Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis - Part 1

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by Superfreak

basically the gay/lesbian version of the supershield.

???????

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by merced

I think that pretty much sums it up.

They were had by the big boys - WB/DC and Toberoff.

Genetically predisposed to sign stupid deals.

"...I hearby leave my son...my remarkable lack of financial foresight...and my most prized debts...."

[merced]

Originally Posted by KalMart

Genetically predisposed to sign stupid deals.

"...I hearby leave my son...my remarkable lack of financial foresight...and my most prized debts...."

I don't see them as stupid - I just see them as regular folk who got scr**ed by the system.

When Trump built his NJ casino plenty of regular folks, retirees on fixed incomes, lost their homes to eminent domain to allow his project to go forward. So much for private property.

It's sort of the same here.

WB/DC is as bad as Toberoff IMO. They have failed to exploit the franchise for decades now. Superman books are outsold by a host of other DC titles. Titles that get the artists and writers Superman doesn't. The heirs were not happy with that situation.

Or how Superman was in development hell as a film for 16 years prior to SR. In the interim Batman had flopped and DC/WB had swooped in and spent the money to fix the franchise and voila - it's a billion dollar film franchise now.

I mostly have sympathy for the heirs.

I'm not fooled by MOS. WB had to do it or pay the heirs 6 million or so. That is what the heirs got for SR. I believe that figure is quoted in one of Trexler's articles. BTW, their half of the profits being 6 million tells you SR made hardly any profit - though I'm sure there was some cooking of the books by TPTB.

In any case no film would have meant WB would have to pay the heirs another 6 million or so out of their bottom line.

With the film they have a chance of making a small profit net of the fees they will pay the heirs. So WB isn't doing this out of the kindness.... so to speak. IMO.

In fact I think MOS will do a bit better than SR so WB will get a few extra million to play with than it did from SR after paying out the film's and the heirs costs.

That they won't be able to make a sequel doesn't really make a difference to WB. WB should still be net ahead with MOS. It helps them in the PR department with the fans too as the legal battle moves forward over the next years.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by merced

I don't see them as stupid - I just see them as regular folk who got scr**ed by the system.

I see them as people who I wouldn't necessarily want responsible for anything that could make money...unless I was buying it from them....and only them.

Did they at least inherent any talent for drawing?

j/k

[solidsnake86]

Originally Posted by merced

I don't see them as stupid - I just see them as regular folk who got scr**ed by the system.


WB/DC is as bad as Toberoff IMO. They have failed to exploit the franchise for decades now. Superman books are outsold by a host of other DC titles. Titles that get the artists and writers Superman doesn't. The heirs were not happy with that situation.

Or how Superman was in development hell as a film for 16 years prior to SR. In the interim Batman had flopped and DC/WB had swooped in and spent the money to fix the franchise and voila - it's a billion dollar film franchise now.

Now your just making stuff up. They have failed to exploit the franchise, really?

So they've been content with losing money on the character all these years. Unless theres something wrong with me I remember there being a lois and clark television series, superman the animated series, smallville on tv for 10 seasons, Superman returns and him still being printed in the comics including the New Krypton crossover which was supposed to be his big event and most of all having Jim on the title for 12 issues, grant morisson on all-star, jms on earth one and releasing a hardcover edition. If thats not exploiting the character I don't know what is

You're choosing to ignore things because you don't like the way its turned out. No one can flip a switch and make things successful because every company would be doing it. Batman wasn't a billion dollar franchise before the dark knight which was frankly a fluke do to a host of things. If WB is failing at using superman they must be really dropping the ball with the rest of their characters not named superman and batman.

[SuperAl]

it took awhile before batman got fixed by WB so i duno what your really talking about. And Superman: Earth One flew off the shelfs, they had to make extra prints because the demand was so high. Superman has had multiple live tv shows, batman had none. Superman has prolly had the most animated movies released for him than any other dc property. Really the only bad thing that superman had was SR which slowed chances for more movies.

[solidsnake86]

^exactly, but when you close your eyes and see what you want to its easy to say they haven't been doing anything.

[solidsnake86]

Originally Posted by Superfreak

another question: who owns the shield? I mean I'm seeing some really funny editions of it nowadays. On the weekend it was the gay/lesbian pride festival in Toronto, and I saw rainbow coloured superman shield t shirts for sale. Is that legal?

probably not but copyright law is a complicated area. I'm sure WB could do something about it if they wanted but its probably not worth their time.

