LOGIN
REGISTER
RSS
HOME
Somewhere in Arkham Asylum the Joker cackles manically.
True is stranger than fiction, people. It turns out there's a real Batman. The real Batman may have been around since before Bob Kane created the comic book Batman. Now Warner Bros has grossed almost a billion dollars from the latest Batman movie and the real Batman wants a slice, according to today's Variety.
The real Batman, it turns out, is an oil-producing city in southeastern Turkey. The mayor of the town, one Huseyin Kalkan, is reportedly preparing a lawsuit against director Christopher Nolan and Warner Bros. for royalties from the smash hit movie.
This is not a Sacha Baron Cohen comedy bit. This is the news.
Kalkan contends that the film used the town's name without permission. He is in the process of building a case demonstrating that the town was around before the 1939 creation of the comic book character.
"There is only one Batman in the world," Kalkan said. "The American producers used the name of our city without informing us."
It's not all about the money though. Variety reports that elements of Kalkan case blame "a number of unsolved murders and a high female suicide rate on the psychological impact that the film's success has had on the city's inhabitants."
Furthermore, local businessmen are suffering ridicule and other obstacles when trying to register their businesses abroad.
Clerk: Primary location of your business?
Businessman: Batman
Clerk: Excuse me?
Businessman: We are located in Batman.
Clerk: The Caped Crusader?
Businessman: No, you ignorant American. The true Batman is a city in Turkey.
Clerk: OK! OK! The name of the business?
Businessman: Black Satin Trunks of Batman.
In spite of the character's popularity over the last 70 years, the town of Batman is at a loss to explain how it never noticed the fictional character until the superhero made a billion dollars at the box office.
However, in actuality Warner Bros claims not to have been served with any such lawsuit and is only aware of the story through the press.
It's not surprising that the studio would be low-key about it. They're likely fearing copy-cat suits from the cities of Matter-eater Lad, Morroco and Granny Goodness, Kyrgyzstan.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....
where are you going on vacation?
-I'm going to the wonderful city of Batman...
WOW.
I'm sure that with the profits of the dark knight they will be able to pay the 2 dollars that the city of batman will sue for,,,,,
Well this is just about one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.
I'll tell ya, that I really thought by reading the title of the article it was leading up to what my prediction always has been for a "Batman Begins/Dark Knight"3. which is that I think Nolan's going to make BATMAN "the villain" of the next movie. I think that it's going to be a sort of "HUNT THE DARK KNIGHT / THE DARK KNIGHT FALLS" plot line for the next movie. where the central character is Batman and his outlaw status and what Bruce Wayne ultimately has to do "to Batman" for the sake of the city.
it certainly not above Nolan to bring it back to the main character and conclude the trilogy that way...
but of course, none of this has anything to do with the article. I mean, really, a town? in Turkey? can they even... like sue an american studio legally? and worse case, the studio can just choose not to distribute in that country. "screw you turkeys!" sorta thing. (I personally would never. or never say that. but I digress.)
also, where were they all those years when Adam West was running around in tights, and Michael Keaton was in black plastic and couldn't turn his head? hell I'd have sued when it got to nipples on the bat-suit, but that's just me.
riffing aside, I think this is perposterous. I think this is clearing malicious and trying to cash in on what is now the 2nd highest grossing film of all time. that's it. to say nothing of the fact that so many other legal crimes are committed against Hollywood on an international scale, (huge piracy trade overseas that Hollywood can do little about) so I just don't see some legal way this would ever hold up.
but that's just me ranting.
Of course they can sue. Just because they are in another country doesn't mean they can't sue an American company. They just have to select the proper venue (i.e. what jurisdiction they file in). This whole idea of a lawsuit is ridiculous, though. I can't imagine this case wouldn't be dismissed outright. For one, they had to have waited too long. There's got to be a statute of limitations somewhere, and that would begin from the moment someone in authority became aware of Batman as a character. Second, there's no exclusive right to use the name, as long as DC/WB isn't trying to portray their character of Batman as the city of Batman. I'm pretty sure any sane judge in the world would deny that WB's Batman is trying to pass himself off as a Turkish city. I used to work at a bank, and we had a customer named James Bond. He couldn't have sued Broccoli's estate for use of the name. People are allowed to have the same name. I'm sure they're are a few people out there named Jason Bourne (or David Webb). Identical names don't mean jack. There has to be some effort to appear as the same established character or trademark for there to be an infringement.
The judge is going to take one look at this lawsuit and throw it out. And he may laugh for a bit afterwards.
WOW!
I mean the term Batman has been used for Military butlers for centuries, maybe they will sue, too?
Let alone EVERY film with the name of a town or city in the title!
Thats why I am soooooooooooo proud to live in Catwoman. Nothing ever bad happens there.
So the city/town of Batman votes idiots into office as well?