"Toberoff also asserted in a written statement that the Siegel heirs and the heirs of co-creator Joe Shuster will own the entire Superman copyright in 2013."

I don't really understand all this stuff. For one thing, I thought this court case was over the character of Superboy, not Superman. Also, if the Shusters get the copyright in 2013 does that mean from then on DC will have to license the right to publish stories about the character? Would the Shusters have the right to lease Superman out to another comic company?

"Death of Superman" II, anyone?

They need to keep Bryan Singer as far away from Superman as possible. He is completely clueless on how to make a superman movie.

It would be great if Marvel gets the rights to Superman to show them how to really make a Superman movie. LOL

If not I would like the original writers of Smallville or the writers from the Superman / Justice League Cartoon to make the next Superman movie.

Smallville blows away Superman returns in quality.

So how does this constitute "the clock running out on a Superman sequel?" Maybe the clock's running out on *Time-Warner* sanctioning a sequel, but wouldn't the new Superman rights holders want to make some coin off of their newly granted rights? Doesn't that make a new Superman movie MORE likely and not less?

And since we're talking about it, I think the whole damn situation is entirely bogus. Copyrights to ANYTHING should expire with the creator of that copyrighted work, even if the work was done for hire or signed away. Transferring exclusive rights to Superman to the heirs of Messrs. Siegel and Shuster makes as much sense as the reparations movement: the folks who were wronged are in the grave, so all we're doing is easing someone's guilty conscience by awarding an unearned payoff to descendants who weren't actually victimized. Let Superman (and Mickey Mouse, Flash Gordon, Tarzan, etc.) pass into the public domain where they can be be freely used as the inspirations of future generations of creative artists, just like the works of Shakespeare and Dickens have inspired so many for hundreds of years.

The problem is that the longer they wait to lock in Bryan Singer, the better chance they have to wind up with an X3 situation.

You have the BEST superhero director in your grasp, with a clear vision of the franchise, and you are going to blow it by letting him get away? Superman Returns was a masterpiece, and I'd love to see Singer return with a more action packed part 2.

Hey, Sci Fi, are you guys paying attention? This is like the third day in a row I've seen a post like Guff's...

I'm not sure how I feel about this; I liked many things about Superman Returns, but the decision to cast Kate Bosworth as Lois was definitely NOT one of them. If a sequel relied heavily on the Superman/Lois dynamic (which it probably would) I'd probably wait for the DVD.

This court battle has serious implications. Obviously it means Smallville is dead by 2013 (not a surprise there dispite rumors generated by the cast as recently as last month). What happens with the proposed Justice League Movie? My guess is that before DC/Warner let one of their flagship characters leave, they'll strike a deal to keep him and make the Siegel and Shuster heirs very, umm, well off.

@ Diesel agreed smallville kicks ass and they could do a way better movie anyways !

They need to buy the rights outright so that they don't have to worry about it any more. We don't need Superman going to Marvel. I really don't want to see any more Cameo's by the Marvel geezers.

Once they own the right permanently they need to make a good movie. Myself I favor the three move arc from birth to death that they talked about a year or so ago. Dump Singer, Dump Luther and get a real bad guy going for superman, someone like Brainiac or Darksied (sp?)

Routh can stay, but someone hotter in tights would be nice. Someone with a little more defined body. Keep Louis to a minimum and while I am glad Superman Returns gave him a son I think he should be killed off or kept out of it.

If they do the three movie arch that would basically be a reboot and that means they could ignore all that came before. Not a bad idea since what came before is not dated and campy.

@Usul: I don't particularly care for your moniker. Should I insult you for a difference of opinion? A lot of people agree with Darkhawke and are not clueless individuals. Do you insult people you know nothing bout to feel important? If you disagree with someone, do it like a civilized adult.

Seriously, why is it that so many people post here for no other purpose than to insult others?

SyFy can and IMHO should delete posts from people that are contributing nothing more than slander and they might consider banning repeat offenders who can't act with any sense of decency.

JokerDoesItBetter posted:
"I really don't want to see any more Cameo's by the Marvel geezers."

Aww... c'mon... SuperStan has a nice ring to it!!

When Diesel's comment mentioned that the Superman rights could be given to Marvel, a thought occured to me...

Not that I would EVER want this to actually happen, but it WOULD be funny if Superman got killed in the DC universe and some major event happened in the Marvel universe that brought him there. I think that would actually be hilarious. But ONLY as a thought...

I hope they do miss the window to let other people make the movie, or maybe with a lower budget they can get a better story this time around. It seems these days the lower the budget the better the story.

@Paul - I would pay big money to see the Death of Superman! and if they are going to lose their franchise in 2013 then it would make perfect sense to kill it in 2012.

Then the new owners could do a reboot and a fresh start and look for the big blue boyscout.

Not that I really think Superman would ever be published by anyone other than DC, since that I think the heirs of Siegel and Shuster are not necessary unhappy with DC Comics treatment of the character (they just want the money Jerry and Joe should have gotten from the television shows and the movies), but I have wondered what would happen if Superman were to suddenly be a Marvel character?

