[QUOTE=Ascended;5457626]
For me, I'm not even sure I want Clark in the public domain,[/QUOTE]
Thats ok, because even if Superman does fall into public domain at some point, "Clark Kent" and all hsi characteristics wont as he wasnt in the first issue of Superman.
[QUOTE=SpiderTBliss;5458208]Thats ok, because even if Superman does fall into public domain at some point, "Clark Kent" and all hsi characteristics wont as he wasnt in the first issue of Superman.[/QUOTE]
Clark and Lois both were in the first issue of Action. Perry and Jimmy, Lex, the Daily Planet, flight and enhanced senses, none of that was, but Clark and Lois have been there from issue 1.
I wouldn't be interested.
For me its not like taking some of these Golden Age forgotten about characters and revamping them for your own purpose.
Larsen has used "Daredevil" from the GA to good ends for example. Dark Horse with Captain Midnight as well was great.
Taking public domain Superman though just screams STUNT. Unlike say Thor, Santa Clause or Robin Hood who are all from myth and basically collectively owned as part of our greater heritage Superman is a corporate asset. Sure we could argue after so long Superman "belongs" to us all but only in the sense we all know him just like Santa Clause or Robin Hood.
[QUOTE=Ascended;5467727]Clark and Lois both were in the first issue of Action.[/QUOTE]
Not as they are presented and undertsood and recognised by the general public and comic reading public now though. they are Clark Kent and Lois Lane in name only. Thats my point, it wouldnt suddenly be modern Superman/Clark Kent or modern Lois Lane being in the public domain.
I would be interested in Dynamite using Wonder Woman. She could crossover with Xena or Red Sonja.
[QUOTE=SpiderTBliss;5470709]Not as they are presented and undertsood and recognised by the general public and comic reading public now though. they are Clark Kent and Lois Lane in name only. Thats my point, it wouldnt suddenly be modern Superman/Clark Kent or modern Lois Lane being in the public domain.[/QUOTE]
Indeed, the original version bears little resemblance to what we're used to today. Which, I think, could be part of the appeal. The "real" Superman, before corporate interests neutered him. That's how I'd market it, anyway. I don't see the point of doing a Superman who is exactly like what DC currently offers, but given the socio-political landscape of today I think a return of the OG could, in theory anyway, find a solid audience. The fact that it'd be different is a feature, not a flaw.
[QUOTE=Captain Craig;5468330]I wouldn't be interested.
For me its not like taking some of these Golden Age forgotten about characters and revamping them for your own purpose.
Larsen has used "Daredevil" from the GA to good ends for example. Dark Horse with Captain Midnight as well was great.
Taking public domain Superman though just screams STUNT. Unlike say Thor, Santa Clause or Robin Hood who are all from myth and basically collectively owned as part of our greater heritage Superman is a corporate asset. Sure we could argue after so long Superman "belongs" to us all but only in the sense we all know him just like Santa Clause or Robin Hood.[/QUOTE]They did have to rename Daredevil though.
[QUOTE=Digifiend;5488241]They did have to rename Daredevil though.[/QUOTE]What did Larson rename him as?
I know some other reuses / renamings for Golden Age Daredevil have been:[indent]* [B]Double-Dare[/B][SIZE=1] (in 1986's [B][I]Alter Ego[/I][/B] from First Comics)[/SIZE]
* [B]RedDevil[/B] (AC Comics)
* [B]Death-Defying 'Devil[/B] (Dynamite)[/indent]
There are already so many variations of 'the super-man' it hardly seems necessary to use the "Original, Real" Superman in independent fashion. Miracle (Marvel) Man. Humongous Man (heh--anybody here even reMEMber Humongous Man?). Mighty Mouse, for heaven's sake. Now it might be funny to see Mickey Mouse v. Superman, but unless it was a really competent, even exciting writer, that'd be good only once, maybe twice. Supreme. And so on. And with all the copyright restrictions on his 'peripherals,' for me it's a shoulder-shrug.
[QUOTE=Zelena;5446091]My point of view is similar to TotalSnorefest’s: I don’t see the point.
