WorstPreviews.com Logo Join the community [Login / Register]
Follow WorstPreviews.com on Twitter
What\ News Coming Soon In Theaters On DVD Trailer,Posters,Pictures,Wallpapers, Screensavers PeliBlog.com Trivia/Quizzes
News/Headlines
Trailer for "Midnight Special" Sci-Fi Film, with Michael Shannon and Joel Edgerton
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Melissa McCarthy's "The Boss" Comedy
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Juan Antonio Bayona's "A Monster Calls"
Nov 23rd, 2015
First Look at "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for "Zoolander 2" Arrives Online
Nov 19th, 2015
Official Trailer for "Now You See Me" Sequel
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Chris Hemsworth's "The Huntsman: Winter's War"
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Keanu Reeves' "Exposed" Thriller
Nov 19th, 2015
First Look at Chris Pine on "Wonder Woman" Set
Nov 16th, 2015
Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel
Nov 16th, 2015
Gerard Butler is a God in "Gods of Egypt" Posters
Nov 16th, 2015
First Look at Liam Neeson in Martin Scorsese's "Silence"
Nov 16th, 2015
New Trailer for "The Divergent Series: Allegiant"
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for "Moonwalkers" Comedy, with Ron Perlman and Rupert Grint
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for Charlie Kaufman's "Anomalisa" Stop-Motion Film
Nov 3rd, 2015
Poster for "Warcraft" Arrives Online, Trailer Coming on Friday
Nov 3rd, 2015
There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster
Nov 2nd, 2015
First Trailer for Sacha Baron Cohen's "The Brothers Grimsby" Comedy
Nov 2nd, 2015
"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas
Nov 2nd, 2015
Final Trailer for Ron Howard's "In the Heart of the Sea," with Chris Hemsworth
Nov 2nd, 2015
New Photos From "Warcraft" Video Game Movie
Nov 2nd, 2015
Lots of New Photos From "Suicide Squad"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for "Dirty Grandpa" Comedy, with Robert De Niro and Zac Efron
Oct 30th, 2015
Sandra Bullock to Star in Female Version of "Ocean's Eleven"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for Jared Hess' "Don Verdean" Comedy, with Sam Rockwell
Oct 30th, 2015
"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast
Oct 28th, 2015
Trailer for Adam Sandler's "The Ridiculous 6" Comedy
Oct 28th, 2015
"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie
Oct 28th, 2015
Another "Monopoly" Movie in the Works
Oct 28th, 2015
"Jumanji" Remake Hires "Con Air" Writer
Oct 26th, 2015
Disney's "Tower of Terror" Park Ride Movie Moving Forward
Oct 26th, 2015
Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"
Oct 26th, 2015
Previous News Stories Next News Stories

Disney/Marvel Could Lose Rights to Iron Man, Hulk, Thor

Posted: September 21st, 2009 by WorstPreviews.com Staff
Disney/Marvel Could Lose Rights to Iron Man, Hulk, ThorSubmit Comment
The heirs of Superman creator Jerry Siegel recently had a court victory in regaining some rights to the character from Warner Bros and DC Comics. Now, the estate of Jack Kirby are trying to do the same thing with Disney and Marvel. In fact, Kirby's heirs have ever hired the same firm as the Siegels.

Disney is currently in the process of acquiring Marvel, but the many licensing deals that Marvel has with outside companies (Fox, Universal, Paramount) has Wall Street questioning whether Disney made the right move. And now that Kirby's relatives are suing, that means that Disney may end up losing partial control of Captain America, Fantastic Four, X-Men, Avengers, Iron Man, Hulk, Silver Surfer and Thor.

If the Kirby estate gets its way, it doesn't necessarily mean that Disney would have to abandon their plans for the above Marvel characters. But it does mean that Kirby's four children and two grandchildren would have a say during negotiations and will end up taking a large chunk of the profits.

Source: NY Times


Bookmark and Share
You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register.
Displaying 51 comment(s) Profanity: Turn On
The Skippy Spartan writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 6:25:09 AM

"But it does mean that Kirby's four children and two grandchildren would have a say during negotiations and will end up taking a large chunk of the profits. "

Well that is understandable, as long as they don't try and stop the production of the movie and let the films stay true!
Jensama writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 6:43:38 AM

Which they probably wont, because they're greedy bastards.
minkowski writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 8:00:44 AM

What isn't ruined by greed, is then destroyed by indifference.
Horsemoney5 writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 8:28:55 AM


Way to honor your father by being leeching whores!

