Superman Through the Ages! Forum

Would I have my Classic Comics Fan Badge taken away if I was to say that Mr. Tawny, the Talking Tiger was an annoying and unloveable character, and his introduction to the cast was officially the moment that Captain Marvel jumped the shark?

There's been a lot of talk recently about a Captain Marvel reboot or update. In one column, Erik Larsen excoriated post-Crisis writers for just not getting the point with the character, and he points to the fact that Captain Marvel is no longer the big name that Superman is. However, I think this argument is missing one thing:

Captain Marvel has NOT received continuous publication, like Superman has.

Unlike Superman, our definition of who Captain Marvel is, and what his stories are about, is perpetually trapped in amber in the 1940s-1950s.

If you look at Superman stories in the early to late 1950s, they are very similar to Captain Marvel stories of around the same time: an emphasis on whimsical oddity and hallucinogenic concepts. These were the years that gave us Siegel's addition of Mxytzplk (later Mxyzptlk), for instance, Superbaby, Krypto Mouse, and the giant paint set in the Fortress of Solitude. Superman was...well, he was kind of goofy (not in a bad way, of course, like Terra-Man would later be).

I don't need to tell Superman's history, but the point here is, every five years, his stories became different, and as times changed, Superman changed as well, and rather gracefully for the most part (the very seventies Star Wars grandeur of SUPERMAN VS. MOHAMMED ALI come to mind).

Supergirl started out being a Mary Marvel equivalent in the 1950s, but it's no coincidence everybody says her best stories were in the 1960s. And come the 1970s, Supergirl was living everywhere from Florida to Chicago, being everything from soap star and model. If Supergirl started out as Mary Marvel, eventually she stopped and became something else. If that's the case, what would have happened to the actual Mary Marvel in the same time?

Elements that proliferated in Superman's stories in the 1950s and 1960s, like for instance, Kryptonian monsters like the Flame Dragon or King Krypton, were less apparent come later decades.

Brainiac came in the 1950s as a rather goofy looking alien tyrant, and came into the 1980s as a very spooky liquid metal supercomputer out to find and replace God.

What is the POINT to all this?

The point is that if Superman's history is any indication, Captain Marvel ditching his 1950s-style whimsy and acid-trip abnormality isn't the worst idea in the world, and that these elements can't be pointed as "necessary" to who Captain Marvel is, and how his stories should be told, because I bet if he had kept on being published, we'd have a very different conception of CM. Hey, if Gaiman's SANDMAN had been written in the 1950s, it would have been more like LITTLE NEMO IN SLUMBERLAND.

This comparison works, because the model of how to do a Captain Marvel update should be SANDMAN. There in SANDMAN, there was weird and intriguing idea after idea, and a wonderful sense of humor, but Gaiman didn't throw in a goddamn "Talking Tiger." Its aesthetic was very contemporary.

This is not to say that an untalented person getting their hands on CM will work. What it does mean, however, is that a talented person can do a Marvel story without a talking tiger, and it doesn't mean it becomes an exercise in futility.

So, here's what Superman can teach Captain Marvel:

Updating your enemies is a good idea. Villains work because of the fear they are able to create. The trick is, figuring out what about them works and emphasizing what's needed to make them interesting. Brainiac from the outset didn't understand human behavior, but this was used to make him cold, scary, and alien much later.

Not making use of some supporting cast members isn't necessarily bad. The Super-Pets vanished off the scene post-Weisenger, for instance (with the exception of Krypto). for the same reason Bette and Kathy Kane did in Batman's book: they wanted to tell different kinds of stories that they're participation in would have been inappropriate.

Don't just do a straight up reboot. Keep what you need in play to not tell the same story over again. God, the single most annoying thing about the Byrne reboot was the way they felt they had to bring in new villains "again" and tell the same stories "again." I can just imagine Helfer, Karl Kesel and the rest chomping on cigars, asking "hey, how can we bring back Terra-Man...but cool?" Do we really need another version of the Monster Society of Evil story? I mean, we've already had the big ending blown for us about Mr. Mind.

Think about how Captain Marvel can interact with the DC Universe. I, and many others, have insisted that Captain Marvel ought to have his own earth...but maybe that's because nothing that interesting was done with him on DC-Earth. Superman, come the 1970s, had Krypton's story interwoven with the Guardians of the Universe for interesting effect, and the bringing in of Shazam elements can benefit everyone.

Do put a twist on a very boring idea. Not every idea in the Super-Mythos is a winner, and if you get the opportunity, put a spin on it that makes it interesting. Ambush Bug first showed up as a villain, but then was reinterpreted as a demented mischevious character in comedy adventures.

A friend of mine were talking on one occasion, and he said something like, "you know, if Hillbilly Marvel was a woman, 'Billie' Batson, a sort of Li'l Abner type dame, it would save the entire idea of the Lieutenant Marvels, because suddenly their entire relationship would be recontextualized."

Superman's evolution has worked precisely because he never went out of print.  Changes happened for the most part gradually and painlessly as he adapted to the needs of each new era.  That's not true for Cap, so changing him enough to "work" in the modern era is tantamount to creating a new character from wholecloth (there's an idea.  Why hasn't anyone managed THAT little trick in the last 20 years or so?)

The frank truth is Cap has never worked as a character since his Fawcett days.  Whether this is because the various re-treads have changed him too much or not enough is a matter for debate.  But when you look at his history it's pretty cut and dried: 40s to 50s = biggest thing on the stands,  70s to today = FLOP.  So you can't blame people for thinking Fawcett "got" Cap in ways no one else ever has.

Or ever will.  If the next series is a top seller, I'll eat my Shazam Archives.

