DC doesn't care about Superman??

[froinlaven]

http://movies.ign.com/articles/102/1024784p1.html

I was excited about DC taking their propoerties seriously in the wake of the restructuring, but then I see quotes like: "We actually don't have any current plans for Superman".

I am honestly flabbergasted...

Can anyone please explain this to me? I just don't understand why DC has no interest in putting out another movie about DC's, no, Comics biggest and most popular character. I am so confused!

:confused:

[The Batman]

They may be waiting for the dust to settle from the various lawsuits before they make any plans.

[fin5]

I dont understand the thread DC doesn't care about Superman:confused:
lets see tv movies comics

[suttercain]

They may be waiting for the dust to settle from the various lawsuits before they make any plans.

You mean they're doing the smart thing. :smile: Has nothing to do with not caring for Superman.

[lead sharp]

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/42368

If they don't make a movie by 2011 they get sued.

DC are fundamentally screwed when it comes to Superman as here states

http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/court-splits-superman-in-half_1112953

I wouldn't mind so much but the Siegel's are idiots. They're not going to do anything with the character except prevent new material (especially after 2013) he's just a cash cow for them.

Siegel and Schuster sold the copyright fair and square (yes they were shafted) but they still did it. What right do they're heirs have to the character? They had no input in his creation and will do nothing with him.

They would have been better off simply asking for a slice of the pie rather than the whole thing, that way they get a 'wage' out of it rather than screwing everyone over out of greed.

Why do you think we don't actually have a Superman comic at the moment?

And we are never getting a movie again.

[The Batman]

We do have a Superman comic at the moment, a few of them actually.

And really, putting aside the rightness or wrongness of the Siegel family lawsuit, in the end they're going to settle for a slice of the pie. What's going on right now is going to determine just how big that slice ends up being.

[Babylon23]

Now there's one hell of a leap of logic. "We actually don't have any current plans for Superman" suddenly translates into "We don't care about Superman"? What about the multiple comics, both ongoing and limited series? All of the merchandise? The Smallville television series that's about to start its 9th season?

Superman Returns wasn't the massive success Warner was hoping for. Add the ongoing legal complications related to the character and its not hard to see why there may not be plans at this stage. Plus there's just been a major restructuring of DC and new people have come into the key decision-making positions.

[lead sharp]

Look carefully at whats going on in those comics, look very carefully.

[The Batman]

So, this is about the World of New Krypton storyline then?

[Babylon23]

Look carefully at whats going on in those comics, look very carefully.

What am I supposed to be looking for?

[froinlaven]

The Superman comic will always be around, I just think its incredibly wrong that DC has this "new direction" that they are going on regarding their films and Superman isn't involved in the least bit.

[The Batman]

Well, likely not involved right now. Don't think for a second that once the issues surrounding this lawsuit clear up (if indeed that's what's got WB/DC Entertainment so hesitant) they won't start to work on a new Superman movie.

[NYGiants167]

WB has alot of concerns about the Superman franchise at the moment. First they have the ongoing legal battle, secondly the last film Superman Returns wasn't as financially successful as they would have liked, and they want to be careful on how they approach the next Superman film.WB is going to see how Green Lantern does and see if they can create a franchise out of the Green Lantern. Right now Batman is their cash cow, and the last film out of the Batman franchise grossed over a billion dollars. Its not that WB doesn't care, its that they have limited options out of Superman due to legal issues and it took 20 years from Superman 4 to Returns, it will not take WB that long for the next Superman film. My advice to WB, after the legal issues have the new Superman film be a reboot of some sorts, and listen to the fanbase and give them action. Downplay the romance between Lois and Superman.

[DonC]

Siegel and Schuster sold the copyright fair and square (yes they were shafted) but they still did it. What right do they're heirs have to the character?


A legal one. (A fact a lot of fans seem to be missing.)

[lead sharp]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman

Accepted that is wiki.

The whole situation is a mess that DC are prepareing for the worst basically.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

I understand lead sharp's point.

I mean, with a new company created specifically to exploit in a more effective way most (if not all) of DC's characters, it's frankly unbelievable that Superman is not in the cards.

The legal issues should be of no concern, as WB's pockets are deeper than the freakin' Grand Canyon. And given what many people say about SR (even though I LOVED SR), it would be a logical step to get a new film on the fast track. Exactly because Superman is another cash cow for the entire Time Warner group.

And hell, it's SUPERMAN. The greatest Superhero ever. THE icon for the whole industry.

[The Chief5425]

"DC doesn't care about Superman" makes about as much sense as "lungs don't care about oxygen."

I tend to believe the foot dragging on a new Supes movie is 75% corporate/legal chaos and 25% an admirable desire to get it right this time. The only reason "Superman Returns" returned an appreciable amount of profit was because they kept it in theaters much longer than most releases, and it was (rightfully) lambasted by many critics and a lot of fans.

Settle with the creator's heirs, get somebody good to write a decent script, hire an actor who doesn't look like an underaged San Francisco bathhouse masseuse. And take as much time as needed for all of the above. I'd rather have a late Superman movie or even no Superman movie than another crappy one.

[lead sharp]

Many thanks 666MasterOfPuppets

And completely agree with The Chief5425

The situation is insane but solvable and at the risk of sounding like a whiny fanboy, no one seems to give a monkeys about just producing good Superman material, just money or in DC's case avoiding having to shell out.

[Schluffy]

I heard about this the other day and im shocked. They should have their finger on the dam pulse by now. I dont want to have to wait another 15 years for a new Superman film!
Also especially dissapointed that the Mark Millar trilogy is not going to happen now. That would have been amazing with the way he was selling it.

[[]D[]/\/\[]D @ Nite/So-tite]

http://rdmblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/distrust.gif
DC doesn't care about Superman.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Look, Kanye loves Superman and all, but Beyonce has the best ass in the bizniz....

The Seigels aren't doing $#!+, their lawyers are. And Warners lawyers are. Everybody's lawyers are being dicks.

They're lawyers. That's what they do.