[Ita-KalEl]

Originally Posted by solidsnake86

Now your just making stuff up. They have failed to exploit the franchise, really?

So they've been content with losing money on the character all these years. Unless theres something wrong with me I remember there being a lois and clark television series, superman the animated series, smallville on tv for 10 seasons, Superman returns and him still being printed in the comics including the New Krypton crossover which was supposed to be his big event and most of all having Jim on the title for 12 issues, grant morisson on all-star, jms on earth one and releasing a hardcover edition. If thats not exploiting the character I don't know what is

You're choosing to ignore things because you don't like the way its turned out. No one can flip a switch and make things successful because every company would be doing it. Batman wasn't a billion dollar franchise before the dark knight which was frankly a fluke do to a host of things. If WB is failing at using superman they must be really dropping the ball with the rest of their characters not named superman and batman.

LOL exactly. In addition I don't understand the logic behind "Superman comics are outsold by other dc titles so the franchise is dead and only a mad would invest on it".
Is he talking about Green Lantern? Because GL movie is a terrible flop, so where is the connection between comics sales and the real power/potential of a brand?

[Superfreak]

Originally Posted by SuperAl

it took awhile before batman got fixed by WB so i duno what your really talking about. And Superman: Earth One flew off the shelfs, they had to make extra prints because the demand was so high. Superman has had multiple live tv shows, batman had none. Superman has prolly had the most animated movies released for him than any other dc property. Really the only bad thing that superman had was SR which slowed chances for more movies.

and batman did have a live action show, they make porn parodies of it now

[merced]

Originally Posted by Ita-KalEl

LOL exactly. In addition I don't understand the logic behind "Superman comics are outsold by other dc titles so the franchise is dead and only a mad would invest on it".
Is he talking about Green Lantern? Because GL movie is a terrible flop, so where is the connection between comics sales and the real power/potential of a brand?

Superman books sell poorly (under 30K/month) because the qualty is poor and has been forever.

Not talking the occasional special, I'm talking the regular books. Heck Superman was missing from one of his titles for a year - Lex basically taking it over. That is what I'm talking about. The quality has not been there for a long time which explains the poor sales figures.

Great sales and good quality like there is with the GL books (he's getting 5 books in the reboot, Superman is reduced to 2) doesn't guarantee a film's sucess as we've just seen. Lots of other factors were going on with that film that hurt it IMO.

Building a foundation of quality work, hopefully Timm's GL will be a hit, is in the long run going to bolster and strengthen a character.

[merced]

Originally Posted by SuperAl

it took awhile before batman got fixed by WB so i duno what your really talking about. And Superman: Earth One flew off the shelfs, they had to make extra prints because the demand was so high. Superman has had multiple live tv shows, batman had none. Superman has prolly had the most animated movies released for him than any other dc property. Really the only bad thing that superman had was SR which slowed chances for more movies.

And you make my point.

Superman gets an occasional one-shot, limited run which is quite good.

But his regular books, the bread and butter that draws in the guy who buys every month, suck.

Superman hasn't been a top seller in his regular books since the Death of storyline in the mid-90s.

The quality you refer to in Earth One is seen on a regular basis in the ongoing Bat, Flash and GL books.

There is not a big market for Superman's books right now. Why is that?

Superman will be down to 2 regular books with the reboot while Batman and GL are up to 5 or 6 each. It's a defacto admission by DC that Superman doesn't sell. At least that is how I read it.

[SuperAl]

Originally Posted by merced

And you make my point.

Superman gets an occasional one-shot, limited run which is quite good.

But his regular books, the bread and butter that draws in the guy who buys every month, suck.

Superman hasn't been a top seller in his regular books since the Death of storyline in the mid-90s.

The quality you refer to in Earth One is seen on a regular basis in the ongoing Bat, Flash and GL books.

There is not a big market for Superman's books right now. Why is that?

Superman will be down to 2 regular books with the reboot while Batman and GL are up to 5 or 6 each. It's a defacto admission by DC that Superman doesn't sell. At least that is how I read it.

