All Things Superman: An Open Discussion - Part 2

[Sam]

No, they are the same person.

Not in the eyes of the world. You are missing the point.

Yes, because Captain America had revealed his identity to the world. You can still be a US Citizen and criticize your country, but if you refute your citizenship and still secretly have one, it's a hollow gesture, because you still have the benefits of being an American citizen.

I'm not talking about post-Civil War saga.

I'm talking way before, in the 80's, when USA government was trying to use Captain America for their purpose and Steve Rogers give up being Captain America.

 

[SuperDaniel]

People should read the story. It is damn good! Richard Donner's story sucked, on the other hand. Long live the future!

 

[KRIM]

Not in the eyes of the world. You are missing the point.

I think his point is right on. Public or shared knowledge doesn't factor into hypocrisy. It is the pure act of not practicing according to what you preach and believe. Whether he does this secretly is irrelevant.

If Superman truly wants to relinquish his association with the country through the withdrawal of his citizenship, logically he should completely follow through with that as either identity. I can understand the intent behind it was to separate the Superman name from any nationalistic connections, but it is disingenuous in the sense that it only applies to half of his life.

 

[Wheels]

Pre-Crisis, when Superman was actually popular, relevant and successful, Superman was an honorary citizen of every country in the world and therefore scenarios like this wouldn't happen. In fact the one time that it DID happen was in Batman And the Outsiders #1, which was a story written by Mike W. Barr but was suggested by Superman hater and Byrne co-conspirator Frank Miller. The fact that the UN decided to do this for Superman just shows how transcendent a figure he once was, and should be. But I'm not surprised DC went this route with Superman, it's not like they know anything about the character anyway. They're just basically holding the copyright hostage while they continue to exploit Siegel and Shuster's families.

I don't think the Siegel and Shuster's give a damn about the character their fathers created. They want the same thing WB/DC wants....money. They're giving part of their rights away to a guy who has never made a contribution to the character.

 

[Sam]

I think his point is right on. Public or shared knowledge doesn't factor into hypocrisy. It is the pure act of not practicing according to what you preach and believe. Whether he does this secretly is irrelevant.

If Superman truly wants to relinquish his association with the country through the withdrawal of his citizenship, logically he should completely follow through with that as either identity. I can understand the intent behind it was to separate the Superman name from any nationalistic connections, but it is disingenuous in the sense that it only applies to half of his life.

Oh, God...

Ok... whatever, dude.

 

[KRIM]

Good talk.

 

[Sam]

Thank you, glad you enjoyed it.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

Oh, God...

Ok... whatever, dude.

Good talk.

Thank you, glad you enjoyed it.

Play nice, kids.

 

[Sabaoth]

I don't think the Siegel and Shuster's give a damn about the character their fathers created. They want the same thing WB/DC wants....money. They're giving part of their rights away to a guy who has never made a contribution to the character.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Pre-Crisis, when Superman was actually popular, relevant and successful, Superman was an honorary citizen of every country in the world and therefore scenarios like this wouldn't happen. In fact the one time that it DID happen was in Batman And the Outsiders #1, which was a story written by Mike W. Barr but was suggested by Superman hater and Byrne co-conspirator Frank Miller. The fact that the UN decided to do this for Superman just shows how transcendent a figure he once was, and should be. But I'm not surprised DC went this route with Superman, it's not like they know anything about the character anyway. They're just basically holding the copyright hostage while they continue to exploit Siegel and Shuster's families.

I agree with most of what you say, but why did you write this last bit? Didnt Siegel and Shuster write for DC? Didnt they sell the character to them?

This just proves my suspicion that you re part of one of the families.

 

[Lighthouse]

I think his point is right on. Public or shared knowledge doesn't factor into hypocrisy. It is the pure act of not practicing according to what you preach and believe. Whether he does this secretly is irrelevant.

If Superman truly wants to relinquish his association with the country through the withdrawal of his citizenship, logically he should completely follow through with that as either identity. I can understand the intent behind it was to separate the Superman name from any nationalistic connections, but it is disingenuous in the sense that it only applies to half of his life.

Thank you.

 

[HighFivingMF]

I just read the story and have one more thing to say about it: It's one of the best Superman stories I've ever read. Kudos to Goyer. This gives me a lot of hope for the movie.

The entire issue was great (for me at least, didn't get around to reading Donner's part yet though.). My favorite single issue of the year thus far.

 

[Sabaoth]

The entire issue was great (for me at least, didn't get around to reading Donner's part yet though.). My favorite single issue of the year thus far.

The issue was pretty awesome. I haven't gotten around to the Donner story either as the story board style was a bit off-putting for me.

