Captain Marvel/Shazam movie officially dead implies Peter Segal

It has been a long time since we heard anything about the Captain Marvel/Shazam movie.  Now it appears director Peter Segal has implied the film is officially dead, in an interview with ComingSoon.net.

CS: Speaking of superheroes, you were developing a DC Comics property a few years and a film was being planned called "Billy Batson and the Legend of Shazam." Whatever happened to that?
Segal: The thing is, Shazam has always lived this tortured life going against Superman. This dates back to the 1930s. Because Captain Marvel had similar powers to Superman, the DC folks back then sued what was the most popular comic book on the stands at that time. Years later, they bought it and it became a DC property but, as long as Superman stays hot in the market place, there seems like a little bit of a crossover between the two characters. After Bryan Singer's "Superman Returns," it seemed like there was a moment in time where Shazam was going to see the light of day. That's when you heard those stories. Now that Superman is being invigorated and going up against Batman, I think it's difficult for DC to figure out how to launch this character in the wake of Superman's resurgence.

CS: It sounded like your approach was a bit more kid-friendly.
Segal: Well, it wasn't. I was working with Geoff Johns. At its core, it's a lot like Superman. There's this boy trapped inside of a superhero's body. He's still a boy inside, so there's this opportunity to play a lot of humor with the action. Originally, Stan Lee brought me "Fantastic Four" a number of years for that very reason. I always have the question when people bring me superhero properties, "Why me?" With Stan, he said, "It's because there's a sense of humor within all Marvel characters." These characters are flawed and, within those flaws, there is humor. When Toby Emmerich came to me with Shazam, it was because of those same reasons. To draw from that humor and to mix it with great action and pathos. I've always loved Shazam, but I don't know if it's going to see the light of day anytime soon.

This puts to rest a project that had been in development for over a decade. It seems the project's best chance at getting made was in 2003 through 2005, when attempts at reviving the Superman franchise were being shot down left and right, and it looked like DC may have lost the rights to the character in a lawsuit with the estates of Superman creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.  But once all that got settled, and Superman Returns began filming, it seemed all was lost for the Big Red Cheese, even though the project continued to limp along for several more years, and Captain Marvel was getting more mainstream attention through animated projects like Batman: The Brave & The Bold, Superman/Shazam: The Return of Black Adam, and Young Justice.  Personally, I think the project will eventually get made, but not as a live action movie, but a Pixar style CGI animated film.

Review: Batman '66 #6

This issue changes thing up, with a new writer, Tom Peyer.  His script, featuring the Bookworm, is above average with some clever moments, such as the opening sequence where Robin is giving a lecture on literacy at the Gotham Chamber of Currency, chaired by millionaire Bruce Wayne.  The overall plot has to do with Bookworm compiling an Encyclopedia of Batman, in an attempt to deduce his secret identity. While Peyer's script is no masterpiece, the artwork by Ty Templeton certainly is.  He is clearly the best artist to work on this series.  His drawings perfectly capture the TV show likenesses while still embracing typical comic book grandness.  Only two critiques: his action panels are not quite as well laid out or as epic as Jonathan Case's, and he tends to give Batman a pronounced pot belly in some panels.

Jeff Parker is back writing the issue's second story, with art by Ted Naifeh.  As usual with most of these short second stories, its kind of a mess, reminiscent of bad third season episodes.  This one features Olga Queen of the Cossacks, in a lame plot to try to marry Batman, kind of a rehash of the TV show's Marsha Queen of Diamonds episode.  The art is OK but a little sloppy.  There is a non sequitur with Barbara Gordon hinting at a continuing storyline.  Overall the second story is weak.  Clearly, excellent short comic book stories can be done, as that was the norm of comics pre-1970, but today's creative talent can't seem to grasp it.  I'd rather see DC end the short second story, and have well done book length stories instead.  This issue earns a B, mostly due to Ty Templeton's excellent artwork.

Review: Batman '66 # 5

Issue 5 brings back second season one-shot villain Dr Somnambula aka The Sandman. The story, by Jeff Parker, is not bad, but not a stand out, either. The art by Ruben Procopio often veers into Mad Magazine territory, as this series occasionally does. Any old timers out there remember the Batman GAF View-Master set, and the artwork in the accompanying booklet?  It would be nice to get some art in that style.  In some panels, the art takes a "new-old-look" Irv Novick look, which I liked. Some nice touches are we learn Aunt Harriet's husband's name was Walt, and there is a shot of Gotham lifted directly from the animated opening credits of the series. The Sandman induced dream sequence takes on a trippy-psychedelic 1960s feel to it. On first reading, I did not catch any connection between this story, and Sandman's last panel cameo with Minerva in issue 2 and it seems doubtful that Minerva in that one panel was really supposed to be Sandman's African-American moll, Aurora, who appears in this issue.