Do you have proof or are you just claiming he doesnt sell well because you have no interest in buying his comics. I buy superman stuff, i dont buy batman stuff. The GL movie proved that that character doesnt sell well, we'll see if his cartoon is a failure as well. Flash has yet to get a animated movie about him or a feature film, does that mean DC is admitting the flash doesnt sell well?

either way i would argue that all the live action shows and animated movies that WB has made for Superman outweigh the money brought in by comic books, if they felt he wasnt a big draw then why bother even using him, why stick him in front of the JL, why bother making all these dvd titles about him or investing tons of money into tv shows like lois and clark and smallville instead of making a show about the flash or GL or batman. Hell why bother going to court to fight for Superman's rights if hes not worth the investment. Obviously they are making money off of it and demand seems to be high enough because they keep making these flicks. GL hasnt touch tv until a little bit from now with his cartoon and his first movie was a complete failure so that character doesnt seem like it can draw in people. Not sure how lucrative comics are, but i doubt they make more for the studio than the tv shows/animated dvd movies/films. He obviously has a big enough draw for them to keep shelling out animated movies about him and now investing money into another live action pic.

[TheIncredibleSk]

Im gonna act like I no much on the subject but I dont think creative properties should go into public domain.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by TheIncredibleSk

Im gonna act like I no much on the subject but I dont think creative properties should go into public domain.

Well, if they didn't...schools would be charged a fortune for teaching Shakespeare, and anyone who put on one of his plays in the park would get sued.

[TheIncredibleSk]

Also Superman comics im pretty when he was the lead character never sell less than 30,000 copies.

[TheIncredibleSk]

Originally Posted by KalMart

Well, if they didn't...schools would be charged a fortune for teaching Shakespeare, and anyone who put on one of his plays in the park would get sued.

I mean yeah but I feel like if I created something and I owned it and I made it a huge iconic character then I wouldn't people to do anything they want with it.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by TheIncredibleSk

I mean yeah but I feel like if I created something and I owned it and I made it a huge iconic character then I wouldn't people to do anything they want with it.

Superman wouldn't have been a huge iconic character if National and later DC hadn't turned him into one. But anyway.....I guess there's something about art being for the masses, and having the ability to inspire the growth of art over generations without having to pay a toll for it every single time for ever and ever. Or something....

[Kurosawa]

Originally Posted by merced

I don't see them as stupid - I just see them as regular folk who got scr**ed by the system.

When Trump built his NJ casino plenty of regular folks, retirees on fixed incomes, lost their homes to eminent domain to allow his project to go forward. So much for private property.

It's sort of the same here.

WB/DC is as bad as Toberoff IMO. They have failed to exploit the franchise for decades now. Superman books are outsold by a host of other DC titles. Titles that get the artists and writers Superman doesn't. The heirs were not happy with that situation.

Or how Superman was in development hell as a film for 16 years prior to SR. In the interim Batman had flopped and DC/WB had swooped in and spent the money to fix the franchise and voila - it's a billion dollar film franchise now.

I mostly have sympathy for the heirs.

I'm not fooled by MOS. WB had to do it or pay the heirs 6 million or so. That is what the heirs got for SR. I believe that figure is quoted in one of Trexler's articles. BTW, their half of the profits being 6 million tells you SR made hardly any profit - though I'm sure there was some cooking of the books by TPTB.

In any case no film would have meant WB would have to pay the heirs another 6 million or so out of their bottom line.

With the film they have a chance of making a small profit net of the fees they will pay the heirs. So WB isn't doing this out of the kindness.... so to speak. IMO.

In fact I think MOS will do a bit better than SR so WB will get a few extra million to play with than it did from SR after paying out the film's and the heirs costs.

That they won't be able to make a sequel doesn't really make a difference to WB. WB should still be net ahead with MOS. It helps them in the PR department with the fans too as the legal battle moves forward over the next years.

