Print

[Quirky Quokka]

Hi everyone

There are two issues of the Marvel Family comic (Fawcett) on this site (Issues 4 and 81) featuring Captain Marvel, Captain Marvel Jr and Mary Marvel.

https://comicbookplus.com/?cid=1257

DC have just released a facsimile copy of Issue 1 from 1945, that features those three and Uncle Marvel. It's also the first appearance of Black Adam.

https://collectorsedgecomics.com.au/index.php/product/marvel-family-1-facsimile-edition/

I picked up a copy at my local comic book store. While some of it is quite corny, it was interesting to see it in the context of the times. There was also a short story that included a moral about not stereotyping Italians, which I thought was a pleasant surprise and an interesting social comment coming so close to the end of WWII.

I haven't seen the new Black Adam movie, though I gather he is quite different to this original one. Dwayne Johnson looks a whole lot better than the skinny magician-like character in this issue, though it's fun to see how characters evolve.

Cheers

Quirky Quokka

[K1ngcat]

QQ, we used to have a lot more Marvel Family titles until Warner Bros came knocking and asked us to take some specific titles down. I guess they didn't want too many people knowing where "Shazam" and Black Adam came from.

Poor old Captain Marvel, the hero who dares not speak his name since Marvel Comics insisted on shutting down any thing that had the word "Marvel" in the title. That was the way they shut down UK Captain Marvel copy, Marvelman, and forced his continuing adventures to be retitled as the rather clunky Miracleman.

I don't suppose Alan Moore was best pleased after his excellent work revitalising  the character for UK comic mag Warrior. I'm afraid you won't see any of it here, but as an old Marvelman fan I enjoyed it tremendously.

PS, don't you think that in view of 21st Century ideas regarding the relationship between Mary Marvel and an old man who turns up claiming to be a relative, Uncle Marvel comes across as a tiny bit dodgy?

All the best
K1ngcat

[Quirky Quokka]

Thanks K1ngcat. It's a shame those comics had to be removed, but I see there are still quite a lot of Captain Marvel comics in the Whiz Comics group (under Fawcett). I was surprised DC was able to do the reprint of this one as the word 'Marvel' is in big font on the front, but I'm glad they did.

As my only experience with Uncle Marvel is this one facsimile issue, I'll have to defer opinion on his dodginess. I'm sure it was all above board in the 1940s??? 

Cheers

QQ

[K1ngcat]

Hi QQ

It was DC comics that took on the rights to the Captain Marvel brand after a long lawsuit where they claimed the character was deliberately copied from Superman, and finally won the judgment. So if it's a facsimile reprint it would correctly call the hero Captain Marvel on the cover. But now that DC own the rights to the Big Red Cheese, and Marvel apparently own the rights to the word Marvel,     the Captain has had to be rebranded as Shazam (no offense to the fairly entertaining movie) so yes, technically he can and does speak his name, but you can see what I'm saying.

Just don't let me hear you say "Marvel" or I'll have to report you to the word police! 

And yes, in the forties it was perfectly respectable for an unknown middle-aged male to introduce himself to an underage girl (even one with super powers) and rip off his clothes to reveal ... Okay,  Marvel Family costume. But still a bit questionable. Or have we lost all our innocence?   

Have a look at Mary Marvel's adventures in our collection of Wow Comics.

All the best
K1ngcat

[Quirky Quokka]

Thanks K1ngcat. My local comic book store has had several Shazam comics this year, including a recent one that focuses on Billy Batson's sister, so I guess that's a Shazam/Mary Marvel one, though I haven't bought any of those. It gets even more confusing now that Marvel has various versions of Miss Marvel. Thanks for the tip about Wow comics. I'll have a look for Mary.

It would be Marvel-ous if the old Captain Marvel et al. ones could stay the same.

Cheers

QQ

[paw broon]

QQ, It would be good if they could stay the same.  I get fed up with creators and film makers tampering with something that was great.  imo, if you have to change the character, don't. Make something new.
Re Black Adam, in #1 of Marvel Family, Adam is tricked into saying Shazam, and as he changes back to his human form, which is 5000 yrs old, he disintegrates and we are told he was destroyed. 

[crashryan]

I get fed up with creators and film makers tampering with something that was great.  imo, if you have to change the character, don't. Make something new.

One can argue forever whether creators of TV and movie versions of popular characters "should" change everything around. Still, I've never understood why so many adaptations of older characters dump all the attributes that defined them, leaving a totally new character with the same name.

Old time TV and movie people insisted that TV/movie audiences were different from comics audiences and wouldn't accept things like skin-tight costumes and energy blasts. Admittedly, given the small budgets and limited technology available to them, those things would have looked pretty awful. So Captain America turned into Evel Knievel in a funny suit. That's changed a lot now that comics have gone mainstream and comics creators and movie makers are often the same people. Still the impulse to overhaul everything persists.

I can understand the argument in favor of name recognition. Everyone's heard of Superman. More people are likely to go see a movie if its totally-unrecognizable hero is named Superman than if he's called TeethGrittingMan. But why overhaul a character hardly anyone has heard of?

That's what puzzles me about many revivals of public domain Golden Age characters. A team of creators announce a revival of (pulling a name at random) The Red Bee. Then they change the hero's powers, the costume, the supporting cast, the backstory, and the time period. Why even bother calling this a revival? You gain nothing: The Red Bee has no name recognition, no nostalgic fans, no licensing to support. He'd have no better chance for success than if he'd been The Blue Termite.

