Jerry Siegel wins Superman rights
The co-creator gets Krypton and more...
BY Aug 14th 2009 6:06AMFILED UNDER: Movie news
User Comments (9)
The seemingly endless legal struggle over who owns the rights to Superman has just taken another turn.
As part of the ongoing court action, a judge has ruled that the Man Of Steel's co-creator (or his family, at least) owns the rights to more of his iconic elements, or anything created in the first two weeks of the newspaper strips and early Action Comics.
What does that mean for Warners and DC Comics? Well, Siegel's estate now owns the rights to Supes' Kryptonian origins, his parents, his childhood and his arrival on Earth.
That's in addition to last year's victory, which awarded them control over his costume, Lois Lane, his Clark Kent alter-ego and most of the Daily Planet elements.
Plus there's the issue of money that the companies might owe the creators since 1999, the year that previous rulings have said that their share of profits must start.
So does Warners and DC own anything now? Yes - they still claim Lex Luthor, Jimmy Olsen, Superman's powers and, in the most ironic twist, the idea of Kryptonite.
But now the Siegel and Schuster estates will own everything starting in 2013, and the power to set up Super-projects elsewhere.
If the studio wants to make a new film based on the character, Warners will have to start work by 2011.
Between this, the Watchmen feud, the Get Smart issues and the Dukes Of Hazzard mess, Warners must feel like it ran over a judge's cat in a past life...
[Source: Variety]
So who - if anyone - should get a crack at Superman. Any ideas?
Print Comments (9)
1: Benmorse says
No one? Even Singer cocked it up, and he's a frigging genius. The Emperor is naked - the idea of a guy who wears glasses to disguise himself is quaint, but not relevant. Either go period style (set Supes in the 50's) or leave it be. After Luthor, name another good superman badguy. I dare you.
Posted: Aug 14th 2009 // 7:49AMAlert a moderator
2: RaveyDaveyGravy says
let it go, after number 1 they are all a bit rubbish. OK maybe 2 was alright. The whole idea of an invincible man makes any story pointless. If he can never die where's the danger, where's the tension?
And whats all this rubbish about who owns the rights to this and that? who owns the rights to his cape? who owns the rights to his ears? move on!
Posted: Aug 14th 2009 // 10:03AMAlert a moderator
3: DeFantom says
Part of the problem is the Singer version, it was a half-arsed re-boot. They need to start from scratch. Burton's Batman and Nolan's Batman work any they don't have any connection. Leave it a couple of years and start again.
The problem they have is trying to emulate the gritty realism of Nolan's vision. Superman is an ALIEN and, other than Luthor, all the interesting bad guys are ALIEN (or bat-s**t crazy lookin'). It simply won't work!
Pains me to say it, but someone like Michael Bay (uuughhh, soap and water) could just go for the outrageous nature of it all and make it big, silly and brainless fun.
Posted: Aug 14th 2009 // 11:23AMAlert a moderator
4: whateverman says
Hey Ben Doomsday was a pretty good bad guy. He killed Superman!
Superman is a really half arsed name.
Posted: Aug 14th 2009 // 5:41PMAlert a moderator
5: Ali1748 says
I liked Singer and Routh's Superman and it's ashame niether will get the chance to make an action packed sequel.
Posted: Aug 15th 2009 // 12:52PMAlert a moderator
6: Devilangeldude says
I loved Superman Returns. I had waited since 1987 when Quest for Peace came out, and for me 'Returns' was definitely worth the wait. Think about it almost 20 years wait and straight into a new superman that's all action. That would have been a bigger disaster I think. I also recollect, that there were next to no bad reviews, it was getting 5* all around. Until weeks later, it was released that it hadn't made as much money as Spiderman.
This whole legal business is all about royalties unpaid by Warner and DC to the aires. Therefore they could pay alot of money and make a movie and hopefully renogotiate a deal come 2013. I'm being petty, but seeing the Warner logo before the movie, is all part of the Superman experience.
From what I understand, Siegel could allow DC and Warner
Posted: Aug 16th 2009 // 12:55PMAlert a moderator
7: Devilangeldude says
Missed out a bit at the end there.....DC and Warner could use the Kryptonian origins and all the other things that they've lost the rights to if they pay up. What most fans fear now, is that Siegel and the others could sell the rights to Fox who would be more than happy to take the biggest and most popular franchise known away from Warner.
What the fans want etc...doesn't even come into it.
Posted: Aug 16th 2009 // 12:58PMAlert a moderator
8: supat2009 says
noooo waaayy....leave superman alone,one of the most boring super heros ever.does not do absolutly anything for me.superman returns had too much hype like alot of other movies.sorry
Posted: Sep 7th 2009 // 10:22PMAlert a moderator
9: hinch1987 says
lets be honest disney marvel will end up buying him as they have money to burn
You need to log in or register to post comments