Batman is also the one prepared to kill: check out Batman #1 and he's willing to mow down the bad guys with the Batguns.
It was such a BS line and ignored so much of what happened since the Death (but then GJ's like that...).
New 52 is the first time in a long while that Superman's symbolism has been contained to the little guy and not the government, and more importantly that Clark's for the working class and not corporate America. (The fact that Lois is the reverse also says something about the modernization of the characters too).
(In fact, the best comparison comes from the animators, who said that they had to learn a whole new palette with Superman because Metropolis is bright and visible compared to the dark shadows of Gotham).
Personally, I don't think Johns truly understands Superman — not on the level he needs to be. And for all the GOOD that New 52 has done for the DCU, that's still a fundamental problem: heroes and their perceptions need to be contained. How the world treats the heroes and how they interact with it is inconsistent and difficult to navigate as a result.
The floggings will continue until morale improves. ~ anonymous
Everybody has a right to have an opinion, no matter how wrong they might be.
Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. ~ John Stuart Mill
The heirs have the right to reclaim the copyright. The ethical thing for DC to do is acknowledge that decision. It doesn't matter whether they propose a mutually beneficial agreement.
Anyway, it makes sense for the heirs to reclaim the copyright first and negotiate after if that's what they even want. Because DC and Warner made sure they had an arrangement that benefitted to them and not to the heirs in the matter of Smallville.
The way Kal took down the League members in Sacrifice is indicative of his own preparedness - he just didn't need to put things in a computer...
The original one?Batman is also the one prepared to kill: check out Batman #1
Am I supposed to counter that with referring to scenes where GA Superman is shown to (seemingly) kill, or tossing people in the way of bullets?
Maybe you should try posting that on the Batboard? 'I don't kill' is as fundamental an aspect of Batman's character as it is Superman's.
'Rubber bullets. Honest.'and he's willing to mow down the bad guys with the Batguns.
How does the writers having a problem mean that Superman, within the DCU, wasn't inspirational?But what good are the Supermen Of America if you can't figure out the void they fill with Superman? Superman is everywhere and everything — for a long time he wasn't limited in any way. Then factor in the problem with Superman that, because he was a symbol, DC writers were at a loss as to how go beyond that and had been for quite some time. How do you position ANYone around Superman?
The Supermen of America came about (post-COIE) long after Superman's 'death'. They were inspired by him and were a positive influence across America (in the DCU). (The fact that Lex messed things up doesn't negate that).
Seriously? Are you stuck reading Miller or something?New 52 is the first time in a long while that Superman's symbolism has been contained to the little guy and not the government, and more importantly that Clark's for the working class and not corporate America. (The fact that Lois is the reverse also says something about the modernization of the characters too).
As much as I diss aspects of GJ's work, what was so 'corporate America' about Superman saving the suicidal girl in JSA?
What was 'corporate America' about Superman being a global force for good - for everyone?
Right...because Batman's attempts were so well-judged (Brother Eye). Note, in comic book time barely 5 years had passed since Supeman's death. In that time, there were steps forward and steps back but to lay that on Superman's doorstep is nonsensical. He's not a dictator; they weren't his plans, etc.There's two ways to look at it: first, the cynical way that you do; second, the cynicism of Batman that the pledging to be better after Superman's death has not made the world a better place
A situation which was, frankly, forced. Yes, there was distrust by governments and so forth (that's understandable, it's an effect of fear of powerlessness) but having, for example, various heroes dismiss Ted Kord, retconning in the rape of Sue Dibney, the mindwipes, etc, was forced.— in fact, with Final Crisis, etc., it had only gotten worse. A lot of the final pre-52 years were dark and dreadful for the heroes of the DCU — which is not the environment that Superman inhabits.
Agreed.Personally, I don't think Johns truly understands Superman — not on the level he needs to be. And for all the GOOD that New 52 has done for the DCU, that's still a fundamental problem: heroes and their perceptions need to be contained. How the world treats the heroes and how they interact with it is inconsistent and difficult to navigate as a result.
