Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lord Pendragon" data-source="post: 2946157" data-attributes="member: 707">Fair enough.I am not claiming there's no validity to this claim, but I personally find this point unconvincing.  To strangers, sure.  The suave, confident Superman and the timid Clark Kent wouldn't be taken for the same guy.  But everyone in the Daily Planet who works with Clark would know, the moment they laid eyes on Superman.  It's like identical twins.  People who don't know them can't tell them apart.  For people who do know them, it's as easy as pie.For me this doesn't help at all.  Accepting the Superman/Clark Kent disguise is an act of pure, unaided suspension of disbelief.  Nothing done is going to make it any easier.  It's patently silly regardless of what angle you look at it from.  But I accept it, because it's Superman.  As a result, it serves as poor justification for other incongruities in the mythos.But that's just it.  Movie Clark isn't a dependable guy.  He is basically never there when Lois needs him, so that Superman can be.  He's also not sweet, at least not from what I saw in the movie.  Unless Lois just happens to find clutzes sweet, in which case she's going to be disappointed when she discovers that his clutziness is an act.It's the difference between Ray Barone from Everybody Loves Raymond and Doug Heffernan from King of Queens.  There are absolutely no redeeming qualities about Ray Barone in Raymond.  He's not a good father.  He's not a good husband.  He's not romantic, or smart, or anything.  It is inconceivable to me why his wife or indeed any woman, would love him.Contrast that to Doug.  He's not the greatest catch either.  But you can see that he's a good man often trying to do the right thing, that he loves his wife, and tries hard.  He might not get every hottie's number in the bar, but you can see why a particular hottie would fall for him.To pull this long tangent back on track, I see movie Clark Kent as another Ray Barone.  He has no redeeming qualities, and I'm supposed to accept that Lois will prefer him to Superman, who has a lot of redeeming qualities, even if they're superficial ones.The Lois and Clark Clark Kent was different.  Sure, he was a country boy and not as sophisticated as Lois might like.  But he he was a sweet and (mostly) dependable guy.  It made sense that, although Superman has all the super-powers, she'd fall in love with that sweet and dependable guy.A question for you.  Do you believe that Clark is actually physically clumsy.  Do you believe that the Clark Kent persona is, like others in the thread have posited, the "true" persona?  Or do you believe it's an act, meant to throw off suspicion that they are one and the same individual?I imagine that two things hold true (though I haven't seen Robotech in twenty years, so I couldn't say.)  1. That Lisa was honest and not creating a false persona for Rick.  And 2. that Lisa had some redeeming qualities.Both of these aspects are lacking, for me, in the movie Clark.  It's an interesting message, but I don't particularly want to sacrifice my belief in the relationship to sustain it.Even in "Can't Buy Me Love" the protagonist had a lot of redeeming qualities.  We see none of that in Routh's Clark Kent.</blockquote>

Verification