DC will continue to publish Superman comics. I believe Superman: Secret Origin is coming out very soon. I hope it is as awesome as it could be.

Superman will belong to the world soon.

But DC will keep on making Superman comics, of various degrees of awesomeness for decades to come.

He's freaking Superman.

[rick]

Siegel and Schuster sold the copyright fair and square (yes they were shafted) .

Make up your mind.

[WorstThingUS]

DC and Warner Brothers are not the same thing. How many times does it have to be explained to people?

[Mat001]

It's not that WB and DCE don't want another film. It's just that it might not be profitable for them to do so. Part of it is the lawsuit, but the rest is that the last film didn't do well. And WB has a hard time figuring out Superman, which is why there was such a long gap between the fourth and fifth films. Batman has been profitable, even when the fourth film was considered a bomb, it still made money. And the last film made a billion dollars.

[lead sharp]

Make up your mind.

No sorry what I meant was yes it was fair and square but it was a shit deal sorry, yes clarified.

Just read the piece on the front page that mentions that the film has to be in production, that means not actually released. That's actually a good sign.

Has anyone asked why DC are doing another origins? Joe and Jerry's estates own the original material now so it's going to be retconned to death to make sure it doesn't breach the copyright now owned by the estate.

And come on lawyers can't do shit unless someone tells them, if the estate dropped this the lawyers vanish.

[Darrell D.]

No sorry what I meant was yes it was fair and square but it was a shit deal sorry, yes clarified.


The deal Siegel and Shuster signed was pretty shady, like most contracts from that time period. Read Men of Tomorrow for a look at the seedier side of the early days of the comic business.
Personally, I hope the heirs get as much as possible. And if it means there won't be a Superman movie, well, I can live with that.

[suttercain]

D[]/\/\[]D @ Nite/So-tite;9635486']http://rdmblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/distrust.gif

Well played. Well played indeed!

[superchick]

http://movies.ign.com/articles/102/1024784p1.html

I was excited about DC taking their propoerties seriously in the wake of the restructuring, but then I see quotes like: "We actually don't have any current plans for Superman".

I am honestly flabbergasted...

Can anyone please explain this to me? I just don't understand why DC has no interest in putting out another movie about DC's, no, Comics biggest and most popular character. I am so confused!

:confused:


Batman is currently the biggest comic character in the world followed by spider-man.I think Superman is more popular with people that don't read comics compared to those that do probably because the world thinks of Reeve and welling

[lead sharp]

The deal Siegel and Shuster signed was pretty shady, like most contracts from that time period. Read Men of Tomorrow for a look at the seedier side of the early days of the comic business.
Personally, I hope the heirs get as much as possible. And if it means there won't be a Superman movie, well, I can live with that.

I've read some of that, it's pretty good just one of those I never got round to finishing from the library and thought I'd buy.

It's a funny thing but when the red mist over all the stupidity has gone and it boils down to it I share the sentiment, if there's not going to be another movie then meh, I'm a comic fan and as fun as the movies are they'll never be as 'magic' as the comics.

The effects are always better for a start.

[froinlaven]

Batman is currently the biggest comic character in the world followed by spider-man.I think Superman is more popular with people that don't read comics compared to those that do probably because the world thinks of Reeve and welling

No. It's definately Superman.

[WorstThingUS]

Batman is currently the biggest comic character in the world followed by spider-man.I think Superman is more popular with people that don't read comics compared to those that do probably because the world thinks of Reeve and welling

Superman is the flat out biggest comic book character in the world, recognizable pretty much anywhere on this earth. There's a separate division in Warner Brothers just to handle his merchandising alone. That's part of why there's no real urgency to make a movie. You don't have to in order to sell Superman merchandise.

[Damiean Dark]

Superman is the flat out biggest comic book character in the world, recognizable pretty much anywhere on this earth. There's a separate division in Warner Brothers just to handle his merchandising alone. That's part of why there's no real urgency to make a movie. You don't have to in order to sell Superman merchandise.

As an Icon yes but as a "character", that is someone seen as MULTI DIMENSIONAL, complex and edgier, no Supermans fame has eclipsed himself he is so iconic DC doesnt even bother to create any great stories for him anymore they probably make tons more from basic merchandising ALONE.

And i still think desite Supes iconic status the world is slightly changing in what it wants from its heroes A DEMI GOD WHO IS COMPLETELY PURE AND GOOD seems a bit dated. Batman is a case in point in what people want he is a more human and flawed character and DC biggest seller.

Thier will be another Superman movie but dont expect anything even remotely definate to come from WB for at least five years.

[Gabe99]

From The Superman Homepage:
September 17, 2009: On-Going Litigation Blamed for No Superman Movie Plans (http://www.supermanhomepage.com/news.php?readmore=6946)

In July a court ruling in the on-going legal battle between the Siegel family and the WB/DC had industry pundits (like MTV) claiming that we'd be seeing a Superman movie sooner than originally thought because U.S. District Court Judge Stephen G. Larson "pointedly ruled that if Warner Bros. does not start production on another Superman film by 2011, the Siegels will be able to sue to recover their damages".

However Warner Bros. Senior Vice President, Corporate Communications, Scott Rowe has revealed that the on-going legal battle is the very reason why the WB and DC Entertainment don't currently have any plans to make a new Superman movie.

"Superman is an important member of our family, but because of on-going litigation we cannot announce any concrete plans at this time," explained Rowe in an email. "That said, at some point in the future, you're likely to see a new Superman. So... have no fear."

Are Warner Bros. therefore headed for more legal action if no Superman movie plans are made by 2011? We'll just have to wait and see.

[The Joker]

^ Sounds about right.

With everything going on between WB/DC and the Siegels, I really wouldnt expect a Superman film to be essentially rushed out simply because a Judge ruled that they have a limited amount of time to do so. No. The legal battle needs to get resolved before all that jazz.

