The Superman, Siegel, Shuster Problem

Not many are aware, but due to recent litigation, DC Comics is in danger of losing the copyright to the Superman character (as well as much of his supporting cast). There are circles that are worrying incessantly about this happening, as pessimists tend to do, but I'm going to climb out on an extremely tiny limb and make the following statement: DC lose Superman? Never.

I'll get to why I believe this in a moment, but first... some background:

• 1938 - Superman is created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster and appears in Action Comics #1.  Siegel and Shuster are paid $130 for the rights to Superman and are employed by Detective Comics, Inc. (a precursor to DC Comics). Given that profits from Superman skyrocket over the next few years, Siegel and Shuster renegotiate their original deal.
• 1947 - Siegel and Shuster sue to void the 1938 contract completely and reacquire rights to the Superman character. They are unable to void the contract but are awarded the rights to Superboy (reportedly published by DC without their permission), which are promptly sold back to DC.
• 1973 - invoking the Copyright Act of 1909, Siegel and Shuster claim that they never allowed DC to renew its copyright of Superman, stating that the original deal was for only 28 years. Siegel and Shuster lose the suit and its 1974 appeal.
• 1975 - with public support against it, DC Comics initiates pensions and benefits for both Siegel and Shuster. Warner (DC's parent company) also begins its policy of crediting all-things-Superman (including film and television) to Siegel and Shuster.
• 1976 - DC extends its copyright again, but the Copyright Act of 1976 ostensibly provides Siegel and Shuster the opportunity to reclaim the copyright between 1994 and 1999.
• 1992 - Joe Shuster dies.
• 1996 - Jerry Siegel dies.
• 1998 - The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act allows DC to extend its copyright to Superman in spite of the Copyright Act of 1976.
• 1999 - Siegel's wife and daughter file a copyright termination notice.
• 2004 - Shuster's nephew files an intent to reclaim copyright by 2013.
• 2008-2009 - Siegel's estate wins a share of the United States copyright of Superman (international copyright remains with DC), but Superboy remains in question. DC and Time Warner have until 2011 to initiate a new Superman film or the Siegels may sue for further damages.

Crazy, right? If there were ever a case of greed-induced iconoclasm, this is it. Still, there's no arguing that DC Comics took advantage of Siegel and Shuster early on (particularly concerning Siegel's service in World War II). There's also no arguing that the subsequent suits were about an estate gaining assets.

Regardless, motive will not affect execution. And why not? Well, as implied (despite its obviousness), this is all about money. And Superman makes a great deal of money through DC Comics and its licensing. The estates of Siegel and Shuster have to know that, were they to win back Superman's copyright, the character's value decreases immensely. Which is why, I boldly state (okay, safely state), the Siegels and Shusters don't really want the copyright.

First, the Siegels didn't win international rights, only US domestic (making it safe to assume this is the best the Shusters can hope for, as well). And while that market will undoubtedly make the Siegels and Shusters extremely wealthy people, 100% of that share would still be much, much less than a significant share of the international take.

Second, without DC, Superman loses much of his supporting cast. Popular characters who will undoubtedly move on, much to the chagrin of comic book and film fans alike. Doomsday, Steel, The Eradicator, and everyone else not protected under any victory under "derivative works."

Third, without DC, Superman will no longer go on grand adventures with Batman, Flash, Green Lantern, Justice League America, and everyone else pop culture expects Superman to be teamed with.

I am not claiming that DC wouldn't feel the pinch from losing its most iconic character. Of course it would. But it is far more likely the DC would continue to prosper without Superman than the Siegels and Shusters would continue to prosper with him. Adding irony to the mix is that DC now owns a character whose creators it once sued because that character was deemed "too similar" to Superman (Captain Marvel of Shazam!). Perhaps it's been no accident that DC has been prompting Captain Marvel into the limelight over the past 15 years. But who knows?

All I know is that Superman is at DC to stay. And the Siegels and Shusters wouldn't have it any other way.

Why DC Should Revive Adventure Comics

Adventure Comics was a comic book published from 1935 to 1983 by DC Comics. Initially called New Comics, then New Adventure Comics, it was (and still is) the fifth longest-running title in the DC stable.

