How Many Captain Marvel Ripoffs Does Marvel Need?

[SMARTASS8]

When I first heard that Marvel had locked down most of the rights to Miracleman/Marvelman, I thought that was pretty big news. Then, after some thought, I realized other than being able to reprint the Alan Moore issues, that it really isn't. Marvelman is really no better a character than Rob Liefeld's Supreme. They are both obvious ripoffs of classic superheroes where the only thing that makes them special are some pretty good stories written by Alan Moore. Knowing that Hell will freeze over before he ever writes another book for Marvel(or DC or Image or...), all Marvel has is another Captain Marvel(Shazam) ripoff to go along with their Mar-Vell. To be honest, the news that DC is going to start a new universe featuring pulp fiction icons(Doc Savage, The Spirit, The Avenger, Rima The Jungle Girl) as well as finally getting the rights to the T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents is much more exciting. While I wish they weren't being squeezed into the already full DC Multiverse, it's still pretty great that they are all going to be used by DC in new stories.

I also wonder, ever since I saw this brought up on BleedingCool, if DC could actually sue Marvel for using a character that is a lot more blatant a ripoff of Captain Marvel than Mar-Vell ever was. Marvelman is even a more similar "homage" than Captain Marvel was of Superman back when DC sued Fawcett.

[WorstThingUS]

Marvelman is really no better a character than Rob Liefeld's Supreme.

Wow. You went there.

[Splatt]

The Alan Moore version of Marvelman is as similiar to Captain Marvel as apples are similiar to oranges.

[JurassicParkIsAnAwesomeMovie]

The Alan Moore version of Marvelman is as similiar to Captain Marvel as apples are similiar to oranges.

They're both fruits!?:confused: :biggrin:

[TROUBLEZ]

I think Marvelman is the bigger news.
It was an amazing story and Neil Gaiman's follow up was pretty damn good. Marvel was an exciting move if only for Gaiman and Buckingham to get the chance to finish the story.

DC starting a new universe of old heroes when they already have multi-verses of old heroes is pretty not-exciting.
THUNDER Agents was probably cool back in the day but, again, not so special in the overcrowded universes of today.
DC has Fawcett, Charlton, Milestone and probably some other old comic universes and STILL can't make a go of them. I doubt their new aquisitions will do any better.

As far as over crowding goes though, I agree. Too many superheroes. Plus Marvel already has Marvelman in the form of The Sentry, 2 Captain Marvels, 2 or 3 Ms Marvels...
But still the bigger news than Thunder Agents.

[carabas]

I think Marvelman is the bigger news.It depends. Marvel's been awefully shy about giving out information regarding what they have in mind for the character. If it turns out that they still can't reprint the Allan Moore/Neil Gaiman stuff, the news suddenly doesn't seem all that big anymore;

[TROUBLEZ]

True. But to me, it would still be bigger news than Doc Savage or THUNDER Agents.

Plus we're just going by news, not by any actual previews of either.

[Free-Man]

True. But to me, it would still be bigger news than Doc Savage or THUNDER Agents.

Plus we're just going by news, not by any actual previews of either.

The thing is, Gaiman is on friendly terms with MArvel and has not only written Marvel Man in the past, but he's stated a desire to do so again. So to me, that says Marvel may be planning a massive project with Neil, not just throwing MM on the Avengers or something.

[joao_miranda]

True. But to me, it would still be bigger news than Doc Savage or THUNDER Agents.

Plus we're just going by news, not by any actual previews of either.

No, if they can't reprint Moore/Gaiman runs the character is just a lame rip-off. One that was even forgotten by his creator, Mick Anglo, during a long time.

You may not like Doc Savage or T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents, but other people do. Probably more people that the ones that would be interest in Miracleman stories without the Moore or Gaiman name associated to them.

[SMARTASS8]

The thing is, Gaiman is on friendly terms with MArvel and has not only written Marvel Man in the past, but he's stated a desire to do so again. So to me, that says Marvel may be planning a massive project with Neil, not just throwing MM on the Avengers or something.


If Gaiman actually is able to finish his Marvelman story(it sounds like the rights for the character and his past stories still haven't been straightened out 100%), let's hope it's more successful than his more recent Marvel work. While Gaiman is talented, he still hasn't been able to come anywhere near the level of critical acclaim or popularity of his Sandman books.

[Laminator_X]

While Marvelman may have begun life as Captain Marvel with the serial numbers filed off, the modern tales were something entirely different and far more significant than that. They were part of the creative movement that brought us out of the Bronze Age, and were hugely influential among creators.

[Xero]

I would really like to see what Warren Ellis could do with Marvelman.

[carabas]

If Gaiman actually is able to finish his Marvelman story...I'm not terribly interested in reading the ending of a story I can't read the beginning off.

[SpawnSC]

least the character will actually be used for something. Todd McFarlane didn't do much with the rights he had at all..

[Free-Man]

I would really like to see what Warren Ellis could do with Marvelman.

Seconded. I'd love a Gaiman Maxi or mini series, maybe with Ellis doing a sequel ongoing.

[Red Lotus]

Does anyone know what is going on with the rights to Captain Marvel. There was an interview where Joe Q was asked about if Marvel would make a bid for the Superman rights if they came up. Joe said some thing about them being more interested in what was going to happen with Captain Marvel.

So I wonder if there is still a chance for marvel to go after Captain Marvel.

[joao_miranda]

Does anyone know what is going on with the rights to Captain Marvel. There was an interview where Joe Q was asked about if Marvel would make a bid for the Superman rights if they came up. Joe said some thing about them being more interested in what was going to happen with Captain Marvel.

So I wonder if there is still a chance for marvel to go after Captain Marvel.

Do you have a link, please?

[Vic Vega]

When I first heard that Marvel had locked down most of the rights to Miracleman/Marvelman, I thought that was pretty big news. Then, after some thought, I realized other than being able to reprint the Alan Moore issues, that it really isn't. Marvelman is really no better a character than Rob Liefeld's Supreme. They are both obvious ripoffs of classic superheroes where the only thing that makes them special are some pretty good stories written by Alan Moore. Knowing that Hell will freeze over before he ever writes another book for Marvel(or DC or Image or...), all Marvel has is another Captain Marvel(Shazam) ripoff to go along with their Mar-Vell. To be honest, the news that DC is going to start a new universe featuring pulp fiction icons(Doc Savage, The Spirit, The Avenger, Rima The Jungle Girl) as well as finally getting the rights to the T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents is much more exciting. While I wish they weren't being squeezed into the already full DC Multiverse, it's still pretty great that they are all going to be used by DC in new stories.

I also wonder, ever since I saw this brought up on BleedingCool, if DC could actually sue Marvel for using a character that is a lot more blatant a ripoff of Captain Marvel than Mar-Vell ever was. Marvelman is even a more similar "homage" than Captain Marvel was of Superman back when DC sued Fawcett.

D.C. has the rights to the Thunder Agents? Since when?

[Shellhead]

Marvel doesn't really need any Captain Marvel ripoffs, because they already have a dozen Superman ripoffs.

[joao_miranda]

D.C. has the rights to the Thunder Agents? Since when?

According to Dan Didio, since three weeks ago.

[Magnificent Bastard]

Marvel doesn't really need any Captain Marvel ripoffs, because they already have a dozen Superman ripoffs.

Wait, what? Other than Sentry who are the other 11?

[Shellhead]

Wait, what? Other than Sentry who are the other 11?

Gladiator (Imperial Guard)
Count Nefaria
Hyperion I (Squadron Sinister)
Hyperion II (Squadron Supreme)
Hyperion III (bald one from Exiles)
Hyperion IV (Supreme, yes this is a different Hyperion from the one in Squadron Supreme, he's actually a ripoff of a ripoff)
Man-God (Marvel Preview #9)
Sentry
Blue Marvel

Okay, so it wasn't quite a dozen, unless there are others that I have forgotten about. Anyway, it's long past time for Marvel to stop photocopying Superman and spend more time working with all of their own characters. Except for Moon Knight and all the Nighthawks, who are Batman ripoffs.

[Shellhead]

double post of doom

[Pól Rua]

How Many Captain Marvel Ripoffs Does Marvel Need?

All of them.

[Pól Rua]

D.C. has the rights to the Thunder Agents? Since when?

Since John Carbonaro died.

[vitruvian]

Man-God (Marvel Preview #9)


Man-God was just Marvel's title for a comic book adaptation of the novel Gladiator, starring Hugo Danner. Thing is, Hugo can't be a Superman imitation, since he predates DC's Man of Steel.

[Shellhead]

Man-God was just Marvel's title for a comic book adaptation of the novel Gladiator, starring Hugo Danner. Thing is, Hugo can't be a Superman imitation, since he predates DC's Man of Steel.