[Jmacq1]

I think it'd be great if the Siegels just get full rights to the stuff they are entitled to. Warner/DC can survive with Batman and Wonder Woman. They can kill Superman for real in their universe, make it a huge event (because out-of-universe we'll know it's "real" this time), make a bazillion dollars off the hoopla, and then point and laugh as the Siegels, who are not owners of a multi-billion dollar media corporation, don't make anything remotely close to the amounts of money they must want for the character, especially since presumably Warner/DC will still hold the rights to things that were added to or created within the "Super-verse" after the Siegels (so they're basically stuck with "Action Comics #1" Superman, right?)

It ain't like the notoriously hard-nosed Disney is going to shell out for Superman if the Siegels are asking so much that Warner isn't willing to settle with them.

Who's left that's really capable of exploiting Superman to the level of a billion dollar industry in and of himself?

[lead sharp]

[QUOTE=Jmacq1;9641661]I think it'd be great if the Siegels just get full rights to the stuff they are entitled to. QUOTE]

Which is?

See this is defining point of the case and the reason they only got the first two weeks of material (or whatever it was). DC have enough to re create Superman in their own image but will it still be a marketable image for them to use?

And yep, by the looks of things a script treatment would probabley do to secure the film deal by 2011, which is why DC don't seem all that bothered.

Superman Blue anyone?

[Jmacq1]

Oh, I think DC could market/still have a Superman minus the Action Comics #1 stuff. It'd be difficult and extremely weird, but they could.

But it'd require a reality-altering event of Crisis proportions to rejigger him so completely, since he'd have to have a completely different origin/supporting cast/secret identity (or more strangely they'd have to simply never reference such things again). No Clark Kent, no Lois Lane, no Krypton, and he'd have to have a different name (since presumably the "Superman" name would go to the Siegels).

Everything else though they can pretty much keep. The "S" Shield has evolved from the original design, and the Siegels don't have exclusive rights to super-strength, speed, flight, etc... Though I do think you're right, and I think the Siegels are trying to claim ownership of the whole enchilada.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

As an Icon yes but as a "character", that is someone seen as MULTI DIMENSIONAL, complex and edgier, no Supermans fame has eclipsed himself he is so iconic DC doesnt even bother to create any great stories for him anymore they probably make tons more from basic merchandising ALONE.

And i still think desite Supes iconic status the world is slightly changing in what it wants from its heroes A DEMI GOD WHO IS COMPLETELY PURE AND GOOD seems a bit dated. Batman is a case in point in what people want he is a more human and flawed character and DC biggest seller.

Thier will be another Superman movie but dont expect anything even remotely definate to come from WB for at least five years.

*Sigh* And here we go again.

I've explained this so many times that I don't know how to make people understand who Superman is anymore.

But yes, Superman's a freakin' god. So?

[666MasterOfPuppets]

From The Superman Homepage:
September 17, 2009: On-Going Litigation Blamed for No Superman Movie Plans (http://www.supermanhomepage.com/news.php?readmore=6946)

You beat me to it. I read the story this morning.

Now, if only they could solve their goddamn problems and get moving on the movie front, it would be awesome.

[CaptainCanada]

DC really is just wasting time with this litigation; sooner or later they'll have to pay the piper, and with 2011 and the Schuster claim fast-approaching, one suspects they'll finally start making a respectable offer.

[Hullababy]

As an Icon yes but as a "character", that is someone seen as MULTI DIMENSIONAL, complex and edgier, no Supermans fame has eclipsed himself he is so iconic DC doesnt even bother to create any great stories for him anymore they probably make tons more from basic merchandising ALONE.


I think your posts have showed that you have no idea what makes Superman work or for that matter what makes any DC hero barring Batman work. Go back to reading Marvel I suggest. Superman was never meant for you to begin with because you don't even understand the character.

[olympichero62]

Go back to reading Marvel I suggest. Superman was never meant for you to begin with because you don't even understand the character.


Kind of a ridiculous thing to say, don't you think?

Superman was never meant for you because you don't even understand the character?

[Hullababy]

Kind of a ridiculous thing to say, don't you think?

Superman was never meant for you because you don't even understand the character?

Just look at his post history. All that guy ever does is speak about how DC characters are one dimensional and how Marvel is publishing more human stories.

[Darrell D.]

I think your posts have showed that you have no idea what makes Superman work or for that matter what makes any DC hero barring Batman work. Go back to reading Marvel I suggest. Superman was never meant for you to begin with because you don't even understand the character.
Nerd fight!
Really, what is there to understand about the character?
Rocketed to Earth, mild-mannered reporter Clark Kent, he can fly, faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, bulletproof. Truth, Justice and the American way. Vulnerable to Kryptonite. Oh, and Lois Lane.
I would wager a guess that is what people who don't indulge in our hobby know about the character. And that's fine.
The character is iconic. To the rest of the world, the stories are secondary to the image.

[Hullababy]

Nerd fight!
Really, what is there to understand about the character?
Rocketed to Earth, mild-mannered reporter Clark Kent, he can fly, faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, bulletproof. Truth, Justice and the American way. Vulnerable to Kryptonite. Oh, and Lois Lane.
I would wager a guess that is what people who don't indulge in our hobby know about the character. And that's fine.
The character is iconic. To the rest of the world, the stories are secondary to the image.

I agree.

However, my problem lies with people having the following mindset:

"Superman is so boring because he is so pure and good...."

If someone thinks Superman shouldn't be 100% pure and good, then they are missing the point.

[Darrell D.]

I agree.

However, my problem lies with people having the following mindset:

"Superman is so boring because he is so pure and good...."

If someone thinks Superman shouldn't be 100% pure and good, then they are missing the point.

Yeah, I get that. Even if the character started as a bit of a rough and tumble socialist.
Personally, I don't think the character is boring. I can see where some may feel that way, especially if they are used to characters which appear more interesting on the surface. Superman is the first and the best, the mythology is rich, and the stories are many.

[Solaris01]

http://movies.ign.com/articles/102/1024784p1.html

I was excited about DC taking their propoerties seriously in the wake of the restructuring, but then I see quotes like: "We actually don't have any current plans for Superman".

I am honestly flabbergasted...