And GREAT QUOTE MINK....
RickyGabrielBird writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 8:41:02 AM

All coming out the woodwork now.

What I hate the most is that instead of 'discussions', its just all about suing. Damn those suits with no souls.
RoorToken writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 8:53:22 AM

Well said Mink, well said.
minkowski writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 8:53:49 AM

Well, thank you Horsemoney, but I just made that sh*t up on the spot.
_____________________________________

I don't get it. Don't these families realize the damage they're doing to the works of Kirby and Siegel (and where the hell is Shuster's family in all this?) by inserting themselves into the creative pipeline? Can they not simply get a small profit from the films and comic books? Do they have to mangle the production workflow with their incessantly avaricious lawsuits?

And for how long? How long will the families of Kirby and Siegel demand 'compensation'? In perpetuity? Forever? Why should the relatives, distant or not, get to mooch off of property passed on legally to the likes of WB and Disney?

If I create a a comic book character, and I enter an agreement with a studio, say Universal to own the film rights, and then I die, why should my son have sh*t to say about what goes on with what I created? Because he shares my DNA? Because I reamed his mother? Does that mean my uncle, the alcoholic bum, can feed at the trough too? What about my neighbors?

If I ever create a comic book character, I'm going to will away all rights to the most competent film studio, just to avoid this sh*t altogether. And in that respect, I think we can blame Siegel and Kirby for some of this mess.

Creative people need better prenups. As a man, what I make and create is mine.

Take marriage. Let's say I'm a millionaire, and I marry some bimbo who refuses to work. Well, buddy, you better believe I'm going to have a prenup, so that when I ditch the bitch, she gets nothing but what he had to begin with. Leeching off of me for a few years is more than anough 'compensation'.

The same goes with creative works. Think ahead, get a binding protective permanent contract. You WILL die, so think ahead. Make sure your property is properly handled by those that have the power and the money, and not abused by your dirt-sucking spawn and grave-robbing relatives.

What you create is not just part of culture, it is the culture, period. Be smart. Protect it from the vultures.
eViL.kEv2 writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 9:27:06 AM

Sorry, Mink, I had to stop ready your post about half way through - but I do agree, a murder/suicide scenario is the best option for Lohan and Fox at this point.
eViL.kEv2 writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 9:28:00 AM

*reading* (early and hungover)
thedotsays writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 9:29:00 AM

Exactly Mink. Let these f*ckholes keep the property but let the studios keep the movie rights. This way if the studio f*cks the movie up, the property is still what it is.
I mean sh*t, unless the heirs have worked in the field and worked with the character they should have no say in what is done. They can only hurt the project by injecting their idiotic ideas into the work.
NatG83 writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 10:19:27 AM

Greedy indeed.

I think the world needs new heroes: like Captain Lohan (able to raise drama anywhere), Fox Woman (ability to take all things for granted), Spider-Van-Damme (able to pass up action movies for desperate moves to rebuild his career).

Any other suggestions?
minkowski writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 10:25:49 AM

The Pitt. Based on Michael Pitt. Able to stink up a football stadium with his BO and rotting clothes. Makes K-fed look GQ.
Moviewatcher1234 writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 10:27:49 AM

Greedy or not, I think this is great!
Now the movies all have the potential to stay gritty and dark (like Thor and Cap should be) and not some watered down Disney hack of a movie! Thank Odin that Batman is on DC!
Armpit writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 10:32:36 AM

This right thing about heirs regaining rights is getting out of hands. The creators are dead - the heirs get a winning lottery ticket because daddy worked hard. Meanwhile, studios put good scripts on ice because it's a legal copyright hell.
If I make an excell sheet with a logo for my company - can my heirs be rich later on because the company is using the work I sold them?
acslaterson writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 11:18:38 AM