True, but aside from a brief Doc Savage run, Marvel never showed any interest in bringing back any pulp heroes. They apparently did this one-shot as part of their ongoing Superman envy.

[Darrell D.]

True, but aside from a brief Doc Savage run, Marvel never showed any interest in bringing back any pulp heroes. They apparently did this one-shot as part of their ongoing Superman envy.

Superman envy? Marvel's titiles starring their flagship hero outsell DC titles with THEIR flagship hero. Why would they have any kind of envy?

[Shellhead]

Superman envy? Marvel's titiles starring their flagship hero outsell DC titles with THEIR flagship hero. Why would they have any kind of envy?

You tell me why Marvel has four Hyperions, and you will have your answer.

[KET]

Stupid question. One might as well ask how many Superman analogues does DC currently publish. The 'Original Universe' certainly does have a love affair with too many completely unecessary duplicates themselves.

[Shellhead]

Stupid question. One might as well ask how many Superman analogues does DC currently publish. The 'Original Universe' certainly does have a love affair with too many completely unecessary duplicates themselves.

I'm starting to think that it's inevitable after a few decades of comic book continuity. Marvel has a bunch of Hulks right now. Hulk, Red Hulk, A-Bomb, She-Hulk, and there will be a Red She-Hulk coming soon. Also, Ultimate Hulk, and various alternate reality Hulks over the years.

And then there is Spider-man, Ultimate Spider-man, Ben Reilly Spider-man, Spider-Woman I, II, III and a couple of Spider-Girls.

Wolverine, X-51, Daken, Deathcry, Ultimate Wolverine, Old Man Logan, etc.

Bunch of Captain Americas, too.

[Darrell D.]

Stupid question. One might as well ask how many Superman analogues does DC currently publish. The 'Original Universe' certainly does have a love affair with too many completely unecessary duplicates themselves.

They were created to protect trademarks. That was the first thought into those 'creations'.

[SMARTASS8]

Stupid question. One might as well ask how many Superman analogues does DC currently publish. The 'Original Universe' certainly does have a love affair with too many completely unecessary duplicates themselves.

Thanks for taking the time to post on a thread featuring a question you find stupid, troll.

[Free-Man]

You can't call any of the Hyperions or Sentry for that matter to be made out of envy. It's parody and deconstruction.

They weren't made to actually be Marvel's answer to Superman. They were deliberate attempts at deconstructing or making fun of Superman and the rest of the JLA.

Both companies do this quite frequently.

[Darrell D.]

You can't call any of the Hyperions or Sentry for that matter to be made out of envy. It's parody and deconstruction.

They weren't made to actually be Marvel's answer to Superman. They were deliberate attempts at deconstructing or making fun of Superman and the rest of the JLA.

Both companies do this quite frequently.

In the case of Squadron Supreme (or Sinister, as they were known in their first appearance), I always thought it was a way for Roy Thomas to have a little 'Avengers VS. JLA' story. The whole point of Hyperion is that is was a stand-in for Superman, and fight the Avengers. At least, that's how I read the original story.

[Free-Man]

In the case of Squadron Supreme (or Sinister, as they were known in their first appearance), I always thought it was a way for Roy Thomas to have a little 'Avengers VS. JLA' story. The whole point of Hyperion is that is was a stand-in for Superman, and fight the Avengers. At least, that's how I read the original story.

Hm....

Well whatever version of Hyperion we're talking about (Supreme Power, Squadron Sinister, MAX. ECT), he was clearly intended to be a thinly veiled Superman pastiche, not a serious attempt at creating a wannabe Superman.

[vitruvian]

True, but aside from a brief Doc Savage run, Marvel never showed any interest in bringing back any pulp heroes. They apparently did this one-shot as part of their ongoing Superman envy.

Perhaps, but my point was that Hugo Danner cannot be classified as a Superman ripoff. There's a better argument for saying that Superman as he originally appeared was a Hugo Danner ripoff, given that the nature and scale of his powers were virtually identical, and some scenes from the novel appear to be almost exactly copied in early Siegel/Shuster stories.

[joao_miranda]

Superman envy? Marvel's titiles starring their flagship hero outsell DC titles with THEIR flagship hero. Why would they have any kind of envy?

Yeah, except DC's flagship hero right now is Batman. And he outsells all Marvel books most of the time.

Besides, if you see the numbers between Spider-Man and Superman they are not so different. And DC's in on the middle of the restructuration of the S-Universe.

[joao_miranda]

You can't call any of the Hyperions or Sentry for that matter to be made out of envy. It's parody and deconstruction.

They weren't made to actually be Marvel's answer to Superman. They were deliberate attempts at deconstructing or making fun of Superman and the rest of the JLA.

Both companies do this quite frequently.

To be honest, Marvel does it way more often.

And it rarely works. The only good examples are Lobo, Deadpool and Power Supreme (and that's just because of JMS, see what happened once he left).

[Shellhead]

Perhaps, but my point was that Hugo Danner cannot be classified as a Superman ripoff. There's a better argument for saying that Superman as he originally appeared was a Hugo Danner ripoff, given that the nature and scale of his powers were virtually identical, and some scenes from the novel appear to be almost exactly copied in early Siegel/Shuster stories.

I agree that Simon and Schuster got their idea from the Hugo Danner character. I'm just saying that Marvel probably did that one-shot Hugo Danner story because of the connection to Superman, not out of any real appreciation for Danner as a character in his own right. They might have even done it as a pre-emptive legal maneuver.

That said, I liked it when Claremont/Cockrum/Byrne named the Superboy analog (in the Imperial Guard) "Gladiator." It was a clever nod to the history of the concept.

[Red Lotus]

Do you have a link, please?

I couldn't find where Joe said it. But I can swear he even gave the year that Captain Marvel could be up for grabs. But here is a link where Dan Buckly talked about it.


http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:S9wKFDgLmwcJ:www.comicbookresources .com/%3Fpage%3Darticle%26id%3D16099+Marvel+had+the+oppo rtunity,+would+they+bid+to+be+able+to+publish+Supe rman+stories%3F%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

If Marvel had the opportunity, would they bid to be able to publish Superman stories?" asked a fan. Dan Buckley said they'd pay for Captain Marvel but not Superman.

[Pól Rua]

Superman envy? Marvel's titiles starring their flagship hero outsell DC titles with THEIR flagship hero. Why would they have any kind of envy?
Comic book sales are a tiny percentage of the money made from an intellectual property. And Superman will always sell more T-shirts, underoos, lunchboxes, toys, electric toothbrushes, peanut butter and temporary tattoos than any Marvel character.

[direction9]

When I first heard that Marvel had locked down most of the rights to Miracleman/Marvelman, I thought that was pretty big news. Then, after some thought, I realized other than being able to reprint the Alan Moore issues, that it really isn't. Marvelman is really no better a character than Rob Liefeld's Supreme. They are both obvious ripoffs of classic superheroes where the only thing that makes them special are some pretty good stories written by Alan Moore. Knowing that Hell will freeze over before he ever writes another book for Marvel(or DC or Image or...), all Marvel has is another Captain Marvel(Shazam) ripoff to go along with their Mar-Vell. To be honest, the news that DC is going to start a new universe featuring pulp fiction icons(Doc Savage, The Spirit, The Avenger, Rima The Jungle Girl) as well as finally getting the rights to the T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents is much more exciting. While I wish they weren't being squeezed into the already full DC Multiverse, it's still pretty great that they are all going to be used by DC in new stories.

I also wonder, ever since I saw this brought up on BleedingCool, if DC could actually sue Marvel for using a character that is a lot more blatant a ripoff of Captain Marvel than Mar-Vell ever was. Marvelman is even a more similar "homage" than Captain Marvel was of Superman back when DC sued Fawcett.

if i had a nickel for every terrible thread idea based on an erroneous batshit observation that some fanboy chose to entertain a little too seriously,
i'd have a bunch of nickels.

[Pól Rua]

if i had a nickel for every terrible thread idea based on an erroneous batshit observation that some fanboy chose to entertain a little too seriously,
i'd have a bunch of nickels.

And then you could build your own Metal Man! That's be AWESOME!!!

[protonik]

How the heck is Mar-vell a Shazam Captain Marvel rip off? Wow...

[protonik]

Yeah, except DC's flagship hero right now is Batman. And he outsells all Marvel books most of the time.

Besides, if you see the numbers between Spider-Man and Superman they are not so different. And DC's in on the middle of the restructuration of the S-Universe.

Ok, show numbers where Batman is outselling all Marvel books most of the time.

[Shellhead]

How the heck is Mar-vell a Shazam Captain Marvel rip off? Wow...

