SUPERMAN Lawsuit: The Empire Strikes Back Comments -


Showing items 31 - 35 of 35
<<  <  1 2 3 4 
decepticons2 5/18/2010 4:51:49 PM

Axia I do believe that the new court case is filed under a new copyright law in the US. People do get restitution for past mistakes. I am not saying the family deserves the character but your goverment must have had a reason to change the law.

The problem with the families is it doesn't feel like they want a decent amount. I am sure if they had asked WB/DC to give them a few million dollars and be done with it they would have. I am sure they figure they can win. it just seems to be general practice to come to some sort of settlement.

It also doesn't seem to be over creative issues. None of the family members are involved creativly in anyway. The character seems to be fairly tru to his roots. They didn't make Superman the villain of the DC universe.

So unless the family can prove that this isn't an obscene money grab I will side DC. But we have not heard how they have been treated in anyway. So need to get agitated until more info is out. Maybe a site like this maybe able to get an interview with the family or something.

axia777 5/18/2010 5:30:03 PM

I am not getting agitated.  I am just against the idea of something being sold in a fair business deal and then the seller of said property wanting that property back after the sale was made.  This idea has far reaching implications.  Who says that any and all artists that have worked on any Marvelor DC comic might not want to go ahead and sue for the ownership of said comic cook character?  It is just insane.

hulkster46 5/18/2010 6:36:11 PM

Seigel and Shuster were paid for their work. And also were paid when the first Superman movie came out in the late 70s, royalties. Since both of them are neither around. I would say that the heirs are just looking for money. And don't really care about the characters. If they win, I would say it would probly be goodbye Smallville, goodbye Metropolis Ill, The home of Superman. And goodbye too whatever movies and comics could of been made in the future. A pity,  the families should be content with what Seigel and Shuster left in their wills and move on with life.

scytheofluna 5/19/2010 5:29:41 AM

Axia is right, SOLD IS SOLD!  If the current law dictates that  restitution or royalty distribution is in order for the families, then fine, WB/DC can afford it.  The notion that the familes should retain rights to the character is insane though.  In what other reality would the family of a creator be expected to recieve a pension, or profit shares seven decades after the fact.

Superman couldn't even fly in the old comics.  The character as he is today has grown so far beyond what the original creators started.

Look it's highly likely that these folks deserve some money.  Throw some cash at them and let that be the end of it.  Do you see the heirs of Bob Kane trying to pry Batman from the DC Universe?  Even after the last two movies made unreal sums of money? How about the creator of the Green Lantern?  GL is gettin' his own movie now, so now would be the time for any greedy descendants to come knocking for grandads unpaid profits.  It seems that Superman's creators are the only ones who can't just be content that their families creation is still a cultural icon.  Somehow they're the only ones who feel it's their right to get paid for work they didn't do.

Look, creators used to get screwed all the time, but the fact is Superman was SOLD to DC.  If you wanna' haggle about a reasonable price 70 years after the fact, then knock yourselves out, but the character stays where he is, or I'm not going to be participating in his exploits anymore.  The bottom line is that DC has done a lot more for me over the years than these schmucks, so hand them a briefcase full of cash and kick their asses out the door.

We haven't even properly paid repairations for SLAVERY, and people are getting bent out of shape that Seigel and Schuster's grandkids don't have a big enough trust fund?   These guys created a comic book character whose popularity is as much a result of the last 65 years worth of artists, writers, and filmmakers, than it is of the original creators.  The Superman they created didn't have the dollar value of the Superman of today precisely BECAUSE he didn't have 7 decades of history behind him.  If you bought a bottle of wine that was bottled in '38 that year it wouldn't be worth a hell of a lot, but you pull out your wallet for that same bottle today, and you'd better have plastic with a healthy limit.  Superman is like a fine wine people.

goldenkey 5/21/2010 9:25:50 AM

coulda, shoulda, woulda.  Siegel and Shuster should have done something 60 some odd years ago.  They had an idea, it worked, they sold it, and now they want it back since it's making money.  You wouldn't hear shit if Superman wasn't successful.  Imagine what they guy who sold the McDonalds concept thinks.  They still use his name but what is sold is sold.  It's called a business risk.  If superman failed you wouldn't see DC telling the S&S trust fund brigade they owe them money because they expected a certain amount of profit.  It's all B.S. and the fans are getting screwed.  If S&S retain the rights, DC should kill their version of Superman badly.  Make Captain Marvel the baddest guy around since he's like a sliver beneath Superman in power.  Forget doing smear campaign on the lawyer, if they lose the rights, DC should do a smear campaign on Superman. Have Lex Luther kill Superman just to do it.  Id be pissed if I was DC and if I had to give something back like Superman then Id sure as hell make sure it was broken first.

<<  <  1 2 3 4 


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