The Daily Planet Vol. 2: Superman News and Speculation Thread (🚨TAG SPOILERS🚨)

Just watched the version of the trailer attached to Lilo & Stitch, and sad to report that the stuff they replaced some of the more violent shots with were pretty much just shots we’ve seen from the teaser.

Also, both versions of the trailer are trimmed down by 30-seconds so they’re 2.5 mins each and I did not like those cuts at all! :disappointed;
 
Just watched the version of the trailer attached to Lilo & Stitch, and sad to report that the stuff they replaced some of the more violent shots with were pretty much just shots we’ve seen from the teaser.

Also, both versions of the trailer are trimmed down by 30-seconds so they’re 2.5 mins each and I did not like those cuts at all! :disappointed;
Guess I'm watching it tonight.
 
Just watched the version of the trailer attached to Lilo & Stitch, and sad to report that the stuff they replaced some of the more violent shots with were pretty much just shots we’ve seen from the teaser.

Also, both versions of the trailer are trimmed down by 30-seconds so they’re 2.5 mins each and I did not like those cuts at all! :disappointed;
That's frustrating. If I recall the second trailer for BvS (the one revealing Doomsday and Trinity tgt) I saw in cinemas, and I think it was the full trailer, albeit with some audio edits, not using Bruce's line "that son-of-a-b#$"& brought the war to us" by changing it to "he bought the war to us" (lame) and then they even muted out Batman's "Oh sh..." to just "Oh..." DO they think audiences are really that sensitive? It's not like you hear him actually say "$#!t" in the trailer.
 
This is not about credit. Siegel and Shuster spent most of their lives in poverty despite creating something that made DC and then Warner Bros. billions.

They deserve major royalties and a big settlement, but these lawsuits are not about that. The heirs had a really good lawyer in the 90s who got them a great settlement including a $3 million lump sum, 10% royalty forever, a $500,000 annual pension, and payment of all medical expenses.

Problem is this shyster Toberoff convinced them them to tear it up over some lump sum payment of $15 million from his buddy Ari Emanuel and assignment of all of their rights to Toberoff and Emanuel. Basically, Toberoff convinced them to tear up a great royalty deal for more exploitation.

Warner Bros should have to pay the piper for decades of exploitation but these lawsuits are just about more exploitation sadly. The sort of deals the heirs made with Toberoff are illegal here in Canada as a violation of his fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of his clients.
If you are talking about what is right and wrong...then you are 100000000000% correct.

If you are talking about the legal facts of the case though they are owed nothing. They sued in the 40s over Superboy, the Superman Radio Show and to get back the rights to Superman/annul their contracts and settled giving DC the rights to Superboy and Superman. Then they left DC which is when their issues started. (they were paid pretty good under their contract in the time they were at DC they earned $63000 which in today's money is 7 figure) The lawsuits (and Siegel's divorce) really killed them. Their post DC work was not popular and that didn't help.

Again I am not saying that DC shouldn't pay them...they definitely should. But they signed their contracts, they chose to sue over the Superman Rights and to end their contract when there was not a leg to stand on (they should have just sued for Superboy they would have won that more likely) and it is not DC's fault that their work after DC was not well received or money making. For goodwill though and because National exploited their desperation to get Superman published (and never negotiated royalties) it is time to end this and just pay them off or the Shusters are going to do this before every movie. It will be a blip on the balance sheet and they have profited huge off this and its just stupid not to.
 
Just watched the version of the trailer attached to Lilo & Stitch, and sad to report that the stuff they replaced some of the more violent shots with were pretty much just shots we’ve seen from the teaser.

Also, both versions of the trailer are trimmed down by 30-seconds so they’re 2.5 mins each and I did not like those cuts at all! :disappointed;
Taking out the violence for Lilo makes sense...you want it to be all family friendly.

I will be seeing the MI version at 3pm so I will report.

Off topic but I saw the Fantastic Four trailer in front of Sinners the other day (Sinners is such an A+ it deserves all the awards) and while I enjoy the aesthetic (especially over most Marvel films) I just dont feel Pedro Pascal as Reed Richards or the guy playing Human Torch. (and his weird contacts) Im going to end up seeing it but it never grabbed me and I am not sure about the period piece aspect. (I know its the multiverse) I hope to enjoy it though because the Fantastic Four is one of the few Marvel stories/characters I ever liked when I collected. (though Stracyzynski was writing it so...mostly back issues and then they ruined them with Civil War and the fake death of Sue Storm)
 
José Luis García-López is one of, if not, the GOAT for me. If David is drawing comparisons to JLGL, then you know the casting was that of destiny. The newest image only rectifies how David was always going to be the next ONE in line. The moment he walked into the auditions (if they even truly had any) it was curtains for the competition (Sorry, Lex lol).