Hm. Good point, bad example. The post-reboot Terra-Man really was a completely different character from the pre- version. They had essentially nothing in common apart from the name. (And if I recall right, Helfer had left by that time, and Kesel had only done inking.)

A better example might be the Sand Thing. Simonson's retelling of that story was completely pointless, IMO, especially since ST was a one-shot threat who didn't need to be brought back anyway.

As for Cap'n Marvel, I think the definitive "modern" take on him was Alan Moore's Marvelman (Miracleman in the USA).

Yes, but notice how much had to change for that to work.  Alter-ego Mike Moran was allowed to grow to middle age and get paunchy, with his Marvelman persona being some idealized version of himself that he both envies and resents (and who impregnates Mike's wife!) Kid Marvelman becomes a villain, and a terrifying one at that.  And so on.  Moore took everything that was goofy and harmless about the concept and turned it upside down into something terrifying.  And yes, it worked. But DC would never have the nerve to do that with Captain Marvel, even in this dark age.  They'll keep Billy a kid (albeit likely a more in-your-face, annoying kid) and so on.

And like every other spin on the character since 1974, it'll be Captain Marvel in name only.  Next!

If Talky Tawny was the inspiration for Astro City's Looney Leo, he was a worthwhile character.

An anthology of "lost" 1960s, 70s, and 80s stories starring the Marvel Family might be fun (written in the styles of 60s Jerry Siegel, 70s Joe Simon, 80s Alan Moore, etc.).

The two contemporary Capt Marvel treatments I can think of are New Frontier (Billy eats icecream on the moon, takes orders from a nanny-like Zatanna --now there's a series idea!-- and keeps out of human affairs) and the JLU cartoon show (Superman and Billy fight but Billy leaves the League because of all the politics).  Not exactly Otto Binder, but what would be?

Of Talking Tigers and Terra-Men:  Mr.Tawny is not the Legion of Superpets.  An equivalent in the Earth-S universe would be something like "The Animal Society of Goodness" and he is only one member.  At best his equivalent is Steve Lombard or Krypto.  He is an individual member of the suporting cast with just as much potential or history as Uncle Marvel, Ibac, etc.  And don't get me started on my favorite and most iconic 70s villain.  Terra Man is a good example of how Superman didn't evovle: wacky villains were still de rigeur in the Bronze Age.

I do agree that Earth-S could use some more romance (Hillbilly or otherwise).

I don't agree that Gaiman is a good example.  Would he have dropped Kirby's talking tiger Prince Tuftan from his literate revamp of Kamandi?

To everyone who posted here:

Who was the biggest and most important creative force behind Captain Marvel?

Otto Binder that's who!

What comic book character did he take over after The Big Red Cheese went away?

Superman, that's who!

Who do we have to credit for nearly everything that we know and love about Superman in the Silver Age?

that's right kiddies, Otto Binder!

So in the 1970's, DC brought back C.C. Beck to draw Captian Marvel, but who didn't they bring back?

That's right, Otto Binder.

And thus, while it has been the best DC Cap they made (and I will still get the Showcase collection of it), it just can't compare to Otto Binder's Marvel. Truth is, nothing can.

Since then DC has restarted, revamped and updated Captain Marvel many times! Always tryng to make him more modern and each and every single time, they bombed.

remember these?

2nd revamp from 1987
http://www.comics.org/covers.lasso?SeriesID=3380

3rd revamp from 1995
http://www.comics.org/indexstatus.lasso?SeriesID=5246

and the current one which is number 4

Also the dreaded Justice League comics, those practially count as well.

compare that to this one book:

http://www.comics.org/details.lasso?id=31771

Which one you rather read and own?

I have only one thing to add...

"Big Dog, Big Dog, Bow Wow Wow...We'll Fight Evil, Now, Now, Now!" --Space Canine Patrol Agency

Silliness doesn't seem to be particularly confined to any five year interval in Superman, despite his evolution, but it often broke out in different ways in the characters around him...

I agree - and what I'm arguing is that a really severe revamp, albeit one with imaginative power, wouldn't be quite so bad an idea.

Whether someone that takes the project has the chops for it is another question entirely, of course, I'm just saying that perhaps the reason Cap hasn't done so well or been as good is not because writers don't get the spirit of the original, but because Captain Marvel suffers from permanent arrested development.



People say the same about Plastic Man; nobody but Cole got him. but I'd argue that Plas suffered from two problems that are identical to Captain Marvel's:

1) conscientious, nostalgic aping of the original stories, but in a context where that aping just doesn't work. Instead of capturing the spirit of the original, it literally duplicates the way they chose to tell their stories.

2) Nobody's really been assigned to Plastic Man that would get the character. As much as I admire Martin Pasko for his incredible Superman and Wonder Woman stories, he was not a good fit for Plastic Man, and certainly not a good fit for Cole-aping.

The only works I'd argue that can't be done without the original creator and original set of circumstances that produced them, are deeply personal works that only the original creator understood. An example would be the Steve Gerber OMEGA THE UNKNOWN or HOWARD THE DUCK, and possibly DEFENDERS, or the Jack Kirby "Fourth World" series.



Well, let me see if I get what you're saying: Marvel Family was sort of like the Lee/Kirby FANTASTIC FOUR in the sense that it was a product of two creators coming together that were bigger than the sum of their parts, who caught lightning in a bottle?

...actually, this may be it.

Maybe it was a unique combination of factors and talents those two men had. However, I'm inclined to think not, because unlike FANTASTIC FOUR, which came from nowhere and was very personal, the Marvel Family, as extraordinary an achievement as it was, was a comic dominated by one great idea (kid becomes an adult hero) that was very much a product of the comics world that produced it, surrounded by periphery like the Talking Tiger and Uncle Marvel that can be jettisoned. In other words, I suspect the reason that the revamps haven't worked is not because a revamp is an exercise in futility for a work only the original creators really got: it's more a combination of bad luck and failure to place talent properly.