Can anyone please explain this to me? I just don't understand why DC has no interest in putting out another movie about DC's, no, Comics biggest and most popular character. I am so confused!

:confused:

Yeah, I know how you feel.. SIGH.

Superman SHOULD be a priority for WB. Why? Because he IS the face and the heart of DC, as simple as that. He has so much potential, I mean, we still haven't seen him in a real and proper superfight on the big screen! And I really want to see it, and soon!



Look carefully at whats going on in those comics, look very carefully.

Yup, I know exactly what you mean, that's why the New Krypton storyline is the only one I enjoy so far...



Please read this article:



So Long, Superman …


Boy, Superman film news is like one big rollercoaster ride at Six Flags, filled with ups and downs, twists and turns, only it’s not quite as fun a ride and it leaves you feeling just as sick.

After months of speculation from the fans about when Warner Bros. was going to get started on a new Superman film, we finally got our answer … and it’s not anytime soon.

According to a recent interview with MTV, the head of the newly-formed DC Entertainment, Diane Lane, stated that there were no “current plans for Superman.” So much for hoping the “2011 or else” court ruling and starting up DC Entertainment would light a fire under WB to make a Superman film ASAP.

Then again, I should have remembered, this is WB we’re talking about.


I’ve had a couple of days to digest this news now and two words have been running through my head the entire time: development hell.


Face it, that’s what Superman is in, AGAIN! I’ve always tried to remain an optimist when it comes to the development of Superman, thinking we are bound to a get a Superman film sooner rather than later. But it’s been a string of back and forth news, on again, off again, in regards to the Big Blue Boy Scout.

In the end, the result is always the same; I’m sitting in front of my computer complaining about not getting a Superman film. Recently, some fans thought there might be light at end of the tunnel. Just a couple of months ago, IESB reported WB was fast-tracking a Superman film, with possible names like James McTeigue and The Wachowski Brothers being attached.

To go along with this news, a court ruling demanded WB must have a Superman film in production by 2011 or else pay additional money to the Siegel/Shuster families.

Heck, even Brandon Routh (the actor who player Superman in “Superman Returns”) made a comment at Comic Con that he heard new developments were taking place.

However, the new statement by Lane has seemingly trumped all of it and it appears it will be a long while before we see the Man of Steel on the big screen again.

Sure, it’s possible that things can change tomorrow. We all know WB’s tendency to change their plans on a whim and Superman could suddenly be hot for them again. But I wouldn’t hold my breath on it. If history has shown us anything, it’s that the suits at WB are plagued by indecisiveness.

After years of multiple directors, bad scripts and questionable casting (Nic Cage), WB finally nailed down a director with a script and vision in Bryan Singer and after 20 years, released another Superman film with “Superman Returns.”

Sure it wasn’t the film some were hoping it would be — both financially and creatively — but it was a solid outing nonetheless. And much like “Batman Begins,” it was a franchise that could have been built upon.


Yet here we are, more than three years later, with no new Superman film on the horizon and WB still doesn’t seem to know what to do with this franchise.

It absolutely boggles my mind that WB can start a separate branch for their comic film properties in DC Entertainment, and not have Superman at the top of their priority list.

Superman is the face of DC Comics and he arguably is the character fans are most interested in seeing on film again. Yeah, I know there is all the lawsuit stuff going on with the Siegel/Shuster families, but c’mon, it’s all about money and WB could settle this lawsuit today with a big fat check (and let’s face the facts, they can afford it). In the end, we all know both parties will settle, so let’s just get it over with.

Some have argued that WB wants Superman, but doesn’t need him. I don’t like this argument. The same could be said for many of their projects, and I’m sorry, the majority of WB’s films in development don’t have anywhere near the potential a Superman film does.

In the meantime, all we can do is wait and hope Warner Bros. and DC get their heads together to help Superman take flight on the big screen sometime soon.

http://itsjustmovies.com/?p=630





Comments would be appreciated. Yes, we Superman fans SHOULD let WB know how we feel about all this.

Personally, I loved Superman Returns and Brandon Routh was a big reason why. He makes a fantastic Superman on and off the screen, IMO. Singer couldn't have found a better person to give life to this wonderful and ICONIC character. I think he totally deserves to have another go in the role, and I also wish they made a sequel. I'm pretty sure that an action-packed sequel with an interesting supervillain for Supes to fight would do great business at the BO.

WB are FOOLS! :mad:

But if they insist in leaving Big Blue behind, well, I just WON'T support their movies with my $$. As simple as that.


.

[The Batman]

In all fairness to WB/DC Entertainment, it's not like they don't want to make a Superman movie. They just don't want to make one until they've got this lawsuit business settled.

And really, don't think I don't understand the frustration and disappointment, because I do. I'm disappointed too that we're not going to be seeing Brandon Routh in a new Superman movie too. But I can understand the decision WB made.

In the meantime, I've got World of New Krypton that I'm enjoying, Secret Origin is going to be starting up this month and that looks like it's going to be alot of fun, there's Superman/Batman: Public Enemies, the Showcase and Chronicles collections, and all my trades and back issues and DVDs to tide me over.

[Maestro]

the road to a good Superman film starts with a good costume! when they make a version of that suit that doesn't look horrible, let me know

[Damiean Dark]

*Sigh* And here we go again.

I've explained this so many times that I don't know how to make people understand who Superman is anymore.

But yes, Superman's a freakin' god. So?

So, his fame and iconic image has overidden everything else about him in the world outside comics. Despite his basic origin and story (last child of krypton,truth justice ect ect)i know Superman isnt as one dimensional as people claim, stories like for all seasons and the man who has everything are proof of this, but its stuck with him and its a moniker he will never shake off.

As someone said the character has become secondary to the image.

And no matter what anyone says the godlike hero stuff is starting to feel dated to many people many,not all,other heroes like Lantern and co are just as powerful but still have the vulnerabilty of being human or a weakness that is easily obtainable to thier villains.

[The Batman]

A weakness that's easily obtainable to their villains? Man, it's too bad Superman doesn't have one of those.


http://www.estatesgazette.com/blogs/olympics/kryptonite.jpg

[WorstThingUS]

I agree.

