OK, so you're probably used to reading about casting news and stuff, not complex legal maneuvering. But sometimes, the news of the day doesn't cooperate with our expectations - like today, when a judge has declined Warner Brothers' request to have access to secret documents that supposedly contain an agreement between the estates of Jerry Siegel and and Joel Shuster, the original creators of Superman, not to make any further copyright arrangements with the studio.

This is all part of a long and complex legal slugfest between Warner Brothers (who have lots of movie-related plans for the character going forward) and the estates of the creators of Superman, who feel they aren't getting their fair share of the profits. What I've never understood about stories like this - why doesn't WB just give up a share of the profits? There wouldn't BE a Superman if it weren't for Siegel and Shuster. WB is lucky they don't claim credit for not just Superman, but every super-hero that followed (all superheroes, in other words). I'm guessing this will all get settled before 2013, when WB is set to lose some of the rights to the Superman character. Perhaps they'll retain rights to Clark Kent, but not Superman. I'd watch a movie that was just about Clark Kent, wouldn't you? You can get a more detailed breakdown of the legal battles over Superman from The Hollywood Reporter.