EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Superman/Shazam! Director Joaquim Dos Santos

The Cover art is Incredible! I'm anxious to see all the shorts more then the full lengths.

Maybe you should use one of these pics instead, since theres already an article with the DVD cover

Black Adam is awesome.

This movie is spectauclar

GLFanboy - Well, if you're REALLY trying to call me out on my Captain Marvel knowledge...

When he was owned by Fawcett, Captain Marvel was THE MOST POPULAR comic book character - outselling BOTH Superman AND Batman (that's a FACT).

DC instigated a series of copyright infringement lawsuits against Fawcett over the 'similarities' between the Big Red Cheese and their own Big Blue Schoolboy (also a FACT).

As Captain Marvel was Fawcett's only real 'big-hitter', they soon went bankrupt because of the suits (FACT).

DC STOLE (oh, I'm sorry, "PURCHASED") Captain Marvel from the bankrupt Fawcett for a song and burried him, so that he could never compete with their first-stringers again (FACT)

Some time later, Marvel Comics (with their own Captain Mar-Vell), instigated their own lawsuits for the naming rights. As Big Red was now only being used OCCASIONALLY, Marvel's arguement was one of propriety. DC didn't give a crap about Big Red and Marvel won, even though Captain MARVEL had been around DECADES before Mar-Vell. THAT's why all Captain Marvel titles are now called 'Shazam' or 'Power of Shazam', etc. - further pushing him down the comic book food chain (FACT).

You say that DC has been trying "over the last 30+ years to reinvigorate the character," yet all they've done for him was treat him like a second-stringer and throw him a FEW bones evey now and again. Artists like Alex Ross (a HUGE Captain Marvel fan) have tried on NUMEROUS occasions to get something going for the Big Red Cheese, and each time the brass at DC has shot them down - does that sound like a company that actually CARES for the character? As far as they've been concerned (until recently), the only thing they truly care about was their 'holy trinity' (Batman, Superman, and to a lesser extent, Wonder Woman). They are the Kirk, Spock and McCoy of DC's USS Enterprise. Captain Marvel (and the rest of the DC universe) are just crew.

You were saying something about 'researching'...?

@logan I love how you can attribute "(FACT)" to your own commentary and interpretation of events.

I don't think anyone would ever dispute the fact that Captain Marvel outsold Superman in the 40's. I think that's pretty common knowledge and I don't recal disputing that but if it makes you feel better you can pretend I did.

You're arguement for DC "stealing" Captain Marvel is soley based on the premise that DC Comics didn't have a legitimate case for infringement. They did (unless you can think of any other superhero's prior to Superman who could fly under their own power, wore a cape, had super strength, a secret identity and an almost identical face)!

The other thing you fail to mention is that the courts found the lawsuit to be VALID. Fawcett settled with DC out of court. They paid DC something in the area of 300-400K for damages and agreed not to publish Captain Marvel after that.

The lawsuites are not the only contributing factor to Cap's downfall. BESIDES the lawsuit there were MASSIVELY declining sales for Captain Marvel in the late 40's which contributed to their decision to settle. And by the way, Fawcett didn't go BANKRUPT after the suit, they simply closed their comics division since Cap was all they really had going for them and sales were declining. Fawcett itself, operated well into the 80's. It's not like DC kicked a 3 legged dog.

DC didn't even begin to aquire the license to the character until 1972! And what the hell was Fawcett gonna do with him? They couldn't publish anything with him because of the settlement! It took DC almost 20 years to fully aquire all the rights to the character, the final rights were aquired in 1991. Not exactly something they would do if they didn't care about the character.

And Marvel didn't win it's lawsuit over the name Captain Marvel because "DC didn't care about" it. Marvel gained the trademark in the 60's in the time between the Fawcett lawsuit and '72 when DC began aquiring the license. That means, if you are unclear with how the law works, MARVEL HAD A LEGAL RIGHT TO IT!! How you go from Marvel had a legal right to the trademarked name "Captain Marvel" to your assessment that "as DC didn't give a crap...Marvel won" is beyond me.

