I just don't get it.
The far more appealing show of the Kids Superpower Hour was Shazam (aka Captain Marvel)!
Here it seems DC Comics might be on to a revival of the character (once they get past the nonsense of the completely unnecessary and nonsensical revamp by the crap-meister, Judd Winnick) and the 1980s animated series is nowhere near the horizon for DVD...!
Aside from a great guest-shot in Justice League Unlimited that was arguably and FAR TRUER to the character than anything new that's been published in comics for AT LEAST 30 years, the Captain has only been treated well in the early 80's animated series. (Let's not get onto the subject of the live-action Shazam show which has disturbing undertones as well as a very low-budget. In at least this case, the Filmation animated series was far better-written and more lively than the live-action counterpart.)
Oh my Captain my Captain!
Is DC ever going to do right by this character (aside from the Archives reprints series which less than 0.1% of us will ever be able to afford or read?) and get this character the exposure and decent handling it deserves?
Funny to think that in the 1940s Captain Marvel comics regularly outsold Superman and that he WAS The World's Mightiest Mortal both figuratively and literally in-print. Not so-surprising that the marketing geniuses at DC can't figure out what to do with 95% of their characters and that they're do such a fine job screwing most of their properties into the ground.
Too bad that DC doesn't seem to have the love for its characters that everybody else who DOESN'T work at DC 24/7 seems to have! Being fans of and understanding these characters has resulted in the best work (outside of the comics) in several fine animated series.
Hero High
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25334
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
I think it's more down to what BCI is allowed to release as part of the Filmation catalog.
As we've seen, Star Trek was put out by copyrighters Paramount and the DC series from them will be issued by WB.
BCI does sterling work when it comes to their sets, even with sub-fare like Groovie Goolies and Hero High, but unfortunately some of the bigger character driven shows reside with other studios who are not as interested.
As we've seen, Star Trek was put out by copyrighters Paramount and the DC series from them will be issued by WB.
BCI does sterling work when it comes to their sets, even with sub-fare like Groovie Goolies and Hero High, but unfortunately some of the bigger character driven shows reside with other studios who are not as interested.
Yeah,
I think Warners/DC does own most of the shows related to its character properties with the notable exception of the Batman serials (Sony) and the 1960s live-action Batman TV series (Fox). That includes most of the Filmation animated DC series, too.
The only BCI set I've bothered to pick up is the 1980s Marvel Animation Dungeons & Dragons series. Ironically, Marvel itself owns NEXT TO NONE of its animated properties. Disney owns the bulk of those. I'm just wondering who BCI sublicensed D & D from...
I think Warners/DC does own most of the shows related to its character properties with the notable exception of the Batman serials (Sony) and the 1960s live-action Batman TV series (Fox). That includes most of the Filmation animated DC series, too.
The only BCI set I've bothered to pick up is the 1980s Marvel Animation Dungeons & Dragons series. Ironically, Marvel itself owns NEXT TO NONE of its animated properties. Disney owns the bulk of those. I'm just wondering who BCI sublicensed D & D from...
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25334
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
If it's the same as all their other releases, it's Entertainment Rights, who ended up with the full Filmation library save certain character shows, as part of an acquisition of another company.
The problem that Fox owns the Batman TV show, but WB the characters is why we've yet to see that on DVD.
How come they could release the 1966 movie? That Columbia were able to put out the serials suggests to me that there's a big difference between theatrical and television rights, in which lies the answer.
The problem that Fox owns the Batman TV show, but WB the characters is why we've yet to see that on DVD.
How come they could release the 1966 movie? That Columbia were able to put out the serials suggests to me that there's a big difference between theatrical and television rights, in which lies the answer.
I think DC/WB went ahead and didn't bother to get the 1940s Batman serial rights because somebody at DC is embarrassed by the show.Ben wrote:How come they could release the 1966 {Batman} movie? That Columbia were able to put out the serials suggests to me that there's a big difference between theatrical and television rights, in which lies the answer.