If they get someone like, say, Dan Slott or Busiek to write Captain Marvel, now that's different.

There is a category of characters that are so very unintuitive, whose central idea is hard to grasp and idiosyncratic, that consequently they are almost never written correctly. Doctor Strange is another such character, as is the Doom Patrol.

(Green Arrow's solo ventures, I'd argue, have never worked not because he's a character that's hard to grasp, but because he's a character, less common at DC but certainly more common at team-centered Marvel, whose best contributions are to group dynamic and teams; take GA out of the Sattellite League and that whole dynamic and he's less fun and has less to do).



Well, the Ordway POWER OF SHAZAM! lasted for several years as a series; certainly not a raging blockbuster on the level of the Busiek AVENGERS, but certainly many more issues than the original HAWKMAN series (which ended at 23 before becoming HAWKMAN AND THE ATOM), the 1967 SPECTRE series (which lasted for 10 issues) or HOWARD THE DUCK (a raging success, but one that only lasted 30+ issues) or the Marv Woflman NOVA (which lasted a little more than two years). And it should be noted that the comics climate in the bust era 1990s was significantly less healthy than today.

I don't know if that's a fair criticism - not because some of the Captain Marvel reboots weren't clueless (they were, especially the 1980s SHAZAM! series, which totally missed the point of Captain Marvel and had him be merely an adult Billy Batson), but because actually, I'd argue the revamps, especially the Jerry Ordway one, didn't go far ENOUGH.

Well, I don't know if you seen the new one, which IMO goes too far, but you might like it, LOL.

The whole Marvel Family gets a make over.

Captain Marvel nows wears a white supersuit with a hood.
Captain Marvel Jr. nows wears the classic red superuit and is all buff, he now looks how Captain marvel used to look.
Mary Marvel also gets a new white supersuit.

The series now has heavy focus on Magic.

image: http://www.marvelfamily.com/images/misc/NewMF.jpg

some more:



Interview highlights from an interview with Judd Winick:

    * Winick: So – long story short, I love Captain Marvel – I’ve wanted to do Captain Marvel for years.
    * Winick: He lacks an identity. Part of it is because, like the major characters in the DCU, he’s incredibly old.
    * Winick: he’s been another version of Superman. Yes, he says a magic word and gets his powers from the gods, but he still puts on a cape, has dark hair, and is exactly the same height as Superman. He needed his own identity.
    * Winick: This will be the new playground of Captain Marvel – the realm of magic.
    * Winick: There is going to be a shakeup. Thing will change.
    * Winick: My big quote on this is that, “’the big red cheese’ is dead,” meaning that the silliness and the ridiculousness that have surrounded Captain Marvel is gone. We’re not looking at him that way. You keep that in there, and people end up not taking him seriously.
    * Winick: We’re cleaning house – no fat guys in red suits with their guts hanging out flying around! There’s only one fat guy in a red suit that flies around, and that’s Santa – not Uncle Marvel.
    * Winick: There is something cool about Tawny ... a dandy who’s a talking tiger just doesn’t cut it today. I want to be faithful to the original, but at the same time, make it work now.
    * Porter: I think we're hoping this book will attract a diverse group of readers and hopefully this will appeal to the majority of them. With the magical and mystical themes in Trials of Shazam, we hope a Vertigo reader will feel at home because they are generally used to a more experimental looking style of art.
    * Porter: Needless to say, I jumped at the chance to work on the Big Red Cheese and then proceeded to do back flips down the hallway out of excitement.
    * Porter: I've had a fond feeling for the Big Red Lug for a long time. It all started way back when there was that live action TV series.
    * Porter: I don't want to give anything away about the plan for the series so I will just say that there are huge changes for the Marvel family and characters will be redefined.
    * Porter: It's 22 pages of escapism and modern day mythology. If you're not familiar with the Marvel Family, then this a great series for you to start with because it's all being redefined. And if you're a veteran Marvel-ite, I promise you that you will be reading work that was created with passion and a respect for the characters.
    * Winick: Captain Marvel Jr. is no longer going to be called Captain Marvel Jr.
    * Winick: Billy Batson’s upgrade will be another key part of the story, as he takes on the role of the former wizard Shazam ... Billy Batson’s character will remain the same, only “kicked upstairs to management.”
    * Winink: “I’m kind of a Goth kid, and I’d like to tap into that.”

sources: http://www.marvelfamily.com/


Are you happy now?



I am not  :(

True - but I've always argued that in any kind of series, there should be elements that let you do atypical kinds of stories, e.g. Mxyzptlk allowing for comedy stories, the Phantom Zone for weird horror stories, etc. There's a difference between having an outlet for that sort of thing among the characters around Superman, and having that sort of thing be the theme of his main book regularly.

As little as I like Judd "I brought back Jason Todd" Winnick and have never seen him do a single story that I really LIKE, as much resistance as I mentally try to muster to everything he said here...I really can't find it in me to disagree with many things he said. He slammed Mr. Tawny, the Scrappy-Doo of the Marvel Family, and how could I possibly be against that? :D Winnick says "I don't think an idea like that would work today," but what Judd fails to point out is that Mr. Tawny was ALWAYS snotty and useless. Like I said, he's the "shark jump" point.

Though I can't help but feel there's something rather insincere about Winnick flogging the dead horse of the Lieutenant Marvels. "Hey, I'm cool! Look! I don't like these guys!" For Godsakes, the Lieutenant Marvels haven't shown up in more than 20 years, and before that, they were peripheral figures at best! Sure, Fat Marvel cut a really undignified visual, and perhaps its for the best he isn't being used again, but this is a little like a Superman writer taking over and pointing out that he isn't going to use Zha-Vam. Huh?

