View Single Post
Old 07-07-2011, 07:34 PM   #73
239-Bean Irish Chili
KalMart's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 16,733
Default Re: Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis - Part 1

Originally Posted by merced View Post
If you read Trexler's stuff WB/DC''s strategy is clear.

They want to create a new character formerly known as Superman who can past the not-being a derivative test. It won't be easy but clearly DC will change the character as much as they have to.

If they succeed it's a big win for them in that they get the villains and a lot of good stuff.

But the biggest win is that they own the character in toto and the clock starts running from scratch. The new guy formerly known as Superman will be in WB/DC's control for 75 years. No having to give him up in 15 plus years when he goes public as the heirs and Toberoff will both have to do with their rights.

DC IMO absolutely wants a new character and is willing to say an early goodbye to Superman.

The second part of their strategy is to mount a legal assault on the heirs and Toberoff which will effectively block them from using their rights for as long as possible. 10 or more years. So that when they get the rights unencumbered they'll have little if any time to make any money off of them.

In the ned, I'd wish DC would license the rights to the heirs so another classic Superman film can be made but I agree with uyou - with Toberoff in the mix that won't happen.

Both Toberoff and the heirs have problems with freeing up the international rights to Superman which WB and DC will still own 100%. So Toberoff could make a film for release in the uS but couldn't release it overseas w/o WB's permission and after paying huge fees.

Toberoff and the heirs could go to the international court in the Hague ... but, get the picture, whatever they win in 2013 is useless for a least a decade if not more.

The real losers are the heirs. In they end they will get squat from all this effort.

And WB/DC will have ditched Superman and perhaps created a new ccharacter who may actually be more viable. No one knows.
They'll end up with ownership/rights in name only...which to some, is rather fitting since they're only Seigel & Shuster in name only.

But then...Siegel & Shuster sold off the most iconic of all superheroes, leaving them with very little...and their offspring...gave their lawyer 47% ownership.

Maybe it's more than just a name.

KalMart's Vids on YouTube
Originally Posted by Matt
Plus, is the infatuation that teenage girls have with pseudo-vampires any less sad than your infatuation with men in spandex and Heath Ledger? Its probably more justifiable for them. :)

Last edited by KalMart; 07-07-2011 at 07:38 PM.
KalMart is offline   Reply With Quote