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

[Dr.]

Originally Posted by Stephen K. Hone

No way will Batman, Mickey Mouse, and similar properties fall into the realm of the public domain. Wouldn't that be like saying, Coca Cola is now be a generic term for that kind of soda, and that everyone can make it, and Coca Cola now have to hand over their secret formula??!

I’m no lawyer... so don’t believe a word I say.

But I get the impression that “copyright,” “trademarks,” “patents” and “trade secrets” work under different and complicated rules. Apparently, Coke elected not to take out a patent and opted for keeping a “trade secret.”

The copyright for Steamboat Willie will soon expire. But the trademark for Mickey Mouse won’t (that’s forever, I think). And Disney probably established copyrights for Mickey stories in the 40s, 50s and 60s, etc. So I think... someone could soon make her own Mickey Mouse cartoon if it looks sufficiently like public domain Steamboat Willie (1928) - but not if it looks like Mickey from Mickey and the Beanstalk (1947).

[chamber-music]

Originally Posted by merced

Good question. When Routh and Ryan Reynolds and the Ironman sar were signed w/in a short while it was said they'd been optioned for several films. 2 is usually the case.

With Cavill we haven't heard a thing and he was signed 6 months ago.

Don't know if it means anything or not.

I wouldn't be surprised however if Cavill refused to sign an option for more films. Knowing the legal situation and the odds being against a sequel.

Given the situation I could see WB going along with this.

Anyway, no one seems to know.

Pretty much any big budget movie has its lead actors optioned for sequels these days as standard. Even Inception actors had options for sequels in their contracts.

Cavill probably has as well if he had refused he probably would not got the role and he isn't a A-List actor yet so his not in the position to dictate to studios what he will or won't do.

Keep in mind options for sequels are just away of studios covering their backs so that they don't have to renegoitate salaries with lead actors if the studio does move forward with sequels in the future. Not having actors signed on for future installments leaves them vunerable to high wage demands.

Studios have the right to use or not use that option. It doesn't cost the studio any money to not use a actors option.

[Stephen K. Hone]

Originally Posted by Dr.

I’m no lawyer... so don’t believe a word I say.

But I get the impression that “copyright,” “trademarks,” “patents” and “trade secrets” work under different and complicated rules. Apparently, Coke elected not to take out a patent and opted for keeping a “trade secret.”

The copyright for Steamboat Willie will soon expire. But the trademark for Mickey Mouse won’t (that’s forever, I think). And Disney probably established copyrights for Mickey stories in the 40s, 50s and 60s, etc. So I think... someone could soon make her own Mickey Mouse cartoon if it looks sufficiently like public domain Steamboat Willie (1928) - but not if it looks like Mickey from Mickey and the Beanstalk (1947).

I seriously doubt that. You are underestimating the power that the House of Mouse weilds.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by Stephen K. Hone

So what do they get? Krypton, Lois, Daily Planet, Clark Kent, possibly the Superman name? Doesn't amount to much, even though those are important things. If Toberoff and the heirs are intent on inflicting damage on WB by withholding those elements they can certainly do it but imo they have way more to lose than WB/DC. WB will just call him The Man Of Steel, (everyone will refer to him as Superman by default anyhow) and the \S/ even if it is a crest from his home planet can also stand for Steel.

Which looks like how they're preparing to go with the new suit/reboot etc. They'll just not give him an alter ego, and make him single so he can finally get it on with Wonder Woman.

[Stephen K. Hone]

Originally Posted by KalMart

Which looks like how they're preparing to go with the new suit/reboot etc. They'll just not give him an alter ego, and make him single so he can finally get it on with Wonder Woman.

Which means if Diana is his new love interest, Toberoff and S & S heirs are getting less and less as bargaining chips.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by Stephen K. Hone

Which means if Diana is his new love interest, Toberoff and S & S heirs are getting less and less as bargaining chips.

That's the plan. And if it turns out to be successful, who needs those other guys anyway?