And the whole "he's an inferior Superman" thing gets my goat, because it just isn't true, and shows a lack of understanding of some of the things that make CM unique. Also, there's a difference between doing a revamp that contemporizes a character, and a revamp that misses the point and divorces them from their essential absurdity; in other words, ditch the Goatman, but keep the Big Red Cheese moniker.

On the other hand, the prospect of Billy Batson taking over for the Wizard Shazam is an idea that is one of the more intriguing yet, and I don't find it threatening in the least.

I've never liked the concept of "compressed time" whereby nonsense is perpetrated on the Marvel and DC universes like "the Marvel Universe has only been around for thirteen years," which gets a spit-take from me every time. I'm entirely against the concept of what Stan Lee calls "the illusion of change," where a status quo is perpetually maintained and it only LOOKS like it will be altered. As in, no matter how bad Reed and Sue's marital problems get, they will never be divorced or separated permanently. If a world is supposed to be real, if it's supposed to have any versimilitude at all, characters should grow and change in lasting ways - and sometimes grow old, too. And sometimes receive these sort of "promotions." And sometimes they should quit and take new jobs and maybe even die.

Charlie Brown will never kick that football, but we're not supposed to accept Charlie Brown as "real," either, or care about him, at least in the way we should treat, say, the Vision and the Scarlet Witch.

This is why there's such a fan appeal for LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES and X-MEN: these characters grew up while we watched them. The book was about them being teenagers, but they eventually stopped being teenagers. When Duo Damsel and Bouncing Boy got married, it was for real; not a hoax, dream or Imaginary Story that afterward everything would return to the fossilized status quo. When Marvel Girl died, she died for real (which is why I'd argue her resurrection, as well thought out as it was, was the biggest break of trust with an audience yet perpetrated).

Super Monkey, those quotes are just about the saddest thing I've ever read.

Loeb opened the genie on that particular bottle, and Winick simply stepped through it.  

Like his ex-roommate Brad Meltzer, I have a hard time getting a good read on Winick.  There's stuff of his where I think he did good (Exiles, briniging back the Guardians -- it was about darn time!), and there's times when I think his first, best destiny should be writing Barry Ween and he should stop pfutzing in the DCverse altogether.  His Captain Marvel sounds kind of like Juniper Lee, which could be promising.

Mort Weisinger?

He was Smart enough to hire the right people.

read this thread for the full list:

http://superman.nu/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1867

Poor Cap, I've always had a special place in my heart for the "Big Red Cheese". He's just published in the wrong way. Cap's incorporation in the DC Universe was a big mistake. Most likely, we'll see this truth clearer when Winick and Porter's revamp launches followed by Jeff Smith's Monster Society.


"At DC’s Brave New World panel, Mike Carlin made several comments about Jeff Smith’s upcoming Captain Marvel limited series, Captain Marvel and the Monster Society of Evil. I guess that answers the question of whether the book is still coming out, despite the upcoming Trials of Shazam! mini-series. Smith’s four-issue series is nearly done, with three issues of the four issues already in the can, and should be ready to ship early next year. It will be more in line with the historical portrayal of the character. The book was first announced in San Diego a few years ago, so it’s fitting that it would be brought up again." -Newsarama

"I'm having a blast doing it. I'm a Captain Marvel fan, and this is the Cheese story I always wanted to see!"- Jeff Smith

Oh boy - I was hedging on the whole Cap'n Marvel revamp, and now I find it's even worse.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again... Get Cap'n the hell out of mainstream DCU.  Some of my most favorite stories were with him and Supes teaming up to handle a menace that goes across the dimensions.  But until someone can think with the idea of 2 base-Superman (Marvel and the Supes himself) heros existing in the same universe without being redundant - then get him out.  Send him to Marvel for all I care - but get him out.

All I could think when I saw the picture above was "how long until he becomes the Spectre?"

Julian, I'd argue that Plastic Man fits your criteria of "deeply personal works that only the original creator understood."  Plas and Cole were made for each other, and neither's as much fun without the other.

Cap should be a different story.  After all his tales were churned out "studio"-style and even Binder was a hired hand.  But I do think he captured, indeed defined the charm of his era and when you take him out of it things fall apart.  

That said, there were parts of Ordway's run that I really enjoyed, most notably the "Power of Shazam" one-shot that kicked it all off.  I loved that Cap looked like Billy's dad, suggesting that maybe he was created in Billy's idealized image of what a grown-up should be.  I also REALLY loved the bit at the end where the mysterious figure who took Billy to meet Shazam is revealed as Billy's dead father, and Billy's not as surprised as Dad expected him to be.  "What?" says Billy, "You thought I'd follow a stranger into the subway?"  What a perfect scene that was, and I nominate it as a supreme "Anti-Mopee," because while it's a late addition to the origin, it's one that actually works (after all, we never did see the stranger's face in the original version, so who's to say...?)

Cap, like Plas, deserved to rest in peace, but at the same time if they hadn't been brought back in the 70s, I'd never have "met" them and found the tales from their glory days.  So if nothing else, I guess there's some merit in keeping these characters in print if only to give readers a signpost to the good stuff.

Just to have a little fun, here is what JulianPerez said about everyone's favorite Talking Tiger on Oct 09, 2005 at 2:48 pm:








So why are you now "taking a moment to slam that Silver Age straw man, Mr. Tawny"?

Captain Marvel has became the proverbial dead horse.
No matter how many times they revamp this character it still won't work!
Putting him on an alternate Earth will only making the things worse for him,because living on the same planet with Superman,Justice League etc.gave to the Marvel Family an excellent background,such as will never gets if they standing alone on Earth-S.
Maybe i see things on this way because i never truly appreciate this hero but guys you must admit that if they reboot him almost every year there must be something wrong on him!