Primarily an anthology, it consisted of a revolving stable of characters, and was the source of many "firsts" in the DC universe. Superboy met the Legion of Superheroes in its pages; the first Sandman was officially introduced in issue 40; and was the first comic headlined by Supergirl.

Historically, it is an important comic, and DC should make every attempt to revive it.

DC Comics' Struggling Iconography

For those of you who remember my three-part "DC Comics Returns... or Relapses" rant from the Summer of 2006 (see the links below), you'll know that I consider DC to have 10 iconic characters. As a refresher, they are: Aquaman, Atom, Batman, Flash, Green Arrow, Green Lantern, Hawkman, Starman, Superman, and Wonder Woman.

Of these, only half (Batman, Flash, Green Lantern, Superman, and Wonder Woman) have little or no trouble headlining their own titles. The other half have only enjoyed limited success with their own books, with Atom and Hawkman in particular seeming to have the most difficulty.

As a result, these characters are often underutilized, usually taking on a role as a supporting character in a team book (such as the Justice League of America titles), or popping up in various guest spots. As icons, I take issue with this. As icons, these characters deserve their own pages.

There are several ways to solve this, the most obvious of which is to grant these characters the A-list writer and illustrators they deserve, but as the talent pool isn't as large as comic fans would like, it is unlikely that DC would sacrifice Batman or Superman for the likes of Green Arrow or Aquaman. They could, however, simply release a ton of miniseries focused on those characters, but such miniseries tend to be treated as bastard stepchildren by publishers.

Blast from the Past

So, why not resume publication of Adventure Comics?

This would allow DC to continue one of its vaunted titles, and give these struggling icons regular pages in which to show off their solo adventures and foster their currently subdued appeal. It would be low risk for DC, as it would be a title not as restricted by continuity as most of their titles are, and it would provide another "focal point" for their oft-convoluted crossovers.

In addition, reader feedback would give the editors at DC a valuable resource in determining which of these struggling characters are "ready" for yet another attempt at their own books. Not to mention that it would likely attract those aforementioned A-list writers and artists, because it would give them an opportunity to write and draw several different characters in several different storylines at the same time. What writer or artist wouldn't want that freedom?

Come on, DC. It's high time you brought some of your best characters, and some of your own history, back into the spotlight.

Let's do it.

DC Comics Returns... or Relapses - The End

Okay, here it is, as promised...

Superman created in 1938, and he's been Kal-El (a.k.a. Clark Kent) ever since. DC killed him off once; brought him back. They also changed him from "The Man of Steel" to "The Man of Energy" once; changed him back.

Batman created in 1939. Little known outside of comic-dom, DC attempted to change his character in the early 90s. He went from Bruce Wayne to Jean-Paul Valley. Now, a lot of indications exist that this was a temporary ploy from the get-go, but I'm sure the fans complaining they wanted Bruce back didn't hurt one bit.

Wonder Woman created in 1940. She's actually been four different characters. The version we all know and love (thank God for Lynda Carter... mmm... Lynda Carter...) is Diana Prince. But, twice in the 90s they switched her character, and both times they switched her back. Heck, right now she's a different character (Donna Troy, the former Wonder Girl), but all bets are on that she'll be Diana Prince again before too long.

Flash created in 1940 as Jay Garrick. Switched to the uber-popular Barry Allen during the Silver Age launch in 1956 (and is generally credited with starting the Silver Age). Barry is killed during the (gasp) Crisis on Infinite Earths in 1986 and is replaced by Wally West, who, up until very recently, has kept the Flash mantle as his own. Keep in mind, the Flash has been one of only two examples of character-switches actually working. However, given the fact that a new Flash is on the horizon (two are rumored, actually), it won't be any surprise if Wally West or Barry Allen find themselves back in business.

Hawkman created in 1940 as Carter Hall. In what is probably the worst Silver Age revamp anyone can think of, he's changed to an alien, Katar Hol (I know, what a stretch, right?). Ever since then, he's pretty much been confused. I don't even want to touch this guy, especially since he's actually, along with Atom, my favorite character (Grant Morrison had the right idea... and if you know what that means, you have as much of a need for a life as I). At any rate, Carter Hall came back, disappeared again, but is more than likely coming back once more.