You never know...it could be the 'fresh new start' that (the hero formerly known as) Superman has been in such dire need of for a while.

[merced]

Originally Posted by KalMart

That's the plan. And if it turns out to be successful, who needs those other guys anyway?

You never know...it could be the 'fresh new start' that (the hero formerly known as) Superman has been in such dire need of for a while.

Bingo!

WB/DC will continue the legal fight to:

1) Make sure whatever rights the heirs and Toberoff have, they won't be
able to use them for years if ever.

2) Try to get a higher court to overturn the ruling in favor of the heirs
from back in 2008.

3) Create a brand new character with components of the rights they
own. A character 100% owned by WB/DC for which they have to pay
no license fees or royalties.

However the case turns out, IMO WB/DC don't plan and never planned to license anything from the heirs. They want a clean break. Their own fully-owned character.

From a business perspective it's a no-brainer.

WB/DC can pay up to 50% of the profits it makes from using the heirs rights back to the heirs or it can create a new character formerly known as Superman and keep all the profits for itself. What would you do given that choice?

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by merced

Bingo!

WB/DC will continue the legal fight to:

1) Make sure whatever rights the heirs and Toberoff have they won't be
able to use them for years if ever.

2) Try to get a higher court to overturn the ruling in favor of the heirs
from back in 2008.

3) Create a brand new character with components of the rights they
own. A character 100% owned by WB/DC for which they have to pay
no license fees or royalties.

However the case turns out, IMO WB/DC don't plan and never planned to license anything from the heirs. They want a clean break. Their own fully-owned character.

From a busines perspective it's a no-brainer.

WB/DC can pay up to 50% of the profits it makes from using the heirs rights back to the heirs or it can create a new character formerly known as Superman and kepp all the profits for itself. What would you do given that choice?

Another Batman movie?

[merced]

Originally Posted by KalMart

Another Batman movie?

That too!!

As to future films for this new character - those are a long ways off IMO. WB has to be convinced the chaacter has enough appeal to warrant a film. It's a tough call and not easy - look at GL.

I expect the next 5 or so years will be spent tweaking the character formerly known as Superman in the books and such.

Ony after an exteneded peiod do I see WB maybe trying another Man of Steel film.

So in the meantime Bats is all WB has already Robinov is planning the Batman reboot after TDKR. I expect it will come more quickly than did the Spiderman film reboot.

[Dr.]

Originally Posted by Stephen K. Hone

I seriously doubt that. You are underestimating the power that the House of Mouse wields.

On the contrary, I was suggesting Disney will use all the tricks at their disposal (copyright renewals, trademarks) to retain ownership. (Disney was actually a key player in getting copyright terms extended to their current length.) It'll be the same for DC/WB and Superman.

[TheIncredibleSk]

Im am in totally disagreement Merced. You dont put 175M dollars and your golden boy to produce a Superman film and just make it a one off if its a successful. If they wanted to they could have just went the 90's Fantastic Four route and half ass it.But no their pulling out the big guns for one movie. WHAT SENSE DOES THAT MAKE? SERIOUSLY? Ask your self that.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by TheIncredibleSk

Im am in totally disagreement Merced. You dont put 175M dollars and your golden boy to produce a Superman film and just make it a one off if its a successful. If they wanted to they could have just went the 90's Fantastic Four route and half ass it.But no their pulling out the big guns for one movie. WHAT SENSE DOES THAT MAKE? SERIOUSLY? Ask your self that.

Again, the movie is strongly motivated by not having to pay millions for not making a movie...which they'd have a legal obligation to do if they didn't make a movie in the next two years. And if there's a chance that they'll lose aspects of the character, it is a last chance to make a majority profit while they still can. If anything's clear these days, 'half-ass' won't get you squat...especially with all the competition out there. They want a blockbuster...a series is secondary if it's even going to be an issue.

