Reintroducing Superman: An Open Discussion

[ultimatefan]

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

So they were already paying for the love triangle as well. The thing is, you can´t tell any Superman story without the name Superman - it has to be on the cover, or the movie´s title,etc. - and a lenghty one without Clark Kent. But you can perfetly well tell a story without mentioning the origin. That´s the difference.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

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

Angeloz

I saw that in another article. I'll try and find it( unless I'm going crazy).

 

[Angeloz]

So they were already paying for the love triangle as well. The thing is, you can´t tell any Superman story without the name Superman - it has to be on the cover, or the movie´s title,etc. - and a lenghty one without Clark Kent. But you can perfetly well tell a story without mentioning the origin. That´s the difference.

Wouldn't that include not mentioning Krypton. So I disagree.

Angeloz

 

[Timstuff]

If they want to reintroduce Superman the right way, they have to include his origin in some manner. Ideally the movie should be made for everyone, not just people who have some pre-existing knowledge of Superman. That's part of what hurt Superman Returns-- if you're introducing the character to a new generation, you shouldn't expect them to do homework prior to watching it. Also, they need to pay for the rights if they want to talk about Krypton, so they might as well get their money's worth out of it.

 

[Angeloz]

I saw that in another article. I'll try and find it( unless I'm going crazy).

I look forward to seeing it if you can find it.

Angeloz

 

[Crook]

ultimatefan is right in the sense that you don't need the origin (pre-Metropolis) in the first film to tell a proper reintroduction story of the character. BUT, to completely ignore it throughout the entire franchise would be a disservice to the mythos. You have to address Krypton and his heritage at some point.

Which means these 2 will have to reach an agreement. Both have essential parts that don't work exclusively without the others.

 

[Angeloz]

ultimatefan is right in the sense that you don't need the origin (pre-Metropolis) in the first film to tell a proper reintroduction story of the character. BUT, to completely ignore it throughout the entire franchise would be a disservice to the mythos. You have to address Krypton and his heritage at some point.

Which means these 2 will have to reach an agreement. Both have essential parts that don't work exclusively without the others.

Yep. It's logical and sensible. Now the question is will it be done. Or when will it be done is probably more accurate. I hope.

Angeloz

 

[Timstuff]

The way things are, Warner Bros. can't make money off of Superman unless they pay the family, and the family cant make money off of Superman unless they lease the rights to Warner Bros. They are in a mutually dependent situation, so I wouldn't expect to see Marvel publishing Superman any time soon.

 

[rocco2216]

So they were already paying for the love triangle as well. The thing is, you can´t tell any Superman story without the name Superman - it has to be on the cover, or the movie´s title,etc. - and a lenghty one without Clark Kent. But you can perfetly well tell a story without mentioning the origin. That´s the difference.

Where on that article does it say that the Seigels own the name Superman and Clark Kent?

 

[TheComicbookKid]

I look forward to seeing it if you can find it.

Angeloz

Nevermind. I'm crazy!

 

[Angeloz]

Where on that article does it say that the Seigels own the name Superman and Clark Kent?

It's in a Variety article.

Angeloz

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Scratch that ThinkMcFly backed me up. It was in the previous ruling.

"What does this all mean? The Siegels now own the rights to most of Superman's origin that we are familiar with from the comics and the Donnverse. This includes; Superman's Kryptonian parents, infant Kal-El, the explosion of Krypton, the infant Kal-El being sent from Krypton in a ship, and infant Kal-El crash landing on earth. This is in addition to their ownership of Action Comics #1 which was awarded to the Siegels in 2008. That previous ruling allows them rights to reporter Clark Kent, reporter Lois Lane, their jobs at the Daily Planet working for an obsessive editor, and the romantic dyanmic between Lois, Clark, and Superman."


Aside from Metropolis, the powers, and Jimmy/Perry and the S they have a lot of stuff now.

 

[Angeloz]

Scratch that ThinkMcFly backed me up. It was in the previous ruling.

"What does this all mean? The Siegels now own the rights to most of Superman's origin that we are familiar with from the comics and the Donnverse. This includes; Superman's Kryptonian parents, infant Kal-El, the explosion of Krypton, the infant Kal-El being sent from Krypton in a ship, and infant Kal-El crash landing on earth. This is in addition to their ownership of Action Comics #1 which was awarded to the Siegels in 2008. That previous ruling allows them rights to reporter Clark Kent, reporter Lois Lane, their jobs at the Daily Planet working for an obsessive editor, and the romantic dyanmic between Lois, Clark, and Superman."