However, my problem lies with people having the following mindset:

"Superman is so boring because he is so pure and good...."

If someone thinks Superman shouldn't be 100% pure and good, then they are missing the point.

Amen. There a zillion flawed characters out there. Go read them.

[Jmacq1]

You know, the lack of any kind of settlement on this so far actually makes me wonder if the Siegels are simply refusing any outright cash offers (short of a billion dollars, which is not the kind of money even WB can casually throw around), and instead demanding a "percentage cut" of profits from all Superman merchandise, licensing, etc... in perpetuity. I could see that very much being a sticking point for WB.

I could also see WB questioning just how much Superman is worth to them after the underperformance of Superman Returns.

[Darrell D.]

You know, the lack of any kind of settlement on this so far actually makes me wonder if the Siegels are simply refusing any outright cash offers (short of a billion dollars, which is not the kind of money even WB can casually throw around), and instead demanding a "percentage cut" of profits from all Superman merchandise, licensing, etc... in perpetuity. I could see that very much being a sticking point for WB.

I could also see WB questioning just how much Superman is worth to them after the underperformance of Superman Returns.

Superman is much more than just the publishing and movies, though. Like you mentioned, there is merchandising as well, much like Mickey Mouse. Time/Warner would be insane to give up that revenue.
They should give the Siegels whatever they want, but I admit I am somewhat biased in favoring the creators (or in this case, the creators' heirs). The Siegels would be foolish to take a cash settlement, because the character will ALWAYS make money. A percentage cut of the profits (ironic, since National screwed S and S over the same thing back in the forties) makes sense to me.

[Jmacq1]

Superman is much more than just the publishing and movies, though. Like you mentioned, there is merchandising as well, much like Mickey Mouse. Time/Warner would be insane to give up that revenue.
They should give the Siegels whatever they want, but I admit I am somewhat biased in favoring the creators (or in this case, the creators' heirs). The Siegels would be foolish to take a cash settlement, because the character will ALWAYS make money. A percentage cut of the profits (ironic, since National screwed S and S over the same thing back in the forties) makes sense to me.

But that's exactly the situation Warner Brothers doesn't want. They'll want outright ownership, otherwise Superman's not worth as much to them.

Here's the thing: People say Superman is a "multi-billion dollar industry" and that's true...but that's over the entire life of the character. It's not like he pulls in a billion dollars every year. If the Siegels want, for example, a billion dollars for WB to outright own Superman, it's going to take the WB a long time to recoup that amount. Shareholders might not like the idea based on the underperformance of Superman Returns. The executives at Warner Brothers who own a lot of other things besides Superman (and Batman is probably more of a cash-cow for them at this point anyway), might very well say, "Let him go. It's not worth it to pay that much for him, and we're not doing "co ownership""). Plus if the Siegels get a billion, then it's another billion that'll have to be given to the Shusters. $2 billion dollars is half of what Disney paid for the entire Marvel Entertainment corporation. I doubt Superman is worth that much to them.

Think of it this way: If the Siegels get the rights...then what? Marvel/Disney isn't likely to pay a billion dollars for the character, nor want a "co-ownership" deal, and there aren't many other companies out there that would have the interest or capacity to make Superman a multi-billion dollar industry again (anytime soon). The Siegels could be stuck with a character that they lack the ability to exploit themselves.

Not to mention, then the Shusters will have to sue the Siegels for -their- part of the pie. A pie that's suddenly owned by folks that don't have any money to go along with this character they now own the rights to.

[The Batman]

To add on to what JMacq1 is saying, and I'm not 100% on this, but the Seigel's wouldn't own everything in that deal would they? I mean, IIRC, DC/WB would still own those parts of the Superman world that had been added over the years -- Superman flying, Perry White and the Daily Planet, Luthor and Brainiac, etc -- as well as the the trademarks to things like the modern 'S' shield and the name Superman.

All things whose absence might further make getting into the Superman business unattractive for some other corporate entity.

[Darrell D.]

But that's exactly the situation Warner Brothers doesn't want. They'll want outright ownership, otherwise Superman's not worth as much to them.

Here's the thing: People say Superman is a "multi-billion dollar industry" and that's true...but that's over the entire life of the character. It's not like he pulls in a billion dollars every year. If the Siegels want, for example, a billion dollars for WB to outright own Superman, it's going to take the WB a long time to recoup that amount. Shareholders might not like the idea based on the underperformance of Superman Returns. The executives at Warner Brothers who own a lot of other things besides Superman (and Batman is probably more of a cash-cow for them at this point anyway), might very well say, "Let him go. It's not worth it to pay that much for him, and we're not doing "co ownership""). Plus if the Siegels get a billion, then it's another billion that'll have to be given to the Shusters. $2 billion dollars is half of what Disney paid for the entire Marvel Entertainment corporation. I doubt Superman is worth that much to them.

Think of it this way: If the Siegels get the rights...then what? Marvel/Disney isn't likely to pay a billion dollars for the character, nor want a "co-ownership" deal, and there aren't many other companies out there that would have the interest or capacity to make Superman a multi-billion dollar industry again (anytime soon). The Siegels could be stuck with a character that they lack the ability to exploit themselves.

Not to mention, then the Shusters will have to sue the Siegels for -their- part of the pie. A pie that's suddenly owned by folks that don't have any money to go along with this character they now own the rights to.

Come on. I can't believe that Time/Warner would EVER let go of Superman. The character is an ICON and really is a money-maker, in several forms of merchandising.
Worse comes to worse, they finally whittle the Siegels (and the Shusters, when the time comes) down to a nice percentage of the profits. I can't see them EVER giving the character up outright. Unless the CEO suddenly becomes a moron.

[The Batman]

But that's just the thing, depending on how things with the lawsuit and the Siegels and Shusters go, Superman might end up not being that much of a money-maker anymore.

[Jmacq1]

But that's just the thing, depending on how things with the lawsuit and the Siegels and Shusters go, Superman might end up not being that much of a money-maker anymore.

Precisely.

