data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dbc89/dbc892cdc6deeb64c18e33219a82a88ef512e2f5" alt=""
A few quick thoughts about the article: the Superman character was sold for $130 back in 1937. That's not $130 million, that's $130 dollars, as in 13,000 pennies. And now the character is basically a money machine. So I'm glad to hear that the creators are getting a little fairer cut in their legacy (although I'm sure my capitalist brother will have a few things to say about this...).
Having said that, I liked the most recent film installment, and would be sad to see a follow-up further delayed. Superman Returns wasn't a perfect movie; it was a little too ponderous at times and wanted to be deeper than it needed to be. But it had a great look, a good cast, and a lot of promise for another great franchise. The problem for Warner Bros. is that the movie was horribly expensive, and didn't make nearly as much as they wanted it to. So greenlighting a costly sequel--especially now that their margins will be even smaller--may make this a tough sell for the studio.
Let's hope for a speedy resolution though. I'm dying to find out what Superman's illegitimate son will do when a bullet threatens to enter his eyeball...
4 comments:
What? You want the kid to die or something? Can't they start out with something smaller, like a Red Rider BB gun?
No, I don't want him to die, unless it's a cryptonite-related tragedy. Gotta stay true to the mythology of the comics, you know...
I read the article and it sounds to me like the creators or their heirs were paid on several occasions the amounts that they agreed to or won in court for their share of the profits that the studios and comic book companies were making. How do you sell something for money over and over and then claim that you still have rights to it?a
Personally I'd like to see Jennifer Connelly as the next Superman. Her schedule is apparently (and foolishly) open
Post a Comment