First hint would be the name "Captain Marvel." The Shazam guy was going by Captain Marvel nearly 30 years before him.

Another angle to consider... that phase when Rick Jones and Mar-vell were swapping places with each other using the Nega-Bands. It was a slight twist on the relationship between Billy Batson and Captain Marvel.

Finally, one of Mar-vell's foes was a Kree scientist named Doctor Minerva, which I consider to be an obvious nod towards Captain Marvel's old foe Doctor Sivana. Another non-coincidence would be the intervention to save Rick Jones' life by a Professor Savannah, whose name sounds like Sivana.

[SMARTASS8]

if i had a nickel for every terrible thread idea based on an erroneous batshit observation that some fanboy chose to entertain a little too seriously,
i'd have a bunch of nickels.


And I'd love to watch someone beat you over the head with those nickels, troll.





By the way, unless you just have a huge inferiority complex, you capitalize "I".

[direction9]

And I'd love to watch someone beat you over the head with those nickels, troll.





By the way, unless you just have a huge inferiority complex, you capitalize "I".

i'm going to eat your children

:)

[Pól Rua]

How the heck is Mar-vell a Shazam Captain Marvel rip off? Wow...

His name is Captain Marvel, he has a similar power-set and at one time, he was combined with a teenager who did something (instead of saying his magic word, he bashed his Nega Bands together) to transform into his adult superhuman form... in fact, Gil Kane and Roy Thomas have even admitted that it was a conscious decision.

[joao_miranda]

Ok, show numbers where Batman is outselling all Marvel books most of the time.

Go and look them for yourself. Go to the Diamond site and see.

The only thing selling more then Batman are events like SI and FC and, ocassionaly, the New Avengers.

[joao_miranda]

How the heck is Mar-vell a Shazam Captain Marvel rip off? Wow...

He was created so that DC couldn't use the "Captain Marvel" trademark. It's probably the worst rip-off in history.

[Lemurion]

Of course Marvel would pay money for the Marvel family - just for the name alone.

They're going to get all the rip-offs, homages, and pastiches they can until they can get the real thing. They would be stupid not to.

Having said that, I don't think Marvel would do well at all with Captain Marvel, so I hope they don't get him. What I'd really like would be for both companies to share the trademark - DC should be able to use it for the original Cap.

[Minihorse]

The two characters are completely different. If the TC did any research into both characters they would realize how different they are. This thread was created by a DC fanboy with zero knowledge of either character. Option 2 is you know full well what's going on but decided to troll anyways.

[Shellhead]

The two characters are completely different.

Pol and I already explained how they are similar. Are you going to address our points, or just pretend you didn't see them?

[AllisterH]

Go and look them for yourself. Go to the Diamond site and see.

The only thing selling more then Batman are events like SI and FC and, ocassionaly, the New Avengers.

Isn't Batman in an event status right now?

Er, one of the complaints against Batman is that it seems like every six months, the Batman books are having a Batfamily event (a.k.a crossover)....Seriously, I know marvel gets made fun of for being event driven but I thought it was understood that this was from marvel noticing how well Batman family events sold:confused: :confused:

[Lemurion]

The two characters are completely different. If the TC did any research into both characters they would realize how different they are. This thread was created by a DC fanboy with zero knowledge of either character. Option 2 is you know full well what's going on but decided to troll anyways.

The problem is that Marvelman is really two characters, not one. There's the version created by Mick Anglo in the 50's which is clearly derivative of Captain Marvel, and the reimagining by Moore and others that was later published by Eclipse in the US as "Miracleman."

While the "Miracleman" interpretation is a very different character from Captain Marvel, the same cannot be said of the original interpretation - and that's the only one that we can be sure Marvel has full and clear rights to. All the legal issues regarding the later, less derivative, and much more desirable "Miracleman" interpretation haven't been settled yet; and until that is resolved all we can say for sure is that Marvel owns the rights to the derivative "Marvelman" interpretation.

[joao_miranda]

Isn't Batman in an event status right now?

Er, one of the complaints against Batman is that it seems like every six months, the Batman books are having a Batfamily event (a.k.a crossover)....Seriously, I know marvel gets made fun of for being event driven but I thought it was understood that this was from marvel noticing how well Batman family events sold:confused: :confused:

I don't know if they're allways in events (they are now, after RIP), but I was talking about company wide events like Secret Invasion and Final Crisis.

[SMARTASS8]

The two characters are completely different. If the TC did any research into both characters they would realize how different they are. This thread was created by a DC fanboy with zero knowledge of either character. Option 2 is you know full well what's going on but decided to troll anyways.

Considering I grew up reading Marvelman since the Eclipse Miracleman reprints and tons of Captain Marvel books from DC, I know the characters are similar.

Considering you're coming on a thread you don't agree with just to call people names, you're the troll.

Have all of the trolls from Newsarama come over to CBR? These forums used to be a much friendlier place, but I guess those days are over.

[Will.S]

Marvel doesn't really need any Captain Marvel ripoffs, because they already have a dozen Superman ripoffs.

Gladiator (Imperial Guard)
Count Nefaria
Hyperion I (Squadron Sinister)
Hyperion II (Squadron Supreme)
Hyperion III (bald one from Exiles)
Hyperion IV (Supreme, yes this is a different Hyperion from the one in Squadron Supreme, he's actually a ripoff of a ripoff)
Man-God (Marvel Preview #9)
Sentry
Blue Marvel

Okay, so it wasn't quite a dozen, unless there are others that I have forgotten about. Anyway, it's long past time for Marvel to stop photocopying Superman and spend more time working with all of their own characters. Except for Moon Knight and all the Nighthawks, who are Batman ripoffs.
Be that as it may, Marvel doesn't really use the Superman analogue's all at once and if they do they serve different purposes so it's less of a problem. For example, Gladiator is pretty much always cosmic and made appearances every once in a while until the recent Shi'ar stuff got going and Sentry is always doing some unpredictable thing elsewhere but he's not used to his full potential all the time.

Nefaria only gets dusted off every once and a while and when he does he usually makes a pretty big splash but for the most part he's not used as often as one might think. Blue Marvel seems to be in limbo at the moment and most of the Hyperion's are in their own universes anyway but that being said, Blue Marvel isn't really a character I care a lot for due to his power set.

I actually think DC suffers more from having too many Superman style or higher powered characters like Shazam, Black Adam, Icon, Supergirl, Power Girl, Wonder-Woman, etc although I that's not to say that they don't fulfill different roles and have different personalities but their power sets do make them redundant in some ways.

[protonik]

He was created so that DC couldn't use the "Captain Marvel" trademark. It's probably the worst rip-off in history.

Except DC didn't own Captain Marvel until the late 70s. The WIth One Magic Word: SHazam series was published under a license and was launched in the mid 70s with the option to buy the character, very similar to the initial Charlton purchase. And Marvel wasn't the first to assume the Captain Marvel TM, M.F. Enterprises launched a character in 1966 called Captain Marvel... in a book called Captain Marvel. It lasted six issues and the trademark was picked up by Marvel. For more on this version: http://www.toonopedia.com/capmarv0.htm . Mar-vell wasn't created to screw DC/National but to capitalize on the popularity of the name with a new generation of readers. Marvel had done the same with Ghost Rider & Daredevil!

Mar-vell bears LITTLE resemblance to the Shazam Captain Marvel. At least as originally conceived. Mar-vell was a spy sent to observe the Earth and see how prepared the Earth was for an invasion by the Kree. He couldn't fly without his rocket pack, he had no powers in fact except that he was slightly stronger than a human! The one poster is correct that Savannah was a nod to Sivana & the Rick Jones fusion was kinda, sort, but not really, similar to Cap & Billy. But the similarity ends at "he switches places with a kid" in the same way that Invincible is similar to Superman.

Dr. Minerva bears no resemblance to Sivana, in any way, shape or form.

[protonik]

Go and look them for yourself. Go to the Diamond site and see.

The only thing selling more then Batman are events like SI and FC and, ocassionaly, the New Avengers.

You were the one who made the unsupported statement about the sales, the burden of evidence is on you. Aside from that, of course Batman sales are up, the book is currently an "event" driven series. Bruce is no longer Batman etc. and people want to see where it is going. You also aren't counting on the Gaiman factor or that we've only had the Batman books "back" for 2 months with a new slew of no. 1 issues etc. Without this factor the Batman titles would be where they were before RIP.

[joao_miranda]

Except DC didn't own Captain Marvel until the late 70s. The WIth One Magic Word: SHazam series was published under a license and was launched in the mid 70s with the option to buy the character, very similar to the initial Charlton purchase. And Marvel wasn't the first to assume the Captain Marvel TM, M.F. Enterprises launched a character in 1966 called Captain Marvel... in a book called Captain Marvel. It lasted six issues and the trademark was picked up by Marvel. For more on this version: http://www.toonopedia.com/capmarv0.htm . Mar-vell wasn't created to screw DC/National but to capitalize on the popularity of the name with a new generation of readers. Marvel had done the same with Ghost Rider & Daredevil!

