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

[Micromind]

Is it too much to ask for an Extended edition of SR ?

 

[Ita-KalEl]

Remember when people kept saying that Superman would be split up and this was the end of Superman as we know him. Sweet.

I remember it very well and even "Green Lantern is more important than Superman" , and, of course, "We'll not see any Superman movie for at least 30 years even if TMOS does more than Avatar".

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

No more "Marvel is gonna buy Superman!"

That was never in the cards.

 

[Coca Cola Duracell Franklin.]

Is it too much to ask for an Extended edition of SR ?

They'll exploit that after the MOS sequel probably.

 

[sf2]

Marvel have Faith in their movies because thy have not experienced any failures so far.

The hulk, daredevil...

 

[HighFivingMF]

That was never in the cards.

Yeah, I know. Didn't stop people from saying it, namely at the site that shan't be named.

 

[chamber-music]

The hulk, daredevil...

Daredevil and Hulk weren't Marvel Studios film

 

[hippie_hunter]

Although I'm not American, as someone who is about to write his Bar Exams in a couple of months, I'm not quite sure what Warner Bros would be able to sue him for. In Canada, the UK, and other Commonwealth systems, losers of civil suits are normally liable for the costs of the winning party. So if you win, the other side has to reimburse you for your legal fees basically. In practice, it's more complex in regards to how much the winning party is reimbursed, but that's the basic idea. It is one of our safeguards against ambulance chasers and frivolous lawsuits. The U.S. is unique in that it does not have such a costs system. Each party bears their own costs regardless of winning or losing. Many legal academics point to this as being one of the main reasons why Americans are so lawsuit happy.

True, Warner Bros. might be able to pursue a claim for the tort of malicious prosecution against the heirs, but proving malicious prosecution is rather difficult. If I recall correctly, the lawsuit needs to be frivolous such that it is an abuse of process. Given that a trial judge decided in favor of the heirs and the decision was only overturned upon appeal, it is hard to argue that the suit was without merit.

We have similar laws as well, where legal fees can be reimbursed. But in 2010 WB shifted their legal strategy of going after the heirs but going after their shifty lawyer and bringing a lawsuit onto him. It hasn't progressed much on the grounds of Toberoff challenging it with an anti-SLAAP motion that protects him and the Superman case still ongoing. However, now that the Superman case is over, WB can now go after Toberoff because the courts also rejected his anti-SLAAP motion as well. The courts have come to the conclusion that Toberoff was acting more within his own interests as opposed to his clients and sabotaged potential settlements with the heirs for his own personal benefit.

Going after the heirs would look bad, but going after their lawyer who essentially took advantage of old people for his own personal benefit, sabotaged settlements and convinced the heirs to renege on their agreements with DC, and put Warner Bros. into an expensive lawsuit. He's the one who is most likely going to pay. They're not going to go after him for legal fees, they're most likely going to go after him to put an end to him so that way Toberoff doesn't bother the studios anymore.

 

[The Guard]

I don't think they need to do anything to him at this point...he basically got his butt handed to him, and it's likely going to be a while before he gets a case like this one again.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

Daredevil and Hulk weren't Marvel Studios film

I don't really understand the whole "lets not count the movies that Marvel didn't make themselves" thing. Seems like a cop out so that you can say Marvel has never had a bad movie.

 

[Dangerman]

Is it too much to ask for an Extended edition of SR ?

I wish this would see the light of day but I know it wont. However I was wrong about Superman II TRDC I might be wrong about this.

 

[DKDetective]

We have similar laws as well, where legal fees can be reimbursed. But in 2010 WB shifted their legal strategy of going after the heirs but going after their shifty lawyer and bringing a lawsuit onto him. It hasn't progressed much on the grounds of Toberoff challenging it with an anti-SLAAP motion that protects him and the Superman case still ongoing. However, now that the Superman case is over, WB can now go after Toberoff because the courts also rejected his anti-SLAAP motion as well. The courts have come to the conclusion that Toberoff was acting more within his own interests as opposed to his clients and sabotaged potential settlements with the heirs for his own personal benefit.

Going after the heirs would look bad, but going after their lawyer who essentially took advantage of old people for his own personal benefit, sabotaged settlements and convinced the heirs to renege on their agreements with DC, and put Warner Bros. into an expensive lawsuit. He's the one who is most likely going to pay. They're not going to go after him for legal fees, they're most likely going to go after him to put an end to him so that way Toberoff doesn't bother the studios anymore.

Hrmm. Must just be a few states with that costs system because we are still taught that the general approach to costs in the US is each party bears their own.

Yeah, I understand that there are a lot of issues in regards to Toberoff violating his fiduciary duty and other responsibilities to his clients, but typically only the clients can sue him for that because it is a duty owed to them. I'm not quite sure what Warner Bros.'s cause of action against Toberoff is though.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Because he's the one who sabotaged the deals WB had with the heirs. The heirs were on the verge of having new deals with WB until Toberoff stepped in and had them sign agreements not to settle with WB.

 

[BH/HHH]

Is it too much to ask for an Extended edition of SR ?

I know, hopefully we'll get one

 

[vantheman77]

From this year onwards, the WB/ DC Comics can now settle with Siegel and Shuster estates according to what was agreed on in 1992 and 2001 respectively. Return of classic costume with red underwear, anyone?

 

[david el]

This would seem an appropriate image, with the Superman theme playing in the background.

 

[Gianakin_]

I don't really understand the whole "lets not count the movies that Marvel didn't make themselves" thing. Seems like a cop out so that you can say Marvel has never had a bad movie.

I don't think it's fair to say that. DD and FF were made by Fox, so they made decisions that... Fox usually makes. Marvel treat their own characters differently than a neutral studio. Not talking about love, of course, but they have different criteria.

 

[sf2]

I don't think it's fair to say that. DD and FF were made by Fox, so they made decisions that... Fox usually makes. Marvel treat their own characters differently than a neutral studio. Not talking about love, of course, but they have different criteria.

Which mean Marvels studio believe in their comic characters and dare to make the move. The same can’t be said on WB/DC. The background of wonderwoman and Thor are kinda similar. Thor is getting Thor 2 while Wonderwoman still is no sight. [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[Lead Cenobite]

I don't think it's fair to say that. DD and FF were made by Fox, so they made decisions that... Fox usually makes. Marvel treat their own characters differently than a neutral studio. Not talking about love, of course, but they have different criteria.

At least on the fanboys' part, it comes off as copping out. They all bragged about how great Marvel was and how much DC sucked when the original Spider-Man and X-Men series were cleaning up at the box office, and those weren't Marvel produced. It just comes off as a convenient way to make it look as if Marvel has never failed.

 

[Gianakin_]

I'm in no way a big fan of the MCU movies. I just think that technically they're right.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

From this year onwards, the WB/ DC Comics can now settle with Siegel and Shuster estates according to what was agreed on in 1992 and 2001 respectively. Return of classic costume with red underwear, anyone?

Most definitely. The trunks will return.

 

[Micromind]

Most definitely. The trunks will return.

Maybe in Justice League Superman costume ?

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

Not in the movies anytime soon.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

They aren't gonna return in the DCU proper either. DC had been trying to update Superman's suit since the mid nineties, it's already been over a year of the new suit with at least until the end of Trinity War it will remain unchanged. Maybe a celebratory one for the "what would have been" Action Comics #1000.

 

[Dark_Lord]

Not in the movies anytime soon.

There's a rumor that they're going to add them in post. That's the real reason the movie was delayed...