Why the f*ck are these ass bags trying to deprive a new generation from being exposed to there father's work? Not everyone reads comics and these past 10 years or so comic movies have obviously blown up. But these f*cks just want to leach off of what Mr. Kirby did in his lifetime. Now Marvel may have screwed Kirby when he was alive, but that is what happens when you work for a company producing characters! f*ck, I hate people who feel that they are "entitled".
Syriph writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 11:20:07 AM

I wonder if the Kirby family has ever worked a day in their life. Ouside of stealing candy from babies and then killing them because they can get away with it
Armpit writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 11:29:12 AM

Superman. I understand that the kids sold the characters for some 500$ or so - but they signed and agreed. If DC had gone under - could DC sue to have the heirs pay part of the red line?
You're gonna have new contracts these days - that when authors sell their characters - they agree to hand over all future profits to the companies. This is too retarded.
minkowski writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 11:35:47 AM

"You're gonna have new contracts these days - that when authors sell their characters - they agree to hand over all future profits to the companies."

That's what I would do. I'd make what I can while I'm alive, let my kids have my bank account, but leave the intellectual property in the hands of the capable.

Here's an analogy. You've collected some bad ass antiques, stuff worth a lot of money. A lot of it's rare, hard to find and much of it has explicit historical value. It's a big collection, but somehow you fail to leave behind an explicit will.

So, what would you prefer to happen? Pass your collection off to a museum, so that the public can enjoy what you've amassed over the years, free from intervention, or instead would you prefer to leave it to your family, those money-hungry jackals that will just part your treasures out on Ebay?
thebearjew writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 12:21:11 PM

fat chance. Disney will have their freinds family killed before they let go of the chance to bank on destroying my dreams.
Ranger writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 12:29:17 PM

Was there ever a day in Jack Kirby's life that he didn't look like death?
RickyGabrielBird writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 12:58:36 PM

Lets sue Kirby's family for letting him rip Doc Browns image.
rabid writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 1:21:40 PM

That's disgusting. We need to get a check on copyright laws in this country. Used to be after a certain length of time, a copyright went public domain. And it's ridiculous for the Kirby's to think that they hold a stake in something they had no hand in creating. If they wanted to influence these characters, they should've gone into their pop's business. They could destroy the iconic image behind the characters. It happened to Captain Marvel in the fight between DC and Charleston.
Powderedtoastman writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 2:35:41 PM

so long as Captain America still gets made, I'll be a happy camper!
SpydrMonkeyakaSPF writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 2:47:24 PM

Its sad when u see grown children fighting over comic book characters. I don't know the entire situation so I can't say what I really feel.
johnny_boy writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 2:48:31 PM

funny how there was all this time to file the suit,but once there's mention of disney paying $4 billion for marvel they now want rights to the characters. funny how things work. well at least long as large sums of money comes towards those Bastards we'll still see these characters on the big screen.
Ranger writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 3:08:53 PM

@SpydrMonkeyakaSPF - sadder yet is when someone admits to not knowing anything about the subject matter, yet still takes the time to post an ignorant comment against those that do, and are participating and contributing.

And 'grown children' don't exist.

And I spent over $5000 in a few months getting back a several Iron Man #1 (and issues 2-10), plus another block of cash for Tales of Suspense #39 (first appearance of Iron Man) - as I had as a teenager. You still think between that story and the BILLIONS of $'s superhero movies have generated and the thousands of people that industry continually employees that comics are for kids, you dumb sh*t?

You must disappoint those around you every time you open your mouth.
minkowski writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 3:14:48 PM

Ranger, man, he was talking about the people fighting over Kirby's intellectual property, not us.
Ranger writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 3:26:47 PM

@SpydrMonkeyakaSPF - now that (thx. to Mink) I see your position... you're right, it's just greed (which I address further above). As I am not in those family member's shoes with that kind of a potential 'cash cow' sitting in front of me, I can't say how I would honestly act given the same circ*mstances.

But it's like Church and Government.

Same as when legal crap interferes with the potential of 'the Arts'... they both suck.

Ranger writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 3:38:45 PM

Well... that's an interesting part of WP I hadn't seen before. My 'lurking' around there revealed that we have a WP Member's Birthday today (if they used their correct B'day)!

