SprangFan wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 5:14 am
I can't find any images of George Reeves' Superman drawn by Mike Allred. There's plenty of Allred Superman images, including his latest "Superman: The Space Age" mini-series, but no Reeves.
So is the MacFarlane toy contract written in such a way that they're limited to interpretations of "66 Batman as drawn by Mike Allred for DC Comics"? That would be an interesting twist. If so, maybe this image means there's a comics project coming up that will team Adam's Batman with George's Superman (just as we've already seen team-ups with Steed and Emma, Napoleon Solo and Archie). If such a book were to hit the stands, it'd be the first "floppy" I've bought in about 20 years.
I agree we are long, long overdue for an official George Reeves action figure. In fact, 72 years is almost certainly a record for this sort of thing. The only one I've waited longer for is an official figure of Errol Flynn as Robin Hood (85 years).
IMG_2213.jpeg (68.65 KiB) Viewed 17970 times
That’s as close as it gets…
On the other hand, the vague image does appear similar to the 1/6 Reeves head above. The question is which Superman outfit will be the final design, the one that is shown or a 50’s version?
Imagine those who don’t know who George Reeves was being asked about Errol Flynn.
I don't have to imagine it. I had this conversation with a student worker at my office, trying to explain where a coworker got his name:
ME: He was named after Errol Flynn.
STUDENT: Who's Errol Flynn?
ME: Well, okay, I guess that's fair. He was a major movie star back in the Golden Age of Hollywood, but never higher than maybe #4 on the list of biggest box office draws. He wasn't as big a deal as Clark Gable, I guess.
STUDENT: Who's Clark Gable?
That was pretty much the end of that conversation. And that was 25 years ago!
The question is which Superman outfit will be the final design, the one that is shown or a 50’s version?
If it doesn't have the distinctive TAOS chest emblem and the Roman-style cape, then it's not the George Reeves Superman no matter what name they put on it.
"You were right again, Batman. We might have been killed."
"Or worse. Let's go..."
Mike Allred's wife Laura posted on JazzInc Dioramas her husband built a 1/6 Batcave and it looks really nice. I commented that we are all looking forward to his interpretation of the George Reeves Superman action figure from McFarlane. And if they will make improvements on making the S more like the TV show and the Roman style cape. I'm certain Mike Allred read that so perhaps he can do more work on it since what they showed was a computer render. WB has the likeness rights to George Reeves since he appeared in The Flash movie so they can improve the sculpt if they choose to do so.
I also posted this on McFarlane Toys but I don't know if they'll read it because he must get so many requests:
"Hi Todd McFarlane, Me and everybody else is really looking forward to the McFarlane George Reeves Superman based on the Mike Allred interpretation shown at the '66 Batman panel. Since it's still a computer render, I hope McFarlane Toys makes the S more like the TV show and have the Roman style cape. Thank you! For me this was the best toy I saw at SDCC."
BatToys wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 11:54 am
WB has the likeness rights to George Reeves since he appeared in The Flash movie so they can improve the sculpt if they choose to do so.
This is another instance where you're conflating and/or oversimplifying a situation in order to confirm a possibility in your own mind that suits your wants and desires as a fan and collector. Those are two totally different categories for likeness usage that require totally separate licensing arrangements. Live action, comics, animation and merchandising are all completely individual licensing scenarios. Some are inevitably handled universally when a likeness licensing deal is being put together, but that is not always the case.
I'm no expert when it comes to the Superman TV show, but from what I can see from a quick Google search, there does not appear to be any officially licensed George Reeves action figures currently available (please someone correct me if i'm wrong?). This would lead me to believe that his likeness is in fact not covered for merchandise licensing at present.
I'm pretty sure the high priced WB attorneys would be savvy enough to also acquire the toy rights as well as the likeness rights for the Flash movie and comic books.
What makes George's situation unique is that he has no heirs. No children as far as I know and his ex-wife had died. That's probably why there were no official toys before because who do they get permission from? The deceased have no likeness rights unless they pass away in California which has laws protecting likeness rights. Somehow the WB attorneys have resolved this as evidenced that the George Reeves Superman appeared in The Flash movie.
In the 1950s there were almost George Reeves Superman toys. One was a George Reeves lunch box but they did not want to pay a royalty to him so they canceled it. The second was Marx toys made a tin Daily Planet playset with a George Reeves Superman figure prototype. But they were not allowed to do that so they released the Daily Planet as a regular building playset. The figures included with it look like Clark Kent and Lois Lane. Their GR Superman prototype copies can be found on eBay.