I know it's a harrowing prospect for Superman fans, but this is very serious stuff. It's not about the fans or creative virtue, it IS about money, and not wanting to share. Batman is their golden boy, Superman is about to become damaged goods with divided assets...there's no avoiding it, and it's already started. It's not that they don't want a sequel if they can make one, however legal/settlement things turn out...but that's gravy..the main concern is getting it done while they can still claim the majority of profits from the brand.

[TheIncredibleSk]

I disagree. I truly feel their going all out to try to start a new franchise. The heirs and DC will settle eventually before this turns from bad to ****. Its inevitable. Both parties Supes wont be ****. They'll both lose money and both parties will settle before that.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by TheIncredibleSk

I disagree. I truly feel their going all out to try to start a new franchise. The heirs and DC will settle eventually before this turns from bad to ****. Its inevitable. Both parties Supes wont be ****. They'll both lose money and both parties will settle before that.

The thing is, the legal issues aren't going to magically disappear...or suddenly turn nice and agreeable. You realize that, right? Because only by ignoring that can one see the new MOS movie as a launch of a new trilogy/etc htat overrides all other possibilities. The fact that this lawyer Toberoff is involved the way he is all but guarantees a very bumpy road ahead.

Losing money isn't the only issue, the sharing of it is what's causing problems. We're seeing how DC is preparing a 'contingency' plan with their comic line. They're showing that they DO have a plan B, that they have options outside of settling. Sure, you can choose not to believe it, just like you can choose not to believe that it'll get cold in Chicago this coming January. But it is very real. So instead of covering up and screaming 'la-la-la..!!', maybe we should acknowledge the difficulties ahead and be better prepared for it, so as not to be that much more devastated when it does come to pass.

[TheIncredibleSk]

I know that but eventually I think they will settle.

[merced]

Originally Posted by KalMart

Again, the movie is strongly motivated by not having to pay millions for not making a movie...which they'd have a legal obligation to do if they didn't make a movie in the next two years. And if there's a chance that they'll lose aspects of the character, it is a last chance to make a majority profit while they still can. If anything's clear these days, 'half-ass' won't get you squat...especially with all the competition out there. They want a blockbuster...a series is secondary if it's even going to be an issue.

I know it's a harrowing prospect for Superman fans, but this is very serious stuff. It's not about the fans or creative virtue, it IS about money, and not wanting to share. Batman is their golden boy, Superman is about to become damaged goods with divided assets...there's no avoiding it, and it's already started. It's not that they don't want a sequel if they can make one, however legal/settlement things turn out...but that's gravy..the main concern is getting it done while they can still claim the majority of profits from the brand.

Plus, and I got this from a owner of several comic shops who claims an inside track on what is going on. Yeah right! Don't they all.

But in any case he makes a plausible argument as to why WB is spending so much - I was at first surprised myself at the money and quality of cast/team going into MOS.

WB knows they likely will not make a sequel because of the legal issues.

At the point where WB announces there won't be a sequel and DC creates a new character there will be a fan backlash.

But WB can say we wanted to make another film - look at the quality/product we gave you in the first film. It's not our fault - it's the heirs falt and Toberoff that prevented a sequel.

Great PR move making a quality MOS as opposed to a knock-off Superman film for 100 million.

WB and DC win in the court of public opinion and as DC moves forward with the new character it will receive a more sympathtic acceptance from fans.

Anyway, it's all a PR moveaccording to my friend.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by TheIncredibleSk

I know that but eventually I think they will settle.

Maybe only if WB's plan B just doesn't work. But you can bet WB will do all they can not to 'need' the heirs...and they've got plenty of other characters to fill the void in the meantime. Superman is important to them...but not THAT important. If anyone's going to get desperate for a settlement, you can bet it won't be WB.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by merced

Plus, and I got this from a owner of several comic shops who claims an inside track on what is going on. Yeah right! Don't they all.

