Latest News

Commenting Rules: Keep the conversation civil and on topic. If your comment does not add to the conversation, it will be removed. Debate intelligently. Insulting the author, /Film, or other commenters will result in comment removal and possible ban. If you want to point out a typo, correction, suggestion or criticism for /Film, please email us instead. Please use your name or nickname and not your business name (ie Discount Car Parts) as we might confuse and mark it as spam. If you would like to have your own Avatar show up with your comment, sign-up for a free Disqus account. Any Links will go into moderation before being approved. Anything we deem as spam will not be approved.

Legal Issues and Indecision Keep Superman on Hold at WB

Posted on Sunday, November 29th, 2009 by Russ Fischer

Superman Action Comics

We pretty much knew this; the fact that Superman is completely stalled at WB is barely news. In July, Alan Horn said the property wasn’t in development and that no script was underway. There’s legal trouble with the Siegel family — well, ‘legal trouble’ if you’re Warner Bros. If you’re the Siegel family it might be called ‘regaining control’. Questions of whether the heirs of Jerome Siegel deserve proceeds from the character he sold to Detective Comics in 1938 aside, the situation is nearly a catch-22 at this point.

WB will soon have to negotiate a deal with the Siegel and Shuster estates, which in 2013 will have joint control over the material in Action Comics #1, putting the core elements of the character in their control. WB can develop and release a new film before then, but doesn’t have a good idea how to do that right now. After a certain point, there won’t be time to develop a film to release before 2013. Soon, WB will need to have an idea to get that movie going forward, or face a situation where it needs to come up with a rights deal with Siegel and Shuster in order to justify spending money on an idea. Headache!

Anne Thompson put together a good report that collates all of WB’s troubles with the property. The legal issue is only one part of the problem. Simply put, WB seems to have no idea what to do with Superman, and is taking and sorting through pitches. “Warner Bros. execs believe that the last movie didn’t break the mold and wound up in some kind of middle limbo,” says Thompson. “They want to start over from scratch.”

One interesting point Thompson makes is that the Wachowskis and James McTeigue were never seriously approached to tackle the character, which is notable given the status the Wachowskis have at WB, and that Mark Millar’s pitch was met with ’scant interest’. There are no writers on it now; essentially the execs are going around in circles trying to figure out what to do with the character. Though new DC Entertainment president Diane Nelson says she’s very interested in Vertigo and other DC properties, you better believe that putting together a new package for Superman, one of the most recognized characters around the world, is some sort of priority.

Comments

Fitz

Why does the Siegel estate believe they "deserve" anything? They did not make the product and it was sold more than 70 years ago.

Sergemeister

This is actually an old trick. Indians have been using that technique for years. It has, surprisingly, worked very well for them and apparently the Siegel estate knows this technique and has applied it flawlessly.

All kidding aside, these people are pricks. They need to understand that rights being sold is just that. You don't have walmart come ask you for the toilet paper you bought 5 years ago and demand it back. This ain't right.

People that say they deserve anything are wrong, the estate doesn't deserve jack. Maybe Siegel and Schuster did and they got royally screwed but they are long gone and should have jumped on that train a long time ago. People forget that they were hurting for cashola when they sold the rights. Now that they're not its easy to demand those rights back.

Jeff Rankine

That is the most ignorant and unpleasant rant I have read in a long time and I read a lot of them.

Siegeland Shuster got HOSED by DC which made untold MILLIONS of the creation that they brought to the company.

I find it hard to believe that your argument is that the estate of the people that created the work don't deserve any wealth dervied from that copyrighted work, but somehow a corporation does - that doesn't make sense.

Sergemeister

The corporation is the entity that has developed and continues to develop the character. Why shouldn't they profit from a property which they own?

Reebee7

The rights were sold... That's it. The product was not worth a lot at the time, and DC turned it into an icon.

Goobity

You don't know what you're talking about. Siegal and Shuster got screwed, and they fought their whole lives to get what they absolutely deserved from D.C., to no avail.
They didn't sell the concept, they sold a story, and D.C. claimed ownership and built a media empire. Granted, the contracts were vague in those days - to D.C.'s obvious advantage.
It's more along the lines of /film giving you $5 for posting your comment, then using your words to create a movie - said movie goes on to make upwards of a billion dollars in revenue. You claim the words were yours, and /film deletes all references of your posts. Then they tell you to fuck right off. Repeatedly.
You'd feel like you deserved a little better treatment, right?

Reebee7

But what if the movie was never going to made otherwise?

Would Siegel and Shuster have been able to made Superman what he became?

A friend.

I agree what igrnorant statements. I bet you wouldnt be saying that sit if your great grandfathers created one of the most well know ficitional characters of all time. Also the rights were sold for 35,000 are you f kidding me. WB DC made prob in excess of billions and billions on Superman. If anyone got robbed it was Siegal and Shuster.. Nuff said...

DeadlyPorpoise

You should read Men of Tomorrow by Gerard Jones to get the full picture - to say that these guys got royally screwed over from publishers and WB alike is an understatement.

The estate of Siegel and Schuster deserve everything they can wring from WB.

Fitz

Siegel and Schuster should get that money, but they're dead. Their estate didn't do anything to deserve that kind of money.

Eric R.

I'm sorry, but no Superman material that has been created (other than those appearing in animated form) have been worth watching and I believe no matter what direction WB takes it would be the same as Superman Returns or the horrible Superman movies starring Reeves. In my opinion, let the material die and just focus on other movies since WB has absolutely no idea who and what Superman is.

Sergemeister

I completely agree; the character lacks character. They never make him seem like the ass-kicking sort. When in fact most of Superman comics is him kicking ass, not fighting kevin spacey because of evil real estate plans.

