This is an archive of past discussions about Captain Marvel (DC Comics). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Billy is now 16 or 17 years old.Thethunderstrike0401:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Billy's official DCU age is currently fourteen, according to the most recent re-interpretation of the character in The Power of Shazam! series. --FuriousFreddy 01:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK... though still, sure he must've been presented as being a bit younger than that in prior stories (the original Fawcett Comics era, the 70's revival). Anthony Dean 14:45, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Fawcett/1970s Billy, I'd peg at about twelve. He was ten in the Power of Shazam! graphic novel (the series takes place four years after hte graphic novel). I think he might be up to sixteen by now in the JSA series. Can we label him as an "adolescent", instead of just a youth (or at least slide a fair use picture of him into the article)? --FuriousFreddy 15:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I still prefer "youth", since it'd cover both his appearing as grade-school aged (in earlier incarnations; he didn't look older than 10 or 12 in the Fawcett stories I'd read to me), and as a teenager (in current incarnations). Though a picture of Billy in some incarnation would be nice as well... Anthony Dean 20:32, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
That sounds logical
"Holy Moley!" isn't Cap/Billy's only catchphrase, although it certainly stands out more than his second-favorite expresssion. For some reason, the phrase "that sounds logical" serves as a running gag in Captain Marvel stories. Perhaps it is an indication of Billy's (and Cap's) naivite that so many ludicrous bits of exposition are greeted with this phrase, but more likely it is an ironic wink at the necessary shortcuts that fantasy storytelling involves.
(1)I got post from Captain Marvel Fan in DC message boards, here person had to say:
Just got back from Baltimore Con and attended all DCU panels about Crisis. Also talked with Top DC official on floor that (hopefully was telling the truth) That Cap will not die in crisis and that DC is making a concerted effort to show the differences between Cap and Superman, rather than the things they have in common. Cap will attend to magical matters where as Supes deals with Sci/Fi type stuff. He went on to say things may change, but the Marvel legacy has big things ahead in DC. I accused DC of not knowing how to use Cap and that DC was maybe useing crisis as a way of getting rid of the problem. He laughed and assured me the Marvel mythology has a rich history and DC embraces it and wants to build on it. Now my request from all of the fans out there....If Cap or Jr. or Mary or ANY Marvel Family gets a book...WE MUST SUPPORT IT!!!!!!! I am looking forward to Captain Marvel's role in the DCU. But if we do not support him...well you know what will happen....
(2)In JLA # 120 sale on OCTOBER 12TH Captain Marvel show up in JLA # 120 cover.
Written by Greg Rucka; Art by Steve Lieber; Cover by Sean Phillips
A DAY OF VENGEANCE tie-in guest-starring Captain Marvel with art by Steve Lieber (Whiteout)! When a catastrophic cosmic event occurs over Gotham, the detectives discover just what being in over their heads really means! For Crispus Allen, it means trying to find his family! On Sale November 9, 2005.
(3) Wizard magazine say DC had big plans Captain Marvel for next year. that mean, DC will not kills off Captain Marvel.
Agreed. What's the point of listing Marvel as inactive for all of a few weeks before he turns up once again in comics? --FuriousFreddy01:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Seeing as how they've already had the comics drawn up since the late-spring, and they're probably already printed, I sincerely doubt that's going to happen. --FuriousFreddy04:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I am no specialist in comic characters, so please forgive me if I am wrong, but I would like the author(s) of this excelent article (or whoever happens to have deep knowledge of it) if the claim that "Captain Marvel was also the first superhero to be adapted into film in 1941 (The Adventures of Captain Marvel)" is in fact accurate. As far as my humble knowledge on the matter goes, Flash Gordon was adapted to film in the serials Flash Gordon (1936), Flash Gordon's Trip to Mars (1938), and Flash Gordon Conquers the Universe (1940), all of which precede the adaptation of Captain Marvel. Any thoughts on this? Phaedriel10:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
For some reason, Flash Gordon isn't considered a superhero; he's considered a science-fiction hero. Buck Rogers adn Popeye are two more heroes who, despite being superhero-like, aren't considered superheroes. --65.112.154.9116:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Aren't the Shadow and the Spider more crime drama heroes? Green Hornet I know nothing about really, but that would seem to be a borderline superhero. Still, changing to comic book superhero probably is a safe bet. Anakinjmt (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Glad you agree, and my apologies for not waiting for a response before making the edit. Bad form on my part, and I'll try not to do it again in the future. On the other hand, if anything, I'd lump the Hornet with the Spider as a crime drama hero, while the Shadow's powers (even in the pulps, not just "clouding men's minds" on the radio version) make him "super" by most definitions. Ted Watson (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Capt. Marvel vs. Superman, outside the courtroom
It would seem that the makers of Superman media had a sense of humor about this. I had occasion to listen to recent broadcasts of some of the radio Adventures of Superman from the early 1940s, and one serial arc included as a villain a ship captain with a name sounding similar or identical to "Marvel" -- a "Captain Marvel" or "Captain Marbeau" or some such. - robgood@bestweb.net, 12/22/05
The cape
The costume also included a white collared cape trimmed with gold fleur-de-lis symbols, usually asymmetrically thrown over the left shoulder and held around his neck by a gold cord. The cape came from the ceremonial cape worn by the British nobility, photographs of which appeared in newspapers in the 1930s.
