There was definitely a large anti-war sentiment. Other folks, many in the entertainment industry, were anti Nazi and let that be known through their works.
Captain Marvel (2019)
- Thread starter Skywalker
- Start date
Shitler?
I'm not so sure Billy wouldn't be a Nazi if he worked for one of Hearst's news papers as a reporter, since he couldn't sell stories to a right wing paper unless he was right wing himself. Meanwhile as a homeless 9 year old orphan reared during the Depression, given the powers of Superman, Billy would have had an axe to grind, starting with throwing the White house and congress into the sea, and then up to the North to Pole to find out why that #### Santa stopped giving him presents in 1935, shortly after his parents died.
(Did the Wizard Shazam "Mr Glass" Billy? Kill his parents, to manufacture an origin. Like The Chief did in The Doom Patrol? What if most of the orphan's in the DCU were failed attempts to build Captain Marvel, including Bruce Wayne and Kal-El?)
Little Orphan Annie, ditto. She should have kicked FDR in the Balls (which wouldn't have have been at all effective) for what happened to the Federal funding that was supposed to make her orphanage a swell place to live.
Billy worked for a radio and later TV station. It was owned by a guy named Sterling Morris. Come on Guy, do some research, This isn't Bleeding Cool or CBR.
Wikipedia says that he was selling news papers on a street corner in his origin.
I assumed that he dillydallied in print for a while before making the leap to radio.
My bad.
Although how could Batson work in print if he couldn't read?
Although-although, how could Batson work in radio if he couldn't read?
(Depending on when his homelessness started and when his schooling stopped, his reading level could have been very-very low.)
Obviously the Wisdom of Solomon gave h.... No... Captain Marvel may have been literate in many-many known languages, but basic Billy would re-become illiterate again as soon as he powered down.
Sad.
Research, Guy. Research. He went to school. He only wound up on the street because his uncle wanted to get his trust fund.
I'm struggling to understand why DC can't use the character's real name but the title is called Shazam. There's tons of history to show to any court and in the court of public opinion the character's name is Captain Marvel. Doesn't the character also have sidekicks who share his name? DC should either go to court or sell the character to Disney, but this is some horrible treatment to a character which had a rich history.
And in the Power of Shazam series, Mary also used the name "Captain Marvel"...she didn't go by "Mary Marvel". She and Billy were both Captain Marvel.
It's complicated, but the short version is that DC let the trademark lapse so Marvel invented a character with the name, and kept the title periodically in print so it didn't lapse back to DC. Not because Marvel wanted the name so much as they didn't want DC to have it.
This is at least partly why Marvel's "Captain Marvel" has remained consistently in print in one form or another, despite being persistently unpopular until very recently (when they had Carol take up the name.) The "original" Mar-Vell character was never the product of a creative imagination, but a mandated corporate legal manoeuvre in tights. Different authors would take a whack at it every now and again, but it's quite apparent that there was little love for the product from publishers & readership alike.
Last edited:
Considering that DC themselves more or less stole the name from Fawcett....that's karma.
Maybe. I honestly never researched how they got hold of it. I just assumed they acquired the IP assets (as they did with Charlton for The Question, Blue Beetle etc.) when the company folded.
They can call him Captain Marvel they just can't using as the title of a book. Most recently they did in Multiversity. It easier to use Shazam for the character and the book. Most folks call him Shazam anyway thanks to the TV show back in the 70's.
They didn't acquire it until the 70's, IIRC. By that time Marvel has a lock on the name. It was all on the up and up. No stealing involved.
Wiki says they licensed the characters in 1972, but didn't acquire them outright until 1994.
Part of the reason Fawcett went under in the first place is because DC sued them into oblivion.
Yeah. At the time, Captain Marvel was more popular than Superman and DC wasn’t happpy about this and so they sued them saying that he was a copy of Superman.
A strange thing to sue for these days since many heroes are similar now.
Cap was around for over decade while DC tried sue them. Fawcett won the first trial and DC then won on appeal. When Fawcett gave up on comics in the early the 50's the whole industry was going through a slump. That was an additional factor in giving up on the case. They settle out of court. Fawcett continued to publish magazines and books. Only the comics line was shut down.Yeah. At the time, Captain Marvel was more popular than Superman and DC wasn’t happpy about this and so they sued them saying that he was a copy of Superman.
A strange thing to sue for these days since many heroes are similar now.
I find it rather bland. I like names that mean something. The Gambit/Bishop/Cable naming style is horrible. If you call a character "Warbird" she's better have some damn wings.