All of this is true. DC and later on, DC/WB has had the opportunity to make the Siegel and Shuster familes-and Jerry and Joe when they were alive-the deal that they deserved, which is a deal as good as Bob Kane's, the deal his heirs now enjoy. Kane was a rich man in the 60's, and he got rich by being smart and manipulative. He basically got wealthy off of Bill Finger's brilliance. Meanwhile, Siegel and Shuster did a lot more work on Superman than Kane ever did on Batman, but because they were not skilled crooks like Kane was, they lived lives of poverty and were never wealthy. DC didn't even want to give them credit for creating Superman or the pittance of a pension they finally gave Jerry and Joe (and their heirs after their deaths). The only reason they did is because all the nations top cartoonists from Charles Schultz to Jack Kirby pressured them to and Neal Adams and Jerry Robinson negotiated them a deal. Who is really suffering from this is the fans, especially if we end up with Superman dressed in a go-go dancer belt and his origins screwed up or Clark gone or wearing armor or whatever crap they might have to do.

Originally Posted by solidsnake86

Now your just making stuff up. They have failed to exploit the franchise, really?

So they've been content with losing money on the character all these years. Unless theres something wrong with me I remember there being a lois and clark television series, superman the animated series, smallville on tv for 10 seasons, Superman returns and him still being printed in the comics including the New Krypton crossover which was supposed to be his big event and most of all having Jim on the title for 12 issues, grant morisson on all-star, jms on earth one and releasing a hardcover edition. If thats not exploiting the character I don't know what is

You're choosing to ignore things because you don't like the way its turned out. No one can flip a switch and make things successful because every company would be doing it. Batman wasn't a billion dollar franchise before the dark knight which was frankly a fluke do to a host of things. If WB is failing at using superman they must be really dropping the ball with the rest of their characters not named superman and batman.

DC long ago decided they would be further challenged over Superman's rights and decided to make the rights-and-costs controlled Batman their centerpiece character. In fact, DC argued during the court case that Superman has lost popularity and therefore value, and that they should have to pay less as a result. Of course Superman lost value-DC tanked him on purpose by making him a Marvel-lite character and Batman's *****.

Originally Posted by merced

Superman books sell poorly (under 30K/month) because the qualty is poor and has been forever.

Not talking the occasional special, I'm talking the regular books. Heck Superman was missing from one of his titles for a year - Lex basically taking it over. That is what I'm talking about. The quality has not been there for a long time which explains the poor sales figures.

Great sales and good quality like there is with the GL books (he's getting 5 books in the reboot, Superman is reduced to 2) doesn't guarantee a film's sucess as we've just seen. Lots of other factors were going on with that film that hurt it IMO.

Building a foundation of quality work, hopefully Timm's GL will be a hit, is in the long run going to bolster and strengthen a character.

Yeah, this new revamp will the 5th new origin for Superman since 2000. There is no stability in creative teams or direction. Superman is in Wonder Woman territory at this point-he only has a comic because of his name. As soon as they got some momentum going, they wreck it. And how Elliot S! Maggin or Mark Waid is not the Superman editor is beyond me.

[KalMart]

Did DC stop S&S from getting other work, though? I mean, yeah, they should've gotten more kickback from Superman, but 'poverty'? Couldn't they pump gas or serve coffee...or come up with another character?

[Kurosawa]

Originally Posted by KalMart

Did DC stop S&S from getting other work, though? I mean, yeah, they should've gotten more kickback from Superman, but 'poverty'? Couldn't they pump gas or serve coffee...or come up with another character?

Shuster worked as a courier for a while. Siegel ended up working as a mail clerk. The years of trying to sue National over Superman took their toll on both of them, and they were never able to come up with another character that caught on like Superman, although Siegel did create several successful second stringers like The Spectre and Star Spangled Kid. Siegel ended up back at DC in the 60's when he actually did his best work ever, writing tons of great Superman, Superboy and Supergirl stories and many great Legion stories as well, creating many of the Legionaires and their villains with Curt Swan. Toberoff isn't the first lawyer to manipulate the Siegel and Shuster families-Jerry and Joe were used and manipulated by attorneys when they were alive who promised them a better deal, one they never got.

If you read Gerard Jones' Men of Tomorrow, you'll get the story on Superman's origins and Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster's lives. It's required reading for every Superman fan and comics/fantasy fan in general, along with Ronin Ro's Tales to Astonish, the Sternako History of Comics, and Will Eisner's Comics and Sequential Art.

[KalMart]

And what do their kids do for a living?

[Ita-KalEl]

Originally Posted by merced

Superman books sell poorly (under 30K/month) because the qualty is poor and has been forever.