This style of cape was popular among elite military units throughout Europe from the late 16th Century through the mid 19th. To say that "The cape came from the ceremonial cape worn by the British nobility...which appeared in newspapers in the 1930s" is inaccurate. Adaptations of Dumas' The Three Musketeers and its sequels typically show the characters wearing such capes. Adaptations of Anthony Hope's The Prisoner of Zenda and its parodies, set in Central Europe in the 19th Century, also feature characters wearing a cape of this style. These cinematic uses are historically accurate. The mid 19th Century-early 20th Century version of the cape resembled an extra jacket tossed over the shoulder and held in place by a chain, and resembles the Marvel cape less than the Three Musketeers version does. To suggest that Beck cribbed the design from newspaper photographs -- when popular film adaptations of the above-mentioned novels were released less than five years before the creation of Captain Marvel -- is unlikely, or at least less likely than that he saw the capes in popular films of the day and thought they presented a dashing military appearance. Beck's addition of fleur-de-lis -- a symbol of the French monarchy -- tends to support this. If the writer of the cape statement has citations to corroborate his version, he really needs to include his sources. Canonblack12:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello. What a pity I didn't make a photocopy of the picture I found in a reprint from some British magazine (I'm writing from America) long before Wikipedia was in existence. When I saw it, it was unmistakeable. Somebody added "fleur-de-lys" to the description - they aren't, they're filled in circles with four leaves in both the original picture and the Big Red Cheese. What caught my attention in both cases was that even though it had a flap on top, like a small cape, it isn't a cape full-across-the-shoulders, as the Three Musketeers have. And it isn't a "jacket"; that's what the hussars wear.
some vandalism got through
someone who knows their stuff check the edits to almost all mentions of different years done by 07:06, 22 December 2005 64.164.124.186 in the page history. Some of these edits seem false and contradict other wikipedia articles such as the year of the shazam TV series and movie. Just bringing this to people's attention.
Comments about vandalism in progress are almost useless as they're reverted almost as soon as they're made; such things are common for featured articles. Please be assured that all editors and administrators on Wikipedia are keeping such vandalism to a minimum, as much as humanly possible. Thank you, — The Hooded Man ♃♂22:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Protected
I can't figure out what was going on, but the vandalism was fast and furious enough that I put the maximum protection on this page for the time being. I'll now try to figure out what the heck is up; please leave notes here or on my talk page with suggestions. -- SCZenz22:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Alex Ross' image is fine. It is a great illustration of the character and represents it well. It was there before licensing and sourcing problems - which I've fixed - and it is back now. No reason at all for a new image. —Lesfer(talk/@)03:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so once you are an admin, would you please do me a favor (as I'm the uploader)? Just delete it. Do not tag, just delete it. Thanks. —Lesfer(talk/@)03:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "once you are an admin". I could delete the image, and will if you really want me to, but is this request out of frustration or because you are concerned about copyright issues? Jkelly03:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
"Once you are an admin" means that I think only admins can delete images or articles. Am I wrong? And since I'm the uploader, I think I can avoid all that bureaucracy of tagging it and waiting seven days by just asking to delete it. Or am I also wrong? —Lesfer(talk/@)03:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
You're right about both those things. I guess that you meant "since you are an admin". My question still stands. Is this just out of frustration? There's no urgency in deleting the image, and I'd rather have a conversation about this than to have you feeling put out. Jkelly04:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Yep, "since". Sorry for my bad english. And I'm asking to delete it because is a useless image. If it's not deleted now, eventually it will be. So delete it, tag it, whatever. It's really fine by me. It's just too much for nothing. Anyway, thanks for your help. —Lesfer(talk/@)04:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Not sure I understand why the Alex Ross images is gone. It was much more iconic and illustrative than the other one, which is just a panel from a comicbook. Can someone please explain the argument here? --Chris Griswold15:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
That it's "a panel from a comic book" is the point - it's still a clear and unobstructed image with only CM in-panel, but it's also more in-line with how he's always been presented than the Ross image. - SoM22:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The Porter image is in line with his current appearance in the comic, but I suspect it's going to be about as long-lived as the electric Superman. I'm therefore unsure it's appropriate as the primary illustration of the character; IMO, we should stick with some form of the classic red costume for an encyclopedia entry. JackofSpades18:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The best place for that picture is in the Trials of Shazam section. The main image should reflect the Cap that everyone is familiar with. - Lex00:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Classic vs. New Version
