What Superman can teach Captain Marvel

[JulianPerez]

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.

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.

DC have had this bee in their bonnet about magic for some time now,

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!

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.

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?"

[Permanus]

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.

[Super Monkey]

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/

[Super Monkey]

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/

[JulianPerez]

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?

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!

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).

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

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

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

STATUS: False

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).

[Super Monkey]

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.

[Michel Weisnor]

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.  

[Permanus]

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

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

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.