 :s:  :s:  :s:

SuperMonkey writes:



Wow, SuperMonkey I was hoping you wouldn't go there.  This is really an awkward subject.  You see, this was Tawky and Julian last Fall:

(http://www.davidmorefield.com/images/avatars/tawny_julian.jpg)

Somehow in the last few months, though, it's all turned sour.  For a guy called "Tawky," that heartless Tiger never calls, he never writes...

First Lee and Farah, then Jen and Brad, now this.  :cry:

Moral of the story: if I ever change my mind about something, make sure that SuperMonkey isn't watching! :D

Well, there, I guess I defended Mr. Tawny on principle, because he was kind of absurd and at some level superheroes shouldn't be divorced from their absurdity. It bugged me people were badmouthing Mr. Tawny for being ridiculous, because that sort of playful oddity was the purpose of a lot of the Shazam stuff; and slamming Tawky for it is missing the point.

But after having gotten some more access to SHAZAM! reprints, Mr. Tawny struck me as being more and more irritating and unwelcome. And maybe this isn't his fault, but Tawny was introduced in the post-war years, which is when the Marvel Family was starting to jump the shark and his presence is where dissatisfaction crystalizes, much like Jar-Jar is associated with the plot holes in PHANTOM MENACE. Though really, anything after the incredible Monster Society of Evil arc that ran from 1943 to 1945 in CAPTAIN MARVEL ADVENTURES would be something of a letdown, or the Mac Raboy art on CAPTAIN MARVEL JR. between 1942-1943 (as great as C.C. Beck could be, the Raboy action stuff was absolutely dynamite, as were his FLASH GORDON dailies). Much like STAR TREK in the third season, Marvel Family didn't stay jumped; guys like Binder and Kanigher still produced some amazing stuff after 1947, certainly (the Bulletgirl crossover comes to mind, as does the first appearance of Mr. Atom, one of the slickest supervillain designs yet).

Also...Mr. Tawny, that cad, never returns any of my calls. I'm in the book, Tawny! CALL ME!

How often was the Tiger appearing?

I never actually saw Mr. Tawny do anything in the comics; he'd just appear in the odd panel, like Billy and friends standing around the Christmas tree, and it would get me slightly discomfited: "Hmmm... Captain Marvel knows the Frost Flakes guy."

Boy, are DC doing a number on Captain Marvel. What's with the white costume? What's with the hood? He had the perfect costume; a great look. Now he looks really sappy, especially with those bolts of lightning coming out of his eyes.

Despite any rumors you may have heard, Huckleberry Hound and I are "just friends."

Though somebody call me when Grape Ape is single again. Hotcha! :D



I don't know if the question is, "should Judd Winnick write Captain Marvel?"

I think the question ought to be, "should Judd Winnick write anything at all?"

LOL!!! That made my day :)



Reboots never work with him, he was prefect the 1st time.

It could be argued, even though Superman has received continuous publication, that he too is trapped in a certain amber...that of the radio show, the Silver Age comics, and Superman: The Movie.

While most of us did not grow up listening to the Superman radio show, any attempt at having Clark Kent work somewhere besides the Daily Planet does not last, even though WGBS had a good run. Jimmy Olsen and Perry White are always there, even moreso since the radio show shaped the George Reeves TV series that came afterwards.

The Silver Age was the most creative period in Superman comics, and was the last big expansion of Superman's cast of characters. Superman's last great feat in popular culture was Superman: The Movie in 1978.

Superman has been unable to escape the limitations placed by these three sources (not that it's a bad thing.) Just ask "electric blue" Superman. DC even tried to escape these limitations by confining Superman within Byrne's new limitations of the mid-80s, and that didn't work either....everything that Byrne did has now been explained away as an anomaly caused by Superboy Prime hitting a wall. The best-selling Superman comic today, All-Star Superman, features the continuing adventures of the Silver Age Superman, and Silver-Age style writers have been hired for the regular titles.

Any Superman movie or TV show since 1978 has been held to the standard of Superman: The Movie, and Christopher Reeves' performance.

I agree with you that Captain Marvel is perpetually trapped in the amber of when he was most popular; I just think that the same thing has inevitably happened to Superman as well.

Amen!

SHAZAM!

http://romney.homestead.com/files/SHAZAM.gif

credit Kyle Baker (Thanks for Plastic Man series)

[I originally wrote a long post whose basic theme was "Byrne: bad guy or villain?"  But I have elided most of that in favor of something a bit more connected to the post I am following.]

I wonder if the persistance and re-emergence of that Superman isn't because it hit such a chord with so many readers that just nothing else has really improved upon it?  Different is sometimes worse.  In the sort of evolutionary contour map that exists for comic characters, maybe nothing that Byrne did was really an improvement on what had gone before.

A similar dynamic may be at work with CM.  I was never a big fan and don't know too much about him that couldn't be learned from the Superman Vs. Shazam tabloid comic.  But, he was a successful character for quite a while and I wonder if it wasn't in part because he occupied sort of the Superman niche of his world.  In their shared post-Crisis world, there was an effort to further distinguish him from Superman, but, as successful as the Silver Age Superman is,  the a-little-different-from-Superman territory is tough ground to hold. I would argue that Byrne and his successors found out that even a character with a big S on his chest doesn't hold it very well without whatever magic they jettisoned from the previous version.  Add to that the fact that the Superman fans already have a character and finding a successful niche for Cap gets even tougher.