That kinda leads into part of my problem with BOTH DC and Marvel right now. There are cadres of editors led by singular persons at both companies who rule/establish policies with an iron fist and just don't seem to get it when a character relaunch or book founders -- ie, in other words, it's their way or no way, and to heck with the fans that DON'T care for the way the characters are being treated.
There's been way too much bloodshed and killing at both DC and Marvel annd fans are getting tired of it yet the Hacks-In-Charge (HICKs I'll call them from now on) just don't get it. They're locked into familiar sensationalistic media events that ultimately drive more people away from picking up their comic books. This is the same kind of stupidity that killed the comic book market in the US in the mid-1990s.
These same guys don't understand that characters don't all have to be fatalistic, nihilistic, and every kind of negative adjective you can think of. If anything, most of the characters NEED to be lightened up a bit!
The same HICKs disavow lighter versions of the classic characters (such as the '66 Adam West Batman and the previous 1940s serials) because it doesn't fit into the nihilistic, grim and gritty Batman that's been around since 1986!
I can tell you that constant negativity is the reason why I never bought the Batman monthlies on a regular basis. You get sick of that and Peter Parker's perpetual 40-year-whining very quickly.
I prefer the early 1990s animated Batman treatmen which was itself primarily based on a series of Batman comics from the 1970s. Much lighter tones to those stories and Batman/Bruce Wayne is actually treated as a FLAWED, LIKEABLE human being in those stories!
The funny thing is that now it's become far more expensive for WB/DC to work out the 1960s live-action Batman TV rights and everybody knows that there is probably a substantial market for that series on DVD since many people (such as yours truly) object to the darkness of the current Batman movies and are sick of it. Had the HICKs at DC not been such pin-headed dorks in the 1980s and 1990s something could have probably been worked out years ago and the show would be out on DVD now. It's that atttitude that I've talked about that's existed for the better part of at least 35 years and DEFINITELY since '86 that's led to fatally stupid decisions and that's why the 1960s live-action Batman ain't coming out on home video any time soon..
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 7270
- Joined: October 23rd, 2004
- Location: SaskaTOON, Canada
As George mentioned, D&D was a Marvel show, not Filmation. Perhaps TSR had the rights?
The Batman license is more complex than DC owning the characters, as Sony's serial and Fox's Batman movie releases suggest. It has been said (on the Home Theater Forum) that one of the producer's family still claims some rights for the show, so that could be mucking things up.
I imagine that Warner will put Shazam out if the live action movie gets made (it does have a director and screenwriter now, I believe). I have some eps on VHS, and the show holds up OK, mainly due to it being fairly faithful to the comics. DC's best Cap stories, BTW, had to have been the E. Nelson Bridwell/Don Newton ones in World's Finest Comics. As George said, that was about 30 years ago!
Warner is apparently considering Ruby-Spears' Plastic Man show for release. Now that would be fun. I have a VHS tape of that too. It's along the same lines as Dynomutt in tone.
As for Hero High--- yeah, not the best show. That one falls under "I'd like to see it for nostalgia's sake." You can't blame BCI for using their license while they can. They've really been pumping out titles, and as long as they sell, they'll keep releasing them. I'm sure they'd put out Shazam if Warner didn't control it.
The Batman license is more complex than DC owning the characters, as Sony's serial and Fox's Batman movie releases suggest. It has been said (on the Home Theater Forum) that one of the producer's family still claims some rights for the show, so that could be mucking things up.
I imagine that Warner will put Shazam out if the live action movie gets made (it does have a director and screenwriter now, I believe). I have some eps on VHS, and the show holds up OK, mainly due to it being fairly faithful to the comics. DC's best Cap stories, BTW, had to have been the E. Nelson Bridwell/Don Newton ones in World's Finest Comics. As George said, that was about 30 years ago!
Warner is apparently considering Ruby-Spears' Plastic Man show for release. Now that would be fun. I have a VHS tape of that too. It's along the same lines as Dynomutt in tone.
As for Hero High--- yeah, not the best show. That one falls under "I'd like to see it for nostalgia's sake." You can't blame BCI for using their license while they can. They've really been pumping out titles, and as long as they sell, they'll keep releasing them. I'm sure they'd put out Shazam if Warner didn't control it.