I don't want to see this turn into an edit war, so I'm bringing my concerns to the talk page. I see Lesfer reverted my image change back to the look Billy is sporting in Trials of Shazam!. I would rather see a more classic look for the main image and show the new look in the body of the article. I guess it depends on what we all want this article to be. I want it to reflect the classic Captain Marvel and discuss the history of the character (which the history section does very well) while still referencing what is currently going on with him. I also think that keeping this article focused on the classic Cap will keep its FA status. We should have a discussion about what we want this article to be. Would it be possible to split the current stuff to Marvel (DC Comics)? Just an idea. - Lex21:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
The WP:CMC guidelines say, "It is felt that using the most universally recognisable appearance of a character, for example Spider-Man in the red and blue rather than some other costume ... fits this purpose best." --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
So it should be the red suit? I would tend to agree. The new white one could hardly be called "most universally recognisable". CovenantD22:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Solution: the cover of Trials of Shazam! #1 shows Capt. Marvel in both outfits (literally transforming from one to the other). It seems the logical choice. I personally would have preferred a C.C. Beck depiction of Captain Marvel (and Billy Batson), like the one originally used for the article. As for the article itself, it should treat Trials of Shazam! as the experiment it is (DC is not even yet sure if the new versions of the characters will work out, and nothing is ever permanent in a comic book), and not disreguard 66 years of previous work. Continue to call the character "Captain Marvel" unless specifically referring to Trials of Shazam! If the new version of "Marvel" does indeed catch on (and sees a significant amount of additional publication), I'd suggest an article split. --70.119.147.16018:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
No, no, it only makes it confusing. Red costume mixed with white one and there's also a yellow glow... nothing logical about it. Let's keep it one or another. The classic costume is really the best one to be kept. Plus, this confusing image does not fit WP:CMC guideline. —Lesfer(t/c/@)16:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I really like the current image. It shows the classic costume drawn by the current artist. For me, it's a good compromise. I may revisit this debate when Jeff Smith's Shazam! mini comes out, but for now it's a great image. - Lex04:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
anyone got the link where it says (as in this article) that Jeff Smith's Captain Marvel story is now his official origin? thanks. --EXV // + @ 03:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
"...the creator is returning Captain Marvel to his roots with an out-of-continuity story that updates the character's history for today's audience..."
The story is being told out of linear continuity, but Smith apparently has a clause in his contract which states that this story is the character's new official origin. (Warmoth, Brian. "The Strategum of Smith". Wizard magazine. Retrieved March 4, 2007. Excerpt: "The Monster Society of Evil goes back to Batson’s early years, and Smith has ensured the book won’t be labeled an alternate history or imaginary tale. 'When I was asked to do it, I was asked to relaunch Captain Marvel, and I have a clause in my contract saying that this is continuity,' Smith states. 'This is continuity. This is not an All-Star version.'") -- FuriousFreddy (talk • contribs) 00:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Weaknesses?
Doesn't Captain Marvel have any specific weaknesses? Aside from the fact that when not transformed, he is of ordinary human strength? Also, if he tries to hit his enemy with the lightning bolt but accidentally hits himself, does that change him back from Captain Marvel into Billy Bateson? --80.47.107.7021:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The closest thing Captain Marvel has to kryptonite is being gagged. This was a repeated plot device in the old Fawcett comics. If Billy can't say Shazam, he can't transform.MightyAtom01:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Change & Update
I think we should separate the sections for the other minis for Billy and also have a 52 section for all that he has done in 52 and what he has done in Trials. Also separate Monster Society of Evil as a whole by himself. Also Billy's powers should be upgraded with his Magic powers. RyuKlinge07:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
All that's covered already in character history. We don't do issue by issue summaries. that his powers are magic based is noted already. ThuranX01:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The First Costumed Hero Named "Captain"?
Is Captain Marvel/Thunder the first "Captain"? I know he predate Captain America by several months but is there some obscure "Captain X" out there somewhere? Jackbox197123:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a legit question as "Captain" is an archetypal moniker for generations of costumed superheroes. I am not sure why you both have copped this rather hostile attitude. Jackbox197106:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone keeps adding the limited print Monster Society of Evil collection. It doesn't make much sense to suggest that readers of the article attempt to seek out a book most of them likely won't be able to find nor afford. Please only include collected publications that are reasonably available for retail purchase. Thank you. --FuriousFreddy01:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Monster Society of Evil isn't that hard to get, and it is an imporant collection of Captain Marvel stories. I don't really see why it shouldn't be listed. MightyAtom05:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
It is that hard to get: it's only available by trade, for a sum of well over $100. It's not even listed on eBay. It isn't sensible to have common people looking for items they can't easily find. This is an encyclopedia article, not a fansite. --FuriousFreddy23:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Captain Marvel's role in The Trials of Shazam!