Green Lantern created in 1940 as Alan Scott. Switched to the uber-popular Hal Jordan during the Silver Age in 1959. Remained Hal until the 80s, at which point John Stewart became the predominant Green Lantern for quite a few years. Eventually, Hal was put back, but went crazy, killed all of the other Green Lanterns (long story) and was replaced by Kyle Rayner (the BEST incarnation of Green Lantern EVER, by the way). Needless to say, fan-boy clamoring and nostalgic editors brought back Hal (in a convoluted manner worthy of a DC crisis).

Atom created in 1940 as Al Pratt. Changed to the physicist Ray Palmer in 1961 thanks to the Silver Age. Was temporarily replaced by Adam Cray in the early 90s, and temporarily made a teenager in the late 90s. Both times he reverted back to being regular ol' Ray Palmer. Is currently a Chinese-American, Ryan Choi. Despite a statement by current DC chief Dan Didio, Ray Palmer is probably going to be back in the not-so-distant future.

Aquaman created in 1941. Has pretty much been the same character (albeit with some drastic costume changes here and there) up until this year. Strangely, the old Arthur "Orin" Curry has been replaced by Arthur Joseph Curry. Not sure where they're going with this, but the second it becomes stupid or silly, Orin is on his way back.

Green Arrow created in 1941 as Oliver Queen. Killed in Zero Hour: Crisis in Time! and replaced by his illegitimate son, Connor Hawke (like Kyle Rayner's Green Lantern, a fantastic character). Kevin Smith of Clerks and Dogma fame, however, preferred Oliver Queen, finagled his way into writing Green Arrow for DC, and brought back Oliver in the most ridiculous of ways.

Starman created in 1941 as Ted Knight. Probably having the record as the most incarnations (seven, including character switches in 1976, 1980, 1988, 1990, and 1994) and probably the most obscure of the DC Icons, Starman is also the most successful example of a legacy living up to its expectations. The current Starman, Jack Knight (Ted Knight's son), is also the best Starman and, thanks to some excellent writing by James Robinson, the Starman continuity is (finally) well-defined.

Has anybody noticed a pattern? If not, let me spell it out for your limited mental capacities... character switches and dramatic changes almost always seem to happen at around the same time and almost always subsequently never work. You see, DC gets these itches to "update" and "modernize" their characters quite frequently. The problem is that their Silver Age characters are so loved and cherished, that the readers DON'T WANT their characters changed. The only way to successfully change a character is if the legacy of that character remains intact. To date, only Flash and Starman (again, expertly written by James Robinson) have enjoyed that success. Ron Marz' take on Green Lantern also offered a great take on a character's legacy, but the controversial manner in which Hal Jordan lost the mantle proved to be too much for the Kyle Rayner character to overcome, despite some seriously excellent writing.

Side Note: Personally, other than the holy trinity of Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman, I was looking forward to a "Bronze Age" of characters. Kyle Rayner, Connor Hawke, and Wally West were perfect archetypes for the transition. Unfortunately, narrow-minded fan-boys and nostalgic writers ultimately decided against it.

In any case, it's only a matter of time before all of the new versions of these characters revert once again to the old versions (save for Starman), thereby creating multiple incarnations of characters that are eventually going to have to be "cleaned up." Which, as can surely be guessed by now, is going to lead up to the inevitable fourth DC Crisis, which will probably be called Crisis of Infinite Characters. DC, it seems, needs a complete reboot if it's ever going to truly going clean up the mess the Silver Age made. And that, people, is the end of that.

Superman Returns: A Review

I can't help it, I simply must write about Superman Returns. And you know what? Given that today is Independence Day and almost no other icon is more associated with "the American Way" than Superman, why the hell shouldn't I?

Superman Returns marks the triumphant, well, return of Superman to the silver screen. In a film that at once homages the great Superman and Superman II films and erases the horrible Superman III and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, the franchise has, like Batman, successfully reinvented itself.