To: UndoubledDonkey - HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

Armpit writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 4:02:53 PM

...although...when thinking about it...Hulk's reboot of a reboot was fighting again another man-made monster. Is there another Hulk reboot or is he just gonna be a cameo for the Avengers?
The way Hulk has been handled - I don't see much of a future for him...er...it...the cgi cartoon.
You kind of wonder - like the classic example being Superman - he's got 70+ years of comic book history and they can't come up with anything else but Lex Luthor.
Ranger writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 4:06:36 PM

2 great points armpit.

I'm one of the biggest Supes fans (I even liked Singer's version... because I wanted to see him back on the big screen). But I swear... if they do ANOTHER Lex story with Clark dripping over Lois, I'm f*cking DONE with that franchise!!!

As for The Hulk. He does NOT need ANOTHER movie. But The Avenger need him. And that is the ONLY place he should appear next. Unless they feel the need (which, now that they have messed up his storyline so badly) to explain that Banner can now (somehow) control The Hulk... that SHOULD be the next movie... THEN he's reliable as a team player (sort of) in The Avengers.
BrandoFresh writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 5:10:34 PM

Those kids gotta get paid.
RickyGabrielBird writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 6:00:49 PM

This comment section seems shorter than it was a few hours ago. Was it moderated?
bacci40 writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 6:03:51 PM

not one of you f*ckers knows sh*t. marvel screwed kirby, and in turn, his heirs. marvel made millions off of kirby's creations, while he was forced to continue toiling, being paid by the page.

his family doesnt want to stop production of any of his creations...they just want what is due to them.

and no, they are not greedy.

of course, not one of you f*cks said boo when lee sued marvel and sony for his share of the spidey movies....a character he had little to do with creating.
Ranger writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 6:44:12 PM

@RGB - yes it was... at my request.

I spouted off something stupid because I mistook another Posters comment. I've apologized publicly and privately.
Ranger writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 6:45:05 PM

@bacci - I didn't know those specifics, but I don't think any of my posts would have contradicted what you said.
minkowski writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 6:46:06 PM

Stan Lee co-created Spiderman. How is that having little to do with Spiderman? And why should people that have absolutely ZERO to do with comic books stick their f*cking noses in and demand royalties? Did they help create any of the Amrvel comics? huh? Are they affiliated with Marvel in any other way than having a Marvel comic writer/artist as a relative? Hmmmm?

'while he was forced to continue toiling, being paid by the page."

And this has what bearing whatsoever on the RELATIVES of Kirby? How is this relevant? Because last time I checked, none of these greedy relatives work, or have ever worked, for Marvel, and none of them have drawn so much as a blank in their lives.

'and no, they are not greedy."

No, of course not, you know them, I presume, right? They're your neighbors? You had brunch with Jack Kirby's daughter last week, right?

"of course, not one of you f*cks said boo when lee sued marvel and sony for his share of the spidey movies"

Why shouldn't he? He worked for Marvel, helped build the damn company. Did these relatives? Huh? he helped create Spiderman, right? So why wouldn't he want a cut of the pie?

What the hell are you smoking, and what vested interest do you have in this topic of discussion?

They just want millions and millions of dollars on something they had zip to do with. That's not greed. That's entitlement.
Ranger writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 7:18:21 PM

Stan Lee deserves TRUCKLOADS of $'s for his genius. His work has generated BILLIONS of $'s. He's entitled.
rabid writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 7:32:37 PM

Disney lawyers are brilliant. They saw this coming and already had a plan in motion apparently. They say it's no big deal and it's already being handled.
minkowski writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 7:37:03 PM

I agree Ranger. Without him, there'd be no Marvel, or at least not the Marvel we know.
FFantasy1984 writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 8:05:35 PM

Honestly I'm not sure that I would want Disney making these movies. They may ruin them
aaronborg16 writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 8:50:15 PM

minkowski:

you areeee aaaa douchebag
Ranger writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 9:17:49 PM

Hey FF... welcome back.

I think Disney would run Marvel as a completely separate entity. And with their marketing machine already in place...