I don't know how old you are but I can tell you this: Captain Marvel stopped being publish in 1953. He didn't appear again until 1973 by DC Comics. I don't know about you but I have to think if it weren't for DC Comics keeping that character alive YOU never would have even heard of him! Nothing says DC had to ever let him see the light of day ever again. So instead of shitting on DC, why don't you A) acknowledge that Fawcett infringed on their copyright and B) thank them for bringing him back after 20 years of laying dormant and subsequently keeping him around and in the public consciousness for another 40!! The only reason you know about him is because of DC COMICS!

Your research is fine. Your juvenile interpretation of your findings leaves a lot to be desired.

@Witty Sad thing is I'm not even a huge Cap fan or Supes fan. I just hate fuzzy logic.

Is it correct to say that, when Captain Marvel came along DC Comics "copied" some of the concepts in his comic? For example: when additions to the Marvel family came along: Mary Marvel, Capt. Marvel Jr., Superman comics came out with Superboy and Supergirl?

@connielingos Not really. Although Superboy didn't appear until '45, Siegel and Shuster had been floating Superboy around since the late 30's before Captain Marvel existed. I think DC's decision to go ahead with the character had much more to do with the success of Robin. Kids like heroes they can relate to. The success of Billy Batson/Cap may also have played a part in DC's decision to go ahead and publish Superboy but considering that Superboy was conceptualized prior to Captain Marvel's release and the doubling of Batman sales due to the immediate success of Robin, I don't think it's fair to say DC copied Captain Marvel. There was already a huge growing market for teen heroes/sidekicks.
(I wouldn't attribute Supergirl to Cap. Marvel at all since Supergirl didn't appear until 1958. Long after Cap was out of print, Golden Age characters were nixed, and the Silver Age was already underway.)

GLfanboy - I have to crrect a FEW of your assessments:

"You're arguement for DC "stealing" Captain Marvel is soley based on the premise that DC Comics didn't have a legitimate case for infringement. They did (unless you can think of any other superhero's prior to Superman who could fly under their own power, wore a cape, had super strength, a secret identity and an almost identical face)!"

- No, my arguement is one based on the series of events, not for 'infirngement'. As for your infringement arguement, your logic would dictate that ANY non-DC character that flies, has super strength, a cape and a secret identity would be subject to lawsuit? DC didn't 'cpoyright' flying, super-strong, cape-wearing superheros that live secret lives. Now if the good Captain derrived his powers from the fact that he was from another planet instead of acquring them through magic, I could see the argument.

"The lawsuites are not the only contributing factor to Cap's downfall. BESIDES the lawsuit there were MASSIVELY declining sales for Captain Marvel in the late 40's which contributed to their decision to settle. And by the way, Fawcett didn't go BANKRUPT after the suit, they simply closed their comics division since Cap was all they really had going for them and sales were declining. Fawcett itself, operated well into the 80's."

- No, the lawsuits were one of the PRIMARY reasons Fawcett pulled out of comic books. Captain Marvel WAS their ONLY heavy hitter, and with the loss of him, Fawcett's comics division was defunct by 1953, not the "80's" (as you claim).

"DC didn't even begin to aquire the license to the character until 1972! And what the hell was Fawcett gonna do with him? They couldn't publish anything with him because of the settlement! It took DC almost 20 years to fully aquire all the rights to the character, the final rights were aquired in 1991. Not exactly something they would do if they didn't care about the character."

Correction - in 1972 DC LICENCED the Big Red Cheese and in 1980 acquired him outright.

"And Marvel didn't win it's lawsuit over the name Captain Marvel because "DC didn't care about" it. Marvel gained the trademark in the 60's in the time between the Fawcett lawsuit and '72 when DC began aquiring the license. That means, if you are unclear with how the law works, MARVEL HAD A LEGAL RIGHT TO IT!! How you go from Marvel had a legal right to the trademarked name "Captain Marvel" to your assessment that "as DC didn't give a crap...Marvel won" is beyond me.