Mar-vell bears LITTLE resemblance to the Shazam Captain Marvel. At least as originally conceived. Mar-vell was a spy sent to observe the Earth and see how prepared the Earth was for an invasion by the Kree. He couldn't fly without his rocket pack, he had no powers in fact except that he was slightly stronger than a human! The one poster is correct that Savannah was a nod to Sivana & the Rick Jones fusion was kinda, sort, but not really, similar to Cap & Billy. But the similarity ends at "he switches places with a kid" in the same way that Invincible is similar to Superman.

Dr. Minerva bears no resemblance to Sivana, in any way, shape or form.

Look, is basic comics history that the Marvel Captain Marvel was created so that DC couldn't use the "Captain Marvel" trademark. Everybody will tell you that.

And for me that's the most ridiculous you can get in terms of reasons to create a character.

[joao_miranda]

You were the one who made the unsupported statement about the sales, the burden of evidence is on you. Aside from that, of course Batman sales are up, the book is currently an "event" driven series. Bruce is no longer Batman etc. and people want to see where it is going. You also aren't counting on the Gaiman factor or that we've only had the Batman books "back" for 2 months with a new slew of no. 1 issues etc. Without this factor the Batman titles would be where they were before RIP.

Man, are you that lazy? Go to the Diamon site. I've already been there and I know the numbers. You're the one who don't, you're the one who should look.

Go there and then let's talk about "unsupported statements".

The book was up there way before Bruce Wayne was gone. And I wasn't even considered the Gaiman's issues.

[protonik]

Look, is basic comics history that the Marvel Captain Marvel was created so that DC couldn't use the "Captain Marvel" trademark. Everybody will tell you that.

And for me that's the most ridiculous you can get in terms of reasons to create a character.

Except basic research will show you it isn't true. Basic comics history shows DC did not get a hold of Captain Marvel until the early 70s, AFTER Marvel had created Mar-Vell. So it wasn't a case of blocking DC, but a case of keeping ANYBODY from having a character named Marvel of any sort similar to how DC had trademarks on EVERYTHING Super-whatever. DC didn't indicate any interest in Captain Marvel until after Mar-vell first appeared. It was no more Marvel blocking DC than they were blocking Charlton or Gold Key or Archie etc.

[Darrell D.]

Except basic research will show you it isn't true. Basic comics history shows DC did not get a hold of Captain Marvel until the early 70s, AFTER Marvel had created Mar-Vell. So it wasn't a case of blocking DC, but a case of keeping ANYBODY from having a character named Marvel of any sort similar to how DC had trademarks on EVERYTHING Super-whatever. DC didn't indicate any interest in Captain Marvel until after Mar-vell first appeared. It was no more Marvel blocking DC than they were blocking Charlton or Gold Key or Archie etc.

And before DC published Shazam, they did somewhat of a 'tryout' for the character in the form of Captain Thunder in an issue of Superman (or was it Action?).

[Darrell D.]

Look, is basic comics history that the Marvel Captain Marvel was created so that DC couldn't use the "Captain Marvel" trademark. Everybody will tell you that.

And for me that's the most ridiculous you can get in terms of reasons to create a character.

No, it was a case of Marvel protecting their 'Marvel' trademark. That's all.

[joao_miranda]

Except basic research will show you it isn't true. Basic comics history shows DC did not get a hold of Captain Marvel until the early 70s, AFTER Marvel had created Mar-Vell. So it wasn't a case of blocking DC, but a case of keeping ANYBODY from having a character named Marvel of any sort similar to how DC had trademarks on EVERYTHING Super-whatever. DC didn't indicate any interest in Captain Marvel until after Mar-vell first appeared. It was no more Marvel blocking DC than they were blocking Charlton or Gold Key or Archie etc.

Basic intelligence will show you that if Marvel only started publishing Captain Marvel after DC they wouldn't get the trademark. At the time the only option for the character to ever to get published again was at DC Comics. You didn't needed to be a genious to realize what would eventually happen.

So, Stan Lee created a character that would prevent the biggest publisher at the time to use something with the same name as the rising publisher at the time, Marvel Comics.

I'm not sure, but I think that even Stan Lee admited that that was the only reason he created the character.

Since then Marvel only needs to publish a mini-series every once and a while and the trademark is theirs. What do you think the recent mini-series was about? It certainly didn't add nothing to the character history or to Secret Invasion.

[joao_miranda]

No, it was a case of Marvel protecting their 'Marvel' trademark. That's all.

And they did that by creating a Captain Marvel so that DC couldn't use the "Captain Marvel" trademark.

That was what I said.

[Darrell D.]

And they did that by creating a Captain Marvel so that DC couldn't use the "Captain Marvel" trademark.

That was what I said.

But the timelines don't line up. Stan Lee and Gene Colan created Captain Marvel in 1967, and DC didn't start licensing the Fawcett character until 1972.
Marvel saw that they could have a character called Captain Marvel, and created it.
Now, the whole 'Miracleman/Marvelman' thing I don't agree with; Marvel didn't have a character called Marvelman and forcing Eclipse to change the character's name to 'Miracleman' smacks of bullying, frankly.
And the irony of this is that DC, after basically putting Fawcett out of business, decides to license the character from the company, and then buying it.

[joao_miranda]

But the timelines don't line up. Stan Lee and Gene Colan created Captain Marvel in 1967, and DC didn't start licensing the Fawcett character until 1972.
Marvel saw that they could have a character called Captain Marvel, and created it.
Now, the whole 'Miracleman/Marvelman' thing I don't agree with; Marvel didn't have a character called Marvelman and forcing Eclipse to change the character's name to 'Miracleman' smacks of bullying, frankly.
And the irony of this is that DC, after basically putting Fawcett out of business, decides to license the character from the company, and then buying it.

Just read what I said above. The timeline fits perfectly.

The only publisher that could publish Captain Marvel after the process was DC. So it was logical that DC would eventually use the old best-selling character. That would mean that DC would have a Captain Marvel title, while there would be a Marvel Comics, completely unreleated.

Stan Lee realized that and create a character that he could use to obtain the trademark before the deal between DC and what was left of Fawcett was made.

[Darrell D.]

Just read what I said above. The timeline fits perfectly.

The only publisher that could publish Captain Marvel after the process was DC. So it was logical that DC would eventually use the old best-selling character. That would mean that DC would have a Captain Marvel title, while there would be a Marvel Comics, completely unreleated.

Stan Lee realized that and create a character that he could use to obtain the trademark before the deal between DC and what was left of Fawcett was made.

I'm not seeing where DC would be the only publisher that could publish the Fawcett character Captain Marvel. After the reversal on appeal in 1951, Fawcett settled out of court with DC and agreed to cease publication of the character. Marvel saw that the trademark for the character name was available and used it.

[joao_miranda]

I'm not seeing where DC would be the only publisher that could publish the Fawcett character Captain Marvel. After the reversal on appeal in 1951, Fawcett settled out of court with DC and agreed to cease publication of the character. Marvel saw that the trademark for the character name was available and used it.

Why was DC the only one who could published him? Because any other company could be sued by DC as Fawcett was.

Again, why do you think that Marvel picked up the trademark? Captain Marvel is not that good of a name. Stan Lee was not a saint. The guy as been acussed of coppying the X-Men from the Doom Patrol and of taking a lot of credit from his own artists, like Kirby and Ditko.

[Darrell D.]

Why was DC the only one who could published him? Because any other company could be sued by DC as Fawcett was.
Ah, that would be true, since DC sued Fawcett out of existence for copyright 'infringement'. Thus the irony.


Again, why do you think that Marvel picked up the trademark? Captain Marvel is not that good of a name. Stan Lee was not a saint. The guy as been accused of copying the X-Men from the Doom Patrol and of taking a lot of credit from his own artists, like Kirby and Ditko.

Well, yeah, Stan was a credit hog, and in a perfect world Jack and Steve's name would be on every Marvel comic along with Stan's.
And I will admit that I may be wrong on Marvel's reasons for getting the 'Captain Marvel' name, but to me it just seems to be a good idea to have a character with that name if your company is called 'Marvel'.

[Joe Rice]

At the time, I would think it'd be more likely to see another company create their own Captain Marvel, like the guy whose body flew apart. That was probably more of a concern than a long-dormant property being resurrected by the company that put him down.

