Wouldn't this run into massive legal problems straight away? I've got a feeling WB won't be happy with a film containing even a mention of Superman and BDSM comics...
@Davio: The movie is based on Joe Shuster, who created Superman, not the man of steel himself. Warner Bros. might not be happy with it, but they don't have the rights to Shuster's other works, so I don't see how they could pursue it legally.
What's interesting about this case is that if Shuster/Siegel get the copyright for Action Comics #1, who gets the rights to the derivative works? Supergirl, the Fortress of Solitude, Superboy, Krypton and Kryptonite, Lex Luthor and tons of other things came after Action Comics #1. Heck, even the "S" pentagon and the red boots came later.
If Shuster/Siegel win, they can't use those ideas, and DC will probably be barred from using some of them as well. Can you imagine reading a Superman comic put out by another publisher where he has the triangle "S" and can't fly?
@drdoombot: I was wondering that, too. In the early 80s, Rankin-Bass made a cartoon version of The Hobbit, while Ralph Bakshi had the film rights to Fellowship of the Rings and The Two Towers. Rankin-Bass made an unspeakably horrific cartoon version of Return of the King which referenced The Hobbit but pretended Fellowship and Two Towers never happened. It was awful. I wonder if that sort of crazy would happen with Superman.
The thing I don't understand, though--why are they making Superman stuff? After the Bakshi/Rankin-Bass thing, there was a dispute over who actually had film rights to LOTR for a good long time. Nobody did anything with the property because it was uncertain. If Superman's ownership is unclear, why are they making things like Smallville and cartoons and stuff?
What I'm not fully understanding is the point to all this.
If it's about the money, surely the estates of Siegel and Shuster realize that once they own the copyright outright, if they start asking for ridiculous terms and payment, DC could just drop Superman from continuity. No DC, no sales. No sales, no money, and Superman is now a worthless property.
And if DC drops it, what studio in their right mind would option it for a movie?
@Dunny0: Um every single movie studio working? You do realize Superman is one of the biggest pop culture icons in the world? There are three things you can go anywhere in the world and have them recognized: Mickey Mouse, Coca Cola and Superman. Warners will pay like they pay others normally for licensing, because some money is better than no money.
@NotArthurPDragon: I would think Warners would be a bit shy after the whole Watchmen thing, and the fact that the last Superman movie didn't go over very well.
Who disguised as Clark Kent, mild mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper, fights a never ending battle for truth justice and patent obfuscation.
This is the Judge's way of saying "I didn't practice intellectual property as an attorney and all my clerks are on vacation. My 1L intern is a douchebag, too."
It seems very possible that after all the appeals, briefs, and decisions are handed down it will be 2013, and someone will still make another crappy Superman movie. Hopefully with Krypto and a Giant Spider.
Perhaps that can be the villain in the next Superman movie--The Special Master. "You belong to ME now, Superman! Bow before my Tort Ray! Ah HAHAHAHAHA!"
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
...That's freaking awesome!
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/10/09
07/10/09
If Shuster/Siegel win, they can't use those ideas, and DC will probably be barred from using some of them as well. Can you imagine reading a Superman comic put out by another publisher where he has the triangle "S" and can't fly?
07/10/09
The thing I don't understand, though--why are they making Superman stuff? After the Bakshi/Rankin-Bass thing, there was a dispute over who actually had film rights to LOTR for a good long time. Nobody did anything with the property because it was uncertain. If Superman's ownership is unclear, why are they making things like Smallville and cartoons and stuff?
07/10/09
07/10/09
07/10/09
07/10/09
If it's about the money, surely the estates of Siegel and Shuster realize that once they own the copyright outright, if they start asking for ridiculous terms and payment, DC could just drop Superman from continuity. No DC, no sales. No sales, no money, and Superman is now a worthless property.
And if DC drops it, what studio in their right mind would option it for a movie?
07/10/09
07/10/09
07/10/09
07/10/09
07/10/09
It seems very possible that after all the appeals, briefs, and decisions are handed down it will be 2013, and someone will still make another crappy Superman movie. Hopefully with Krypto and a Giant Spider.
07/10/09
07/10/09
07/10/09