Billy Batson's role in The Trials of Shazam! miniseries is set in both issues 1 and 2 by the description of his final transformation into the true successor of the late wizard Shazam.
In Trials of Shazam #1, Billy allows himself to be kidnapped and taken to Norway where he eventually turns into Captain Marvel to rescue a truck full of kids to be used for demonic sacrifice. After quickly eliminating the threat, Captain Marvel attempts to revert back to his teenaged form. When he does, an immense bolt of lightning crashes down upon him, driving him deep into the ground and transformed yet again.
Instead of reverting back to his teenaged form, Captain Marvel discovers that his skin has become lighter and his uniform has gone from red and gold to white and gold. Billy is clearly surprised by this change at the end of Issue #1.
When Trials of Shazam #2 begins, Freddy, while sitting at Mary Batson's bedside, says Shazam's name. He is then teleported by magic lightning from the hospital to what he eventually discovers is a newly renovated Rock of Eternity. He is greeted by the newly transformed Billy, who explains to Freddy that fate has chosen Freddy to be the champion of the Lords of Magic as both Billy and Shazam were before him.
Billy tells Freddy that, with Shazam's death and the various occurences resulting from the Spectre's rampage during the Infinite Crisis series, he needed to grow up and into Shazam's former role. He further told Freddy that with the recall of all the power spread out amongst the pure-hearted Marvel Family, that he became more than just the wielder of power he was as Shazam's champion; he also became the keeper of the power commissioned to Shazam by all the collective magical gods in the universe.
Billy, now calling himself Marvel, then explained to Freddy that he now had to meet the challenges of each of the six magical gods comprising Shazam's name in order to earn their power and truly become Marvel's and the magical elder's champion.
With Marvel's new role as the wizard and keeper of the Rock of Eternity established, he does periodically guide Freddy in between each of his trials. Shortly after Freddy completed the trial of wisdom with Rachel Zallman in Trials of Shazam #3, he informs Freddy in Trials of Shazam #5 that he will likely be confronting fear alongside Lt. Alvarez/Achilles in Qurac.
In Trials of Shazam #6, Marvel explains to Freddy that he can now call upon the powers of the magical elders by will and especially when there is a true need for him to use the power.
Billy/Marvel's role is a minor yet crucial one so far throughout the progression of the series, as he provides further guidance to his friend and potential champion, Freddy.Hotredtiger316 08:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages comment was added by Hotredtiger316 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
please explain this comment? It reads like an issue by issue summary, which we don't do here on Wikipedia, and it doesn't have a particular premise as a talk page comment. Is this a section you'd like to add to the article? Please explain, thank you. ThuranX11:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I guess I was trying to not only express facts about how Billy is growing into his new role as the almagation of both his active powers as the late wizard Shazam's champion and the inheritance of his former mentor's powers on top of that, but to also show how he has quickly adapted to the changes he has endured.
→To make this more of expressing my opinion on this new dynamic to Marvel, I love how Marvel is still the pure-hearted young soul that Shazam chose to be his true successor. Winick and Porter did not hesitate in the least to show that Marvel had quickly adapted to the physical and internal changes of his transformation in Trials of Shazam #1 in order to be the mentor that Freddy so valuably needs throughout this series.