But in any case he makes a plausible argument as to why WB is spending so much - I was at first surprised myself at the money and quality of cast/team going into MOS.

WB knows they likely will not make a sequel because of the legal issues.

At the point where WB announces there won't be a sequel and DC creates a new character there will be a fan backlash.

But WB can say we wanted to make another film - look at the quality/product we gave you in the first film. It's not our fault - it's the heirs falt and Toberoff that prevented a sequel.

Great PR move making a quality MOS as opposed to a knock-off Superman film for 100 million.

WB and DC win in the court of public opinion and as DC moves forward with the new character it will receive a more sympathtic acceptance from fans.

Anyway, it's all a PR moveaccording to my friend.

Showing that for them, 'it's all about the fans', eh?

[Ita-KalEl]

LOL Merced and Kalmart are the dynamic duo of Superman haters
I don't see a single piece of logic in what you have been writing. The fact that WB is putting great resources in MOS only a PR move?

So you are saying that at WB they are doing everything possible to make a great superman movie only to say "It's not our fault - it's the heirs falt and Toberoff that prevented a sequel". And while they are doing it, Superman is considered a brand "not that important" because its comics sell less than Green Lantern and other DC titles.

Conghratulations

[TheIncredibleSk]

I call ******** but we'll see next December boys. Till then this is pointless.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by Ita-KalEl

LOL Merced and Kalmart are the dynamic duo of Superman haters

How do you reckon that? I like Superman...and I want there to be Superman movies. But what's going on with it legally is serious stuff, so wouldn't you think it sensible to be prepared for what's approaching?

I don't think anyone here wants Superman to disappear completely. We just have to think about how much 'modification' are we able to endure while still seeing the character as Superman...even if he technically can't be called that, legally.

Is that clear...or are you as childishly moronic as you're portraying yourself to be.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by TheIncredibleSk

I call ******** but we'll see next December boys. Till then this is pointless.

The legal issues aren't BS, they're very real. Like you, I do hope that they come to some sort of workable resolution/settlement so that Superman can continue being Superman as we've known him. But what's looking more likely is that'll be very difficult to come true until a lot of hostile legal battles are sorted out over time...this isn't a moral battle, it's a financial one. I think that it's really unfortunate for Superman fans that Superman will be tied up in legal limbo which may very well mean saying goodbye to certain hallmarks that have come to be so cherished. But if we're prepared for that, it makes the pain a little easier to absorb.

[SuperDaniel]

Why all this talk about the lawsuits when Snyder specifically said they will have nothing to do with the movie?

[Ita-KalEl]

The legal issues aren't BS, but we can't decide today the future. We only know that WB/DC are making a great Superman movie and not a b-movie to avoid a penalty. You can say that it is a "PR move", that they are ready to continue without a debased Superman but realistically this movie is more likely a starting point for a deal to keep their Triple-A franchise.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by Ita-KalEl

The legal issues aren't BS, but we can't decide today the future. We only know that WB/DC are making a great Superman movie and not a b-movie to avoid a penalty.

Nobody said they were making a B-movie.

Originally Posted by Ita-KalEl

You can say that it is a "PR move", that they are ready to continue without a debased Superman but realistically this movie is more likely a starting point for a deal to keep their Triple-A franchise.

It's a strong showing for their part...if it's successful....further strengthening their stance that it's they who give Superman the best chance at productivity, and that they 'care about the fans'. But it won't sway what's on the horizon, legally. The ironic thing is that the more successful it is, the more that the heirs/Toberoff would ask for in a settlement...so there's a chance it may complicate things further. The more something's worth, the harder that people fight over it.

Originally Posted by SuperDaniel

Why all this talk about the lawsuits when Snyder specifically said they will have nothing to do with the movie?

It has nothing to do with the movie in that the movie will be made before WB is forced to settle with the heirs. If it did, you probably wouldn't be seeing Lois Lane, Clark Kent, and all the other aspects that will go into the heirs ownership in a few years.