A lot of blogs and sites are busy talking about the legal motivations that may be involved in DC's reboot. I've read some interesting sites with some legal discourse and some speculative fanboy discourse and at the end of it all, I'm not really sure what I think; other than the fact that I don't like the reboot in general. Like many people, I'd have preferred that they looked at doing a refresh of their line in the vein that Marvel launched its Ultimate line. That's not what's happening though, and I'm wondering if the potential legal motivations matter to any of you.
Don't know what they are? Here are some opinions on their potential involvement in all of this:
There are plenty of other opinions out there on the potential legal influences in the reboot that is about to take place.
If, and I stress that word, the DCnU revamp is actually being motivated entirely, or in part, by a legal situation, does that change anything for you? Does it shape how you see the need for the revamp, or your willingness to embrace it? Does it bother you that characters who make millions of dollars a year are being fought over by insanely rich corporations and the estates of deceased creators? Is it damaging the legacy of the creation in your eyes?
Just on one simple thought, I'd say that I suspect there's more than enough money involved with the Superman franchise to make everyone happy. Greed is making what should be a wonderful association ugly. Siegel's family is absolutely entitled to something. He created the Man of Steel! On the other hand, the publisher gave him a home, promoted and developed him, and turned him into a worldwide phenomenon. It should be a partnership, with both parties recognizing the critical contribution of the other. Instead its a fight that, potentially, may be driving a reboot I'm not thrilled about.
It isn't the first time it's happened either.
What do you guys think?