 

[SuperDaniel]

I think Donner's was the worst story. His and Paul Dini's. Geoff Johns and Goyer were the best!

 

[roach]

see this move would have impact if Superman was enforcing US policy around the globe.
If he was enacting regime change in the name of America
If he was only saving Americans and our allies
If he was the main part of American Foreign policy

should Superman be global...Yes. I have always seen Superman as being global.
Should he renounce his citizenship to do that. No

 

[craigdbfan]

Thats exactly how I feel roach.

 

[roach]

I havent read the issue as I am on vacation and away from my comic shop...however the story raises questions in my mind if Goyer understands Superman.

Superman:" People think I work for the US Government."
Man:"Why would they think that?"
Superman:"....well...um...i hold the flag a lot."
Man:"So do anti american protesters"
Superman:"Yeah well Im gonna have to renounce my american citizenship."
Man:"Couldnt you just hold a press conference and say your actions are not the actions of the US Government. That way you can still be an inspiration to all peoples around the globe."
Superman:"Nope I gotta do drastic stuff...next Im gonna take all the nuclear weapons and throw them into the sun."
Man:"When did I walk into a Quest for Peace prequel?"

 

[Alien Anal]

I would love to see a Superman trilogy where the first film is set in the 30s and filmed in a film noir sky captain style. The second would be in present time and the 3rd would be in the future.. but non of the characters would age and it would be one main story. too stoned to explain properly. forgive me

 

[craigdbfan]

I get what you're saying. Like change up the stylistic choice in tone for every film while not really addressing the characters ages or change in time period but all still following one coherent story.

That'd be actually pretty badass.

 

[Alien Anal]

I get what you're saying. Like change up the stylistic choice in tone for every film while not really addressing the characters ages or change in time period but all still following one coherent story.

That'd be actually pretty badass.

You said it beautifully.

Yeh thats pretty much how it would work. You keep the same actors throughout as well.

And if you wanted to i guess you could have it so in the third one which would be more futuristic and sci fiy..you could have some sort of crazy dimension split and all 3 being in the one time.

 

[Willi Berg]

I agree with most of what you say, but why did you write this last bit? Didnt Siegel and Shuster write for DC? Didnt they sell the character to them?

This just proves my suspicion that you re part of one of the families.

I don't think that's such an extreme view. Artists didn't have as many rights back then, so it's not as simple to some people as "Well, Siegel and Shuster sold their rights and signed a contract."

I know it has gotten more complicated, and what the estates are doing now is debatable, but in terms of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, I don't think that aspect is as simple as that:

One day Siegel and Shuster heard that the editor of Detective Comics was looking for an action series to kick off his new magazine, Action Comics. Eagerly, they presented Superman to the editor. The editor took one long look at the cover drawing, showing Superman lifting a car above his head, and said, "Nobody's going to believe this!" Still, something about the character appealed to the editor, and Siegel and Shuster were offered $130 for all rights to Superman, forever.

At that time, $130 was a lot of money, when a loaf of bread cost 15 cents and the movies a dime. The boys were thrilled when they signed the contract but they would regret this decision for the rest of their lives.

Superman was an instant success. The first issues of Action sold out. Something about the character appealed to everybody, and the public began clamoring for more, more, and still more. Superman got a magazine all his own, then a radio series, an animated cartoon series, newspaper strip, and a movie serial. Siegel and Shuster had to hire assistants to keep up with the work load. The comics company, now called DC Comics, was making millions.

Siegel and Shuster realized they had sold the rights to a gold mine. Time and again they sued the comics company, demanding a cut of the growing Superman empire. Several times they did get more money; by 1940 one magazine reported they were making $75,000 a year. But they never received the percentage they wanted.

http://superman.nu/seventy/history.php

 

[roach]

there is a lesson the be learned here...they signed the rights over to DC. You cant then ask for money on something you no longer own

 

[The Sage]

How Bob Kane handle the rights to Batman in comparison to Siegel & Shuster?

 

[Willi Berg]

there is a lesson the be learned here...they signed the rights over to DC. You cant then ask for money on something you no longer own

It's very easy to say that now, with hindsight, but they were in a certain position where it would be very hard to start up this idea without going along with what DC wanted. As I said, there weren't the same rights and protection back then for artists like Siegel and Shuster.

Also, there does the look to be some legal standing for Siegel and Shuster since they are getting the original rights back in 2013.

 

[roach]

I am not a lawyer. i can only go off what i see and what I know.
If I had a car and I sell it to you and then you turn it into the Knight rider car and somehow make millions off of it...can I then turn around and sue you for some of that profit????