[Shellhead]

It's interesting that Captain Marvel was the most popular character in the golden age of comics, outselling even Superman. But it makes sense if you remember that the primary market for comics back then was kids. And what better superhero imaginable to a kid than Captain Marvel? He was a kid who turn into an adult and a superman just by saying a magic word.

So it's understandable that this character might be of great interest to DC, because he was a Superman ripoff who was selling better. And Stan Lee was working at Timely back then, and Stan always had a knack for hype, so he possibly named Marvel Comics for Captain Marvel, hoping to capture that same fanbase by word association. Stan wasn't above taking credit for other creators' work (Kirby, Ditko) or swiping ideas from the pulp era (Beast was clearly based on Monk Mayfair, for example).

[Joe Rice]

What's interesting in the "rip off" stuff is that once DC put Fawcett out of business they hired the Captain Marvel writers. I think it was Otto Binder that first brought in Supergirl and some of the other "Marvel Family"-like elements into the Superman mythos. (I could be misremembering.)

[joao_miranda]

Ah, that would be true, since DC sued Fawcett out of existence for copyright 'infringement'. Thus the irony.

Indeed.


Well, yeah, Stan was a credit hog, and in a perfect world Jack and Steve's name would be on every Marvel comic along with Stan's.
And I will admit that I may be wrong on Marvel's reasons for getting the 'Captain Marvel' name, but to me it just seems to be a good idea to have a character with that name if your company is called 'Marvel'.

Of course it is. I'm not saying he did the wrong thing.

Just saying that a character that was created with that motives is still a rip-off. And in my book, the worst kind.

[Darrell D.]

It's interesting that Captain Marvel was the most popular character in the golden age of comics, outselling even Superman.
Hence DC or National as they were known then, filing the copyright infringement suit. It is amazing that they won on appeal.

But it makes sense if you remember that the primary market for comics back then was kids. And what better superhero imaginable to a kid than Captain Marvel? He was a kid who turn into an adult and a superman just by saying a magic word.
Plus, the talents of CC Beck and Otto Binder. Those Captain Marvel stories are the best, bar none.

[Darrell D.]

What's interesting in the "rip off" stuff is that once DC put Fawcett out of business they hired the Captain Marvel writers. I think it was Otto Binder that first brought in Supergirl and some of the other "Marvel Family"-like elements into the Superman mythos. (I could be misremembering.)

Yeah, Binder and Curt Swan created Supergirl.

[Make Mine Mar-Vell]

Mar-Vell is his own unique character, from a story writing point of view, he kind of puts the others to shame.

The character doesn't even really need the name more than the name needs the character.

It's a shame Marvel doesn't recognize that and challenge their graphic novel in bringing him back with new stories rather than continually replacing him.

[Don Quixote]

Y'know, if I ran a comic book company called Marvel, and there were characters created by or owned by other companies, who incorporated the name 'Marvel', then I'd do everything I could to get my hands on them.

Marvel may not intend to do anything with the Marvelman character in the immediate future. They may not even have long term plans, other than making sure there isn't suddenly a DC, Darkhorse or Image book being published with 'Marvel' splashed across the front. Makes sense to me.

Hell, I bet if some old character called Colonel DC was knocking about, with the trademark available, DC would snap him up in a heartbeat.

[Drcharles]

Marvelman in the Marvel Uni will be quite big news, especially if they keep him British, like the original.........
It will work,
he will probably be linked to Capt Brits crew...........

[carabas]

Mar-Vell is his own unique characte.Well, then let him get his own damn unique superhero name then.
He was only created to prevent DC from printing a book titles Captain Marvel, starring the original Captain Marvel.

[SMARTASS8]

Mar-Vell is his own unique character, from a story writing point of view, he kind of puts the others to shame.

The character doesn't even really need the name more than the name needs the character.

It's a shame Marvel doesn't recognize that and challenge their graphic novel in bringing him back with new stories rather than continually replacing him.

Sure! He was such a unique character that they pretty much had to reinvent him by changing his costume, his hair color, and adding Rick Jones as his partner(like he already was with the Hulk and Captain America). When that still didn't make him a huge star, they killed him off and left him dead unlike Aunt May, Bucky, Jean Grey, Rocket Raccoon, etc.

[Magnificent Bastard]

Gladiator (Imperial Guard)
Count Nefaria
Hyperion I (Squadron Sinister)
Hyperion II (Squadron Supreme)
Hyperion III (bald one from Exiles)
Hyperion IV (Supreme, yes this is a different Hyperion from the one in Squadron Supreme, he's actually a ripoff of a ripoff)
Man-God (Marvel Preview #9)
Sentry
Blue Marvel

Okay, so it wasn't quite a dozen, unless there are others that I have forgotten about. Anyway, it's long past time for Marvel to stop photocopying Superman and spend more time working with all of their own characters. Except for Moon Knight and all the Nighthawks, who are Batman ripoffs.

Ok, all the Hyperion guys are so far down the radar that I had to think about whom you were referring to.

Gladiator? Another guy down the radar. Sure he's big with fans of X-Men/space dramas, but inside the main MU he's a nobody.

Man-God? I don't know who/what this is.

Count Nefaria? Bad guy, right? I saw him once in an Avengers book back in the late 70 or early 80's. Since then no recollections of him. Actually, I think a Superman clone bad guy running around the MU would be awesome.

You mean Supreme from Image comics? I don't recall a Supreme in the MU, if I'm wrong then I stand corrected. And very confused.

Blue Marvel? Again, I don't know who/what he/she is. Space guy kinda thing? Sounds like another below the radar kinda clone.

Sentry. Ok, I can see what you mean, but man this is one messed up super dude. Still another low radar level character. I think Tigra gets used more often than the Sentry in the MU.

[kalorama]

Gladiator (Imperial Guard)
Count Nefaria
Hyperion I (Squadron Sinister)
Hyperion II (Squadron Supreme)
Hyperion III (bald one from Exiles)
Hyperion IV (Supreme, yes this is a different Hyperion from the one in Squadron Supreme, he's actually a ripoff of a ripoff)
Man-God (Marvel Preview #9)
Sentry
Blue Marvel

Other than Hyperion, (and it doesn't matter how you spin it, they're essentially all the same character, in the same way that pre-and post-crisis Superman are essentially the same character) who was a quite intentional and obvious take off, the only thing most of those other characters have in common with Superman is that they have super-strength, fly, and wear capes. (And, if memory serves, Man-God didn't even do those.)

Seriously, Count Nefaria?

[carabas]

Other than Hyperion, (and it doesn't matter how you spin it, they're essentially all the same character, in the same way that pre-and post-crisis Superman are essentially the same character) who was a quite intentional and obvious take off, the only thing most of those other characters have in common with Superman is that they have super-strength, fly, and wear capes. (And, if memory serves, Man-God didn't even do those.)

Seriously, Count Nefaria?
The Sentry does wear the S. And was retconned in to be the first of all superheroes.
And Gladiator and the Imperial Guard are directly based on Superboy and the Legion Of Superheroes.
I have no idea who this Blue Marvel character is.

[kalorama]

The Sentry does wear the S. And was retconned in to be the first of all superheroes.

Which, aren't actually significant parallels to Superman. (He wears an S because his name starts with one. OMG! RIPOFF!!!) His origin is different, his backstory is different. Again, he's superpowerful, flies, wears a cape. That's pretty much it.

And Gladiator and the Imperial Guard are directly based on Superboy and the Legion Of Superheroes.

They were created to be obvious analogs/homages, but I don't think that Gladiator's character details (to the extent that we know them) are like Superman's. I don't recall Kal-El ever serving as part of the Kryptonian Imperial guard (unless you count the current World of Krypton storyline, in which case you could argue that Superman is ripping off the Gladiator). Again, Super-strong alien, flies, wears a cape.

[Shellhead]

Which, aren't actually significant parallels to Superman. (He wears an S because his name starts with one. OMG! RIPOFF!!!) His origin is different, his backstory is different. Again, he's superpowerful, flies, wears a cape. That's pretty much it.



They were created to be obvious analogs/homages, but I don't think that Gladiator's character details (to the extent that we know them) are like Superman's. I don't recall Kal-El ever serving as part of the Kryptonian Imperial guard (unless you count the current World of Krypton storyline, in which case you could argue that Superman is ripping off the Gladiator). Again, Super-strong alien, flies, wears a cape.

Most people are incapable of reading a book if they hold it so close that the pages touch their nose. You are getting stuck on minor trivia so that you can avoid seeing the obvious big picture.

[carabas]

Your reply is similar but shorter and much more to the point than what I had in mind. So, thanks for saving me some typing.

[kalorama]

Most people are incapable of reading a book if they hold it so close that the pages touch their nose. You are getting stuck on minor trivia so that you can avoid seeing the obvious big picture.

