Conan the Barbarian 2011

[broox]

It just keeps getting worse for these guys...

insidemovies.ew.com/2011/08/22/stan-lee-media-inc-files-suit-against-conan-the-barbarian/?Cnn=yes

"Stan Lee Media, Inc., a company founded by comic book legend Stan Lee, wants a judge to rule that it is still the rightful owner of the character Conan the Barbarian. In a lawsuit filed Aug. 19 in federal court in L.A. and obtained by EW, SLMI is demanding 100 percent of the film’s proceeds. The company claims its bankruptcy in 2001 would have prevented anyone from taking the rights to the Conan character away. In the suit, Stan Lee Media, Inc. claims the company was betrayed by a former lawyer who made an illegal deal to transfer the rights to another company that would later green-light this summer’s Conan movie. The poorly reviewed remake earned $10 million on its opening weekend, barely beating the debut of the original Conan the Barbarian in 1982."

[Gilberto]

I didn't realize they ever owned the character. Back in the day Marvel acquired the rights to produce a Conan comic from the Robert E. Howard estate for $200 an issue. They must have bought the character outright when he became such a big seller.

[broox]

Yeah I'm not so sure about that myself. I mean, there were the other films, and there have been toys, and wasn't there a cartoon or two? Did Lee own it through all of this? I remain dubious...

[drivebyluna]

Yeah, and why now? The movie had been advertised and produced for a while.

[Scary Gary]

If they never show the movie, what are they going to get if they sue? They waited until it came out, made some money, and then pounced. Now, there is a pocket full of money that they can target.

It's like a radar trap. If the cops are interested in public safety, they will simply put a cop car in plain sight and cars will slow down. When their interest is collecting fines, they will hide the cop car and let people speed by so they can clock them and give the ticket.

With Conan, they clearly were not interested in "protecting" the property. They let someone else make the film and now want to reap the benefits. Seems rather lowdown if you ask me.

[drivebyluna]

Ah, makes sense.

[Gilberto]

They must have initiated the suit before they saw the opening returns. At this rate they're more likely to become owners of a massive loss. When a $100 mil + budget movie opens at $10 mil, there's not a real "profit" there to poach. Unless they want to let the production company eat the theatrical loss and poach the DVD sales.

If the rights were purchased in good faith, an internal betrayal by Lee's lawyers wouldn't entitle them to the profits of the film anyway. It should only entitle them to re-purchase the rights at the same price, which could probably then be settled by giving them a percentage of the movie's profits. They're just starting aggressive negotiations with a draconian offer, but it sounds like they (and the producers of the new film) have a better case against the lawyer who made the deal without authorization.

But it seems like this always happens when a major property gets revived for a big film. I'm surprised Dino De Laurentis didn't somehow pop up and claim ownership of Conan.

[lynn]

Is it just me or just Stan Lee think he owns everything?

[drivebyluna]

Well considering the accusation that he's stolen all the credit for work that was collaborative in the past, I'm not surprised.

[lynn]

Does anyone else here follow Stan Lee's twitter? It's amusing and baffling, and I certainly hope it's all tongue-in-cheek.

[broox]

He's always struck me as borderline crazy, or at least mildly nutty and eccentric.

[Gilberto]

I respect that he's a legend and had a real impact on comics as an entertainment medium, but I think that guy was born full of himself.