I wonder whether a dated, American-created "kung fu" property like "Master of Kung Fu" can be spun into something that Asian audiences would go for? Chinese studios already seem like they pretty thoroughly own the martial arts genre.

Then again, those Italian westerns had a few hits in the U.S. years ago, so who knows?

I was a much bigger fan of Shang-Chi than I was of Iron Fist.

I wonder if Fu Manchu is in the public domain yet, and could be part of the movie?

A lot of the individual works are old enough. A number of them are available through Project Gutenberg. But Sax Rohmer kept writing them up until he died in the 1950s, so I don't know whether Fu Manchu himself can be considered public domain. His estate would probably still have something to say about its use in a movie.

Fu Manchu might also be considered too controversial to use in a contemporary movie. Especially with the Chinese movie market becoming more and more important. A studio would want to tread very carefully there.

Safer to turn him into a white European and change his name. But then you lose the father-son hook. Unless you turn Shang-chi into a white European, and change his name. But then you lose the connection to China.

So, Space Ghost it is. Agreed.

Zheng Zu

A Space Ghost movie? Now that would be something to see!

I wonder about this. Take Edgar Rice Burroughs, for instance. Tarzan and John Carter stories were released up to the 60s (he died in 1950, but his son "finished" some tales that got published), but that didn't stop Diamond from publishing unauthorized Tarzan and John Carter books titled "Warlord of Mars" and "Lord of the Jungle". I think they later did get the license from ERB Inc, but they were able to publish without any problems as far as I know. Would Fu Manchu work the same?

There's a difference between trademark and copyright. The Burroughs estate owns trademarks on Tarzan but the copyright on the earlier books has expired. Because of that, Dynamite can adapt that material, but they couldn't actually call the series Tarzan without working out a deal with the estate.

In Canada, copyright lasts for 50 years after the author's death or 75 years from creation, whichever is shorter. The US and UK terms are longer and more convoluted (so there's a lot more Edgar Rice Burroughs in the public domain in Canada than elsewhere). AFAIK, trademark never expires.

In Brubaker's Secret Avengers (which brought back a cool Shang-Chi storyline), they had his father in it but didn't call him Fu Manchu. So I assumed the licensing issue persisted up through that time. (2011?)

But then, I did buy the Shang-Chi Omnibus recently, and it has all the reprints that refer to Fu Manchu by name. So maybe they sorted it out and that's one reason he's mentioned for movies.

It sounds really complicated. Ive been reading about public domain superheros lately. I was surprised to see that Namor is in the public domain....but not everything about him is. In the issues that are in the public domain, he is a member of a race called the Sub-Mariners (from an un named kingdom),and it is only hinted that he is royalty.

Public domain and media rights do get awfully complicated. Intellectual property is such a big issue that the university library I used to work for had a full-time staff member whose primary job was clearing copyright on articles for professors to reproduce for their students. The university spent a fortune on it. You even have to get permission to use a critical edition of Shakespeare if it was published after a certain date.

In Canada, if I understand correctly, I could publish a Sub-Mariner comic under my own banner, but I couldn't use anything in his mythology introduced after 1943 (75 years ago), and I couldn't call the comic Namor or Sub-Mariner because Marvel has trademarked those terms. Anything in the mythos introduced from this point or earlier would be fair game, but I'd have to call it Grumpy Underwater Dude or something. http://www.mikesamazingworld.com/mikes/ ... sort=alpha

like Captain Marvel I guess. marvel has the trademark for the name, so DC can only call him CM inside the comic.

I understand that (well, as much as a layperson casually can lol), but I'm curious if someone could just do the same thing with Fu Manchu. Based on the examples, I guess not. But then I just wonder why. It really is confusing. I can make a Mickey Mouse story using the Steamboat Willie version of Mickey, call him Mickey inside, but not on the cover, right? What's stopping one from using Fu Manchu's original name/themes- but not material from later still under copyright stories - 50 years plus on since the creator died and the last stories were published?

I think that should be possible with Fu Manchu. They're reprinting the Sax Rohmer novels and it seems to be a public domain press.

So get ready for the roaring comeback of the Yellow Peril villain! I see no bumps in the road there!

They'll need to recast the character as female, at the very least, to avoid any serious objections.

I wonder if Tilda Swinton is available.

Only if she doesn't mind being typecast.

Ben Kingsley is also a candidate.