I think they call that "projecting."

Claiming that Sentry is a Superman rip off when the only thing they have in common is power levels and an S on their chest is getting caught up in minor trivia. As actual characters they have little to nothing in common. And there is no "obvious big picture" here. The very fact that someone brought this up is indicative of nitpicking at details to find something to complain about.

[Shellhead]

I think they call that "projecting."

Claiming that Sentry is a Superman rip off when the only thing they have in common is power levels and an S on their chest is getting caught up in minor trivia. As actual characters they have little to nothing in common.

You are picking and choosing what to ignore, just to make your case. Anybody can do that.

Sentry and Superman both have:

*a secret identity
*superhuman strength
*the ability to fly, even in space
*access to advanced technology
*superhuman response time and speed
*a caped costume in primary colors
*status as the premier hero of their respective universes, though in Sentry's case, this is a retcon and not at all reflective of how fans perceive him
*membership in the leading superhero team on their respective planets

Yes, there are differences. The insanity and/or Void problem, which is still very loosely-defined. Superman is an alien, while Sentry is from Earth. Superman's powers are inherent, while Sentry's derive from a potion that he drank. So if you really just refuse to admit that Jenkins based Sentry on Superman, you have your excuses. But it's pretty damn obvious to the rest of us.

[protonik]

But the timelines don't line up. Stan Lee and Gene Colan created Captain Marvel in 1967, and DC didn't start licensing the Fawcett character until 1972.
Marvel saw that they could have a character called Captain Marvel, and created it.
Now, the whole 'Miracleman/Marvelman' thing I don't agree with; Marvel didn't have a character called Marvelman and forcing Eclipse to change the character's name to 'Miracleman' smacks of bullying, frankly.
And the irony of this is that DC, after basically putting Fawcett out of business, decides to license the character from the company, and then buying it.

Why was DC the only one who could published him? Because any other company could be sued by DC as Fawcett was.

Again, why do you think that Marvel picked up the trademark? Captain Marvel is not that good of a name. Stan Lee was not a saint. The guy as been acussed of coppying the X-Men from the Doom Patrol and of taking a lot of credit from his own artists, like Kirby and Ditko.

Except Fawcett didn't lose the lawsuit, they won on an appeal. DC had no interest in Captain Marvel until a revival of interest occurred in the early 70s. DC was not going to be suing anyone for licensing the character after Fawcett stopped publishing comic books (Fawcett is actually still around as a division of Random House). The revival of interest was a result of Stan Lee and Colan's character, kids bought the book, parents saw the name & then inquired about the original character. DC saw a chance to make some money so they licensed Captain Marvel from Fawcett in 1972. Yes, Stan was trying to capitalize on the Marvel name but it was, as I said, no different than when DC trademarked SUperwoman, Superboy, Superbaby, superwhatever in the 1940s, to protect a trademark. Marvel had trademarked the word "Marvel" and then started trademarking anything they could by the name Marvel, including a Marvel Boy, Marvel Girl, etc.Captain Marvel was a given and had name recognition. DC had no plans, ZERO to ever publish the original character at that point or they would have trademarked the name after the Fawcett trademark expired instead of another company having done it in the early 60s... before Marvel! I bet Stan would have tried to get the name trademark all the way back then were it not already trademarked by another company then had he known how huge Marvel would have been.

And yes, Marvel did have a character called Marvelman, he was in Alan Moore's Captain Britain and he was essentially the same Marvelman we know of today. He gets killed in one panel by the Fury but yes, they show a Marvelman and even Young Marvelman. It was a throw away shot but they could have gone with that character if they wanted. They also did have grounds to threaten Eclipse as such a use could have water downed their own trademark. Was it right? no but it still was a wise business move on Marvel's part.

[protonik]

It's interesting that Captain Marvel was the most popular character in the golden age of comics, outselling even Superman. But it makes sense if you remember that the primary market for comics back then was kids. And what better superhero imaginable to a kid than Captain Marvel? He was a kid who turn into an adult and a superman just by saying a magic word.

So it's understandable that this character might be of great interest to DC, because he was a Superman ripoff who was selling better. And Stan Lee was working at Timely back then, and Stan always had a knack for hype, so he possibly named Marvel Comics for Captain Marvel, hoping to capture that same fanbase by word association. Stan wasn't above taking credit for other creators' work (Kirby, Ditko) or swiping ideas from the pulp era (Beast was clearly based on Monk Mayfair, for example).

Marvel changed their name to Marvel because they published Marvel Comics in the forties and wanted to maintain the trademark & identification.

[protonik]

Well, then let him get his own damn unique superhero name then.
He was only created to prevent DC from printing a book titles Captain Marvel, starring the original Captain Marvel.

I'd like to see proof of that considering at the time Marvel was being distributed by DC Comics. Back when Mar-vell first appeared Marvel couldn't afford to pay for distibution and was being distributed by DC. Marvel was only able to put out so many books a month, which why they had the proliferation of 2 character titles when superheroes boomed again. When a title was borderline like the Hulk, they would be put in another books with another character, in this case the Sub-Mariner. It is telling that Mar-vell first appeared in MARVEL SUPERHEROES as opposed to his own, trademarkable, series if Marvel was wanting to keep DC from publishing a character that DC didn't have any rights or plans to use at that time. When Marvel came out from under DC's distribution following Kirby's departure they launched books for their most popular characters that didn't have their own books, Fury, Mar-vell, Hulk, Strange, Cap, & Sub-mariner. The SIlver Surfer was the only character that didn't have a feature in a book before his no. 1 came out.

[protonik]

Yes, even Jenkins will tell you that the Sentry is supposed to be a Superman analogue.

[joao_miranda]

Except Fawcett didn't lose the lawsuit, they won on an appeal. DC had no interest in Captain Marvel until a revival of interest occurred in the early 70s. DC was not going to be suing anyone for licensing the character after Fawcett stopped publishing comic books (Fawcett is actually still around as a division of Random House). The revival of interest was a result of Stan Lee and Colan's character, kids bought the book, parents saw the name & then inquired about the original character. DC saw a chance to make some money so they licensed Captain Marvel from Fawcett in 1972. Yes, Stan was trying to capitalize on the Marvel name but it was, as I said, no different than when DC trademarked SUperwoman, Superboy, Superbaby, superwhatever in the 1940s, to protect a trademark. Marvel had trademarked the word "Marvel" and then started trademarking anything they could by the name Marvel, including a Marvel Boy, Marvel Girl, etc.Captain Marvel was a given and had name recognition. DC had no plans, ZERO to ever publish the original character at that point or they would have trademarked the name after the Fawcett trademark expired instead of another company having done it in the early 60s... before Marvel! I bet Stan would have tried to get the name trademark all the way back then were it not already trademarked by another company then had he known how huge Marvel would have been.

And yes, Marvel did have a character called Marvelman, he was in Alan Moore's Captain Britain and he was essentially the same Marvelman we know of today. He gets killed in one panel by the Fury but yes, they show a Marvelman and even Young Marvelman. It was a throw away shot but they could have gone with that character if they wanted. They also did have grounds to threaten Eclipse as such a use could have water downed their own trademark. Was it right? no but it still was a wise business move on Marvel's part.

Going to try to explain again. This time with modern examples:

-DC recently licensed the Milestone characters. This was being talked about for more ten years and failed more than once. And that's for characters of a former imprint of DC.

-They also licensed the T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents, something they have been trying for years. They inclusevely start writing a new series in 2000 (I think) that was never printed.

This two cases were between friendly entitys. For DC to buy the Fawcett character they had to negociate to a company that they had practicaly destroyed. Do you really think that that deal didn't took YEARS to be made? And you think that important guys to the industry, like Stan Lee, didn't know about the negociations?

Also, Fawcett didn't win the appeal. They lose and made a deal with National Comics, that included ceasing the publication of the Captain Marvel titles and a $400.000 payment.

One more thing, the revival of the interest in the superheroes was in the 50s, not in the 70s.

[Darrell D.]

And yes, Marvel did have a character called Marvelman, he was in Alan Moore's Captain Britain and he was essentially the same Marvelman we know of today. He gets killed in one panel by the Fury but yes, they show a Marvelman and even Young Marvelman. It was a throw away shot but they could have gone with that character if they wanted. They also did have grounds to threaten Eclipse as such a use could have water downed their own trademark. Was it right? no but it still was a wise business move on Marvel's part.

Ah, now that's interesting, I had no idea of that. Thanks.

[Darrell D.]

