I will never call Captain Marvel "SHAZAM"

[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.

[CRaymond]

I thought "Captain Thunder" was a nice name.

[MRP]

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.)

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?

Would a rose by any other name not smell as sweet?

The name is just a label, it is not the character. The character is the concept, the personality, the essence of that young boy wish fulfillment to become the world's mightiest mortal, not two words that act a label not a defining characteristic of the character. I would argue if you can't get over a name change, you aren't that big a fan of the character itself because you've missed what actually made the character what it is.

-M

[j9ac9k]

I grew up thinking his name was "Shazam" because that was the title of his comic. I even had one when I was little, but I'm not sure it registered in my child-brain that his name was "Captain Marvel." By the time I was old enough to pick up a comic that he was in where I saw that was his name, it seemed weird to me. I thought, "Why are they calling him 'Captain Marvel?'"

[Carabas]

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.

It's not an insult. It's a legal issue.

WB would love to have a movie titled Captain Marvel coming out before Marvel's version.

[MajorHoy]

. . . I would argue if you can't get over a name change, you aren't that big a fan of the character itself because you've missed what actually made the character what it is.

And I would argue that what I've read of Geoff John's reintroduction of the character for the New 52 was what really missed the mark of what made the character what he once was.

[The Boss]

It's not an insult. It's a legal issue.

WB would love to have a movie titled Captain Marvel coming out before Marvel's version.

Not being able to use the name "Captain Marvel" as the title is the legal issue. They have full freedom to use the character name within the story.

Using "SHAZAM!" for the title of the comics, TV show, cartoons, movie etc was a great way to get around the issue. The character was still fully intact and the readers got to continue to enjoy the character. But actually Changing the name of the character - and changing the character was going too far IMO.

The only reason for changing the name is because some egotistical artist decided he was going to make the character his own rather than continuing on an established character.

[The Boss]

And I would argue that what I've read of Geoff John's reintroduction of the character for the New 52 was what really missed the mark of what made the character what he once was.

Yes! It's not just a name change (although that alone is unforgivable), the entire character is all but lost.

[Carabas]

Not being able to use the name "Captain Marvel" as the title is the legal issue. They have full freedom to use the character name within the story.

Using "SHAZAM!" for the title of the comics, TV show, cartoons, movie etc was a great way to get around the issue. The character was still fully intact and the readers got to continue to enjoy the character. But actually Changing the name of the character - and changing the character was going too far IMO.

The only reason for changing the name is because some egotistical artist decided he was going to make the character his own rather than continuing on an established character.

I can see you've thought about this rationally then and are not just making baseless assumptions.
Ego and malice are the only possible reasons to get rid of a name you can't market and the competition is going to turn into a household name.

[CoffeeCup]

Shazam is such a better name.

[The Boss]

Ego and malice are the only possible reasons to get rid of a name you can't market and the competition is going to turn into a household name.

The title is marketed. DC is not allowed to market the character. Changing the name of the character to that of the title that they were ALREADY marketing will not help them financially. It will only turn away long time fans.

Did the TV show "Too Close For Comfort" get help by changing the title to the star of the show (The Ted Knight Show)? No. Is "Archie Butler's Place" better remembered than "All In The Family" just because they change the title to the main character? No. They have a title that works and had a character that was established. There was no legal or financial reason to change it.

[MajorHoy]

. . . Is "Archie Butler's Place" better remembered than "All In The Family" just because they change the title to the main character?

I can't say I remember a show called "Archie Butler's Place" . . .

[Carabas]

DC is not allowed to market the character.

And you do not that this kind of is pretty much a colossally huge deal?

Did the TV show "Too Close For Comfort" get help by changing the title to the star of the show (The Ted Knight Show)? No. Is "Archie Butler's Place" better remembered than "All In The Family" just because they change the title to the main character? No. They have a title that works and had a character that was established. There was no legal or financial reason to change it.

I have no knowledge of these shows. The only Ted Knight I of know has a Cosmic Rod.