JLGL, Alex Ross, Dan Jurgens and John Byrne are the artists I would put up there on the Superman Artist Mt. Rushmore and I can see David in all their versions of him. Not just the look, but the demeanor, the attitude, the presence. Granted, we’ve only seen a few short clips of him as the character so far but from watching his prior work, I just KNEW he was going to nail this. I love Hoult and I have nothing against Tom Brittney but yeah, if either of them had been picked over David, I would have been furious lol.
 
Just watched the version of the trailer attached to Lilo & Stitch, and sad to report that the stuff they replaced some of the more violent shots with were pretty much just shots we’ve seen from the teaser.

Also, both versions of the trailer are trimmed down by 30-seconds so they’re 2.5 mins each and I did not like those cuts at all! :disappointed;
James Gunn petting his pets:

1747930342339.gif
 
Insane how much of a right call the trunks were. Might be my favorite Supersuit put on screen. Lines, collar and all.

The Superman Returns suit is probably still my favorite (come at me 😛) but the turnaround on the Corenswet suit for me has been so strong that it is probably my second favorite.

If I only had one change to make and kept everything else, it would altering the KC logo so the S a bit more pronounced.

As someone who hates the high collar in comic, I wouldn't even change it here. Gunn incorporated it so well here that the suit would actually look worse without it.
 
If you are talking about what is right and wrong...then you are 100000000000% correct.

If you are talking about the legal facts of the case though they are owed nothing. They sued in the 40s over Superboy, the Superman Radio Show and to get back the rights to Superman/annul their contracts and settled giving DC the rights to Superboy and Superman. Then they left DC which is when their issues started. (they were paid pretty good under their contract in the time they were at DC they earned $63000 which in today's money is 7 figure) The lawsuits (and Siegel's divorce) really killed them. Their post DC work was not popular and that didn't help.

Again I am not saying that DC shouldn't pay them...they definitely should. But they signed their contracts, they chose to sue over the Superman Rights and to end their contract when there was not a leg to stand on (they should have just sued for Superboy they would have won that more likely) and it is not DC's fault that their work after DC was not well received or money making. For goodwill though and because National exploited their desperation to get Superman published (and never negotiated royalties) it is time to end this and just pay them off or the Shusters are going to do this before every movie. It will be a blip on the balance sheet and they have profited huge off this and its just stupid not to.
First off, my post made clear there is a very big divide between the moral and legal sides of the situation.

Second off, you know I am a lawyer right and have litigated IP cases? Lecturing me on the "legal facts" was certainly a choice. :funny:

Third, none of that back history regarding the early deals actually legally matter for the recent court cases. In the late 20th century, copyright law was updated to allow assigned rights to revert to the creators at a certain point because of situations like Siegel and Shuster where creators sold their rights for a pittance before anyone realized what the creation was actually worth. In short, Siegel and Shuster were allowed to tear up their earlier deals, which resulted in the start of the these decades of litigation. It also almost resulted in a very substantial and fair deal in the 90s.

Fourth, morality does matter. In addition to black letter copyright law, there are also intellectual property claims now based on "moral rights". It is a fairness concept that originated in Europe and has spread. Copyright law has been updated several times because of perceived moral unfairness. The whole reason why copyright was extended past an author's death is because the British public were incensed that Dickens' descendants were in the poor house while publishers were printing money from his works.

Last, I completely agree that WB should just settle this now and forever with the estates to prevent more of these claims. The problem is this shysters convinced the estates to tear up the settlements they negotiated in the 90s for snake oil and the estates basically sold their rights to this shyster lawyer, Toberoff, and his buddy, Ari Emanuel. They basically control the estates and their claims now, which makes a meaningful and reasonable settlement with the families practically impossible while they are involved.
 
Yeah I don’t get Gunn’s line of thinking with that initial suit reveal. I think the suit looks at its best when it appears bright and pristine. It gives off the positive, hopeful tone that the movie seems to be going for. I don’t think it looks great when it’s burned and battered, so it’s kind of odd that he used that pic for the first look. I guess he was going for that “Superman never gives up or takes a day off” kinda vibe, but it’s just made him look depressed and tired.
I think it is great. Why go for what everyone else has done countless times? It can get dirty and based on this iteration most likely damaged. Either way, the putting on the boot's thing is great, and mayhap it is a comedic theme in the film. Isn't there a part in the film where his Earth mother (saw in the newest trailer) says "I'll go get your boot clark...." and he is looking at an oncoming threat? So, the putting on the boots may be a slight of hand theme. I just hope it isn't too comedic. A comic book film that is a complete joke would throw me out of it.
 
First off, my post made clear there is a very big divide between the moral and legal sides of the situation.