Anyway, I think that's part of the dilemma with regard to this thread: whatever lessons the CM team might learn from the S-books, they have to put them to use in a way that doesn't make Captain Marvel into a Superman clone.  There is arguably only room for one Superman in continuity (as previous incarnations of Supergirl books, for instance, have discovered) and even he really only seems to achieve peak success when characterized in a certain way.

You're quite right; it's necessary to differentiate between Superman and Captain Marvel, and DC have been trying to do this up to a point: for instance, they've established the Big Red Cheese as the magical version of Superman, who deals with the ethereal stuff that Superman can't cope with. This doesn't really gibe, though, because although Captain Marvel's origins are mystical in nature, his arch-enemy isn't some sort of evil wizard, but a mad scientist. DC have had this bee in their bonnet about magic for some time now, and I can't help thinking they're trying to turn Captain Marvel into some sort of Harry Potter secondrater.

If you want to do Captain Marvel right, you have to explore the two elements that make him significantly different from Superman: firstly, the fact that his adventures are lighthearted and fun (apart from the one about nuclear war, okay), and secondly, he spends half his time as a kid. To be honest, this second feature, which is so rich in possibilities has never been explored satisfactorily. In his original inception, Billy Batson is a newscaster; now how many children do you know who do that? In the recent "First Thunder" series, he's a homeless child. Please, don't be so morbid. I suspect that the key to getting Cap right would have to do with portraying Billy not as some homeless, tragic orphan who had to grow up before his time, but as a regular kid. Or even better, Bart Simpson. Just imagine a story in which Billy Batson is depicted as an irresponsible, mischievous little boy who just happens to turn into the World's Mightiest Mortal, with the wisdom of Solomon. Hilarity cannot fail to ensue. He wouldn't even need any enemies, Cap would just sort out the situations that Billy caused.

It is true that Superman, as a character, has a tendency to stick to the status quo. And this is true of other heroes: for instance, Hawkman and Hawkgirl will ALWAYS be happily married, Ozzie and Harriet style, and they don't age; Hawkgirl will always be a girl. We're talking about this in another thread, but people don't really understand how revolutionary Englehart's JLA was; they think all Stainless did was change Hawkgirl to Hawkwoman. But the name change was SYMPTOMATIC of the characters' leap to three-dimensions.

(As a side note, I think it's rather tragic that the hints of a poignant personality that Englehart gave Superman, both in his JLA and his Creeper/Superman DC COMICS PRESENTS issues, were not picked up by other writers: Superman being isolated from the Earth, for instance; he watches the world, but he's ultimately alone)

However, saying that Superman is still trapped in the movies and Silver Age comics because his supporting cast has stayed the same, is not an accurate assessment, and obtuse to the very real gradual changes in the characters, and the types of stories that were told about said characters over time. True, there's never been a version of Superman that didn't have a Jimmy Olsen, but Silver Age and Radio show Jimmy Olsen are vastly different from "tough guy" Jimmy Olsen of Jack Kirby and SUPERMAN FAMILY backups; not different enough that he's a different character, but because different kinds of stories were told about him. Lois Lane has always been around, but there was a point in the 1980s that she just didn't WANT to be Superman's girlfriend anymore, etc.

Supergirl is the best example of gradual development and real change: she was a hero-worshipping teen in her first appearance in the Silver Age, but towards the end of her series, was a confident woman with her own identity. A Supergirl has made numerous returns, both in comics and other media, but she was never returned to the "shy teen" characterization since. Where's the amber-entrapment there?

And so many things that were present in the Silver Age and Radio Show are simply no longer in play today; not just for the usual reboot-related reasons, but because they just weren't used again. the radio show had a degree of suspicion and fear surround Superman in his first few appearances and while this vanished, occasionally there was conflict with Superman's relationship with the authorities; this is not periphery like Zha-Vam or the Flame Dragon, but something that is WILDLY different about the character.



I'm rather pleased about the direction they're taking in terms of their mystic elements, though maybe I still have stars in my eyes from the surreal "King Ra-Man" semi-cameo in Grant Morrison's SEVEN SOLDIERS, or Geoff Johns using Stanley and his Monster (!) in INFINITE CRISIS.

If they want to iron out how magic works, they've taken many good steps in that direction: the best step of all being hiring Michael Moorcock, the greatest fantasy writer of all time, to write the "magic bible." Not to wax fanboy, but I'd give up matzo for the chance to peek at that thing!



Hmmm, interesting. One of the problems I had with SUPERMAN RETURNS is that Superman Jr. was something of a no-account without much of a personality. Not that I'm saying that Billy Batson is the same way (he always seemed like a globetrotting kid with spunk), but I do agree with Roger Ebert in his review when he said "why can't Superman's son be more brassy, like the SPY KIDS?"

Well, I'm going to come out and say it: Billy Batson has no personality. He's almost frighteningly devoid of it. It seems to me that when Beck and Parker created him, the whole hook was that this was a superhero who was also a little boy, but I suppose they lost sight of this, probably owing to editorial pressures, and turned Billy into a miniature adult, which misses the whole point about the nature of Cap's dual identity.

switching gears a touch, I found some cool urban legends surrounding The Big Red Cheese:

COMIC URBAN LEGEND: Marvel HAS to publish a Captain Marvel comic book.

STATUS: For all intents and purposes, True

As I stated in two (here and here)earlier Urban Legends Revealed, after they settled with DC, Fawcett ceased publication of Captain Marvel.

In the mean time, at one point in the 60s, Marvel decided that they should trademark well, anything with Marvel in the title.

That was all fine and good, you can trademark something, but for the trademark to be ENFORCABLE, you have to actually PUBLISH something.

Marvel did not do that until they heard rumblings that DC was considering bringing back Fawcett's Captain Marvel character.

