I will never call Captain Marvel "SHAZAM"

[The Boss]

I saw that "apreciation" thead and upon reading the first post realized that it excluded those who truly appreciated the traditional character. I felt that there was a need to create a thread for those of us who will stay loyal to the original character and NOT support the renamed character in hopes that DC will see the light and return to calling the character by his traditional name of Captain Marvel.

I understand the copywrite issues that dictate that the name "Captain Marvel" cannot be used on the title of the comics. That being said, there is nothing - nor has there ever been anything - keeping them from using the name "Captain Marvel" in reference to the character within the comics or film.

Changing the name of the character is an insult to all of us who have followed the character for so long. It is specifically because of this renaming that I refuse to watch the upcoming movie. I will stick to the movie serial, the filmation live action series, and legends of the superheroes from now on to get my fill of Captain Marvel.

[MajorHoy]

I saw that "apreciation" thead and upon reading the first post realized that it excluded those who truly appreciated the traditional character. I felt that there was a need to create a thread for those of us who will stay loyal to the original character and NOT support the renamed character in hopes that DC will see the light and return to calling the character by his traditional name of Captain Marvel.

While that ship has unfortunately sailed at this point, I understand where you are coming from.
However, considering how much I hated Geoff Johns' revamped version of the character under the New 52 (or, at least the version I read in Justice League #7-11 before I ditched that title with issue #12), I really don't care any longer.

. . . Changing the name of the character is an insult to all of us who have followed the character for so long. It is specifically because of this renaming that I refuse to watch the upcoming movie. I will stick to the movie cereal, the filmation live action series, and legends of the superheroes from now on to get my fill of Captain Marvel.

Movie cereal? How did it taste? Was it artificially sugar-coated / pre-sweetened?

Me, I prefer more natural movie serials, but to each their own . . .

[The Boss]

Movie cereal? How did it taste? Was it artificially sugar-coated / pre-sweetened?

Me, I prefer more natural movie serials, but to each their own . . .

Arrgh! Stupid talk text. lol

[Thor-Ul]

I saw that "apreciation" thead and upon reading the first post realized that it excluded those who truly appreciated the traditional character. I felt that there was a need to create a thread for those of us who will stay loyal to the original character and NOT support the renamed character in hopes that DC will see the light and return to calling the character by his traditional name of Captain Marvel.

I understand the copywrite issues that dictate that the name "Captain Marvel" cannot be used on the title of the comics. That being said, there is nothing - nor has there ever been anything - keeping them from using the name "Captain Marvel" in reference to the character within the comics or film.

Changing the name of the character is an insult to all of us who have followed the character for so long. It is specifically because of this renaming that I refuse to watch the upcoming movie. I will stick to the movie cereal, the filmation live action series, and legends of the superheroes from now on to get my fill of Captain Marvel.

And don't forget the movies than are coming. Even casual moviegoers will thinkof Captain Marvel as a "she".

[Pinsir]

I'm fine with whatever DC tells me I should do, therefore I must oppose you and everything you stand for! Shazam!

[Ascended]

The real crime was DC not buying the Fawcett characters and names as soon as they could.

But that ship has sailed. And it's hard to market a character when you can't actually use his name. Harder still when your primary competition is using it.

The name had to be changed. It's unfortunate, and Shazam isn't a great substitution as far as names go (did someone own Captain Thunder? I thought that would be the name post-Flashpoint). But it was foolish of DC to try to keep the name when they couldn't use it in any marketing, and even more foolish to wait so long to make the necessary (but regretful) change.

I mean, by all means call him whatever you like. Us comic fans are a stubborn bunch. But business-wise? DC should've changed his name the moment they bought him and the only crime here is that they waited decades to bite the bullet. Any first year business student could've told them they'd eventually have to do this.

[Lee Stone]

The real crime was DC not buying the Fawcett characters and names as soon as they could.

But that ship has sailed. And it's hard to market a character when you can't actually use his name. Harder still when your primary competition is using it.

The name had to be changed. It's unfortunate, and Shazam isn't a great substitution as far as names go (did someone own Captain Thunder? I thought that would be the name post-Flashpoint). But it was foolish of DC to try to keep the name when they couldn't use it in any marketing, and even more foolish to wait so long to make the necessary (but regretful) change.

I mean, by all means call him whatever you like. Us comic fans are a stubborn bunch. But business-wise? DC should've changed his name the moment they bought him and the only crime here is that they waited decades to bite the bullet. Any first year business student could've told them they'd eventually have to do this.

I believe Heroic owns 'Captain Thunder'.

[Elmo]

omg who cares lmao

[Sandy Hausler]

I believe Heroic owns 'Captain Thunder'.

I don't think so. From the Patent and Trademark Office:

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfi...809:5xwu7d.2.1

I'm not the first to point this out. This issue has come up before.

Sandy Hausler

[MRP]

The real crime was DC not buying the Fawcett characters and names as soon as they could.

But that ship has sailed. And it's hard to market a character when you can't actually use his name. Harder still when your primary competition is using it.

The name had to be changed. It's unfortunate, and Shazam isn't a great substitution as far as names go (did someone own Captain Thunder? I thought that would be the name post-Flashpoint). But it was foolish of DC to try to keep the name when they couldn't use it in any marketing, and even more foolish to wait so long to make the necessary (but regretful) change.