As I understand it: As U.S. copyright law now stands, the copyright on the Superman material published in "Action Comics #1" is scheduled to go into the public domain in 2033 -- 95 years after the copyright began -- unless Congress changes the laws again.
That 2033 date is automatically programmed in, and the copyright on the first published appearance of "Clark Kent, Superman, the last survivor of Krypton" will expire in that year -- regardless of who owns that copyright at the time. So how would a Siegel victory in court have any effect on the current schedule for Superman's transition to the public domain?
They did, and offered a good deal for it. The deal was accepted and then someone else swooped in with other intentions and messed with their heads.The ethical thing for DC to do is acknowledge that decision.
It doesn't? Why not?It doesn't matter whether they propose a mutually beneficial agreement.
Negotiate with what, though? They don't own any of the trademarks, which means they would, literally, have to start from scratch. The additions in powers would be removed, the extended family would be removed.Anyway, it makes sense for the heirs to reclaim the copyright first and negotiate after if that's what they even want.
And what about the international copyrights? A decision in the US doesn't mean it will have the same effect in France, for example...
The Smallville situation (as with the rest of this mess) isn't that straight-forward.Because DC and Warner made sure they had an arrangement that benefitted to them and not to the heirs in the matter of Smallville.
Adekis seemed to be saying that if the Siegels get some of the copyright, that will somehow delay Superman's trip into the public domain. I asked why he was saying that, and I explained my own understanding of when Supes can be expected to start stepping over the line into public domain -- but what we were both talking about seemed to be an issue of copyright law. How do DC's Superman-related trademarks make any difference to when the original Superman copyright will expire in the USA?
After all, Tarzan of the Apes and his first several published adventures have been in the public domain for a long time from the copyright point of view -- despite the fact that his creator's heirs still own a rock-solid Tarzan trademark. Those are two different things!
They can't put the name on the cover of the book (they can, perhaps, incorporate it into an anthology (like the ones in Japan, for example) but they can't call the book 'Superman'. They can't merchandise it and can't use the shield the way DC can and does.
As for the Tarzan situation, let's wait and see how that case turns out.
(Third attempt at posting this and it doesn't sound the way I initially wrote it. grr)
I'm also mystified at this perception of Siegel and Shuster as a couple of golden boys in all this. They sold the rights to Superman. It was a bad business decision, but things were different in the 1930s. Comic books were still pretty new, and nobody knew how popular (and lucrative) the character and resulting franchise would become. In 1946, the duo sued DC (their employer at the time, one who was apparently paying them both rather handsomely) to get a bigger share of the profits on a character they'd not only sold away but had also been helping to further develop in a work-for-hire environment. Yet somehow, a corporation--entity whose overarching reason for existence is to make money for its investors--has somehow become perceived "ethically" obligated to pay Siegel and Shuster's estates a whole bunch of money and/or hand over the copyright of a character they've invested in heavily. While Siegel and Shuster may have created Superman, it's DC Comics that invested in the character. I don't see the Siegel estate trying to claim rights to the Spectre, even though Siegel created that character--it's only the big moneymaker.
I won't even get into just how questionable I think Toberoff's motives are in this case. I'll just point out that he's got a deal in place with the Siegel estate that would give him controlling interest in the Superman franchise.
Nobody's completely innocent here. I think it would've been a move towards fairness on DC's part to have included profit-sharing with Siegel and Shuster. I think it would've been smarter of Siegel and Shuster to license Superman instead of outright selling the rights (but was that done much back then?). I think Siegel and Shuster should've taken their lumps after losing the court case in 1948, especially since it cost them their jobs at DC (and seriously, why would any company want to keep on its payroll two people who just sued them?). I think the Siegel estate made a mistake in listening to Toberoff, since apparently the estate had already signed a deal with DC.
But regardless of which way you look at it, this case isn't really about "ethics." It's about trying to get a bigger piece of the monetary pie that is the Superman franchise.
(More thoughts, from earlier in the case, at my blog for anyone interested.)