Let's face it: Superman was big business. How big is he right now? Stockholders often have a notoriously short-term view, and the last truly big Superman "push" performed way below expectations on both the movie and the merchandise side of things.

If the Siegels are asking for a billion, or even in the high hundred-millions, then by precedent WB will have to give an equal (or near to it) amount to the Shusters. If they give the Siegels a percentage cut, they'll have to do the same for the Shusters. All of these things put Superman at a "loss" in terms of profits for WB or at the very least makes the character less profitable for them (potentially by as much as half by the time all is said and done).

For example, Disney stated that they don't expect to start seeing profit from their Marvel deal until 2012, and that's -with- Iron Man 2, Thor, and Captain America coming out between now and then. Because that's how long it'll take Disney to recoup that $4 billion they spent for Marvel....and that includes ALL of Marvel.

Now, if WB shells out a billion-plus to the Siegels and Shusters, and as noted Superman is a "cottage industry" in and of himself...how long is it going to take WB to recoup that amount of money. The Superman franchise will be operating at a "loss" until then. WB's shareholders might not want to wait that long.

It is certainly in all parties' best interests to come to some kind of settlement...but greed can be a powerful motivator and it could simply be that neither party is willing to compromise on how big a slice of the pie they get (or have to give away).

Yes, so far the Siegels only seem to be getting the "Action Comics #1" version of Superman. However that means DC would have to do away with Clark Kent, Krypton, and Lois Lane. Plus there's the whole Superboy issue as well. I think the Siegels might even get the rights to "Superman" (the name) because of it. Not sure on that one. Yeah, DC would get to keep a lot of stuff, but a lot of really critical stuff is still taken away.

[The Batman]

Yes, so far the Siegels only seem to be getting the "Action Comics #1" version of Superman. However that means DC would have to do away with Clark Kent, Krypton, and Lois Lane. Plus there's the whole Superboy issue as well. I think the Siegels might even get the rights to "Superman" (the name) because of it. Not sure on that one. Yeah, DC would get to keep a lot of stuff, but a lot of really critical stuff is still taken away.


Well, my point there was less to argue that DC's not losing much than it was to argue that what the Siegel's might get just may not be worth much to anybody other than DC.

[Mat001]

I doubt DC and WB will get rid of Clark Kent, Lois Lane and such. The only reason to keep fighting is because corporations will exhaust every avenue before settling. That's just how it is.

[Devil_LeonX]

Recently I have noticed that when Superman appears in other mediums it is rather notable least for me that He doesn't have the his iconic and signature Yellow S on his cape and im curious does anyone know why?With the exception of Smallville of all things (its the episode where some kid can see the future by touching people and some time in the ep Clark grabs him by the shoulder and in a flash you see the cape attached to someone heading into the future).

no other show or movie has it including from what i can tell the soon to be release Superman/Batman Public enemies movie and it irritates me anyone else feel the same way also?

[Batman was taken]

Recently I have noticed that when Superman appears in other mediums it is rather notable least for me that He doesn't have the his iconic and signature Yellow S on his cape and im curious does anyone know why?With the exception of Smallville of all things (its the episode where some kid can see the future by touching people and some time in the ep Clark grabs him by the shoulder and in a flash you see the cape attached to someone heading into the future).

no other show or movie has it including from what i can tell the soon to be release Superman/Batman Public enemies movie and it irritates me anyone else feel the same way also?

Harder to animate.

[Devil_LeonX]

Harder to animate.

Is it really that much hard?and what about in live action like SR no where to be seen though im thinking that has to do with Bryan's singers "Vision" of what Superman is.

[Mat001]

Bruce Timm said that the reason the yellow S was removed in Superman: The Animated Series was the difficulty in making it look right while flying. For JL/JLU, along with the Warner Premire animated films and in the short lived Legion cartoon, the yellow sheild is missing. The reason it's missing in "Superman Returns" is because a number of times in the film, the cape was CGI and it didn't look right when it was used. Hence Singer had it removed before the costume was finalized.

[pariah-1972]

I don't think Wb had plans for any more Batman movies until Nolan came along and convinced them.

So they are just waiting for the right time and director i imagine.

[The Batman]

For traditional cell animation, something like that, especially on something that flows like a cape would, would be a pain to track. Not impossible, but it's certainly more work. And even in the modern live action movies, Superman and his cape are animated. On computers sure, but still animated.

As for Bryan Singer's vision of Superman . . . well the 'S' on the cape isn't the biggest deal in the world and he isn't the first guy to have left it off.

[lead sharp]

For traditional cell animation, something like that, especially on something that flows like a cape would, would be a pain to track. Not impossible, but it's certainly more work. And even in the modern live action movies, Superman and his cape are animated. On computers sure, but still animated.

As for Bryan Singer's vision of Superman . . . well the 'S' on the cape isn't the biggest deal in the world and he isn't the first guy to have left it off.

I've often wondered how far will we go with live action before we simple get all our superhero movies cgi?

I know there's a lot to be said for live actors and what not but at some point a studio is going to say 'You know what we could spend and risk less on a cgi movie and I'm sure Kevin would do Batman again...'

I think the yellow S was left of because it didn't wok with the material they made the cape out of, I recall hearing that, I personally think it can't be that hard to make it look good. I must admit I kinda like it, as it adds more Kryptonian design to the costume.

[The Batman]

I've often wondered how far will we go with live action before we simple get all our superhero movies cgi?

I know there's a lot to be said for live actors and what not but at some point a studio is going to say 'You know what we could spend and risk less on a cgi movie and I'm sure Kevin would do Batman again...'

I think the yellow S was left of because it didn't wok with the material they made the cape out of, I recall hearing that, I personally think it can't be that hard to make it look good. I must admit I kinda like it, as it adds more Kryptonian design to the costume.

Well, it wouldn't be the first time we've gotten an animated superhero movie would it? CGI is a tool like any other and the final product will only ever be as good as the hand that wields it.