I have no idea what rights belong to whom, but my impression was always that there was no particular desire on the part of DC/Warner to market George's Superman, at least for the last 50 years or so and maybe never. In the 50s and 60s the thinking seemed to be that it was the character and not the actor that mattered. Then in the decade or so after George's sensationalized death they were probably happy enough not to touch that third rail when they could just as easily lean on comic art (It was the same during Batmania: why pay to use Adam's likeness when you can sell just as much stuff with comic imagery? After all, the show is ultimately an adaptation of the comic and not the other way around). Then in 1978 there was a new Superman actor to promote so why look back, and today the adult collectors most willing to shell out big bucks are of a generation that considers Chris Reeve their Superman. I believe DC/Warner considers George fans a niche audience not worth going after, and his version no more potentially lucrative than Kirk Alyn's. I don't agree but as a George fan I'm hardly objective, so they may be right. If anything shocks me, it's the possibility that they've decided to market a George figure while there's still no snow sports in Hades.
As far as heirs, George died childless and I don't think he lived long enough to marry his (now also late) fiance Lenore Lemmon (and BTW how crazy is it that she fits the "two L's" tradition for Superman love interests?) so I don't know who owns his likeness, if anyone. The only merchandise I know for sure involved his image were the Topps trading cards.
Just to review, what exactly do we know? The image from the SDCC slideshow says "Superman," not "George Reeves Superman" or "50s TV Superman." What makes us think he's George beyond the lack of a spit curl? Cavill doesn't have one, either. Did we establish that an employee at the MacFarlane booth told Andy that it's George as drawn by Allred? And yet so far as we've been able to find, there are no published Allred drawings of George in the suit, and the person at that booth doesn't even know who George Reeves is/was?
Based on what's been officially established, this figure could be several things: an incorrectly designed George Reeves Superman, a "Superman" who has nothing to do with the show but was added to the line for no particular reason or -- most tantalizingly for me -- a spoiler of an upcoming comic project where we WILL see an Allred-drawn Superman teaming up with Batman. But I don't know which of those answers is right; all I know is there's a blurry picture of a "Superman" figure who, from what little we can see, doesn't match the TV show or the comics and has nothing to do with the Adam West series as it originally aired. So as of right now, the whole thing's a mystery to me.
"You were right again, Batman. We might have been killed."
"Or worse. Let's go..."
McFarlane Toys lists it as '66 Superman on the order forms.
Alex Ross painted the George Reeves Superman but I'm not sure if it was for a '66 Batman cover or for a future cover. But that's sure to get a lot of attention to make a George action figure.
Come to think of it, the Filmation cartoon "New Adventures of Superman" debuted in September of 1966, so that's another possibility.
I'd love a Curt Swan-inspired Superman figure. Years ago DC Direct released a "Silver Age" two-pack with Superman and Lois, but he didn't particularly resemble the work of any artist (though Lois had a Kurt Schaffenberger vibe for sure). A little while later they released a "Composite Superman" that looked like a Curt Swan drawing brough to 3D life and it was wonderful.
"You were right again, Batman. We might have been killed."
"Or worse. Let's go..."
Lou Szabo wrote: ↑Thu Jul 27, 2023 11:08 am
Remember the license is for the TV show and Batman 66 comic book series only
They’re actually two totally separate licenses that a company has to buy into. That’s why we’re seeing the different logo on on the most recent McFarlane figures.
Pretty sure MacFarlane is behind the "Multiverse" line that's already veered into movie and TV versions of DC characters as well as various comic iterations, so it's not inconceivable they'd end up with a George-inspired figure, although the '66 Batman line would be a really weird place to put it. The "66 Superman" label is just weird as it's never really been used before: in the real world, there are at least 3 1966 versions of Superman: the comic book version (Swan, Boring, Plastino, Sekowsky), the stage version (Holiday) and the Filmation version. In terms of the '66 Batman show, there is no such thing as '66 Superman. In terms of the "Batman '66" comics, there's no Superman there so far, either. So what the heck is this thing?
Not sure why I'm dwelling on it so much, though. Unless it looks a lot different than it does in that image, I'm not buying it anyway.
"You were right again, Batman. We might have been killed."
"Or worse. Let's go..."
