Well, the other shoe has dropped.
According to Rich Johnston, when JMS takes over Superman in a couple of months:
Apparently, the Man Of Steel is going to drop his Superman identity in an attempt to be a better man and to better relate to humanity. The story will follow his journey as he walk from one side of the USA to other other, trying not use his powers.
Curse my prophetic soul.
Wow. So Superman, technically, won't even be in Superman...just Clark Kent walking across the U.S. of A, undoubtedly not even in costume.
As I said last week, DC/Warner is acting nutsy, trying to hide one of their most marketable assets. And the only thing that makes sense to me is that they're trying to minimize the royalties they're going to owe, and trying to wean the DC Universe off of Superman.
Enjoy these last few DC Superman stories while you can, kids...the clock to 2013 is ticking...
10 comments:
You're amazing, Snell. When I created a post discussing the Bleeding Cool posting at the Comic Bloc forums (Geoff Johns' site), I alluded (and linked) to this very theory of yours...which I think is even more prescient than I did before.[
Plus, who the hell needs ANOTHER "Journey Across America" storyline? Isn't that one of the most hoary cliches in popular fiction?
Anyway, thanks for continuing to cover this fascination topic....one I really think has some legs, and one the DC brass will probably be tap-dancing around the entire convention season.
fascination = fascinaTING
I don't follow DC, so how have the sales been on the Green Lantern and Flash titles since the return of Hal and Barry, respectively? I ask, because I wonder if they're actually doing something clever here, and are weaning people off Superman in order to bring him back, hoping that absence will make the heart grow fonder? They've just done it with Bruce Wayne, after all (even though I don't think it worked because they brought him back too soon), and they can't exactly kill off Superman again, so to have him go all Peter-Parker-Superman-No-More is a good second-best.
Perhaps they're looking at what Marvel managed with Thor (but not with Captain America, because it's too soon), and are trying the same.
Or perhaps they really are getting ready to lose the character.
So in other words, we're getting an adult version of Smallville? Is this to make up for a lack of Clark Kent during this "New Krypton" arc?
Oh, and does anybody in the Super-Writers remember his wife? Is she going on this trip? Lois doesn't strike me as the type to go on a Walkabout.
Well, they did that Clark Kent-centric story years ago to some success, when his powers were so out of control he decided to focus on the clark aspect of his life. So maybe this will work.
Kelvin--I believe DC is weaning people off of Superman because they seriously believe that they will not be able to get the rights to him back in 2013, and will have to stop publishing Superman titles. At least with Cap and Batman, the companies put alternates into the costumes, so they can keep the marketing going. Not Superman though. At a time when DC is so determined to set the clock back to 1983, their marginalization of Superman seems pretty inconsistent.
Shadow--If DC loses Superman, they will also lose Lois Lane. So, same math. Stories without Superman in costume, stories without Lois...
Sleestak--It might work, although JMS's track record doesn't fill me with confidence for this type of story.
Looks like JMS himself showed up to put the kibosh on Rich's rumors:
http://www.bleedingcool.com/forums/showthread.php?16305-Exclusive-Superman-No-More&p=79617#post79617
Despite his wall-to-wall denials, I still think you're on to something, Snell. Time will tell.
Good logic to you're theory - but it's wrong. There would really be no point in trying to down play Superman in the way you describe. Legally they can show Superman all they want, with no repercussions. Even if the worse happened, DC would only become a join-owner of Superman, requiring the payment of royalties to use him.
It's Superboy who's really at the heart of this case. And if anything, DC seems to have taken the tactic of using Superboy regardless of the lawsuit. (Which seems a shade better than nervously waiting in fear, making weak willed attempts to work around using the actual word "Superboy")
Basically DC has opted to use Superboy, and if things come to worse they will deal with it then. For now, while they still own him, they are using him. As evidenced by his appearance in Legion, Superman books, Teen Titan books, and Superboy's inclusion in the recently announced Young Justice.
There's still a lot left to the case, especially when you consider all the many, MANY years of alterations to Superman - barely recognizable from his first appearance (which, issue #1 of Action Comics, is all the Seigles have actually won.)
I doubt DC hasn't offered the family a settlement. They really should take it, just to end the limbo Superman and Superboy have been in.
As for Superman being side-lined in Action Comics, this seems purely because JMS wants to control the character himself more. He really should learn to share. He did fine using Spider-Man all those years, inter-connected with the Marvel U. I heard that was why he left Thor, not wanting to deal with cross-over events anymore. I say: Grow up. You're a comic writer - pacifically gravitating towards big-time characters who appear regularly in other books. It's a reality you have to live and work with.
Kandou--the entire basis for the current Siegel suit is non-payment of royalties since 1999 (the year they reasserted copyright). As Variety wrote, "the real issue is money and how much Warner Bros. and DC owe the Siegels from profits they collected from Superman since 1999, when the heirs' recapture of Siegel's copyright became effective." DC has fought this lawsuit for 6 years because they didn't want to pay. Now that the rulings have consistently gone against them, DC knows that every appearance of Superman just means more money they owe the estates--so yes, there are "repercussions" of the kind that mean a lot to a corporate giant--$$$.
It's also a fact that in 2013, DC loses the right to Superman, Lois Lane, Krypton, The Daily Planet, and other aspects. (And the courts have awarded the estates more than Action #1--they also have won some of the early Superman newspaper strips, and portions of several early issues of Action and Superman). Unless DC reaches a licensing agreement with the estates, DC loses Superman, period. And given DC's unwillingness to pay royalties and the acrimony surrounding the suit, their ability to reach that licensing agreement has to be in serious doubt. Yes, a settlement and a renewed license agreement would make sense--but nobody involved has shown any willingness to make those kind of compromises.
So when faced with a)greatly reduced profit for anything they publish with Superman because of the royalties and b) not a lot of other gain for the company because they lose the IP in less than 3 years, is it completely unbelievable that DC has chosen to shift their resources to other characters, rather than spend those resources building up Superman? It's not what I would do, but then again, it's not my money.
DC has been marginalizing Superman since before JMS even came over to DC. He hasn't even been appearing in his own comics for a year now, and that had nothing to do with JMS.
to derail the conversation for a moment - how come there's no batman equivalent to this rights wrangle? what's the history of ownership of that character and his creator?
Post a Comment