross it, even just a little, your story becomes fantasy, and the laws of physics and the known world become moot. Let's take a closer look at The Flash. The audience believes that his powers exist, but we accept it only because he is a character of fantasy. If he were bound by the laws of physics he wouldn't be able to do the things he does. Do you know Flash can run at the speed of light? It's true, but scientifically it is impossible. His legs would shatter from the speed and ever-increasing weight as he approached the speed of light. Flash is super fast, but he is not super strong. In every other way, he is a normal human. In a world bound by science, Flash would die from his own speed. But being a character of fantasy, Flash is able to break the laws of physics and do so believably.

Combining Genres
Now that we know what separates science fiction and fantasy, how do we go about combining them? Here's a simple rule. Never add fantasy elements to a science fiction story. Always start in the fantasy world and add science fiction. Superman is mostly fantasy, with elements of science fiction added into the story. The Star Wars saga is dependent on elements of fantasy—the science fiction simply backs it up. Adding fantasy to science fiction is a no-no and should be avoided at all costs, or you risk alienating your audience and the reader of your script.

Imagine that you're watching a movie about a mission to Mars. The characters use a spaceship to get to the red planet. Good. They use spacesuits to walk around on the surface. Still good. Then one of the characters, Bob, a normal human in a real-world scenario, jumps a 50-foot ravine, Matrix-style. Most likely you'll laugh out loud and write off the rest of the movie. Don't write scenes like this in your science fiction screenplay. If you're not sure whether something you've written breaks the laws of science or not, take it out or ask a scientist or science teacher.

The Fifth Element. In every scene, we see and hear things like: flying cars, phonic detectors, cells bombarded with slightly greasy solar atoms, cellular hygiene detectors. Sounds like science fiction, doesn't it? But look at the character of Leeloo. She is super strong, impervious to harm, has limitless knowledge, is immortal, and is the "fifth element" known as the Supreme Being, whose sole reason for existing is defeating an evil planet by powering a super weapon with her body. Remove Leeloo from the story and you lose the entire story. The science fiction in The Fifth Element backs up the fantasy, and it comes off perfectly. This is the best way to combine sci-fi and fantasy.

 

[herolee10]

 

[Dr.]

Superman's largely fantasy based with minor sci-fi elements IMO.

...these excerpts from Writer's Digest sum up my thoughts quite succinctly. Hope this helps. If not, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I quite enjoyed reading those excerpts you provided on the distinction between sci-fi and fantasy. But I disagreed with much of it.

In an analytic mood, it might be wondered why some folks favor one of these genres over the other. One possibility has to do with a predilection towards naturalism and/or atheism vs. supernaturalism and/or theism. That is: sci-fi (even if it’s “soft” or wildly speculative) has a naturalistic orientation. In contrast, fantasy tends to embrace the supernatural, the paranormal, magic or quasi-religious signifiers.

That said, I have no real beef with calling Superman “fantasy” and (say) Batman “sci-fi.” But to the extent that such genre classifications are valid, so too (IMO) are the sub-genre distinctions. For example, Superman and Captain Marvel/Shazam are virtually identical in terms of their fanciful superpowers (so much so that DC successfully sued Fawcett for copyright infringement). Therefore, put both in the same fantasy category...? Except… one character is explained using a “science” pretext and the other via a wizard who channels gods and magic. This difference, I would argue, warrants at least some acknowledgment and makes separate labels/terminology useful.

 

[flickchick85]

IDK why but the fashion choices here are killing me. It's like he's one of those teenagers that's already middle-aged at heart.

 

[Dr.]

When it's 110°, fashion loses all meaning.