Relative newcomer Brandon Routh, a cause for concern to many Superman fans, pulls off Superman and Clark Kent with surprising ease. True, his dialogue was kept to a minimum and the appropriate "depressed" emotional state the character was in probably helped his acting seem better than it was, but Routh pulled it off nonetheless. Kate Bosworth was solid as Lois Lane, though it's no secret that she's not anybody's first choice for the role, and Kevin Spacey was fantastic as a new, quasi-Gene Hackman Lex Luthor. The rest of the supporting cast was more than adequate, and it was a nice, poignant gesture by Bryan Singer to reunite Eva Marie Saint and Marlon Brando on-screen one last time.

The plot was fairly simplistic and involved Superman returning to Earth after a five-year absence. Astronomers had found the remnants of his old homeworld, Krypton, and being the prodigal son, he left to see if he could find any other survivors. To give away anything else would be an injustice to filmgoers who haven't yet seen it, so that's all I'm going to say.

Take heart, however, in that the film's execution was superb. Bryan Singer once again balances action with character and layers every aspect of the film with depth that it may or may not have needed. In either case, the film is better for it. It may seem like directorial oversight that some of the plot points of the film are left unresolved, but you needn't worry; it's clear that this was the intent. After all, you don't make a movie like Superman Returns and not plan a sequel or two.

I, for one, am already eagerly waiting.

Postscript: My one complaint about the film: the rather blatant omission of the final part of the oft-spoken phrase, "truth, justice, and the American way." Has Hollywood seriously become so disenchanted with this country's political atmosphere that it's now embarrased to admit that both it and Superman are American institutions?

DC Comics Returns... or Relapses - Part I

Superman Returns opened yesterday to a lot of fanfare. I haven't seen it yet, but it's clear that the film, along with the earlier Batman Begins, heralds a new era for the celluloid Justice League (indeed, the long-rumored Wonder Woman film project has reportedly picked up steam). However, and this is for us closet-geek comic fans out there, what isn't as clear is that the entire DC Universe is getting a nice little "reboot" in the form of its third "continuity cleanser" in as many decades. In fact, the reboot is even felt in Superman Returns, which apparently acknowledges the first two Christopher Reeve (rest in peace) Superman films and completely ignores the last two.

Some of you are probably confused, others of you probably don't give a shit, but in any case, let's back up and start closer to the beginning.

DC Comics, for a long time, has been infamous for its failure to keep continuity clear and not confusing, and equally infamous for its money-making yet ultimately futile attempts at "cleansing" continuity. Once upon a time, DC Comics was (supposedly) totally and completely consumed with telling a good story, continuity be damned. The artistic readers (such as myself) loved this. Good story = sold comic. This "good story" emphasis resulted in several versions of Earth, three different versions of Superman (and other heroes), and a DC History that was so convoluted, nobody could figure it out. Hey, blame it on the Silver Age redux, I say (only us comic geeks know what that is; the rest of you can piss off).

At any rate, the nitpicking technical readers (such as myself) soon grew tired of trying to figure out what was DC canon and what was not. So, in 1985, DC decided to launch its first, well, "relaunch" of the DC Universe. This relaunch was called Crisis on Infinite Earths. To make a long story short, DC killed many of the duplicate heroes, destroyed all of the duplicate Earths, and rebooted DC History to encompass one planet and one timeline.

Fast forward to 1994. Although the one planet thing worked out well, the one timeline thing somehow fell into disarray. I mean, shit, technically all of those multiple "timelines" are happening on the same planet, right? It should be easy to decipher. But it wasn't, so DC launches another, well, "relaunch" of the DC Universe: Zero Hour: Crisis in Time! (apt, isnt it?). Now all of the timelines are set straight and everything is hunky-dory.

Alter timeline (I mean, fast forward) to 2005. Grant Morrison's ambitious "hypertime" concept in the late 90s and early 00s effectively ruined the one timeline and the one planet thing. So, DC decided to launch another, well, "relaunch." This one was called Infinite Crisis and is supposedly a "direct sequel" to the original Crisis on Infinite Earths. DC fanboys are loving it, while casual readers are beginning to wonder whether or not the DC editorship does this kind of thing on purpose. DC universe rebooted; all's well.

Unfortunately, DC's semi-political agenda in this new reboot will undoubtedly lead to another one in about, say, 10 years or so. But more on that later... In the meantime, let's celebrate DC's return to Hollywood glory and drink away the awful memories of the funny but misguided Superman III, the embarassing Superman IV, and the utterly horrifying Batman & Robin.