MovieChat Forums > The New Adventures of Superman (1966) Discussion > Why No Superboy?

Why No Superboy?

posted 17 years ago by pschau-1
5 replies | jump to latest

I just watched the NAO Superman. I was afaraid that the orginal opening would be omitted from the set. I was happy to find It wasn't, which brings me to my point. Not only does the set have the orginal opening but the closing too. They are showen in two cartoon blocks. The only thing missing is the superboy cartoon in the middle. In the closing credits thought, they give credit to Bob Hastings and the other voices in the superboy cartoon. I have no idea why they cut them out. Otherwise it was a GREAT flashback to the fall of 66!!!!!

[–] dadoo4050 17 years ago

I read over at the Amazon site for this DVD that "Superboy" is tied up in some kind of legal battle among Filmation, AOL-Time-Warner, and Siegel-Shuster. As far as the end credits, I'm guessing that instead of trying to customize them for this edition, they simply used the originals. Considering the condition of some of the episodes of "Adventures of Superman" on that set, and the lack of Warners to attempt any kind of meaningful restoration, that sounds about par.

I guess we should be thankful to get these, but I want to see Superboy/Krypto, too.

"Dadoo4050: and who, disguised as a mild-mannered schoolteacher. . ."

[–] pschau-1 17 years ago

Thanks for the info. I figured it was something like that. As far as the quailty, it looked and sounded ok. Remember, Filmation studios wasn't excatly a "Rolls Royce" production company. The showes they produced we cost efficitive to say the least. Especally the live action stuff which didn't look that great
even when broadcast. I'm just happy to hear Bud Collyers Great "Scott" voice
again! I can't wait for the Filmation Aquaman and JAL to be realsed!!!

[–] srb-3 17 years ago

Superboy is considered to be a different character for terms of licencing despite that he was the teenage Superman. The Superboy *copyright* is *FULLY* owned by the Seigels, while DC *fully* owns the *trademark* for both
Superboy and Superman.

Same reason why the new cartoon is 'Superman and the Legion of Superheroes' as oppossed to 'Superboy and the Legion of Superheroes'; and Smallvile is refferred as 'the adventures of young Superman' as oppossed to 'Superboy'. This is the result over the big lawsuit over Smallville. So if DC were to include the Superboy shorts as they should; they would have to pay the Seigels for the copyright useage.

The Superman copyright is co-owned by DC and the Seigels.

The New Adventures of Superman was Filmation's first program. Please remember that Filmation was and is the only American animation company to do the actual animation in America. They had to be cost effective.

[–] BijouBob8mm 15 years ago

And yet Warner Brothers had already released a volume of those same Filmation SUPERBOY cartoons on VHS as part of their "Super Powers" collection. (Along with three other volumes of Sixties Filmation animation: Superman, Aquaman and Batman.) If you can lay your hands on that, it may be the only way you get to see the animated Superboy, from the looks of things.

[–] grendelkhan 11 years ago

That was before the Siegel estate filed to claim the copyright on Superboy, based on changes to the copyright law. DC and the Siegel estate are still battling it out, though more over control of Superman, and also so they can continue to do an injustice to the family. It was bad enough when DC was just a publishing company; but, once they were part of a conglomerate, any attempt at fairness went out the window. Warner and Disney were two of the key backers in changes to copyright laws to keep their characters from going into the public domain, like they were intended to.

"Fortunately, Ah keep mah feathers numbered for just such an emergency!"