Either way, let's give them (Disney) a chance to see what they can do.
minkowski writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 9:47:01 PM

"you areeee aaaa douchebag"

Ka ching. Another dime!
Ranger writes:
on September 21st, 2009 at 11:27:16 PM

That's got to be more than a few bucks by now Mink?
bacci40 writes:
on September 22nd, 2009 at 12:28:55 AM

minkowski,

in fact, i did once have coffee with kirby's daughter.

and you dont know sh*t about how spidey was created

tell me, what part of the spidey mythos, other than "with great power comes great responsibilty" did lee create?

lee was a very good editor, but like many editors of the time, he stuck his name on works that he had little to nothing to do with.

that was what the "marvel way" was all about...the artists would do both story and art, lee would occasionally fill in speech bubbles and make editorial changes

and the kirby estate has been fighting for rights for years.

kirby is dead...he cant fight for himself

i think ill call mark evanier and have him kick your ass
minkowski writes:
on September 22nd, 2009 at 1:18:37 AM

So you arrogantly place yourself on a pedestal because you once had coffee with Kirby's daughter?

And I know that Stan lee introduced the original idea of Spiderman to Martin Goodman in 1961 but it was soundly rejected. I know Steve Ditko drafted the character design and Kirby drew Spiderman, but neither of the latter invented him. Stan Lee in fact did.

I know Kirby had his own ideas for the look of Spiderman, and I know that Evanier felt that Kirby's ideas were too similar to another character, The Fly, so they handed the project off to Ditko.

Even Stan Lee acknowledges Ditko as the co-creator of Spiderman, but he doesn't credit Kirby. Nu surprise there

I know that Lisa Kirby and Mark Evanier both dismissed the idea that Kirby came up with Spiderman.

And I quote so to avoid repeating the conclusions of another man in my own voice:

"So, who really created Spider-Man? Was it Stan Lee and Steve Ditko, or Joe Simon and Jack Kirby, or the combination of these men? So far in my research, my personal opinion remains that Stan Lee and Steve Ditko created the Spider-Man that we are familiar with today. Itís safe to say that Joe Simon did indeed create his own Spiderman in the early 1950ís. However, there doesnít seem to be any substantial proof to support the idea that Jack Kirby later took Joe Simonís Spiderman to Stan Lee. I could be wrong, though. With that said, I like to think that, ultimately, Spider-Man came into existence, and prospered, through the efforts, of not just one or two, but many comic book creators."

Ranger writes:
on September 22nd, 2009 at 1:36:27 AM

I miss my comic collection.
FFantasy1984 writes:
on September 22nd, 2009 at 1:21:16 PM

I like Disney just fine, and I wouldn't say that they couldn't do a good job. But these days it seems like they are more concerned with money than quality.

I use to have a great comic collection, I uncle collected when he was little and have over 700 comics, and I had them, but my dad threw them all out. I miss my collection to.
Armpit writes:
on September 22nd, 2009 at 3:16:52 PM

bacci40 - you have to leave your basement and wipe your own ass - your mom is too busy licking the postman's c*ck.
In the 40s, 50s,and the likes - these were other times. In the good 'ol days women did not vote, beating your kid was ok and comic book creators who sold their creation gave up the rights to them. How difficult is this to understand? They signed with ink on a white sheet that they were selling the rights. Now some judge invalidates that. If I sell you my 2010 buick and you keep it mint, my heirs in 100 years could sue your heirs because they sell it for 100 million dollars?
You're retarded, these judges are retarded: basically this means that anything signed with consent can later be "unsigned". This is absolutely a f*cken joke.
Ranger writes:
on September 23rd, 2009 at 1:42:04 PM

@FF - Our parents should get together. They sound perfect for one-another.


There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster

"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie

"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast

Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel

Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"

"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas

"Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Demolishes Pre-Sale Records

Paul Bettany Responds to Jason Statham's "Avengers" Insult

Daniel Craig Would Rather Commit Suicide Than Return as James Bond

Marvel Has Contingency Plans In Case It Regains Rights to Superheroes
Lace Wedding Dresses from ViViDress UK online shop, buy with confidence and cheap price.
WorstPreviews.com hosted by pair Networks WorstPreviews.com
Hosted by pair Networks
News Feeds | Box Office | Movie Reviews | Buzz: Top 100 | Popularity: Top 100
Poster Store | About Us | Advertising | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Web Tools | Site Map
Copyright © 2009 WorstPreviews.com. All rights reserved