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 . . .

[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.

[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.

[Osiris-Rex]

Being a DC fan and not paying much attention to Marvel, until there was talk of Marvel making a Captain Marvel movie I didn't even know Marvel had gender swapped their Captain Marvel.
What was the point of owning the name if they weren't going to use the original character? For me the real Captain Marvel will always be Billy Batson.

[Ascended]

Well, the company is named Marvel and this was the Captain Marvel name.....I don't think its hard to see why they wanted it.

As for Billy, I know the legal rights to the character were really muddled and blurry, and the character hadn't done very well since the early 50's or so. Perhaps Stan Lee just didn't think he was worth the hassle. At that point, I think the character and the name had already been divorced from each other anyway so he might've had to cut two separate deals.....though I could be wrong there.

[seismic-2]

For me the real Captain Marvel will always be Billy Batson.

Totally. I shall always think of Billy and Mary rather than "Shazam".

[Robotman]

i also hate that he's just called Shazam. i would much prefer if they went with Captain Thunder. which was actually Bill Parker's first choice for the name until they found out it was already taken by another character.

at the end of the day it's DC's own fault for the situation they're in with Shazam. they helped to drive Fawcett out of business with multiple law suits over Cap's similarities to Superman. Tired of battling DC in court for years, Fawcett agreed to settle with the company and stop publishing the Captain Marvel books. When Fawcett went out of business DC could have snatched up the rights but they didn't. this gave Marvel Comics the opportunity to copyright the name some years later.

Maybe if WB would have made a Shazam movie 10 years ago they could have called him Captain Marvel. but now that Marvel movies rule the world and their own Captain Marvel is about to hit the big screen, i think DC will always refer to the character as simply "Shazam".

[daBronzeBomma]

Well, the company is named Marvel and this was the Captain Marvel name.....I don't think its hard to see why they wanted it.

As for Billy, I know the legal rights to the character were really muddled and blurry, and the character hadn't done very well since the early 50's or so. Perhaps Stan Lee just didn't think he was worth the hassle. At that point, I think the character and the name had already been divorced from each other anyway so he might've had to cut two separate deals.....though I could be wrong there.

I recall Stan saying in an interview or something once that he really, really loved the NAME "Captain Marvel", and that it was such a shame that a name that would automatically doubly help his company was just lying in legal limbo since Fawcett closed up shop in the 1950s.

Stan loved the NAME alone, didn't want the baggage of the character at the time.

"Captain Thunder" was a later stand - in name that I think is still owned by Roy Thomas, IIRC, so that's probably why the perfect substitute name couldn't be used.

What I don't get is why DC didn't just come up with a new name that they could own outright? Like, "Captain Lightning" or "Captain Maelstrom" or "Captain Power" or "Captain Fawcett" or just Captain something. They can't all have been taken.

Instead, we get Shazam!: great battlecry, lousy superhero name.

[9th.]

I think Shazam is a much better name

[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