If you want to tell the story of an alien who has landed on Earth when he was a baby and who has a super-strength, you can. It’s not necessary to call him Superman. (By the way, it has been done by Akira Toriyama and called Dragon Ball.) The quality of Superman stories is not in the name.[/QUOTE]
Goku really isn't like Superman though, he's a monkey king expy and not much of a traditional hero.
[QUOTE=matt levin;5491051]There are already so many variations of 'the super-man' it hardly seems necessary to use the "Original, Real" Superman in independent fashion. Miracle (Marvel) Man. Humongous Man (heh--anybody here even reMEMber Humongous Man?). Mighty Mouse, for heaven's sake. Now it might be funny to see Mickey Mouse v. Superman, but unless it was a really competent, even exciting writer, that'd be good only once, maybe twice. Supreme. And so on. And with all the copyright restrictions on his 'peripherals,' for me it's a shoulder-shrug.[/QUOTE]
[B]Hyperion [/B]of Squadron Supreme for sure is a Superman spoof.
[B]Sentry[/B]? Look wise for sure, powerset maybe?
[B]Prime [/B]of the Ultraverse, although the case for a Shazam spoof is just as likely but Shazam himself is a Superman spook so full circle.
[B]Icon [/B]of the Milestone Universe at DC.
I'll have to Wiki Humongous Man, not ringing any bells and I've been reading comics since late 80s so if he was then it was before I was aware of indies outside TMNT.
[QUOTE=matt levin;5491051]There are already so many variations of 'the super-man' it hardly seems necessary to use the "Original, Real" Superman in independent fashion. Miracle (Marvel) Man. Humongous Man (heh--anybody here even reMEMber Humongous Man?). Mighty Mouse, for heaven's sake. Now it might be funny to see Mickey Mouse v. Superman, but unless it was a really competent, even exciting writer, that'd be good only once, maybe twice. Supreme. And so on. And with all the copyright restrictions on his 'peripherals,' for me it's a shoulder-shrug.[/QUOTE]
This is part of what intrigues me about this idea, actually. You're right, we've got a ton of Superman proxies and analogues out there. Sentry, Omni-Man, and a ton of others even beyond the ones you and others mentioned.
Yet Golden Age Superman actually resembles this archetype very little. He's not a flying brick with incalculable power and a swiss army knife of abilities, he's not a paragon of faultless virtue and hope. He's not even a boy scout. He's a strong man who's more than happy to throw a corrupt d-bag through a wall, a Robin Hood of the street. He's got more in common with someone like Luke Cage than Shazam.
But at the same time, he's Superman. He's not Sentry or Mighty Mouse or some other proxy, he's the real deal, that's *the* brand yknow? Nobody cares about the proxy because they're not the real thing, but here's the real thing....and the archetype he built has changed so much, OG Superman no longer actually fits it.
That's interesting to me.
[QUOTE=Captain Craig;5468330]I wouldn't be interested.
Unlike say Thor, Santa Clause or Robin Hood who are all from myth and basically collectively owned as part of our greater heritage Superman is a corporate asset. Sure we could argue after so long Superman "belongs" to us all but only in the sense we all know him just like Santa Clause or Robin Hood.[/QUOTE]
that is literally the point of public domain. Once he enters the PD, Superman DOES "belong to us all"
[QUOTE=twiztor;5506165]that is literally the point of public domain. Once he enters the PD, Superman DOES "belong to us all"[/QUOTE]But it's a question of whether the CHARACTER HIMSELF or just the older material is available in public domain.
Tarzan is older than Superman (by about twenty-six years), but just because the old stories are no longer protected doesn't mean everybody and his cousin can create new Tarzan stories / movies without dealing with ERB's estate.
My limited and potentially flawed understanding is that the older material is available, which new authors can adapt, re-write, whatever, without anyone's consent.
An estate or agency that still controls the copyright on newer material would have to be consulted if you were skirting too close to their protected material, and things like film rights might limit exactly what you can do using the public domain as a vehicle for movie making, but the whole point of the public domain is that it belongs to the public, for us to do with as we see fit.
As I've said many times, this is an aspect of business and law I didn't study much so I'm mostly talking out of my ass, but if you had to get the approval of the ERB estate to make a Tarzan story, then it's not really public domain is it?