→I am even more curious to find out how both Marvel and Freddy will deal with Mary's dillemma when Freddy negotiates his final challenges to become Marvel's champion, the second Shazam. Will there be a regular series with Freddy as the main character with Mary' trials as a back story? Will there be another mini-series that will feature Mary? Only DC Comics can answer those questions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hotredtiger316 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
Wikipedia is NOT a fan forum. However, this entire conversation is of that sort of nature. As such, I think it's best it stops. there's nothign here about how to improve the article, just a sort of review of the series. While I'm glad you like it, this isn't the place.thanks. ThuranX23:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Correction to Trials of Shazam Entry in this Article
In Issue #2 of The Trials of Shazam! Marvel told Freddy that once he has passed all six trials of the lords of magic, he would bear the name of Marvel's predecessor, the first Shazam. It would be a good idea for someone to correct that portion of the article, especially considering that, by The Trials of Shazam! #6, Freddy is now able to summon or cease the power of the six elders by either word or thought. Hotredtiger31605:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
No, this should NOT be added; it's not true. Freddy has passed TWO tests, a third test was never needed, and has recieved the gifts of two of the deities, (NOT The Lords of Magic, who are a different group), and PART of the gifts of Hercules. As each gives him their gifts, he has found that the active magical form and his regular physical form have become more and more different. First gift gave him wisdom, and enough power to walk unassisted. The next gave him invulnerability and the shirt. the third gave him the pants and boots. He lacks the cape, and the full physical form of Marvel (the Fred MacMurray squinty looking face, and lantern jaw.) he has not met nor passed the tests of three more deities. Please read the series carefully, and continue to use the talk page before editing. Finally, I remind you, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FAN FORUM. Do not use it as one. ThuranX23:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
(Refactored to bottom of page, to match chronological addition order). First, I only see similar tassels. Second, any comparison would violate WP:OR, which we won't do. ThuranX15:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Alternate versions
Shouldn't we mention all of the Elseworlds Captain Marvels besides the one in Kingdom Come?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.69.218 (talk • contribs)
I'm not sure, given that both look very nice. The former emphasises his magic nature, and the latter his very ‘friendly’ origins. Perhaps the Alex Ross image at the top, and Porter's combined/side-by side with his remodelled Shazam incarnation, as a single image file? Dave15:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The white-costume comparison doesn't so much matter to me; go for it, as far as I'm concerned. It's the main image that I care about. The one that's there currently is too idiosyncratically contemporary, and not reflective of his iconic history at all, which, I would argue vigorously, the Alex Ross image is. Ford MF18:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, I think you're right. The former head image is redundant, and it would also demand too much room from the related section to make a side-by-side comparison. I've switched for the iconic Ross painting at the top. Dave14:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Somehow I missed this discussion in my watchlist. I actually oppose this change. There's a problem on a LOT of the comics pages with running to Alex Ross' versions of characters. They're nice, very 'realistic', and all that, but there's aglut of them, for one, and for two, it precludes using a variety of artists to show the breadth of talent in the field. Saturation of Ross' works artificially presents the field as small and insular to the uninitiated, whereas using a variety of artists shows the depth and distinction of styles available to the readers and the creative teams. The painted cover met all the requirements of WP:COMIC; it was a full body shot, presented teh classic look of the character, represented the nature of the character in magic, and in the iconic thunderbolt form, and was a well-lit image of the character. Better yet, it's modern enough in its date that readers who wish to follow up don't find it to be misrepresentative of the character currently. I can see no good argument to change it to an artist who is already overused on Wikipedia. He's pretty, but he's not the only one. Similarly, we see a lot of effort to Push Brian Bolland's work, so it's not just Ross who gets this reaction. With hundreds of artists out there, why restrict ourselves and out choices? ThuranX15:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually another image by Howard Porter is shown further down the page, i.e. the white costume. I'd also argue that it's far more warranted to use a Ross painting here than for virtually any other character. He's arguably the modern artist who has best managed to capture the Captain's 'iconic essence' in single pictures, possibly since it's supposed to be his favourite character, while other creations are more debatable, so it would be better to replace some of those if there's a saturation problem.
That said, I have no major problems with replacing it for another picture, but it should feature the Captain's iconic 'friendly' roots, rather than a grim-faced variant. Perhaps one of Jeph Smith's "Monster Society" drawings? I obviously agree about the distinctive magic connection, and attempting to appeal to potential new readers, but 'grim-faced' doesn't seem like the right path. Dave17:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It's a "Six of..." issue. Ross and Bolland happen to very clean, iconic renderings of the characters. That results in most people gravitating to them when they want "the best" version of a character.
Personally, while I think this is a much better image than Porters, it's still 2 rungs away from "best". I'd rather see a Beck image, as his version is the iconic look, and it being a full cover with title and such.
ThuranX, while I find your arguments against Ross perfectly sound (I'd never considered it before, but you're totally right about the glut and insularity (although, to be fair, he does have a unique talent for evoking a character's essence in portraiture)), I think the suggestion of a Porter picture as the main (if the "white" Cap is any indication) is bizarre. I'm with J Greb in thinking that maybe a C.C. Beck pic would be most appropriate in this context. Ford MF17:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
That being said, I don't think any of the C.C. Beck covers already uploaded is quite right for the main illustration. As J Greb points out, the Ross illustration does have the virtue of being clean and iconic. I think for now it is the best fit, unless someone uploads a cleaner, clearer Beck cover. The ones we have now--the ashcan, the one where we can't see Cap's face, and the one with Superman also on the cover--are I think all unsuitable for the main illustration here. Ford MF17:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, wow, that's terrific. I think Marvel Adventures 4 is a real no brainer here. Vivid coloring, iconic pose, zero cover clutter or text... I think that should clearly be the one.