Second off, you know I am a lawyer right and have litigated IP cases? Lecturing me on the "legal facts" was certainly a choice. :funny:

Third, none of that back history regarding the early deals actually legally matter for the recent court cases. In the late 20th century, copyright law was updated to allow assigned rights to revert to the creators at a certain point because of situations like Siegel and Shuster where creators sold their rights for a pittance before anyone realized what the creation was actually worth. In short, Siegel and Shuster were allowed to tear up their earlier deals, which resulted in the start of the these decades of litigation. It also almost resulted in a very substantial and fair deal in the 90s.

Fourth, morality does matter. In addition to black letter copyright law, there are also intellectual property claims now based on "moral rights". It is a fairness concept that originated in Europe and has spread. Copyright law has been updated several times because of perceived moral unfairness. The whole reason why copyright was extended past an author's death is because the British public were incensed that Dickens' descendants were in the poor house while publishers were printing money from his works.

Last, I completely agree that WB should just settle this now and forever with the estates to prevent more of these claims. The problem is this shysters convinced the estates to tear up the settlements they negotiated in the 90s for snake oil and the estates basically sold their rights to this shyster lawyer, Toberoff, and his buddy, Ari Emanuel. They basically control the estates and their claims now, which makes a meaningful and reasonable settlement with the families practically impossible while they are involved.
9uvsce.jpg
 
First off, my post made clear there is a very big divide between the moral and legal sides of the situation.

Second off, you know I am a lawyer right and have litigated IP cases? Lecturing me on the "legal facts" was certainly a choice. :funny:

Third, none of that back history regarding the early deals actually legally matter for the recent court cases. In the late 20th century, copyright law was updated to allow assigned rights to revert to the creators at a certain point because of situations like Siegel and Shuster where creators sold their rights for a pittance before anyone realized what the creation was actually worth. In short, Siegel and Shuster were allowed to tear up their earlier deals, which resulted in the start of the these decades of litigation. It also almost resulted in a very substantial and fair deal in the 90s.

Fourth, morality does matter. In addition to black letter copyright law, there are also intellectual property claims now based on "moral rights". It is a fairness concept that originated in Europe and has spread. Copyright law has been updated several times because of perceived moral unfairness. The whole reason why copyright was extended past an author's death is because the British public were incensed that Dickens' descendants were in the poor house while publishers were printing money from his works.

Last, I completely agree that WB should just settle this now and forever with the estates to prevent more of these claims. The problem is this shysters convinced the estates to tear up the settlements they negotiated in the 90s for snake oil and the estates basically sold their rights to this shyster lawyer, Toberoff, and his buddy, Ari Emanuel. They basically control the estates and their claims now, which makes a meaningful and reasonable settlement with the families practically impossible while they are involved.
I apologize...my wording was bad I wasn't actually trying to talk to you (I knew you were a lawyer...or at least I kind of new :p ) I was speaking to everyone and just suck at communicating sometimes ;)

The issue I have is people (not you!) act like Siegel and Shuster were forced at gunpoint to sell the rights and that they were never compensated which I wanted to set the record straight on. When they worked for DC they made plenty of money and they chose to settle their case on their own. They made bad decisions which let POS corporate types get control and then kind of burned the bridges on the way out. Siegel went back years later but he had zero leverage to make any real money and Schuster was going blind...

Ari Emanual, outside of stuff like this even, is pure trash.

Give them points on the merch and and film and a nice amount of money and end this. Then get Bill Fingers heirs to tell them how bad it can really get!
 
Last edited:
I don’t understand why people are upset by Clark showing emotion. Again, he’s not being abusive. People are allowed to get upset. If he was perfect in every situation then he wouldn’t be interesting. He’d be a robot. Seeing Clark express his emotions over saving people is fantastic.
Hard not to feel like this is targeted at the people who shared their negative opinions on the interview snippet (i.e., me and the other member I quoted). If that's the case: this is a massive strawman. I'm not upset by Clark showing emotion. I'm mildly upset because Clark is yelling at his partner in a way that I personally consider intimidating and aggressive. The semiotics of that short clip make me personally uncomfortable.

Maybe the scene plays better in context, but the way it's edited doesn't help.

I think everything else in the trailer looks excellent and I'll be there on day one.
 
Hard not to feel like this is targeted at the people who shared their negative opinions on the interview snippet (i.e., me and the other member I quoted). If that's the case: this is a massive strawman. I'm not upset by Clark showing emotion. I'm mildly upset because Clark is yelling at his partner in a way that I personally consider intimidating and aggressive. The semiotics of that short clip make me personally uncomfortable.

Maybe the scene plays better in context, but the way it's edited doesn't help.

I think everything else in the trailer looks excellent and I'll be there on day one.
I can understand the concern, but I doubt it will play like that in context. I get the impression that Clark gets a really intense Lois Lane professional grilling, which he wasn't prepared for and won't come off intimidating or aggressive in context, but a naive, emotional reaction to a very tough interview.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"