I'd like to see proof of that considering at the time Marvel was being distributed by DC Comics. Back when Mar-vell first appeared Marvel couldn't afford to pay for distibution and was being distributed by DC. Marvel was only able to put out so many books a month, which why they had the proliferation of 2 character titles when superheroes boomed again. When a title was borderline like the Hulk, they would be put in another books with another character, in this case the Sub-Mariner. It is telling that Mar-vell first appeared in MARVEL SUPERHEROES as opposed to his own, trademarkable, series if Marvel was wanting to keep DC from publishing a character that DC didn't have any rights or plans to use at that time. When Marvel came out from under DC's distribution following Kirby's departure they launched books for their most popular characters that didn't have their own books, Fury, Mar-vell, Hulk, Strange, Cap, & Sub-mariner. The SIlver Surfer was the only character that didn't have a feature in a book before his no. 1 came out.

Very true, and I can't believe I forgot about that. Marvel was using DC to distribute their books in the early days, which is why most of the early covers featured monsters or aliens, and the FF really didn't get costumes until issue #4, Marvel didn't want DC to think it was 'horning' in on the their super-hero books, and cause DC to drop them.

[protonik]

Fawcett settled out of court with DC. They didn't lose and quit publishing comics altogether because the market was failing. This was in 1953. Fawcett sold the majority of their characters to Charlton and DC licensed Captain Marvel in 1972, bought the characters in 1980... long after Mar-vell first appeared and not long before his death! As a licensed property DC wouldn't even have been able to trademark the name anyway as they were paying for the right to use Fawcett's trademarks & copyrights knowing that Marvel had a Captain Marvel. It certainly wasn't about screwing DC, especially in particular as you seem to suggest. It was to keep everyone from having a Captain Marvel and preventing dilution of trademark. Marvel owned the word Marvel as a trademark. If Atlas comics came along (as an example) and decided to publish "Captain Marvel" before Marvel did, it would be diluting their claims to the word "Marvel". As I said before, another company published a Captain Marvel book before Marvel... were they trying to keep National from getting the character as well?

And I wasn't referring to the revival of interest in SUPERHEROES but the revival of interest in CAPTAIN MARVEL that occured in the 70s. Reread my original statement. I know all about the Silver Age thank you.

Yes it sucks that DC can't publish a Captain Marvel Adventures. I agree, but it isn't some conspiracy, especially considering at the time Marvel was in business and heavily relied on DC to get their product on the shelf. If they ticked off DC they would have lost distribution. You don't antagonize your business partner when they have your nuts in a vice. You don't screw them out of a trademark.

As to Milestone & the ThunderAGENTS... Milestone was a given going to DC as Milestone had such a strong relationship with DC back in the 90s and has licensing deals worked out with Warner Bros. I don't think it was in the works for 10 years though! LOL. As to the ThunderAgents... the guy who owned the rights JUST DIED and DC had already had a ThunderAgents license yanked from them in the last 5 years. I'd say that deal wasin the works for a very short time considering that John Carbonero was notorious for being difficult to work with & uninterested in selling the rights to anyone! He died in February and DC was known to want the property & they probably leaped at the chance to buy the rights at a fraction of the value the property had in the 80s when Carbonero won the rights. Sometimes these deals take years, other times they take a few weeks & an estate sell. Look at the rights to Valiant or the Gold Key characters...

[joao_miranda]

Fawcett settled out of court with DC. They didn't lose and quit publishing comics altogether because the market was failing. This was in 1953. Fawcett sold the majority of their characters to Charlton and DC licensed Captain Marvel in 1972, bought the characters in 1980... long after Mar-vell first appeared and not long before his death! As a licensed property DC wouldn't even have been able to trademark the name anyway as they were paying for the right to use Fawcett's trademarks & copyrights knowing that Marvel had a Captain Marvel. It certainly wasn't about screwing DC, especially in particular as you seem to suggest. It was to keep everyone from having a Captain Marvel and preventing dilution of trademark. Marvel owned the word Marvel as a trademark. If Atlas comics came along (as an example) and decided to publish "Captain Marvel" before Marvel did, it would be diluting their claims to the word "Marvel". As I said before, another company published a Captain Marvel book before Marvel... were they trying to keep National from getting the character as well?

What are you trying to do? When did I said they were trying to screw DC? They were protecting their trademark. There's no problem in that. Just don't say that there were other reasons to create it.

Fawcett couldn't have the trademark, since Marvel got it. It doesn't matter when DC bought Captain Marvel. They also only licensed the T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents, and that doesn't mean Marvel can publish a book called T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents.

Again, bussiness aren't made in one day. It probably took years and years to make that deal. Probably way before Stan Lee ever thought of his Captain.


And I wasn't referring to the revival of interest in SUPERHEROES but the revival of interest in CAPTAIN MARVEL that occured in the 70s. Reread my original statement. I know all about the Silver Age thank you.

So, when they revive Green Lantern was because people revived their interested in Green Lantern or because of the sucess of the Flash? DC saw a formely popular superhero in a time were superheroes were coming back.

It's also good to know that you know ALL there's to know about the Silver Age.


Yes it sucks that DC can't publish a Captain Marvel Adventures. I agree, but it isn't some conspiracy, especially considering at the time Marvel was in business and heavily relied on DC to get their product on the shelf. If they ticked off DC they would have lost distribution. You don't antagonize your business partner when they have your nuts in a vice. You don't screw them out of a trademark.

But they did.


As to Milestone & the ThunderAGENTS... Milestone was a given going to DC as Milestone had such a strong relationship with DC back in the 90s and has licensing deals worked out with Warner Bros. I don't think it was in the works for 10 years though! LOL. As to the ThunderAgents... the guy who owned the rights JUST DIED and DC had already had a ThunderAgents license yanked from them in the last 5 years. I'd say that deal wasin the works for a very short time considering that John Carbonero was notorious for being difficult to work with & uninterested in selling the rights to anyone! He died in February and DC was known to want the property & they probably leaped at the chance to buy the rights at a fraction of the value the property had in the 80s when Carbonero won the rights. Sometimes these deals take years, other times they take a few weeks & an estate sell. Look at the rights to Valiant or the Gold Key characters...

Ask Dwayne McDuffie. He already said that there have negociations since at least 1997.

And of course it could take few time. But normally it doesn't. Look at Doc Savage. No one has been using it, no one had interest in him personally, has John Carbonaro did with the agents. But it still took a long time for him to come at DC, as Didio said. I'm no sure, but I think he's been trying that since he came to DC.

[Mobey Wee]

I'll come in just to say, super-fast, super-strong, super invulnerable, pretty much super everything, is not exactly the most original concept. And that is MOST of what they have in common, super bad assness. Primary colors, a cape, secret identity? Obviously I can't disagree, but I wonder how many other heroes could be added to that list. I don't think they're trying to rip off superman. They just wanted someone on his power level, which Thor and the Hulk really aren't in my opinion (but that's another thread). I'm not saying the similarities aren't there, I'm just saying you really can't make a character with mostly physical powers on that level, without being compared to superman. He'll always come to mind first. Also, not really fair to call Marvel out alone, as this has been a debate going on for quite some time, I daresay before 90% of us were born, Captain Marvel, Miracleman. Anyway, that's all i got.

[protonik]

You keep saying over and over that Marvel created their character to keep DC from getting the trademark. Think about that, it sounds like you are saying Marvel was out to screw DC. You also missed my point on Marvel creating Captain Marvel... if DC were interested in a Captain Marvel character in 1967, they would have put the kibosh on the characters first appearance in Marvel Superheroes but they didn't, the book went to press and subsequent issues featured Mar-vell under the DC agreement suggesting that DC had no issues with Marvel having a character called Captain Marvel.

I think when Didio said it took a long time to get the TAgents to DC he was referring to how long the characters were in limbo or to the time when they first licensed the characters & had the license yanked. Of course it took a long time but it certainly wasn't time spent in negotiations. Comparing the TAgents to the Milestone universe is like comparing an orange to an orange tree. In the case of the TAgents you have a long floundering team of characters that have not been seen since the early to mid 80s in spite of numerous relaunch announcements by different companies who had their licenses yanked. With Milestone you have a whole universe of characters that include a very popular cartoon star who is easily more valuable than the TAgents or the rest of the Milestone characters. On top of that Milestone has a vast library of characters & titles, some of which were Eisner contenders in the 90s hey day. Being "in talks" is not active negotiation. While they may have been talking about it since 1997, they certainly weren't in active negotiations except maybe for Static Shock. I could be wrong on the Milestone negotiations and will admit as much but it is certainly a bigger issue than the TAgents etc.

[joao_miranda]

You keep saying over and over that Marvel created their character to keep DC from getting the trademark. Think about that, it sounds like you are saying Marvel was out to screw DC. You also missed my point on Marvel creating Captain Marvel... if DC were interested in a Captain Marvel character in 1967, they would have put the kibosh on the characters first appearance in Marvel Superheroes but they didn't, the book went to press and subsequent issues featured Mar-vell under the DC agreement suggesting that DC had no issues with Marvel having a character called Captain Marvel.

