Reintroducing Superman: An Open Discussion

[GreenKToo]

Somebody is about to get filthy rich.

 

[afan]

Just wondering......Does anyone own the rights to flying?
For the sake of argument/discussion ...say the Seigel family "license" the details they now own to another film producer and in the course of that story Superman develops a flight power. Isn't the power of flight generic enough in super-herodom as to not be owned.

This reminds me of the Tarzan properties back in the '30s when several studios were allowed to produce films featuring the character.

In the end it just simply seems that WB in making a Superman film will need to pony up a fee to the Seigel family.

 

[BlackLantern]

not the rights to flying...but flying as a concept in the DC universe as it applies to Superman, then yes if DC introduced that as a facet of the character, they own it

 

[afan]

Somebody is about to get filthy rich.

Ya know I don't really begrudge them. When you consider the amount of money Superman properties have generated over the decades, and the pittance the Seigel family has recieved.....more power to 'em.

 

[RogueDK]

^^^Agreed.

 

[afan]

not the rights to flying...but flying as a concept in the DC universe as it applies to Superman, then yes if DC introduced that as a facet of the character, they own it

Are you referring to the yellow sun gifted power of flight. What if the power is otherwise explained.

 

[BlackLantern]

Are you referring to the yellow sun gifted power of flight. What if the power is otherwise explained.

yes

 

[Angeloz]

Ya know I don't really begrudge them. When you consider the amount of money Superman properties have generated over the decades, and the pittance the Seigel family has recieved.....more power to 'em.

Agreed.

Are you referring to the yellow sun gifted power of flight. What if the power is otherwise explained.

That's why there needs to be a deal. The families own some of it and the WB own other parts of the story. It's just the WB have to face facts and do the deal. Presumedly a more permanent one. Or piece by piece. Because otherwise they won't have him. And the families have limitations with him (no flying nor some vision powers nor kryptonite, etc.). So it's get together time.

Angeloz

 

[MadVillainy]

I understand receiving money compensation or a cut off of movies, shows, cartoons, etc. but why give them right to Superman's origin

and I agree Angeloz it really is "get together time" or somebody is gonna f*** up the character even worse

 

[afan]

Agreed.



That's why there needs to be a deal. The families own some of it and the WB own other parts of the story. It's just the WB have to face facts and do the deal. Presumedly a more permanent one. Or piece by piece. Because otherwise they won't have him. And the families have limitations with him (no flying nor some vision powers nor kryptonite, etc.). So it's get together time.

Angeloz

Kryptonite sure as it is specific to Superman, but flying? not so sure....... Peter Pan flew long before Superman.

And speaking of kryptonite if the Seigels get Krypton.... where does kryptonite come from?

 

[afan]

I understand receiving money compensation or a cut off of movies, shows, cartoons, etc. but why give them right to Superman's origin

and I agree Angeloz it really is "get together time" or somebody is gonna f*** up the character even worse

As I understand it the judgement is seperating the aspects of the character that were developed outside of employment by a company from those developed while being paid to do so.

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

Cornfields in Smallville?
They will reach an agreement, the rights they got back are only for the USA. DC and WB still owns 100% of Superman outside the USA.

 

[C. Lee]

Kryptonite sure as it is specific to Superman, but flying? not so sure....... Peter Pan flew long before Superman.

And speaking of kryptonite if the Seigels get Krypton.... where does kryptonite come from?

The concept of Kryptonite was invented by the writers of the radio program....so the families can't have control of it....and you don't have to call it by name, just show green rock and everyone knows what it is.

 

[Angeloz]

Kryptonite sure as it is specific to Superman, but flying? not so sure....... Peter Pan flew long before Superman.

And speaking of kryptonite if the Seigels get Krypton.... where does kryptonite come from?

In the early comics he could jump real high. Flying came later. That's why it's mixed. I'll admit I'm not completely knowledgeable with his history in the forties. Or any decade in depth.