I mean, by all means call him whatever you like. Us comic fans are a stubborn bunch. But business-wise? DC should've changed his name the moment they bought him and the only crime here is that they waited decades to bite the bullet. Any first year business student could've told them they'd eventually have to do this.

The real crime was the predatory lawsuit DC pursued to drive Fawcett out of business because they could't surpass Captain Marvel's sales as it was outselling Superman and so did whatever they could to bring down the competition.

And don't forget, before Marvel picked up the trademarks (not copyrights) to the name, the comic world was blessed with this Captain Marvel in the swinging 1960s...







from MF Enterprises.

DC's lawsuit against Fawcett was in 1951. They didn't show any interest in the character or the rights until 1972 when they licensed the character form the remains of Fawcett, and 5 years after Marvel introduced their Captain Marvel. DC didn't want the character in the 50s or 60s, their goal was to get him off the newsstands to protect Superman sales, not to get another character. They didn't purchase the rights outright for the character until 1987 and from '72 to '87 their use of the characters was limited as they had to pay a per use fee to Fawcett whenever they used one of the characters they licensed from them.

There's no tragedy in DC not getting the rights to the name or whatever, the tragedy was the fate of Fawcett itself and DC's predatory business practices at the time. DC simply reaps what they sowed there.

-M

[MajorHoy]

They don't use them at the same time though. For instance, when was the last time DC's Ms America was even mentioned?

I don't know if DC ever called the character "Ms. America" unless it was during the Palmiotti & Gray version of the Freedom Fighters. And, FYI, the non-Timely/Marvel version was originally introduced in 1941 by Quality Comics. (The Timely/Marvel version was first introduced in 1943.)
DC first briefly used the Quality Comics version of the character in a 1984 story where they killed her off. They wound up resurrecting her in 1988 as the first retconned replacement for the Golden Age Wonder Woman (who ceased to exist in stories as a result of changes resulting from CoIE.)

. . . There's no tragedy in DC not getting the rights to the name or whatever, the tragedy was the fate of Fawcett itself and DC's predatory business practices at the time. DC simply reaps what they sowed there.

But it's the readers / the fans of "The Big Red Cheese" who are the ones who want the character to have his original name back; DC isn't really the one complaining about this (at least publicly) at this point, are they?

[Osiris-Rex]

I think Shazam is a much better name

I always call him Captain Marvel, I really wish that the whole name thing never happened. Just call him Captain something, Shazam just sounds lame and changing the mythology of saying the word is just dumb.

Whenever I hear Shazam it just make me think of Gomer Pyle. That was his catch phrase when something astonishing happened. Makes it hare to take a character named Shazam seriously. It would be like naming
Superman Dyn-O-mite if DC had lost the rights to the name.

The real crime was the predatory lawsuit DC pursued to drive Fawcett out of business because they could't surpass Captain Marvel's sales as it was outselling Superman and so did whatever they could to bring down the competition.

And don't forget, before Marvel picked up the trademarks (not copyrights) to the name, the comic world was blessed with this Captain Marvel in the swinging 1960s...

[

DC's lawsuit against Fawcett was in 1951. They didn't show any interest in the character or the rights until 1972 when they licensed the character form the remains of Fawcett, and 5 years after Marvel introduced their Captain Marvel. DC didn't want the character in the 50s or 60s, their goal was to get him off the newsstands to protect Superman sales, not to get another character. They didn't purchase the rights outright for the character until 1987 and from '72 to '87 their use of the characters was limited as they had to pay a per use fee to Fawcett whenever they used one of the characters they licensed from them.

There's no tragedy in DC not getting the rights to the name or whatever, the tragedy was the fate of Fawcett itself and DC's predatory business practices at the time. DC simply reaps what they sowed there.

-M

My problem isn't who owns the character. If Marvel comics had kept Billy Batson as Captain Marvel and the Marvel movie featured Billy Batson I would be just fine with that. Instead they are just using the name for
an entirely different character. To me what is the point? Other than they want to keep the name so no one else can use it.

[Ascended]

The real crime was the predatory lawsuit DC pursued to drive Fawcett out of business because they could't surpass Captain Marvel's sales as it was outselling Superman and so did whatever they could to bring down the competition.

There's no tragedy in DC not getting the rights to the name or whatever, the tragedy was the fate of Fawcett itself and DC's predatory business practices at the time. DC simply reaps what they sowed there.

-M

Eh, if years of studying business has taught me anything, its that business is evil. You can't blame a snake for biting, you can't blame a business for screwing over its competition. Its just in its nature. And as I understand it, the DC v Fawcett case actually helped to define certain legal parameters for copyright infringement or something. So it actually had some positive results in the long run. Just not for Fawcett.

......or maybe it wasn't copyright infringement. I was pretty sick yesterday and the brain is still cloudy......

[Frontier]

I admit I still usually think "Captain Marvel" first before I ever think of "Shazam."

[Ascended]

I admit I still usually think "Captain Marvel" first before I ever think of "Shazam."

I bet most of us do. We've been calling him Captain Marvel for years (many of us decades), and the Shazam change is still new, relatively speaking.

But legally? This was the only option worth pursuing. No one is going to push a property where you can't use his name, and every time you mention it you're just sorta promoting the competition's character.

I may be biased, as I adore Carol Danvers as Captain Marvel, but the fact that DC kept using the name despite not being able to actually use it never made sense to me.