SUPERMAN Lawsuit: The Empire Strikes Back Comments -


Showing items 21 - 30 of 35
<<  <  1 2 3 4 >  >>  
PAGE 5/18/2010 1:43:43 AM

This Superman lawsuit is bullshit and it's cheating us fans from another Superman movie period. I agree that these heirs are just greedy looking for a quick hefty payday. I'm onboard with not supporting  a Superman character outside of DC. Complete and utter BS.

ponyboy76 5/18/2010 2:19:33 AM

My problem with the lawsuit is that the families, didn't create a damn thing so why the hell should they be entitled to any of the profits from said creation? I mean it would be one thing if he had left the rights to the children in some sort of will but he couldn't do that because he was already paid for the rights. It is just about getting paid for  just having the Shuster and Seigel name.

lracors 5/18/2010 9:13:44 AM

The cast of Cowboy's and Aliens is getting more and more impressive.

jedibanner 5/18/2010 11:33:50 AM

Hmmm......I guess people of the new generations don't know squat about respect and honour.

In the old days, any creators of any characters had no royalties and recognitions like there is today. These guys created so many things without ANY compensations. Both creators of Superman fought and fought to get some sort of recognitions but, they felt a bit short.

Now the famillies are continuing what their fathers had started, it's not about being greedy. But sure, it would end up in the end they will get loads of money if they win but, it's more then that. Guys like Kirby, Eisner, Schuster and Siegel, they fought for years for their rights which they only got a fractions of what they deserve.

That's what honour is, respect goes both ways. For years DC cheated these guys out of royalties and the famillies are only fighting for what was theirs to begin with.

scytheofluna 5/18/2010 1:13:57 PM

jedibanner, the suit isn't necessarily about royalties, if I understand correctly it's about RIGHTS.  As in "We're taking grampa's funny book character and you can forget about Superman and Batman teaming up ever again".  If they want to sue WB for unpaid royalties I don't think anyone is going to shed a tear, but we're talking about removing one of the founding pillars of the DC universe.  Sorry man, but my sympathy for the family goes right out the window when they're ready to spit in the faces of the very people who have kept Superman a part of the public consciousness for the better part of a century.  The people who have written or drawn for the Superman comics over the last 70 years have as much claim to the character as any money grabbing descendant of the original creators.

decepticons2 5/18/2010 1:20:52 PM

Jedibanner I think you are wrong these guys did get compensation. But over the years they seemed to be behind everyone else. Lets not say they didn't get paid. Also you may note that the original guys lost several battles with DC over the years.

But laws have changed, so infact the original people were paid. Do i think they were paid fairly, maybe not. So the families are more fighting for what they can get under new laws. If the law said i could pay you one dollar a year for 75 years no matter what I made. Then more then likely it would probably happen considering when shareholders don't have to know you at all. Its easy for a group of people to see papers saying "Did we pay them, yep." Ok done now lets count our money.

In fact you may note that WB in the past has given the orinal creators a pension that they did not have to at all,as well as giving them credit. They did not have to do this and they would probably have an easier time today if there names hadn't been asociated with the product for the last 40 years. 





jedibanner 5/18/2010 1:46:19 PM

it's true DC has made ''some'' payments to the creators but, I just think that some of the comments made earlier kind of gives the wrong idea about the familly members. I don't think they are doing this for money and just say ''Superman is ours so screw DC or screw the fans'', they aren't that stupid. They know how much it would affect the industry and more importantly, the character itself.

Money drives anyone, that's the American way...but to chastize the familly for something they aren't fully responsible, that's different.

Until it's all over, to destroy the legacy of the creators and their respectful familly members, not cool man, not cool.

axia777 5/18/2010 2:36:04 PM

jedibanner, you do realize that Seigle and Shuster SOLD the rights to Superman back in 1938 right? You do realize what that means right? They SOLD the rights to Superman to Detective Comics, later known as DC comics. What do you and other people like you, including the families of Seigle and Shuster, not understand about that concept? This is all so f*cking ludicrous is baffles me. Sold is sold man.  That is the end of the story.  The families are trying to get back something that was sold decades ago to DC.  I am sorry for the families that the creators of Superman were terrible business me and were hugly short sighted.  That is their problem, not DC's.  Lots of things have been sold for far under the value they should have been sold for.

Take the GUI interface that Apple supposidly invented.  They did not.  A team at Xerox invented the GIU and the mouse interface from which to use it as we know it today in both Apple and Windows computers.  Xerox in their short sightedness sold it all to Jobs and Woz for a mere $50,000!  Talk about a blunder.  The execs at Xerox never imagined that personal computers would be so popular as they are today.  Their lose, our gain.

Same goes for Siegle and Shuster.  They sold the rights to one of the biggest fictional characters in the history of all fictional charactres.  They were MORONS.  Their lose, DC's gain.

jedibanner 5/18/2010 3:41:13 PM

Well axia, arguiing about something that happened apparently in 1938 makes no sense. Whatever hapenned then, we can't argue because, it was a totally different time then it is today. Especially for the creators in those days...they got screwed by people taking advantage of them like there is no tomorrow.

So, as you say, ''people like you'' thinks that they are morons and it's irrelevent what they did whereas people like me say, ''things were done without beneficial reasons to the creators in those days and today, the families are just continuing to fight for something they got screwed in the past''.

It's not ludicrous, it's about have NO rights to this character, you are a purchaser of comics (myself included), the Superman familly have rights and DC has rights..they will fight it out but, it's not ludicrous in my mind.

axia777 5/18/2010 4:07:48 PM

What ever. You still do not admit or see that Seigle and Shuster sold the rights to Superman. How were they screwed over? Please do explain this to me. All I can find on the internet about it is that they worked for Detective Comics and at some point created and then sold Superman to them for a sum of money. It is ludicrous. How is it not? How do the families have rights to a property that was sold back in 1938? Why should they?

Oh look, I found out how they sold the rights for a mere $130. ROFL. That is so lame. On Siegle and Shusters part that is. From what I can see both men were desperate and wanted in to the industry. So they sold out. Their mistake. I guess they did not see that Superman would be worth so much. Their loss.

Did you know that they sued twice now all ready and LOST both times? The courts denied their so called "rights" TWICE. They made a titanically bad business decision and wanted to take it back. Hell, did you know that Col. Sanders, the REAL one, sold KFC for only $2,000,000? Sure that was a sh*t ton of cash back then but now KFC is worth so much more. People can't sell something, then see it increase in value, and then want that thing back. That is NOT how business works.

Siegle and Shuster should have negotiated a little harder back in the day but they did not. Why didn't they? I don't really know. I figure it was out of pure stupidity.

Bob Kane is a good example of a shrewd business man who made the system work for him. He held onto his rights. He was a hard ass. He did not let himself be had. He was smart then and now he is rich because of it.

<<  <  1 2 3 4 >  >>  


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Please click here to login.