This isn't as straightforward as the Superman case. As I understand the law, the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act (yes, that's what it was called) allowed creators to reclaim their copyrights, but only if they originally owned the copyrights. Siegel and Schuster created Superman, and thus owned the rights, before they sold the rights to DC. That's why they were able to reclaim the rights. But I believe (could be mistaken) that Kirby was employed by Marvel when he created these characters, and that as "works for hire" the copyright vested automatically in Marvel in the first instance. (Same for Stan Lee.) If that's the case, I don't think the law gives Kirby any remedy. There's no copyright to "re"-claim, since Kirby never had the copyright to begin with.
mckracken mentions Iron Giant, but didn't give props to Family Dog?? What's up with that?
I think this is a perfect marriage. Gilliam is full of visual creativity, but breaks down with story structure. Pixar is a master at story structure, without allowing their stories to lose their creative spark. It's genius.
I've got to imagine that Warner Brothers isn't excited about the prospects of having plot details for the movie spread about the internet even before they've bought the screenplay. I'd suspect this to be a "pass." Perhaps Gordon's real motivation for writing this screenplay was as an audition for the assignment.
Wow!! What a scoop!
Coming Attractions is
driven by users submitting
scoops and insider information.
Have a scoop? Let us know »