My second vote gotes to your choice, J Greb, Whiz Comics 22. I think the Marvel adventures cover edges it out because it's a much better resolution. The Whiz cover is a little fuzzy. Ford MF18:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, is Whiz 22 available in a free form somewhere else? I think as far as poses go, you can't do better, & plus, Billy! Having Billy side by side is a big selling point for me. --mordicai.18:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I can't say that I care all that much for any of them. I'm with Thuran about that it should be a modern iconic image that will be interesting for potential new readers. It would be better to feature Beck's covers in the historical sections. For a header purpose Jeff Smith's Monster Society truly has a lot of nice work in it. Dave19:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'm all for Whiz 22. That would be an a amzingly perfect image. It totally hits a character whose historic content matches his modern value. I'd support Whiz 22 without any qualms. ThuranX19:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
How about this one with Photoshop-improved colour-tones? It's still a bit 'sombre' (no smiling), but is a pretty blatant modern homage to one of the above covers, and emphasizes both his magic and iconic status. If not, I also like the Whiz #22 cover best, but it would be nice if some database has a higher-resolution or less blurry scan. Dave21:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
No on Copyright grounds. We don't have the rights to the cover, the 'artist' who altered the colors likely lacked permissions, and we'd then need a clear path through both. Further, if we're going to go with an historic style option, then let's go with the best historic option, Beck himself. ThuranX02:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with that, even if I'd prefer an iconic/essence-capturing modern image to appeal to new readers, but it would need better clarity than the one hosted at that archive. Dave17:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't think we needed permission to rights holders to color-balance photos to make them suitable for use. Actual recoloring I can understand, but that's not what was suggested. --FuriousFreddy22:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Don't want to mess up your careful layout without asking. Photos of C. C. Beck were released this week on Flickr by Alan Light. Not perfect photos but as I understand it Beck was in large part the person responsible for drawing this art. One of them looks like Captain Marvel for example. Is anyone here interested in having the artist in this article? I can upload it to the commons if that would help or feel free if you'd like to. -Susanlesch16:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, the C.C. Beck article already has a photograph, and as much as I like him, I'm not sure another one belongs here. Ford MF17:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Before There Was Spidey, There Was Captain Marvel!"
Love this page but it neglects to emphasize how popular this guy was. Today, due partly to Gomer Pyle, SHAZAM and is actually now a part of American language. Also, whenever people older than forty think of a generic super-hero, one of the first names they mention is "Captain Marvel" even though they may have forgotten what he looked like. Someone even named a jazz album after him, for Heaven's sake! Billy Batson was the star of the comic. Captain Marvel was a separate adult entity. Batson was the first "solo" (to distinguish him from a sidekick like Robin or Junior) kid super-hero.Bernard ferrell 17:36, 17 August 2007
(UTC)
I have read very disturbing news about this script. It is said to be a remake of "Big" with superpowers. Billy learns to be a superhero by reading Superman comic books, and he questions why he should ever change back to Billy. None of the classic supporting characters from the comics are said to be in the script.
If this info is indeed accurate, I truely hope New Line rejects this script. Perhaps New Line should fire both August and Peter Segal, and farm the rights out to Walden Media to make the film. They need to base the movie on the vintage Otto Binder-CC Beck comics. It should be fun and have a lot of humor, but it cannot cross into camp, and there must be action and drama to balance it out. Hopefully the pending writer's strike will put the project on hold, and August and Segal will move on, New Line can regroup, and get a writer-director team that will make the best SHAZAM movie possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.241.158.225 (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Reason for location?
Is there a reason that "Captain Marvel" doesn't redirect here? This is the most famous version of Captain Marvel after all. Anakinjmt20:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I would argue that the DC version is more famous. There was, after all, a point in time when Captain Marvel comics were outselling Superman comics. Also, "Shazam!" is known to be a reference to him, with a recent example being the Spider-Man film. There has also been a TV show based on him, and a movie is in the works. He was also featured in an episode of JLU. The Marvel version has never appeared outside of comics, and as such, would really only be known to someone who is a comic fan. That would be my argument for having this article moved to Captain Marvel. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'm sick and tired of this
I'm sick and tired of one person changing the article based on his "background" on copyright law, as well as his changes concerning the retcon of Captain Marvel because of his unpopular revision in the Shazam! New Beginnings miniseries. Rather than risk 3RR, I'm bringing it here. I am talking about IP 66.93.200.116, who "claims" he has background in intellectual property law, and as such, "copyright infringement of intellectual property" is like saying "headache of the head." I won't pretend I'm an expert on the matter, but I will not accept his reasoning, because there is no way of verifying he is who he says he is. I have heard "copyright infringement of intellectual property" before, and I believe it is more descriptive to say that. If you believe it is redundant, please explain to me exactly how. Also, the following sentence has been changed back and forth:
Original: In 1994, due to the unpopular revision of the character from the Shazam! The New Beginning miniseries, Captain Marvel was retconned again and given a revised origin in The Power of Shazam!
IP's revision: In 1994, the unpopular revision of the character from the Shazam! The New Beginning was retconned again and given a revised origin in The Power of Shazam!