Eric R.

Exactly Sergemeister, the Lex Luthor premise is old and in fact they haven't even created a decent Lex Luthor. While I agree that the show Smallville is lacking in so many areas, at least they gave a decent interpretation of Luthor and the true evil that he is. Also, I keep hearing people say that to create a truly epic Superman movie would be too expensive. I beg to differ. Peter Jacksons's Lord of the Rings was epic and cost less (individual movie wise of course) than Superman Returns, plus you have Cameron's Avatar coming up with a supposed 500 Million dollar budget. I'm not saying that a Supes movies needs all that money, but take a page out of Marvel's playbook and be real with the material, or go the JJ Abrams way and just make a damn fun movie.

TigerClaw

Superman has so many Supervillains, Why is it hard for them to come up with another movie by having Superman fight one of them, Why does it always have to be about Lex Luthor.

Chris

I'm not sure what the legal issues of the families were whether it's the name Siegel and Shuster been used entitles them to money or they inherited some rights to Superman. But to me personnaly it's almost like if I went up to someone my grandparents sold a house or rare antique to and asking for the ownership back. It doesn't make sense if the rights were sold even if the Siegel and Shuster were underpaid compared to what Superman is worth now. I've mentioned in other posts that the villians are always a problem because of their outlandish nature general audiences may never accept them unless done right.I like Luthor but would like another supervillian. Remember Superman always has to battle his human side otherwise he could and sometimes should just kill Luthor. It's his humanity that makes him such a great superhero.

Patrick

No, it would be more like if your grandfather sold someone a chair (a single chair) or antique that he designed and crafted. Then, that person used your grandfather's design to make a million other chairs or antiques and called them their own. Your grandfather never intended to sell his design idea, just one chair he created. That's what happened to Siegel and Shuster. They sold one Superman story. That story contained elements of the character development and background like all good stories do. But it was still just the story that they sold, not the Superman idea. DC stole the idea and made more stories which is illegal. That is why the estate deserves the property back. If DC made an equitable contract and solidified their rights to the material and idea when the creators were alive, they wouldn't be in this mess.

JJGittes

Okay, so they have to produce something with Superman by 2013. Doesn't Clark Kent make a cameo or something in the new GL script? Would a cameo or some other guest appearance be enough to keep the rights?

mangoshakes

No it's that at 2013, rights go back to the siegel estate. Not all the rights of superman mind you. They'd only get domestic rights, and only the parts of Superman that showed up in Action Comics #1. I forget what they are, but no kryptonite, main supporting characters/daily planet they wouldn't get, i don't think their superman could fly, maybe not even a lot of the super powers. Essentially the character Superman would get pulled apart. The end of the character as he's been. I'd be shocked if this happened. I'm pretty sure WB and the family will make some sort of licensing agreement. i think there are benefits for them to let WB keep using him. If not. Yikes, i'd stop reading comics i think. I think it would have a really bad effect.

Alejandro Rios

I actually think WB would get Daily Planet, it's the Daily Star that the family would get?!?

drakerivera

look... this is how warner bros needs to do it, origin story from the being again with zod in phantom zone, and then the villain has superpowers an lex luthor in the background of the story and superman punches people. 250 million dollars worth of tickets sold on just that premise

Sally45

Quite frankly, some of these comments are disgusting and VERY uninformed. The Siegel family has been fighting for these rights ever since they were "sold" which they weren't. It's a legal issue that's been going on ever since they created the character. Whether some fans find it odd that the living family should be fighting for control for some of these rights to this day should really have a greater understanding and appreciation for COPYRIGHT law. Then again, where so many of you are easily and happily willing to download music and media illegally it seems a moot point.

mangoshakes

i think they should get paid. but i think think Superman should stay at DC. it'd be the death of the character if worst case scenario happened.

moviefan

Yea i myself dont get all the legal mumbo jumbo stuff here reguarding superman's copyright. Now i do know they did sell the character rights to DC all those years ago and were screwed on it for many years. Later on they finally got credit back to their names, and were paid for a time. But i do understand they did deserve to get more money from wb/dc comics. And legally the heirs do have rights to things. But i do hope in the end the families and wb/dc can settle on everything. So they get a percentage made off the character/licensing fees on wb/dc. So then superman wouldnt be spilt apart and all that. Cause i would just hate to see half a superman with what dc legally owns and have to create a new "superman" like character. And i am sure no one would really want to see a 1930s superman with the elements the heirs would have rights too. The right profit is in the combined elements.

As for the issues with the film divison. It sucks alot that the execs cant figure out anything. Superman is a great character, has tons of stories to tell, and some great villains which would be sweet to see in live action forms. There is plently of writers out their who could probably make a great superman film. It sucks its not going anywhere cause they cant decide on a darn thing.

Really how dam hard is it. I think the best thing would be is to take elements that defined the character the best through all the superman history, combined with other things like the business lex luthor and all that. Would make for a killer superman.

Craigasorusrex

This is what I call a sticky situation.

Vitamin C

looks like come 2011 dc and warners is going to have to give some money to the estates long over due. and think holly wood could use a break from super man for a while or at least they could let him show up on the big screen like in a justice leque firlm or finaly with batman and would not violate the court rulings.

topheavy

there is no longer any relevance to be had with superman..

hoojunkmail

I am confident that with Joel Silver and the Wachowskis as producers, the Wachowskis as writers (with maybe a little help from David Goyer) and James McTeigue directing an enjoyable Superman movie will result.

h
.

/Film

Blogging the Reel World

Legal Issues and Indecision Keep Superman on Hold at WB

Related Posts

Tags

/Film