No, they had to had a contract. DC is not a kid. If they had a deal, they couldn't break it, even if Marvel only published Captain Marvel books.

I think when Didio said it took a long time to get the TAgents to DC he was referring to how long the characters were in limbo or to the time when they first licensed the characters & had the license yanked. Of course it took a long time but it certainly wasn't time spent in negotiations. Comparing the TAgents to the Milestone universe is like comparing an orange to an orange tree. In the case of the TAgents you have a long floundering team of characters that have not been seen since the early to mid 80s in spite of numerous relaunch announcements by different companies who had their licenses yanked. With Milestone you have a whole universe of characters that include a very popular cartoon star who is easily more valuable than the TAgents or the rest of the Milestone characters. On top of that Milestone has a vast library of characters & titles, some of which were Eisner contenders in the 90s hey day. Being "in talks" is not active negotiation. While they may have been talking about it since 1997, they certainly weren't in active negotiations except maybe for Static Shock. I could be wrong on the Milestone negotiations and will admit as much but it is certainly a bigger issue than the TAgents etc.

Yeah, the Milestone were probably harder, but I'm pretty sure that Didio said that he was trying this for a long time.

[protonik]

Yeah, DC had a deal in place but like any distributor they had a right to refuse to distribute a series if they were pursuing a similar trademark. The contract was for, I believe, 12 comics for Marvel, it wasn't necessarily for specific books & by this time DC was getting antsy with Marvel because the Marvel books were outselling DC.

I'm going to have to get me some MIlestone though, I remember loving Hardware & Static.

[joao_miranda]

Yeah, DC had a deal in place but like any distributor they had a right to refuse to distribute a series if they were pursuing a similar trademark. The contract was for, I believe, 12 comics for Marvel, it wasn't necessarily for specific books & by this time DC was getting antsy with Marvel because the Marvel books were outselling DC.

I'm going to have to get me some MIlestone though, I remember loving Hardware & Static.

Never read it, but Icon, Static, Hardware and Xombi seem really interesting.

[Make Mine Mar-Vell]

Mar-Vell, as a character is more unique than any of them, if they'd only do something with the character. A market has been established.

[Make Mine Mar-Vell]

Just read what I said above. The timeline fits perfectly.

The only publisher that could publish Captain Marvel after the process was DC. So it was logical that DC would eventually use the old best-selling character. That would mean that DC would have a Captain Marvel title, while there would be a Marvel Comics, completely unreleated.

Stan Lee realized that and create a character that he could use to obtain the trademark before the deal between DC and what was left of Fawcett was made.

If that's true, in his haste, he brainfarted out a pretty unique character in Mar-Vell that stifles the others IMHO. Ironic.

[carabas]

Mar-Vell, as a character is more unique than any of them,How exactly is he unique, other than in staying dead?

[joao_miranda]

If that's true, in his haste, he brainfarted out a pretty unique character in Mar-Vell that stifles the others IMHO. Ironic.

Yeah, so much that he's dead.

[Shellhead]

If that's true, in his haste, he brainfarted out a pretty unique character in Mar-Vell that stifles the others IMHO. Ironic.

The original Captain Marvel was out-selling Superman for a while in the golden age. Mar-vell never even came close to that level of popularity. The Starlin issues were great, but Mar-vell was never more than a C-lister.

[Rik Levins]

And yes, Marvel did have a character called Marvelman, he was in Alan Moore's Captain Britain and he was essentially the same Marvelman we know of today. He gets killed in one panel by the Fury but yes, they show a Marvelman and even Young Marvelman. It was a throw away shot but they could have gone with that character if they wanted.

Ah, now that's interesting, I had no idea of that. Thanks.

I think that character (the one killed by the Fury), was actually called Miracleman, though he looked exactly like the Marvelman character.

[Mobey Wee]

The original Captain Marvel was out-selling Superman for a while in the golden age. Mar-vell never even came close to that level of popularity. The Starlin issues were great, but Mar-vell was never more than a C-lister.

As a marvel fan I must confess, I've never cared too much for Mar-Vell. Never more than a C-Lister though? I'm not so sure about that, but I won't argue as I don't really care, I just needed to express my doubts.

[Shellhead]

As a marvel fan I must confess, I've never cared too much for Mar-Vell. Never more than a C-Lister though? I'm not so sure about that, but I won't argue as I don't really care, I just needed to express my doubts.

I like the character, but I consider him a C-lister because he just had the one series that last several years, and that one was often bi-monthly. His series got shuffled around from title to title, starting Marvel Super-Heroes, then becoming Captain Marvel and then finally appearing briefly in Marvel Spotlight. He had a few guest-shots elsewhere and then there was the graphic novel where he died. To qualify a B-list, he should have been able to carry a monthly title for at least 100+ issues (in my opinion) and maybe have shown up for more guest-shots and maybe joined a team. He definitely wasn't A-list because that would require movie, cartoon and/or game appearances that would introduce him to lots of non-comic fans.

[Mobey Wee]

I like the character, but I consider him a C-lister because he just had the one series that last several years, and that one was often bi-monthly. His series got shuffled around from title to title, starting Marvel Super-Heroes, then becoming Captain Marvel and then finally appearing briefly in Marvel Spotlight. He had a few guest-shots elsewhere and then there was the graphic novel where he died. To qualify a B-list, he should have been able to carry a monthly title for at least 100+ issues (in my opinion) and maybe have shown up for more guest-shots and maybe joined a team. He definitely wasn't A-list because that would require movie, cartoon and/or game appearances that would introduce him to lots of non-comic fans.

Yeah I could kind of see that. I wouldn't put him a-list for sure. The most memorable thing he did was die after all.

[protonik]

I think that character (the one killed by the Fury), was actually called Miracleman, though he looked exactly like the Marvelman character.

No, I made sure before I posted about it, in case I remembered it wrong, he was called Marvelman. It was before the whole Eclipse matter and may have been before Warrior, though it could have been just after Warrior.

[protonik]

I personally count Mar-vell as my favourite character. Starlin's issues were the first comics that I actively pursued as well as the non-Starlin material. I loved it all until Starlin left, then it kind of went downhill but mostly because of the art, though I am a big Milgrom fan personally. I'd say that in the early 70s that Mar-vell was definitely a B-lister because he was making regular appearances in the Avengers and was integral to the Kree-Skrull War and Avengers was Marvel's no. 2 book at the time behind the FF. Thomas and Kane really produced some great cosmic stuff in their run, when they changed his costume & gave him powers. Ms. Marvel was also a spin off of Captain Marvel and weak selling books don't get spin offs. He's definitely more of a B-Lister than Iron Fist by Shellhead's standard as Iron Fist has only carried his recent series to over 15 issues. ALso, would you say Shang Chi is a c-lister even though he carried a series over 100 issues? Blade who hasn't had a series last more than 12 or so issues?

[SMARTASS8]

Blade who hasn't had a series last more than 12 or so issues?

Blade is definitely a C-Lister. He had 3 movies and a Geoff Johns penned TV series and still couldn't sell any comics. He also isn't very important to the greater Marvel Universe. I don't hate the character, but I'd never consider him more than a C-Lister who was lucky enough to get a movie made before superhero movies became trendy.

[Wilder Midnight]

When I first heard that Marvel had locked down most of the rights to Miracleman/Marvelman, I thought that was pretty big news. Then, after some thought, I realized other than being able to reprint the Alan Moore issues, that it really isn't. Marvelman is really no better a character than Rob Liefeld's Supreme. They are both obvious ripoffs of classic superheroes where the only thing that makes them special are some pretty good stories written by Alan Moore. Knowing that Hell will freeze over before he ever writes another book for Marvel(or DC or Image or...), all Marvel has is another Captain Marvel(Shazam) ripoff to go along with their Mar-Vell. To be honest, the news that DC is going to start a new universe featuring pulp fiction icons(Doc Savage, The Spirit, The Avenger, Rima The Jungle Girl) as well as finally getting the rights to the T.H.U.N.D.E.R. Agents is much more exciting. While I wish they weren't being squeezed into the already full DC Multiverse, it's still pretty great that they are all going to be used by DC in new stories.

I also wonder, ever since I saw this brought up on BleedingCool, if DC could actually sue Marvel for using a character that is a lot more blatant a ripoff of Captain Marvel than Mar-Vell ever was. Marvelman is even a more similar "homage" than Captain Marvel was of Superman back when DC sued Fawcett.

i heard MarvelMan was going to crossover with Sentry.

They're scheduled to fight Hyperion and Gladiator from the Imperial Guard.