Will Tom Welling Go To Marvel?

Apologist Puncher wrote:

thecolorsblend wrote:Couldn't agree more. And worse, it's like they don't see a problem with a bunch of lawyers litigating a mutually agreed upon business deal into obsolescence. I mean, a deal is a deal. Maybe Siegel and Shuster made a bad deal but they made it. In life, you don't and shouldn't get a do-over when your idea that you voluntarily sold becomes a huge moneymaker. Life sucks, get over it.

You know, I can at least understand the Heirs money-grubbing, but what I CAN'T understand is them giving that piece of shit "attorney" 50% of the rights. I mean, really? They'd rather SPLIT 50% of an incomplete character, than take 70-80% of the extremely lucrative settlement the Bros. Warner is offering?

They aren't any smarter business people than Siegel & Shuster, are they?

It's mind boggling. I'd hate to think of the deal the attorney seems to have worked for himself on that one if they settle. A cynical person might wonder who is actually driving this case.....

Father Finian wrote:

Apologist Puncher wrote:

thecolorsblend wrote:Couldn't agree more. And worse, it's like they don't see a problem with a bunch of lawyers litigating a mutually agreed upon business deal into obsolescence. I mean, a deal is a deal. Maybe Siegel and Shuster made a bad deal but they made it. In life, you don't and shouldn't get a do-over when your idea that you voluntarily sold becomes a huge moneymaker. Life sucks, get over it.

You know, I can at least understand the Heirs money-grubbing, but what I CAN'T understand is them giving that piece of shit "attorney" 50% of the rights. I mean, really? They'd rather SPLIT 50% of an incomplete character, than take 70-80% of the extremely lucrative settlement the Bros. Warner is offering?

They aren't any smarter business people than Siegel & Shuster, are they?

It's mind boggling. I'd hate to think of the deal the attorney seems to have worked for himself on that one if they settle. A cynical person might wonder who is actually driving this case.....

Isn't Toberoff also working with the estate of JACK KIRBY to try to go after the Marvel properties because, I guess, Stan 'the Man' Lee screwed him over too, so duh heirs of Kirby should get the various Marvel characters that he CO-CREATED with Lee?!

Yeah, I'd say there's an 'agenda' here. Can't the courts see through this?!

Father Finian wrote:It's mind boggling. I'd hate to think of the deal the attorney seems to have worked for himself on that one if they settle. A cynical person might wonder who is actually driving this case.....

From my understanding, he's rejected at least a few of WB's settlements without so much as consulting with his clients (ie, the Siegels).

I'm not a lawyer, let's be clear on that, but I have worked with them for many years and to call that allegation "unethical" just scratches the surface. An attorney's job is to represent the client. What the hell business is it of his to make unilateral rejections of settlement offers like that?

The fact that Toberoff stands to gain so much from forcing this issue (and, by contrast, lose so much in the event of a settlement) is apparently something WB's attorneys are working to address in court.

I have no clue how this might shape the eventual legal outcome of this thing. It could put a generous settlement from WB back on the table (since, technically, the Siegels never heard about them, it seems). From what I know though, the deadline for WB to lose the rights to crucial aspects of the character still looms though. Whatever WB's lawyers have planned, they better kick it into high gear.

non_amos wrote:Isn't Toberoff also working with the estate of JACK KIRBY to try to go after the Marvel properties because, I guess, Stan 'the Man' Lee screwed him over too, so duh heirs of Kirby should get the various Marvel characters that he CO-CREATED with Lee?!

Yeah, I'd say there's an 'agenda' here. Can't the courts see through this?!

I don't know the particulars of the Kirby case but there may be more juice to that one. Marvel, as a matter of standard operating procedure, routinely allowed work from the likes of Jack Kirby to be stolen or destroyed. Hell, Frank Miller famously burned Marvel in effigy over this very during a keynote speech in 1993 or '94.

I'm no fan of Kirby (trust me) but there could be something to all this. I've heard Kirby was pissed off in the late 60's for not receiving credit as co-plotter. It may seem like a small thing for people not acquainted with how most comics are usually written but Kirby really deserves that credit in many cases. He could and would take a two or three sentence plot description/outline (ie, no full script) and make a fully pencilled comic book out of it. All the writer had to do was fill in the dialogue and thought balloons.

He created brand new characters, fleshed out (at best) sketchy plots, is recognized for basically inventing a lot of common story techniques used even now but it doesn't seem like Marvel really gave him the credit.

Ya the laywer dude sounds like such a jerk and probably is screwing over heirs of various products he has taken cases in/won. i know from little i read on the guy he has won alot of copyright cases in these matters. i still hope in the end the guy doesnt win on superman any more then they have. and that the remaining shuster/siegel heirs just make a dam payoff deal with wb/dc and be done with all the back and forth debates and all that.

As for the kirby case i dont think it will end up as a mess with dc one. since stan is still living and has control over the stuff he has had i believe and with him in league with marvel and now with disney behind them. i dont think the kirby estate will get any farther then getting some payment deal and the suit drop.

thecolorsblend wrote:From my understanding, he's rejected at least a few of WB's settlements without so much as consulting with his clients (ie, the Siegels).

I'm not a lawyer, let's be clear on that, but I have worked with them for many years and to call that allegation "unethical" just scratches the surface. An attorney's job is to represent the client. What the hell business is it of his to make unilateral rejections of settlement offers like that?

He himself sent out an inner-office memo stating he WILL NOT take ANY settlement offers to the Heirs.

That is the basis of the Bros. Warner's separate legal action against him. He ISN'T looking out for his clients best interests.

Just his own.

The fact that Toberoff stands to gain so much from forcing this issue (and, by contrast, lose so much in the event of a settlement) is apparently something WB's attorneys are working to address in court.

I have no clue how this might shape the eventual legal outcome of this thing. It could put a generous settlement from WB back on the table (since, technically, the Siegels never heard about them, it seems). From what I know though, the deadline for WB to lose the rights to crucial aspects of the character still looms though. Whatever WB's lawyers have planned, they better kick it into high gear.

See above.