So, in the late 60s, Marvel released their Captain Marvel character, therefore protecting their Captain Marvel trademark.

This is why, when DC got around to publishing Fawcett's Captain Marvel characters in the 1970s, they had to call the book "Shazam!," as the name Captain Marvel was a trademark owned by Marvel (note the difference between trademark and copyright. Fawcett still owned the copyright on Captain Marvel, so when they licensed the character to DC, DC was able to use the name Captain Marvel IN the comic book, just not when promoting or advertising the comic book. That is where trademarks come into play).

Well, as you can imagine, if Marvel ever LOST the trademark on Captain Marvel, DC would be quick to swoop in and grab it, so Marvel knew very well that it could not let the trademark lapse.

To do so, there is no hard and fast rule, but a safe bet would say they had to come out with a Captain Marvel publication at least every year or so.

So, what did Marvel do?

They published the adventures of the Kree warrior, Captain Marvel, from 1968 until 1979 (the last few years as a bi-monthly).

Then the Death of Captain Marvel in 1982.

Then the mini-series the LIFE of Captain Marvel (reprinting his most significant achievements) in 1985.

In 1982, Marvel introduced a new Captain Marvel (as mentioned last week), and in 1989, when no Captain Marvel book had been released for awhile, suddenly, she had a one-shot!

In 1994, once again, she had a one-shot!

In 1995, the first Captain Marvel's son had an ongoing series for less than a year.

In 1997, Marvel published an Untold Tale of Captain Marvel.

In 2000, Peter David gave Marvel's son another boost, with a series that lasted until 2004.

So while no, Marvel does not HAVE to publish a Captain Marvel comic book, if they want to keep their trademark, they will.

And, well, they want to keep their trademark...so they WILL keep on finding ways to publish a Captain Marvel comic book.

Note that, in House of M, Ms. Marvel is known by a certain familiar name?

COMIC URBAN LEGEND: After the Captain Marvel decision, DC bought Fawcett's characters.

STATUS: False

The fact remains (as pointed out here) that Fawcett's sales had gone down a lot by the mid-50s, as did most superhero titles. The Fawcett/DC suit had begun at the height of Fawcett's sales, and by the time Fawcett settled, the books just weren't selling.

So they agreed to stop publishing Captain Marvel, and they sold their remaining characters to Charlton.

Years later, in the early 70s, DC decided they would like to publish Captain Marvel themselves (Marvel, during the 60s, had decided to claim all uses of the word Marvel as a trademark, and upon rumors of DC wanting to bring Captain Marvel back, they rushed out their version to take claim to the "Captain Marvel" trademark).

Still, they were not OWNED by DC.

DC simply leased the characters.

Years later, DC eventually just bough the characters outright (this seems to be DC's modus operandi...rather than have to do complicated deals, they just use their money to buy themselves out of complicated deals...see the Wonder Woman deal from here.)

COMIC URBAN LEGEND: C.C. Beck based Captain Marvel's appearance on a movie where Fred MacMurray daydreams about being a superhero.

STATUS: False

E. Nelson Bridwell, speaking of the origins for the look of Captain Marvel (nee Captain Thunder), had the following to say in 1977...

    The twenty-nine-year old [C.C.] Beck came fresh from a job on a movie mag and possibly inspired by a dream sequence in which the star became a kind of superhero modeled Captain Thunder on Fred MacMurray.

MacMurray DID, in fact, star in a film called "No Time For Love," in which MacMurray, in a dream sequence, dressed up as a caped superhero.

The only problem is that "No Time For Love" was released in 1943.

Captain Marvel's first appearance?

1940.

However, just because Bridwell was wrong about the specific film that inspired Beck to choose MacMurray to base Captain Marvel on does not mean that Beck did not, in fact, base Captain Marvel's appearance on Fred MacMurray.

According to Beck himself, "Captain Marvel himself was based on the actor Fred MacMurray."

Or according to Jim Steranko, "With the movie job fresh in his mind, he began the task of translating Bill Parker's ideas into graphic form. He chose film star Fred MacMurray as the model of Captain Thunder, giving him the same black, wavy hair; bone structure, and cleft chin."

And many others agree.

So it is likely that Beck DID, in fact, base Captain Marvel's appearance upon MacMurray...just not that particular film.

COMIC URBAN LEGEND: Fawcett Comics had to stop publishing Captain Marvel because it lost a copyright lawsuit brought by DC Comics.

STATUS: A lot of truth to it, but the basic assertion that Fawcett was forced to stop publishing Captain Marvel due to a court decision is false.

Here is the straight story, right from the mouth of noted comic legal expert, Bob Ingersoll,

    DC (here a shorthand for National Periodicals Publications, Inc.) sued Fawcett over Captain Marvel claiming copyright infringement At the trial, the court ruled that Captain Marvel did infringe on DC's copyright on Superman (citing to the former Superman/Wonderman lawsuit as precedent). Specific panels of Captain Marvel flying and performing deeds were used in evidence to show his adventures and exploits swiped those of Superman.

    But the trial court also ruled that DC (or NPP as it was called back then) couldn't enforce its copyright, because it had abandoned it. The basis for this ruling was that the Superman comic strip, which the McClure Syndicate did under a license from NPP, did not include any of the necessary copyright notices which are required by law to secure and maintain a copyright. So, the trial court ruled that NPP had abandoned its copyright on Superman and couldn't enforce it. This was a victory for Fawcett. The court ruled it did violate copyright, but also ruled NPP couldn't enforce the copyright.