Marvel didn't have a legal right to the trademark name 'Captain Marvel' - it LEGALLY belonged to Fawcett. Just because they couldn't publish any more stories, didn't mean that they also lost the right to the NAME. As a licensee, did DC say ANYTHING about this? NO, they didn't. And when DC finally acquired the full rights, did they press Marvel Comics for THEIR infringement on the property? NO, they didn't.

"I don't know about you but I have to think if it weren't for DC Comics keeping that character alive YOU never would have even heard of him! Nothing says DC had to ever let him see the light of day ever again. So instead of shitting on DC, why don't you A) acknowledge that Fawcett infringed on their copyright and B) thank them for bringing him back after 20 years of laying dormant and subsequently keeping him around and in the public consciousness for another 40!! The only reason you know about him is because of DC COMICS!"

- Actually I knew about his Fawcett days - I've got a lot of them in my collection (no, I'm not that old, I'm just an avid comic book collector). And I never said, "DC had to ever let him see the light of day ever again," I said DC treated him like a 'second-stringer' - a character that once was beating the capes off of their big-leaguers (Superman & Batman).

I just re-read the entire thread and it's obvious from our conversation here that we both know A LOT more than the average casual Captain Marvel reader. While we could endlessly go back and forth about sticking points, it's clear that we both share an affinity for the Big Red Cheese. I say 'agree-to disagree' over this and let's both look forward to this DVD release. As far as I'm concerned regarding Captain Marvel, something is better than nothing, right?

On second thought, let's just go grab a beer! lol

GLFanboy -

1. If you read my updated post, you'll notice that I took out the Wikipeada slam. After reading it, I realized that the remark was cruel and baseless - my apologies. I tend to be a bit 'passionate' about things near and dear to my heart and oftentimes write what I feel wihtout thinking when in that mood.

2. Court rulings are subject to interpretation on how each side presents their case, not necessarily on who is 'right' or 'wrong'. Just ask Steve Jobs about the ruling against him with the Apple vs Microsoft case (LMAO!)

3. In the Marvel vs DC vs Fawcett case, their arguement SHOULD have always been, "We had the name FIRST, Marvel's 'claim' to it came after the fact."

4. The problem with Captain Marvel and his waning popularity is mostly due to all of the legal bruhaha we've been discussing. My arguement is that if Big Red was allowed to evolve over time naturally (like Batman or Superman), his popularity might have once again reached heights of former years (or even surpassed it).

5. Do you want to be Palestine or Isreal (LOL)?

Deal - first one's on me! We can discuss the INFINATE potetial of DC's 'lesser-known' charaters (like the Big Red Cheese) and how DC/WB could/SHOULD be exploit them (LMFAO!)!

@Niknik, I will be happy to check out the two references you mention but regarding this thread however, I think my position is being misunderstood. I'm not, in any way, trying to say that I agree with how DC (yes, then National) went about shoring up competition. The point that I'm trying to make, is simply that DC did what any company would have done if they had created something and everyone started popping up with their own tweaked versions of their characters ESPECIALLY if they started outselling them. Regarding Captain Marvel specifically, an appelate court found their case to be valid and ruled in DC's favor. DC of course, would legal the sh!@ out of them but that's what every single corporation tries to do. Is it fair? No. I'm not disputing that. I'm simply saying they had a right to challenge it and it held up in court. I would also argue that they never "broke" Fawcett. Fawcett was a big publishing company with comics being a very small division within the larger company. They were quite capable of fighting the case in court. Fawcett Publications did a cost assessment and determined that the fight wasn't worth the effort. Also as I mentioned, DC didn't BEGIN to aquire the license until 72. If I'm interpreting you correctly, you're saying that in '53, after the lawsuit, DC aquired the rights to the character at that time and then sat on them for 20 years which just isn't accurate.

@Logan I'm gonna stick to my promise:) And no worries, I too tend to let my passions and penchant for smart assery get the best of me.
Besides I don't want to even touch your question about which side I would pick! lol
And if exploting lesser known DC characters is the subject of discussion we'll be closing the joint down! Good times!
Thanks for the enjoyable debate. To be continued! lol

Niknik - NIIIIICE! I've got that issue (being a Big Red Cheese fan, I just HAD to have it just for the cover alone - LMAO!)!