As for the cape, I'd heard that it was how it looked during those scenes where it was seen to be fluttering in the wind. And really, if the only reason it was left off the most recent movie suit was because they didn't like the look of it, I'd hardly fault them. I like the look of it, but it's not been the most consistent aspect of Superman's suit over the years and, on a list of most important parts of the Super-suit, I'd rank it pretty low.

[Devil_LeonX]

Bruce Timm said that the reason the yellow S was removed in Superman: The Animated Series was the difficulty in making it look right while flying. For JL/JLU, along with the Warner Premire animated films and in the short lived Legion cartoon, the yellow sheild is missing. The reason it's missing in "Superman Returns" is because a number of times in the film, the cape was CGI and it didn't look right when it was used. Hence Singer had it removed before the costume was finalized.

AH i suppose that makes sense....and yet every other film with Chris anyway seemed to get at least that right every time...with out modern cgi.......go figure.

[The Batman]

AH i suppose that makes sense....and yet every other film with Chris anyway seemed to get at least that right every time...with out modern cgi.......go figure.


Geez, I know. To ignore such an essential detail, whoever designed that costume must dislike Superman as much as guys like Mark Waid, Alex Ross, Bruce Timm, Wayne Boring, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.

[Mat001]

I don't think Wb had plans for any more Batman movies until Nolan came along and convinced them.

So they are just waiting for the right time and director i imagine.

Actually, there were plans for Batman. There was "Year One" being adapted by Frank Miller and directed by Darren Arownosky (sp). "Batman Beyond" was talked about briefly. Joel Schumacher had planned for "Batman Triumphant" to feature Scarecrow and Harley Quinn. "Batman Vs Superman" almost happened with Wolfgang Petersen and Andrew Kevin Walker working together on it. It only became "Batman Begins" when Nolan came on board, since "Year One" was the only plan that WB liked the most.

Superman, on the other hand, had different ideas for the same story before the idea of a reboot came along.

AH i suppose that makes sense....and yet every other film with Chris anyway seemed to get at least that right every time...with out modern cgi.......go figure.

There was no CGI in the Reeve films. That was a real cape, with Reeve and his doubles hooked up to a wire harness in front of a rear screen projector unit. It was the same way with the Superboy series and the Supergirl film. In the 90's, to save on visual effects, Dean Cain wasn't shown flying too often on screen. A red and blue blur was used. And when he was shown, it was mostly against a green screen or a rear screen projection while in flight.

The cartoons of the 60's through the 80's were much different from what Bruce Timm and his crew have done. The animation was stiff and at times, inconsistant. Sometimes you saw it, sometimes not.

[The Batman]

Nevermind that, the animation was so inconsistent that sometimes you saw the cape and sometime not.

[Devil_LeonX]

Actually, there were plans for Batman. There was "Year One" being adapted by Frank Miller and directed by Darren Arownosky (sp). "Batman Beyond" was talked about briefly. Joel Schumacher had planned for "Batman Triumphant" to feature Scarecrow and Harley Quinn. "Batman Vs Superman" almost happened with Wolfgang Petersen and Andrew Kevin Walker working together on it. It only became "Batman Begins" when Nolan came on board, since "Year One" was the only plan that WB liked the most.

Superman, on the other hand, had different ideas for the same story before the idea of a reboot came along.



There was no CGI in the Reeve films. That was a real cape, with Reeve and his doubles hooked up to a wire harness in front of a rear screen projector unit. It was the same way with the Superboy series and the Supergirl film. In the 90's, to save on visual effects, Dean Cain wasn't shown flying too often on screen. A red and blue blur was used. And when he was shown, it was mostly against a green screen or a rear screen projection while in flight.

The cartoons of the 60's through the 80's were much different from what Bruce Timm and his crew have done. The animation was stiff and at times, inconsistant. Sometimes you saw it, sometimes not.
no CGI in the Reeve movies was basically what i was hitting at sense they didn't have it to begin with but i thought it looked great personally and thanks for mentioning superboy cause it looked great there too. I get that not everyone likes or even cares about it it is just a personal thing that I always like about his caped and It just seemed a bit unique to me.

[Mat001]

No one is saying that you weren't right to your opinion. We're just clarifying a few facts. Part of the reason for a CGI cape is to avoid the problems of the previous films. Which is that the cape doesn't have any give while in flight, due to the harness the actors had to wear. Compare it to the comics and cartoons where there's more movement out of the cape. A CGI cape allowed for scenes like Clark hovering above the Earth or certain super speed flight scenes, where the cape really flows. The consequence is tracking the shield in motion.

[invisiboy]

IMHO, Superman is too powerful and superior. He bores me. (I have the same problem with Wonder Woman.) Unless Superman teams with a character I enjoy, I won't even read about him.

[Stanlos]

Siegel and Schuster sold the copyright fair and square (yes they were shafted) but they still did it. What right do they're heirs have to the character? They had no input in his creation and will do nothing with him.


If they were shafted then DC should be tasked with making amends, no?

[Mat001]

If they were shafted then DC should be tasked with making amends, no?

Yes, they should. But they're still doing so under the terms of the earlier agreement. The problem is that Siegel and Shuster were entitled to profits, in addition to what they got for compensation. This is why we have the current suits. DC and WB didn't do right of their own accord and so the copyrights are being terminated, before going into public domain.

[Devil_LeonX]

No one is saying that you weren't right to your opinion. We're just clarifying a few facts. Part of the reason for a CGI cape is to avoid the problems of the previous films. Which is that the cape doesn't have any give while in flight, due to the harness the actors had to wear. Compare it to the comics and cartoons where there's more movement out of the cape. A CGI cape allowed for scenes like Clark hovering above the Earth or certain super speed flight scenes, where the cape really flows. The consequence is tracking the shield in motion.

I suppose that would have been pretty hard to do...though i would have liked it if they did!oh well let hope it appears in the next Superman movie!!........................Yeah after the Lobo film....hopefully................

[Solaris01]

Will Brandon Routh get his chance to wear the ruby roos again and play Superman again? Doesn't sound like it, and I think Warner Bros are madder than Cujo's mama for allowing the ideal Reeve proxy to slip through their fingers.