Aside from Metropolis, the powers, and Jimmy/Perry and the S they have a lot of stuff now.

Thanks.

Are you sure about Metropolis? I know the newspaper used to be the Daily Star. But it was a newspaper.

Angeloz

 

[afan]

Where does all this leave Supergirl?

Will this finally be the impetus for an Elastic Lad film?

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Thanks.

Are you sure about Metropolis? I know the newspaper used to be the Daily Star. But it was a newspaper.

Angeloz

According to Wiki, Metropolis wasn't named until Action Comics 2.

 

[Angeloz]

According to Wiki, Metropolis wasn't named until Action Comics 2.

The complicating factor is they (Siegels) also own two weeks worth of newspaper strips, Action Comics #4 and some of the pages of Superman #1. Which will probably mean Metropolis is mentioned (Superman Homepage News though I'm not sure about Metropolis).

Angeloz

 

[TheComicbookKid]

The complicating factor is they (Siegels) also own two weeks worth of newspaper strips, Action Comics #4 and some of the pages of Superman #1. Which will probably mean Metropolis is mentioned (Superman Homepage News though I'm not sure about Metropolis).

Angeloz

Yeah, but I think it has to do with where it was named. They got Superman's origin but not Ma and Pa Kent apparently though they were seen in those pages? But were only called as the Kents and they took him to an orphanage.


According to Wiki

Although a "passing motorist" is described as having found the infant Kal-El in the character's first appearance in 1938's Action Comics #1, 1939's Superman #1 introduces Superman's adoptive parents to the mythos, with "Mary Kent" being the only parent given a name. The Kents' first names vary in stories from the 1940s




This whole thing is a headache. DC is the one who explains Superman's costume origin so they retain that right, but the Siegels have the rights to the red/blue suit but not the modern emblem?

 

[Man of Tomorrow]

So would a potential Superman movie in development by 2011 be able to use any of the properties that the S+S families acquired??

 

[Octoberist]

i think no matter what, WB would have to pay them up for some of the rights that they own, when the movie starts.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Yes. The Shuster family doesn' t own anything before 2013. DC is co-owner of everything(including the stuff from the origin). DC just has to pay the Siegel family just for using the stuff they officially now co-own.

 

[ultimatefan]

Wouldn't that include not mentioning Krypton. So I disagree.

Angeloz

You can perfectly well tell a Superman story without mentioning Krypton. Absolutely. Even in the movies it has been mentioned to death already.

 

[ultimatefan]

ultimatefan is right in the sense that you don't need the origin (pre-Metropolis) in the first film to tell a proper reintroduction story of the character. BUT, to completely ignore it throughout the entire franchise would be a disservice to the mythos. You have to address Krypton and his heritage at some point.

Which means these 2 will have to reach an agreement. Both have essential parts that don't work exclusively without the others.

They can at least make one movie to reenergize the franchise with fresh ideas instead of going back to the origin yet again and build up its popularity again without mentioning the origin or Krypton. Once the franchise is on solid ground again, you can work that stuff out.

 

[solidsnake86]

They can at least make one movie to reenergize the franchise with fresh ideas instead of going back to the origin yet again and build up its popularity again without mentioning the origin or Krypton. Once the franchise is on solid ground again, you can work that stuff out.

Thats the thing though, they need to reenergize this franchise. I don't think many people are arguing for STM part 2- better FX. Most posters here want to see it redone on the big screen adding in new elements. I see that your argument is basically we've seen it a dozen times, but have we seen it done properly with todays technology.... no.

 

[ultimatefan]

Thats the thing though, they need to reenergize this franchise. I don't think many people are arguing for STM part 2- better FX. Most posters here want to see it redone on the big screen adding in new elements. I see that your argument is basically we've seen it a dozen times, but have we seen it done properly with todays technology.... no.

Just updating FX is nowhere near enough reason to go and retell it all over again. And it was done fairly properly in 1978, it´s not like comparing the 1933 King Kong with the modern one.

 

[solidsnake86]

It's not just todays technology though. They've added new layers to it, not to mention they're releasing another book called secret origins. Not everyone agrees that STM is the be all and end all.