[Quirky Quokka]

I can understand the argument in favor of name recognition. Everyone's heard of Superman. More people are likely to go see a movie if its totally-unrecognizable hero is named Superman than if he's called TeethGrittingMan. But why overhaul a character hardly anyone has heard of?

That's what puzzles me about many revivals of public domain Golden Age characters. A team of creators announce a revival of (pulling a name at random) The Red Bee. Then they change the hero's powers, the costume, the supporting cast, the backstory, and the time period. Why even bother calling this a revival? You gain nothing: The Red Bee has no name recognition, no nostalgic fans, no licensing to support. He'd have no better chance for success than if he'd been The Blue Termite.

Yes, it seems strange to 'revive' a character no one really knows, unless it was a character that had a lot going for him/her but never got the recognition he/she deserved. Maybe a revamp could breathe new life. But it seems silly to 'revive' someone in name only.

[Quirky Quokka]

Re Black Adam, in #1 of Marvel Family, Adam is tricked into saying Shazam, and as he changes back to his human form, which is 5000 yrs old, he disintegrates and we are told he was destroyed.

I haven't seen the new Black Adam movie, but after reading this Issue #1 of The Marvel Family, it does seem strange to revive a character who was introduced and died in the same story. I'm not sure if he's popped up again somewhere in the meantime.

[SuperScrounge]

When DC revived the Captain Marvel franchise in the 1970s they had a story where Sivana brought Black Adam back to life.

I think it was in the 2000s when they turned Black Adam into more of an anti-hero than a straight villain, either in the pages of 52 or JSA. The movie is probably based on that version of the character rather than the original.

[paw broon]

Thanks SS, I'd forgotten that.  It was in Shazam #28 - Kurt Schaffenberger art.

[The Australian Panther]

Clearly most of us don't keep up with contempory comics, which is fair enough as that's not the primary interest here.
1/
Marvel have completely taken over Miracleman.
https://www.marvel.com/articles/comics/miracleman-by-gaiman-buckingham-the-silver-age-1-first-look-preview
Neil Gaiman and Mark Buckingham's Grand Return in 'Miracleman by Gaiman & Buckingham: The Silver Age' #1

Notice there is no mention whatsoever of Alan Moore.

2/ Mary Marvel now has her own book - but there's no explanation as to why DC has disappeared or downgraded the rest of the Marvels so she can be the new SHAZAM!

DC's The New Champion of Shazam!
https://www.cbr.com/dc-new-champion-of-shazam-3-review/

[SuperScrounge]

Notice there is no mention whatsoever of Alan Moore.

That's because Grumpy McBeardface didn't want them to use his name. Because of the bad blood between Marvel & Moore he requested his name not be used, in advertising at least. Not sure if that request extends to credits in the book.

[paw broon]

'Grumpy McBeardface"

Ooohhh!      I like that.

[SuperScrounge]

Yeah, some comics blogger used it years ago and I thought it was funny too, and I believe the article was about Moore not wanting his name used, so symmetry. 

[Quirky Quokka]

Thanks everyone for those comments and links. I'm still learning about the 1980s to 2020s era of comics, so haven't kept up with all the comings and goings of different characters. I've only just recently learned that there was more than one Robin - LOL 

I much prefer the earlier eras. But I've at least seen the recent Miracleman and Shazam comics at my local comic book store.  I was tempted to buy them, but they've been getting a lot of reproduction copies of old comics lately, so I tend to buy them instead. My hubby's already a bit alarmed that I'm becoming a collector. But he's a history buff, so I tell him it's history 

Cheers

QQ

[The Australian Panther]

Because of the bad blood between Marvel & Moore he requested his name not be used, in advertising at least. Not sure if that request extends to credits in the book.

Not just Marvel, he takes that attitude with DC and with the movies based on his work.
Personally I don't blame him, Comics creators have almost always been treated with great disrespect, and most have just put up with it or found that if you come up against corporate legal, you don't do very well.
Pretty sure he still takes the money for the properties where he can tho, so I imagine Alan M is financially fairly secure.       

[K1ngcat]

Marvel have completely taken over Miracleman.
https://www.marvel.com/articles/comics/miracleman-by-gaiman-buckingham-the-silver-age-1-first-look-preview
Neil Gaiman and Mark Buckingham's Grand Return in 'Miracleman by Gaiman & Buckingham: The Silver Age' #1

So if Marvel could've kept their lawyers under control, he could've been called Marvelman all along. What a pity. I see they now publish original issues of UK Marvelman in Kindle, with real fancy looking covers, but the same old b/w artwork. Lord knows who they're meant to appeal to though. I'd rather read them on paper.

[Quirky Quokka]

I see they now publish original issues of UK Marvelman in Kindle, with real fancy looking covers, but the same old b/w artwork. Lord knows who they're meant to appeal to though. I'd rather read them on paper.

I bought a couple of comics on Kindle (not the ones you mentioned) to see what it was like, but it just wasn't the same experience. I have a Kindle Paperwhite, which is great for books, but not so much for comics. Everything is so small and reduced to black and white. You can switch to frame by frame, but I've found that quite clunky. So I usually read comics sitting in front of my desk computer. Easy to read, but not portable. Will have to get a iPad one of these days.

Cheers

QQ