Originally posted by Mister Ed
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The DC Comics Thread Vol. 3
Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
-
-
Originally posted by "Chosen" View PostYeah he can, it's the intent of the word Shazam that causes the change.
I don't even get it. I thought DC won that lawsuit because they owned the Fawcett comics and the character pre-existed. either I missed part two of that or DC voluntarily gave up. Plus they still use the name 'Marvel family' for the range of characters, which is weird.Last edited by Space Cop; 09-08-2018, 01:21 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Space Cop View PostYeah and that has changed the whole dynamic for the worse, imho. Not to the extent that I won't read it, but to the extent that I would be very pleased to see it reversed.
I don't even get it. I thought DC won that lawsuit because they owned the Fawcett comics and the character pre-existed. either I missed part two of that or DC voluntarily gave up. Plus they still use the name 'Marvel family' for the range of characters, which is weird.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Space Cop View PostI don't even get it. I thought DC won that lawsuit because they owned the Fawcett comics and the character pre-existed. either I missed part two of that or DC voluntarily gave up. Plus they still use the name 'Marvel family' for the range of characters, which is weird.
- DC sues Fawcett alleging that Captain Marvel infringes on their Superman copyright
- While the legal proceedings drag on Captain Marvel sales fall to a point where it's no longer profitable for Fawcett to publish. They reach a settlement with DC, which includes ceasing the publication of Captain Marvel comics
- In the '60s Marvel trademarks the Captain Marvel name since Fawcett's trademark has lapsed due to them no longer publishing comic.
- DC licenses Captain Marvel and related characters from Fawcett in the '70s but since Marvel owns the Captain Marvel trademark they have to call the book Shazam
- DC buys the rights to Captain Marvel and related characters from Fawcett in the '90s.
Comment
-
Okay, thanks. I wasn't trying to suggest I knew the details with any authority.
But what Omega said seems right too. For a while, they didn't title the book Captain Marvel (to avoid lawsuit) but still called him that within, so what made them back off to where they don't use it within the pages?Last edited by Space Cop; 09-08-2018, 03:54 PM.
Comment
-
I sometimes feel like it might have turned out better if Marvel had been the company to buy Cap from Fawcett. Assuming DC couldn't still say he was a superman rippoff, Marvel could have marketed Cap properly and introduced him into their universe.
Comment
-
Or maybe that was the real reason DC snagged him when they did. So Marvel COULDN'T have him. Better to keep him flopping around than to see Marvel succeed with him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Space Cop View PostOkay, thanks. I wasn't trying to suggest I knew the details with any authority.
But what Omega said seems right too. For a while, they didn't title the book Captain Marvel (to avoid lawsuit) but still called him that within, so what made them back off to where they don't use it within the pages?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Big Daddy Dave Skywalker View PostI sometimes feel like it might have turned out better if Marvel had been the company to buy Cap from Fawcett. Assuming DC couldn't still say he was a superman rippoff, Marvel could have marketed Cap properly and introduced him into their universe.
I don't see the reasoning being that sound, calling the hero the same name as what's on the title of the comic was never a dealbreaker before. You look at Detective Comics you know it's Batman even if the word 'Batman' isn't on the damn cover. Same with Superman and Action Comics, etc.
And had Marvel bought the rights to the REAL Capt. Marvel and Co. he'd have already been replaced three times with SJW themed characters, had a robotic arm, been a Young Avenger, Avenger, etc. and he would have ALWAYS lost to Thor, Wolverine, etc. I'm fine with him at DC LOL
Last edited by Ωmega Man; 09-08-2018, 10:56 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ωmega Man View PostI don't see the reasoning being that sound, calling the hero the same name as what's on the title of the comic was never a dealbreaker before. You look at Detective Comics you know it's Batman even if the word 'Batman' isn't on the damn cover. Same with Superman and Action Comics, etc.
Speaking of the name change did we ever get new names for the rest of the Shazam family? Is Mary Marvel now Mary Shazam? Because that sounds stupid as hell.
Comment
-
Originally posted by "Chosen" View PostYeah he can, it's the intent of the word Shazam that causes the change.
Comment
-
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypo View PostEh, those two are completely different in my opinion given how long they've been around and frankly given how much more known Batman and Superman are. And even if you say it's not an issue from a comic perspective yea but I'm sure they factored in the possibility of a movie and Marvel being able to make a Captain Marvel movie called Captain Marvel.
Speaking of the name change did we ever get new names for the rest of the Shazam family? Is Mary Marvel now Mary Shazam? Because that sounds stupid as hell.
Comment
Comment