My opinion is, it is entirely clear that the unpopular revision led to the character being retconned, and as such, "due to" is fine being there. Also, I'm not sure why you can't have "miniseries" after "Shazam! The New Beginning", considering it WAS a miniseries. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sick and tired of this pointless knee-jerk reversion of what were good-faith edits to improve the text. There is no point to any of it.
"Copyright infringement of intellectual property" is unnecessarily redundant, because copyright is a form of intellectual property. You can't have "copyright infringement" of anything but intellectual property, so there's no need to be so wordy. Its an awkward phrasing which you'll find is hardly ever used, and I'm not appealing to any legal authority for that... just a sense of good writing. Why is it needed?
It may be "entirely clear" in Anakinjmt's mind that the change was "due to" the series being unpopular, but it's still just speculation; WP rules say that we should only include the verified facts. What harm (except perhaps to a piece of text of which Anakinjmt feels ownership) is there in removing the supposition of causality?
As for including "miniseries", I don't really care. It was repeating a factoid that was already stated, and I thought it read better without that repetition, but if Anakin disagrees, so be it. At least that part isn't in violation of WP policies. -66.93.200.116 (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
See, now how hard was that to properly explain? It makes a lot more sense when you say it like that. Contrary to your opinion, I do not "own" text, nor do I feel any sense of "ownership." I am simply trying to make an article the best that I can be. And, see, I don't think it's speculation. We should include verified facts, you're right. Let me say this: the way the sentence is worded right now severely implies that it was due to the unpopular revision. Perhaps that should be reworded somehow, unless general consensus deems the original wording perfectly fine, which I would wager right now, considering the status of this article as an FA, the general consensus IS that the wording is fine. But, perhaps we should get a new consensus. Hence why I am asking other people, not just one person, to give their opinion on the issue and we'll see what the general thought is. Anakinjmt (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
"How hard was it?" How condescending. It was easier the first time I made these very same points in the edit history and in messages to you. (How hard was it to listen instead of reverting again?) The fact that an article was once Featured doesn't mean that its text cannot and should not be improved; being reflexively defensive against edits such as these that were (at worst) harmless and (IMHO) marginal improvements in readability and verifiability does WP a disservice. Heck, it's hostile to the whole spirit of Wikipedia. As for the attacks on my reasoning just because you can't confirm who I am... so what? My reasoning stands (or falls) on its own, provided you have the basic understanding of intellectual property law needed. - Tverbeek (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hence why perhaps we should see if the consensus has changed. Look, I'm not going to respond to things that I said on a random IP's username (which, I still don't buy is the same person as Tverbeek) here, when that's not the issue here. What the IP said, quite honestly, did not make sense the first time. I asked for clarification and what I received instead was an attack on my comprehension. I'm not saying I'm not at fault; I will admit, I could have been more civil, and for that I apologize. However, that doesn't excuse the personal attack. All I am asking is to see if the consensus should remain the same concerning the "due to." If the consensus concerning "due to" still says the original wording is fine, or if the consensus now is "Yes, it should be changed." The IP (and Tverbeek) have clearly given their opinion; I have clearly given mine. Now, I wish to see what other people think. Anakinjmt (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Some observations...
In general, it's a good idea to fully explain something that elicits a form of "What the heck? That doesn't make sense." And that is, more or less, what the edit summaries point to. The simile really doesn't cut it by way of explanation, first out of the gate should have been the basic definition, and erring on the side of caution.
Both (all three? It's a little hard to tell) editors need to step back and take a second look at their posts. Sarcasm really does not translate well into posts. It can come of as condesencion, snarkyness, and antagonism, all of which work against the intents of a cooperative project.
"Copyright infringement lawsuit and cancellation" still needs some work. There seems to be a lot of redundancy, and confusion, in the wording.
"Captain Marvel in the late 1980s" and "The Power of Shazam!" also have some very awkward places. And that's true of both the current and previous versions. A suggestion:
Captain Marvel in the late 1980s
The first post-Crisis appearance of Captain Marvel was in Legends, a limited series published in 1986. The following year he appeared in two separate series. One was as a member of the Justice League in the relaunch of the team's book by Keith Giffen and J. M. DeMatteis. The other was a four issue limited series titled Shazam! The New Beginning written by Roy and Dann Thomas. This series was an attempt to relaunch the Captain Marvel mythos and bring the character, along with the wizard Shazam, Dr. Sivana, Uncle Dudley and Black Adam, into the modern DC Universe. When the revisions to the characters and the origin did not get popular support, DC did not opt to go ahead with an ongoing series.