    The federal court of appeals in New York affirmed the trial court in part and reversed the trial court's decision in part. The court of appeals agreed that Captain Marvel violated NPP's copyright on Superman. It also ruled that NPP hadn't abandoned its copyright. It noted that an intent to abandon copyright has to be clear and unequivocal. NPP continued to attach copyright notices to the Superman comics that it published, so any intent to abandon the copyright wasn't unequivocal. The Court of Appeals also ruled that NPP couldn't be held responsible for the lapses of its licensee, McClure. For those reasons, NPP didn't abandon its copyright on Superman and could enforce it.

    The Court of Appeals sent the case back to the trial court for more proceedings. At this point, Fawcett had already lost the important question, did it violate NPP's copyright. It knew it would lose the trial. At the same time, sales on CAPTAIN MARVEL had declined. So Fawcett chose to settle, rather than go on with a trial it knew it would lose to publish a character that was slipping. In the settlement, Fawcett agreed not to publish Captain Marvel anymore.


There are many, many more, I will try to post more later, here is the source: http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2006/08/17/comic-book-urban-legends-revealed-64/

One of the most famous ones:

COMIC URBAN LEGEND: Elvis Presley based his famous hairstyle upon Captain Marvel, Jr.

STATUS: True

Everyone loves Captain Marvel, right?

For awhile in the 1940s, it was one of the most popular series of comics in the country!

Well, surprisingly enough, one young fan of the Fawcett heroes during the 40s was none other than Elvis Presley!

In her book, Elvis and Gladys, author Elaine Dundy wrote that Elvis Presley grew up as a large fan of Captain Marvel, Jr., and took the character’s hair style as his own when he became older.

Says Dundy,

    Behind Elvis there was another great legend: the metaphysical world of double identity comic book heroes. Elvis’ favorite was Captain Marvel Jr., who looks, in fact, exactly like Elvis will make himself look for the rest of his life.

I would not believe it myself, except, well, why would you make something that random up?

Here is the whole list of them, great blog:
http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2005/06/23/comic-book-urban-legends-revealed-history/

THE DEATH OF CAPTAIN MARVEL was a sharp Jim Starlin piece. My favorite, and most sentimental moment was when Captain Marvel was given a medal by the Skrulls for valor as he was dying, his archenemies....even though Mar-Vell's own race would have nothing to do with him.

Easily the high point of Mar-Vell's career was his part in the "Avengers Epics:" the Thanos War, the story where Thanos gets ahold of the Cosmic Cube, which should be required reading for the human race; all those exploding spaceships and weird aliens...it had a STAR WARS sense of fun years before STAR WARS! :D

Mar-Vell always seemed more interesting in concept than in practice. His "cosmic perception" was a neat power, with a neat "special effect" (the starfield over his face when it worked).



Oh, I believe it. Mac Raboy's art is inspirational, though perhaps not before in a "follical" sense!



Well, of COURSE it would be false, wouldn't it? Why else would there be such near-criminal non-use of characters as terrific as Bulletman and Bulletgirl? The only thing that comes to mind off the top of my head is that JLA/JSA Team-up in the seventies where the detectives from various worlds get together (strangely, it was the Hawks, not Batman, that represented Earth-1, I think).

They were super cool, it would be insane not to use them.

http://www.accomics.com/accomicsgoldenage/fawcett.htm

at least they are, kind of.

Fantastic link, has anyone here purchased from the store? I don't know why but I love the Fawcett and Quality golden age comics.  :D

I'd heard about it but never given it much thought. It makes sense, though! I wonder if that has anything to do with Mac Raboy's art becoming popular among the gay community?

I'd never heard about Cap being modelled on Fred Mac Murray, and I'll be goshdurned if it didn't hit me like a ton of bricks. No doubt about it, they're dead ringers.

I'd give my eyeteeth to know who Prince Namor, the Sub-Mariner is based on! Ditto for the equally weird looking Curt Swan version of Lex Luthor.

Though I have heard that Gil Kane based the appearance of Hal Jordan on Paul Newman. This makes sense; of all the Silver Age heroes, Green Lantern seemed the best-looking. He wasn't a muscled lumberjack type like Superman or Batman; he was more kind of Greek. Nobody ever drew GL the way Gil Kane did, for sure.

Sting was the inspiration for John Constantine, though that should be especially obvious.

I can't confirm this, but I heard somewhere that Cosmic Boy's appearance was originally based on the pop star, Fabian.

Tinkerbell, too, was based on Marylin Monroe's measurements. And there was a rumor that Dr. Evil from AUSTEN POWERS, at least in personality was a parody of Lorne Michaels.

I have to admit that Mr. Tawny was a big reason why I never fully appreciated Captain Marvel. The character himself was great, but his world just seemed ridiculous to me. That may sound arbitrary, considering how silly Superman comics sometimes were in the '50s and 60s, but Captain Marvel always was a little too kiddified for my tastes. A slightly more adult version, still infused with a sense of whimsy, would work just fine. It would be a shame for the character to go to waste.

By the 60s, DC also had the advantage of multiple titles, Action, Adventure, Superman, Jimmy Olsen, and Lois Lane, so you could take your pick of what kind of situation you wanted Superman or his friends to get into...it was almost like "cable TV" for comics...personally, what I looked for was if Superman was behaving like Superman no matter how the rest of the story was playing out...

To me, Swan's Luthor looks a lot like Lyle Talbot's portrayal of the character in the Kirk Alyn Superman serial.  Not just Luthor's bald head, but also his face, expressions, and personality.

:s:

Speaking of which, do we have a date yet for when those are coming out on DVD? I borrowed part of the Atom Man serial from a friend, but it pales in comparison to the radio adventure of the same name...

Yes, Gangbuster, we DO!  The OTHER Superman site posts the date as November 28th, 2006!  Just in time for you guys to all chip in and get my Christmas gift!   :lol:

Here's the link:  

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/news.php?readmore=2603

Gernot...