Not talking the occasional special, I'm talking the regular books. Heck Superman was missing from one of his titles for a year - Lex basically taking it over. That is what I'm talking about. The quality has not been there for a long time which explains the poor sales figures.

Great sales and good quality like there is with the GL books (he's getting 5 books in the reboot, Superman is reduced to 2) doesn't guarantee a film's sucess as we've just seen. Lots of other factors were going on with that film that hurt it IMO.

Building a foundation of quality work, hopefully Timm's GL will be a hit, is in the long run going to bolster and strengthen a character.

Every comic book title has sold poorly. It depends by a ton of factors that don't have nothing to do with the power of a brand. Spiderman, Batman, Superman etc. periodically have sales slowdown and the entire market has been in crisis since the seventies. The fact that today Green Lantern titles sell more than Superman titles doesn't mean nothing if its brand doesn't generate any profit (and the megaflop of the GL movie proves it).

Despite good sales Marvel was really in trouble, but it was saved by investing on its brands:

http://enterthestory.com/comic_sales.html

Reguarding the power of the Superman brand, only a blind would ignore that despite all it is still one of the most recognizable and profitable brand. From a 2010 analysis:

The survey also helps answer the age old question of who is the ultimate superhero - with 33%, Spiderman netted the title of most valuable superhero of all time, ahead of Superman on 31% with the caped crusader, Batman, on 29%.


It's not a coincidence TDK was the first and only movie able to make more money of Spider-man. SR failed (but it did far better than X-Men: First Class and GL), but we know very well all the flaws of the film.
I don't know if a judge will write the last word on the Superman brand, but you can bet that at WB/DC they will do everything to keep it. IMO they'll make a deal, maybe even after 2013, and the success of MOS will eventually help it.

[Superfreak]

Originally Posted by KalMart

Superman wouldn't have been a huge iconic character if National and later DC hadn't turned him into one. But anyway.....I guess there's something about art being for the masses, and having the ability to inspire the growth of art over generations without having to pay a toll for it every single time for ever and ever. Or something....

moreover, I am strongly against inheritance past a certain point. Why should some dim wit, 3 generations later be allowed to profit from something they've made no contribution to? Sure, there should be some inheritance, ie. 1 or 2 generations, but it shouldn't go beyond that, unless like I said, they've made a solid contribution to the growth of the property. They must be worthy

[merced]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

DC long ago decided they would be further challenged over Superman's rights and decided to make the rights-and-costs controlled Batman their centerpiece character. In fact, DC argued during the court case that Superman has lost popularity and therefore value, and that they should have to pay less as a result. Of course Superman lost value-DC tanked him on purpose by making him a Marvel-lite character and Batman's *****.



Yeah, this new revamp will the 5th new origin for Superman since 2000. There is no stability in creative teams or direction. Superman is in Wonder Woman territory at this point-he only has a comic because of his name. As soon as they got some momentum going, they wreck it. And how Elliot S! Maggin or Mark Waid is not the Superman editor is beyond me.

IMO you are spot on as to why DC shifted the flaghip status to Batman over the past 15 or so years.

The fact DC owned Batman completely and the franchise wasn't near to going public meant they could make the biggest profit off this franchise - because they don't have to share half of it with a co-owner.

Even before the lawsuit, DC knew that Superman would be going public in a few years. Right about now actually - though the bill Congress passed extended that in the meantime 25 years out.

As a business decision it makes some sense. You leverage your most profitable properties.

But it's meant Superman has languised and his sales have dropped and the failure to promote him as they did Batman has made him fade as an iconic character. We saw that in the disappointing opening weekend for SR.

Recently the books have been atrocious. Superman was AWOL from one of his books for a year as Luthor took it over. The stories are uninteresting and the art not as good as you see in GL or Flash.

Of couse Maggin or Waid aren't editors cause DC won't spend the big bucks on Superman as it does on Batman and GL.

JMHO but I see DC's focus now as creating a new character using the elements it retains from Superman. Tweaking that character until it passes court muster as non-derivative and voila!

Not only will they escape the legal wrath of Toberoff and the heirs, they will own the character full on and the clock will start fresh on when it goes pubic. In other words they can use the character exclusively for 75 years while the heirs and Toberoff will see their rights disappear in 2030.