Speaking this morning to a producer friend at the Burbank branch, it sounds improbable that uncle Alan will be seeking out the services of the former Lucky Strike employee to bring Kal-El to life again (Routh's option has expired). Pity, Routh was fantastic in the role. Looked the part, performed the part, was enthusiastic ‘about' the part (can you say that about Kilmer, Norton or a few of the other actors that have played superheroes in the past?).

And the WB isn't shying away from Routh because they don't like him - in fact, "they love him" - but because "they want the next Superman movie to be its own beast. Unlike Superman Returns, it's not going to be a homage to the Dick Donner movies. They're thinking bigger - bigger names, bigger movie". I can understand that.... but the last time Warner Bros thought ‘bigger' when it came to the character we nearly ended up with Nicolas Cage (and his horrible hair-plugs) donning the Super suit. Do we really want a forty-something Man of Steel - - at the expense of potentially getting a few more bums-on-seats next time around? **** no!

If I were in charge of Warner Bros I'd be (well, besides greenlighting that long-gestating "Goonies" sequel, relaunching the "Gremlins" series with Joe Dante back behind the megaphone, and paying Mel Gibson and Dick Donner ‘whatever they wanted' to do a new "Lethal Weapon") sticking with that plan of making a bigger, badder, more ambitious "Superman" movie whilst hanging onto the guy - they took years to find - that plays the Blue Avenger. They're not going to find any better. And if Sony is confident they can reboot "Ghost Rider" with the same actor (Cage) that played the character in the ****ty first incarnation, what's the difference in having the WB re-use Routh for a Singer-linkless "Superman"?

Consider it Al - but don't let you mind wander - it's far too small to be let out on its own.

It's sad when terrific ‘finds' like Brandon Routh only get to bring a character they were seemingly born to play to life just once. And it happens all the time - for numerous reasons. Sometimes an actor walks over a pay dispute; sometimes it's over script; sometimes the guy playing Batman gets caught in an uncompromising position with an exec's wife, or, as is usually the case, a film does Nada business at the box office leaving the studio with no decision but to cancel all further installments for the time being (At least until George Clooney agrees to take on the same part, and J.J Abrams agrees to develop it.)


http://www.moviehole.net/200921064-caffeinated-clint-one-offs






Can WB be more clueless?!? I HATE them. Way to screw Superman and Brandon. :mad:


KEEP BRANDON ROUTH AS SUPERMAN.

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/4752/superflight2mz.jpg

[Damiean Dark]

Though the writer clearly knows nothing about Norton, he practically made TIH, he is right abut Routh who was very good but i want the next Superman/Kent to be the actor who plays hims own creation. the beauty of RDJ as Ironman,Keaton as Batman/Wayne and Jackman as wolverine is thier originality Routh tried a bit to hard at times to copy Reeve which is an impossible task really.

[superchick]

FFS, Christopher Reeve wasn't Superman. Let it go already. Cast the character for the comic book movie not a Reeve biopic

[666MasterOfPuppets]

Though the writer clearly knows nothing about Norton, he practically made TIH, he is right abut Routh who was very good but i want the next Superman/Kent to be the actor who plays hims own creation. the beauty of RDJ as Ironman,Keaton as Batman/Wayne and Jackman as wolverine is thier originality Routh tried a bit to hard at times to copy Reeve which is an impossible task really.

And I suppose that's because it was what he was told to do.

Bring Routh back, dammit.

[Lemurion]

It's a very complicated issue: DC/Warner owns all the trademarks and they own the rights to the character everywhere else in the world. It's only in the US that there are any ownership issues.

There's also the fact that the Siegels have gone back to the well more than once - it's estimated they had already received 400,000 by the fifties. My own thought is that they need to hammer out some sort of FINAL deal and permanently enjoin both sides from further litigation.

The big problem is that Superman is only worth money to DC/Warner: not so much to anyone else. No one else can exploit the trademarks, and no one else can use the character outside the US.

[invisiboy]

Superman is boring. Too perfect.

[DetectiveDupin]

Superman is boring. Too perfect.

Do you spend all your time spamming?

[Lorendiac]

I wouldn't mind so much but the Siegel's are idiots. They're not going to do anything with the character except prevent new material (especially after 2013) he's just a cash cow for them.

A question: How do you know the Siegels have no intention of ever allowing any new material to be created?

Siegel and Schuster sold the copyright fair and square (yes they were shafted) but they still did it. What right do they're heirs have to the character? They had no input in his creation and will do nothing with him.

A few quick reactions:

1. I have not followed every detail of the various lawsuits which have been brought against DC over the years by Siegel, Shuster, and eventually by Siegel's heirs, but if the legal situation is really as black-and-white as you make it sound, then why have they ever scored the occasional victory in court?

2. At the time Siegel and Shuster signed whatever it was they signed (I don't know the exact wording), they had every reason to believe that they were only selling the use of those copyrights for the next 56 years. That was how long copyright protection was supposed to last in those days -- in the USA, anyway -- before material automatically passed into the public domain. That's why the U.S. Congress eventually, after extending copyright protections beyond that, saw fit to pass a law saying that when the original 56-year period of protection was running out, the original owners of an intellectual property could reclaim the copyright and then do with it as they saw fit, since they had not sold their creations "forever and ever!"; they had only sold the use of that material "for the next 56 years!"

What's so unfair about DC getting exactly what it thought it was paying for at the time of the original agreement?

3. What rights do any creator's heirs have to any characters? Answer: They have whatever rights they legally inherit from him! Isn't everyone allowed to try to accumulate an estate -- including money, land, stocks, bonds, intellectual property rights, or anything else of value which he can manage to lawfully accumulate -- that will benefit his heirs after he has died? Why should we care about the fact that the heirs weren't the ones who wrote or drew the original Superman stories?

Are you asserting that copyright law ought to work along the following lines? "If a novelist writes a great novel, and then dies just before it appears in the bookstores and starts selling like hotcakes, there should be no royalties paid to his heirs because the creator of the characters in that novel is already dead!"