Angeloz

 

[Crook]

The concept of Kryptonite was invented by the writers of the radio program....so the families can't have control of it....and you don't have to call it by name, just show green rock and everyone knows what it is.

They just own the name? Isn't there some sort of copyright violation if it looks exactly the same?

 

[ultimatefan]

Basically the family owns one piece and wb owns another piece. There going to work something out because now the family can make money off of their piece. There not going to sell it to marvel or start producing there own comic book.They want there cut and now they can get it cause WB is going to have to pony up some money.

And if they do an origin, who says they need to start off with krypton and his parents. Sorry ultimatefan your not making any sense in justifying that there not doing an origin because they dont want to pay. Especially if the family owns the name clark kent, superman, lois they're going to have to pay anyways.

I´m making perfect sense. What I always meant with not do an origin movie, is not get back to Krypton blowing up and his parents sending him to Earth. And quite frankly,how many fans will want an origin story that takes a big chunk of the movie and is not that? Remember the JJ Abrams script that Had Krypton not blowing up, Superman as part of a prophecy, etc.? Fans were pissed as hell about that, imagine if you don´t even use the name Krypton. And I´m even less interested in showing Clark discovering his powers, Smallville milked that cow pretty much to the last drop.

Quite frankly, to me this is more of an opportunity than a problem. I´ve always defended, there are over 70 years of Superman stories, it shows tremendous lack of confidence from the fans to insist on retelling a story that´s been told in every media Superman has been explored, including movies, like there´s no way you can start the movie with an established, ongoing Superman and just tell a good, exciting Superman story. There are tons of ways to make the audience get invested and care for Superman without just making the damn planet blow up for the billionth time.

 

[Angeloz]

As I've said before how can they make a Superman film without the names of Superman nor Clark Kent. Slight problem. I think you know the answer to.

Angeloz

 

[TheComicbookKid]

No, I think they now own the name and the original blue/red suit. Just not the Modern S which they will never get. The Daily Planet, Jimmy, and Perry were radio creations I believe so they probably won't get those.

When did Metropolis get named? And Lex might be up for grabs if they can prove they invented it before coming to DC.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

As I've said before how can they make a Superman film without the names of Superman nor Clark Kent. Slight problem. I think you know the answer to.

Angeloz

The WB/DC were already paying them for Superman/Clark Kent. That's what they were using to say Superboy was their concept since it's the same character.


Now they have to pay for the Lois/Clark/Superman love triangle dynamic.

 

[ultimatefan]

As I've said before how can they make a Superman film without the names of Superman nor Clark Kent. Slight problem. I think you know the answer to.

Angeloz

The article never mentioned that they own the names Superman and Clark Kent, just Kal-El and his parents.

 

[rocco2216]

The article never mentioned that they own the names Superman and Clark Kent, just Kal-El and his parents.

Just baby Kal-El, right?

 

[Angeloz]

The WB/DC were already paying them for Superman/Clark Kent. Now they have to pay for the Lois/Clark/Superman love triangle dynamic.

Interesting. How do you know this? Just wondering. I'll admit I don't know the nitty gritty details.

Angeloz

 

[Angeloz]

The article never mentioned that they own the names Superman and Clark Kent, just Kal-El and his parents.

I read a different article Double Down posted at Bluetights that said they do own him. I think it was a Variety article.

Angeloz

 

[Scarlet Spider]

The article never mentioned that they own the names Superman and Clark Kent, just Kal-El and his parents.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118007269.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

In 2008, the same court order ruled on summary judgment that the Siegels had successfully recaptured (as of 1999) Siegel's copyright in Action Comics No. 1, giving them rights to the Superman character, including his costume, his alter-ego as reporter Clark Kent, the feisty reporter Lois Lane, their jobs at the Daily Planet newspaper working for a gruff editor, and the love triangle among Clark/Superman and Lois.

 

[ultimatefan]

One way or another, if before I didn´t see reason to get back to the whole Krypton blowing up thing, I see even less reason now.