The most notable change that these writers introduced into the mythos was that the personality of young Billy Batson is retained when he transforms into the Captain. The Golden Age comics, on the other hand, tended to treat Captain Marvel and Billy as two separate personalities. This change would remain for most future uses of the character, as justification for his sunny, Golden-Age personality in the darker modern-day comic book world.
The Power of Shazam!
Main article: The Power of Shazam!
DC finally purchased the rights to all of the Fawcett Comics characters in 1991.[3] DC turned to Jerry Ordway to provide a second revision of Captain Marvel's origin. Ordway's version was published as The Power of Shazam!, a fully painted, hardcover graphic novel, in 1994. This story became Captain Marvel's official DC Universe origin story, replacing the limited series written by the Thomases. The character's appearances in Legends and Justice League were incorporated as part of the continuity Ordway created.
Ordway's story more closely followed Captain Marvel's Fawcett origins, with only slight additions and changes. For example, in this version of, it is Black Adam (in his non-powered form of Theo Adam) who killed Billy Batson's parents. The graphic novel was a critically acclaimed success, leading to an ongoing series, also title The Power of Shazam!, which ran from 1995 to 1999. That series reintroduced the Marvel Family, and many of their allies and enemies, into the modern-day DC Universe.
Captain Marvel also appeared in Mark Waid and Alex Ross's critically acclaimed limited series Kingdom Come published in 1996. Set thirty years in the future, the story features a brainwashed Captain Marvel playing a major role as a pawn of an elderly Lex Luthor. In 2000, Captain Marvel starred in an oversized special graphic novel, Shazam! Power of Hope, written by Paul Dini and painted by Alex Ross.
I'll vouch for Todd's being a lawyer, I've seen Todd's posts around for something like a decade now, so I'm happy to back up that assertion. If Todd also says that's his IP, I'll vouch him for that too. I'll also bow to Todd's wording on the legalese, but I'll say this; that's the way us people who have no legalese write, and it annoys us to be told it's gibberish. That's how we understand these concepts, we don't deal with them everyday and don't develop the shorthand or the familiarity of the terms to be confident in our approach to writing about them. As to the "due to", I think we have to fall back on WP:V on this. If we can't support it with a source and it has been challenged, we have to give way to the challenge. I'll try and work through some back issues of TCJ and see if they have anything about it. HidingTalk10:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Mind you, looking through the talk page edits, I think you may have blown out of control a little, Anakinjmt. Let's try and remember to always assume good faith and keep it as civil as possible. Let's treat each other as equals around here, a veneer of politeness is what keeps a community rubbing along. HidingTalk10:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
You can vouch for him all you want; I still can't know for sure. Perhaps I did get a little hotheaded; I tend to do that, and I apologize. I just don't take insults very well, especially to my intelligence. I always try to assume good faith, but when someone insults me, I tend to lose good faith in them. Anakinjmt (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
We're on the internet. How much can anyone know? For all I know you could be Todd arguing with himself through sock puppets. That's why we have an assume good faith policy. As for insults, I'm not interested in who started it, it takes two to tango. From my eye, it looks like there were two people ignoring WP:BRD. I also think the nub of the issue is that you don't decide whether to accept Todd's or the anon's reasoning because "there is no way of verifying he is who he says he is". You decide whether to accept the reasoning based on the reasoning. Since that is what eventually happened, I think it's best to chalk this up to communication issues on both sides and move on. Part of editing on Wikipedia involves collaborating. Part of that collaboration involves acting civilly and assuming good faith even when you don't want to. A rule of thumb is to hit show preview instead of save page, and then imagine how you would feel if you received the message. If it would bug you, change it to something else. And when you get a meesage that bugs you, take time to re-read it and see if there is another way of reading it which might not bug you as much. Never forget there is another human being on the other end of the computer screen. HidingT20:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I can't take Todd's word that he has a background in copyright laws because I am remembering the Wikipedia editor who claimed he had a doctorate in several areas and it was found out he was a guy in his 20s who had only finished high school (or something like that). I don't recall the exact name, but that is why, as a rule, I do not accept people's claims of their expertise on something, because I have no way of knowing whether or not they really have that. That is why I could not (and still cannot) accept Todd's current reasoning because he claimed that his reason was due to his background. I still had good faith in Todd (or the anon) until he brought up his background. I could tell you that I'm a professor of religion at Boston College, and that my background as a prof tells me that Christianity is the right religion to follow, but you have no way of knowing if I really am a professor of Boston College and if my knowledge of religion says that about Christianity. That's my point. I would also like to point out that while we may not have initially followed BRD (which is something I tend to not think about anyways), I did finally bring it here, because I did not want to break 3RR. Now, with that, I will again apologize for being brash and short-tempered (which I fully admit I was), and I hope we (being me and Todd or the anon or whoever) can put this behind us. Anakinjmt (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
![[2]](http://jl.toonzone.net/shazam/003.jpg){kind=link}