But then I wake up and realize that Superman would completely destroy the entire fabric of Marvel's established world of heroes as he's more powerful than any of the current heroes, is actually loved by the masses and not feared, and above all else he would completely take Marvel away from it's attempts at being "our world with Super Heroes". Seriously, things like Civil War and Secret Invasion would have lasted 5 seconds with Superman involved.

So even if they did shop around the character, I'm not sure Marvel would be the place he'd end up.

First off to a Lindy..Superman is pwerful but he's not more powerful then any Marvel hero.. Sliver Surfer has him out classed..so do a number of magical based characters in Marvel.

2nd ..thats is what Superman needs a new home. Marvel having the rights to Superman would be awesome.. they totally make better movies then DC any day of the week. Marvel would actually spend time making him fit in and have Brian Micheal Bendis go to work. And Superman Returns was really disappointing ...I mean Luthor's plan was retarded , Lois having superman's kid stupid , and superman lifting a huge krytonite land mass over his head and thrrowing it.. when in the comics and cartoons a little piece of it would have him rolling on the floor like he's dying. Marvel needs the rights to Superman

What is left out is that the Superman that S&S get in 2013 is the Superman as he appeared in Action Comics #1. That means no flying (he could only leap at that point), no Kryptonite (DC owns and will always own that), no Bizarro or Braniac or most any villian, possibly no Lex Luthor (didn't show up until Action #23), no Daily Planet (it was the Daily Star) and I'm fairly certain no vision powers. They would get Lois, Perry, Jimmy and the suit, though.

So, yes, they can license Superman out, but if he looked ANYTHING like the Superman we know and love, DC would sue the ever-loving CRAP out of the company that produced the work.

What would be really funny, though, is if they refused to license the character to DC. That would create the largest amount of problems as they'd then have to whitewash their history because they probably couldn't even MENTION him.

Do the Kevin Smith Trilogy. Singers Movies was horrible. Ray Stevenson looks like a real superman like george reeves and from alex ross's vison

Smallville stinks!

That pathetic, poorly written show Smallville should be kept far and away from a Superman movie franchise. The idiots who idolize that show shouldn't call themselves fans of the character. I think Twilight would be a better franchise for them to follow.

@kooldeath:

Um....you don't really know anything about comic books if you think the Silver Surfer can go toe to toe with Superman. And I am saying that as a Marvel fan and not much of a DC fan (although I like the DCU animated stuff.)

DC characters are, on average, stronger than their Marvel counterparts. If you look back thorugh the history of the two franchises, you'll clearly see this to be the case.

Don't argue with me. Don't cite your examples. Just do your research.

Or maybe read JLA/Avengers, which should close the book for you on just how strong Superman is.

LOL...Silver Surfer taking out Superman. Funny. Don't get me wrong, Norrin Radd is a VERY powerful character in Marvel continuity, but he's not at the strength levels of Superman.

This is what I think will happen
The Siegels and Shusters will sell or license Superman to Marvel Entertainment.
Warner Brothers is extremely attached to Superman because of the money the Superman character generates.
So Time Warner will just acquire Marvel Entertainment.
Marvel will agree to this if Time Warner agrees to keep Marvel comics and DC comics separate divisions for a specific amount of time, lets say 5 to 10 years.
This way everyone is happy. And the money keeps flowing in.

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe/2009-01/msg00056.html

DarkHawke said:
"Copyrights to ANYTHING should expire with the creator of that copyrighted work, even if the work was done for hire or signed away."

But the problem, DarkHawke, is that copyright isn't just for big studios and bestselling authors. I was on a panel once with an SF author whose books sell well, but she doesn't make millions. She says royalties of her books once she passes will make the difference between her autistic son having the care he needs -- or not.

Let's remember that most creative people are not working in Hollywood and are often struggling to make ends meet. But the copyright rules are the same for everyone.

Dave Creek

Hurry up Warner Bros. A Superman vs. Batman movie would work better now with the success of The Dark Knight. With Batman left as a fugative, what would be better for Gotham City than to turn to their sister city Metropolis for help and ask them to loan them Superman to catch Batman.

Here's good primer on copyright in the US:

http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/04/08/copyright_culture/index.html

"Siegel and Shuster makes as much sense as the reparations movement: the folks who were wronged are in the grave, so all we're doing is easing someone's guilty conscience by awarding an unearned payoff to descendants who weren't actually victimized."

Are you not in tune with the times Darkhawke??? This is America... we pay descendents of Native Americans already, why not the heirs (Shusters) of the Superman creator. For that matter, why not reparations for descendents not victimized (victimization is a matter of opinion unless you happen to be caucasion)??? It's either agree to go all in and give full rights, or agree to no one having rights after the death of creators, victims, etc. Any other way would make you hipocritical. Keep your comments to yourself unless you make a stand either way and not play the middle to suit your needs... this is America!