 

The second story brings back the TV version of Batgirl, who takes on the Earth Kitt version of Catwoman. Again, Jeff Parker's script is average. He gives no reason as to why there are two Catwomen in Gotham. There is an elongated fight scene that seems like filler material. The artwork by Colleen Coover is very fluid and good, and has an "Archie"/Dan DeCarlo look to it. However, her take on Chief O'Hara is inexplicably as a youngish, strapping redhead.

Overall, issue 5, while not the best, isn't the worst either. It earns a B-.

movie review: THOR THE DARK WORLD

For some reason, my movie review of THOR is this blog's most viewed entry, even though reviews of other Marvel movies, like CAPTAIN AMERICA , THE AVENGERS , and AMAZING SPIDER-MAN  have significantly lower view counts.  So, it is my responsibility to review THOR THE DARK WORLD. 

Alan Taylor takes over the director's reigns from Kenneth Branagh, and there is a shift in the franchise.  The new movie has more CGI and bigger action, but it loses characterization and fun.  The plot is often convoluted, and deals with evil elves (yes...you read that right- evil elves) who developed a supernatural weapon called the Aether.  This coincides with the nine realms converging, and Jane Foster gets infected with the Aether, which causes the few surviving elves to reclaim the weapon so they can destroy all nine realms.  Thor is forced to seek the help of his imprisoned brother Loki in order to save the worlds. 

The majority of the movie takes place on Asgard, in what seems like an attempt to tap into the Lord of the Rings/Hobbit fan base.  Idris Elba, who became a fan favorite as Heimdall, gets a lot more screen time. One of the things that sets the modern Marvel movies apart from the post-2000 DC movies, is that the Marvel films are infused with humor and fun to balance the action and drama.  But THOR THE DARK WORLD takes a hard left turn into DC territory by nearly reaching a level of Christopher Nolan/Zack Snyder humorless darkness.  Not including a few exceptions, the only humor in this movie is provided by Kat Dennings, and there is a funny cameo by Chris Evans as Captain America. 



Why can't they make Hemsworth wear the helmet?

Instead of the character development of the first movie, this time around we get a generic sci-fi action film. The finale when the elves invade  England is a little too similar to the alien invasion in THE AVENGERS, just on a smaller scale.  Chris Hemsworth, who put a lot of character in as Thor in the first movie and THE AVENGERS, kind of just phones his performance in this time. One of the things I really don't like about the movie version of Thor is that the film makers threw out the concept of Norse mythology, opting to go with Asgard as an alien world, essentially making Thor Marvel's take of the Kryptonian Superman concept. And Thor still doesn't wear his helmet. I mean, come on... the hammer and the helmet are Thor's two biggest gimmicks.  Why won't they let Thor wear the helmet in the movies?  And there were a few moments in the movie where Thor is separated from his hammer for a length of time, I was thinking, "wow, this would be a great, dramatic moment to have him transform into Donald Blake".  But, alas, the movies have omitted that aspect of the character. Although I wouldn't label THOR THE DARK WORLD a franchise killer, it is far less enjoyable than its predecessor.

Review: Batman '66 #4

Where as writer Jeff Parker seemed to get everything wrong with issue 3, he makes up for it by getting everything right in issue 4.  In the first story, Batman and Robin have to jet to London to prevent Jervis Tetch, The Mad Hatter, from stealing the crown jewels.  There are nice touches through out the story, like The Beatles on the same plane as Batman and Robin, and both get a fitting welcome.  We see a teenage girl throwing herself at Robin, which seems to be a running gag in this series. We see the British Batmobile, which is very cool (or should I say "gear"?).  As with Parker's script for issue 1, we get some high octane action sequences reminiscent of the 1968 Filmation cartoons.  The art in this story is by Jonathan Case.  It is the same high level as his work on issue 1.

The second story, also written by Parker, features The Clock King who is also in London, as Batman uses his great detective skills to deduce the Mad Hatter had a tech-savvy partner.  It is revealed the Clock King's real name is Morris Tetch, Jervis' brother.  The art on this story is by Sandy Jarrell and is a much better effort than his Egghead story last issue.  Jarrell captures the likenesses of the TV actors better than Case, and there is a moody, noir-ish quality to the art, even if the figures at times lack fluidity.  Not only does this issue redeem the bad taste left by last issue's Joker and Egghead tales, but this issue is also far superior to the lackluster "Londinium" three part episode from the third season.  Issue 3 earns a solid A.