WB Wins Superman Legal Battle, Must Start Next Movie by 2011

Posted by Josh Radde (josh@filmschoolrejects.com) on July 9, 2009

superman-header

The results of a recent settlement came forward in the case of WB and DC Comics vs. the heirs of Superman co-creator Jerome Siegel. According to Variety, U.S. District Court Judge Stephen G. Larsen found that Warner Bros. and DC Comics didn’t have what was called a “Sweetheart deal” — meaning that Warner Bros. would have made promises to DC that they would do more than say 20th Century Fox or MGM could’ve — because the deal Warners and DC struck was at fair market value.

Now, that’s all just number crunching and court settlements, blah blah blah. Let’s get to what you all probably care about. Warner Bros. is going to lose the copyright to the Superman franchise in 2013. At that time, sole ownership of the copyright will belong to the heirs of Siegel and Joe Schuster, who helped create Superman with Siegel in 1938 (when the hero we know today appeared in Action Comics #1). So, in order to capitalize on the franchise while they still can, Warner has to start production on a new Superman film by 2011.

And while that may seem realistic on its own, think about it for a second. Warner Bros., since the 1970’s, has distributed five Superman films, a couple TV series, an animated series starring just Superman, and one animated series where he joined the rest of the Justice League. It’s hard to believe that in just three and a half short years, that will all be over. The Siegel’s attorney, Marc Toberoff, even went so far as to say “The Siegels look forward to the remainder of the case, which will determine how much defendants owe them for their exploitations of Superman.” Exploitations? Really?

Variety didn’t mention this, but it also puts a time-frame as to when the Justice League live-action film can be completed as well. Most of you know that production was halted due to the writer’s strike last year, and that we almost had a Batman played by a guy named Armie Hammer (feel free to burn me “Gossip Girl” fans, but that was just an atrocious choice). If Warners owns the rights to all the other members of the Justice League, but not the rights to Superman, is it even worth it? Now, this isn’t to say that the Schusters and Siegels couldn’t just turn back around and cut a deal with Warners again, but after their “exploitations” of their franchise, as they claim, do you think they would? What if they give it to Dreamworks? What if they give it to Disney? Oh man, what if within the next decade we had Pixar’s Superman?!

While my mouth salivates thinking about this, tell me what you think about the prospect of a slightly rushed Superman film coming out within the next few years.


Read more articles by Josh Radde

« Previous Article | Next Article »

Related Topics:

Movie News, , ,

Related Reading:

Your Ad Here

Comment Policy: No hate speech allowed. If you must argue, please debate intelligently. Comments containing selected keywords or outbound links will be put into moderation to help prevent spam. Film School Rejects reserves the right to delete comments and ban anyone who doesn't follow the rules. We also reserve the right to modify any curse words in your comments and make you look like an idiot. Thank You!

  • The_Kid
    It could be awesome, but it could also be a disaster. I just hope they use a villain with some type of potential, Darkseid, Metallo, or even Bizzaro would be sweet choices and would be awesome to see on screen. Truthfully, I just want to see a villain that will challenge Superman physically. His movies have slot of action and still have a story.
  • JayJayCAW
    YES!!!!!!! Finally some good news out of this messed up Legal fight
  • I'm not sure a re-telling of the Superman origin story needs to be done - nor a hacky "episode" of a Superman movie. The movie they should use Superman for before they lose the rights is Batman 3 with Christian Bale -- it's the logical way to go. Also, it's a REALLY good question and theme to explore -- What is a Man compared to a God? It doesn't have to be the original Dark Knight where you kill off Batman, in fact, do it right, and it could be the new backstory for WHY the Justice League is formed. After Batman and Superman square off, of course. ;) -- there's so much potential here for artistic exploration that I bet Chris Nolan couldn't stay away.
  • I'm not sure the supernatural approach works in Nolan's Batman. Also I never like stories where the two heroes physically fight. For one, it's too easy for Superman to win, but for Batman to win requires some circumstantial B.S. The Dark Knight Returns does it okay, since Supes is holding back cause he knows Bats is having a heart attack. But generally it's stupid. They should clash heads with tactics and morals, but ultimately should fight on the same side.
  • d0x
    That wouldnt work. Nolan's Batman has worked so well because its based in the real world. If you throw in a guy who can fly everything they worked for in the past 2 movies gets tossed out the window.
  • I'm very confused about this. Did WB win? Or did they lose? Are they having to pay damages for 'exploitation?'

    As for the movie, I think they have plenty of time to put something good together. I wondered if they purposely let Brandon Routh's contract expire, so that they could reboot with a new actor. Give him a villain worth punching (Brainiac or Darkseid are the best choice) and get us a story that is fun but serious, and a threat that's bigger than perhaps Lex Luthor. Let Earth be at stake, let Superman be pushed to the limits physically and mentally, and let's see how badass the character can be, so everybody who isn't a rabid fan can finally understand. Let those who think only Batman can make great movies be surprised at how much they liked the hero they'd always dubbed "Too 'good', too powerful."

    As to who it should go to next? I predict WB will snatch it right back up. There's no way they'd have every DC comic EXCEPT superman, they want the whole bunch. I'm not sure I'd like to see Disney have it (they did it with HERCULES anyway), and while I bet Pixar could do one hell of a CGI Supes, I prefer live action for theatrical releases... Just me.
  • Well, in any case, a Pixar's Superman would definitely be pure awesomeness.
  • Oh man, what if within the next decade we had FOX’s Superman?!
  • They "Won" in the sense that they didn't have a "Sweetheart" deal with DC, which is what Siegel's camp was suing about. If it could be proven that WB made special arrangements with DC, then it would mean that they could be "hiding" money from the Siegel/Schuster's. The judge said that what Warner pays DC for rights is pretty good, based on what, say, Fox pays to Marvel for X-Men. That's pretty much the jist.
  • random man
    This is good news. We will get one last WB Superman movie (probably with Brandon Routh for time saving reasons) that features other members of the Justice League (and I'm hoping would have Batman in it although that would probably mean that WB is shooting itself in the foot and it would be some hammy actor instead of Bale) and completely different version of Superman in the future (if WB dont get the rights back).

    Now I'm hoping that WB don't get the rights back because they just haven't milked his super-titties right over the years (another reason the Siegel heirs might not sell it back to them).

    P.S. I (heart) brackets.
blog comments powered by Disqus