Shazam!

[The Realist]

From what - the Roger Moore farces ?

Craig's Bond is way closer to the literary Bond or the one from the early movies. The things the cinema franchise was actually based upon...

Craig's miserable, stone-faced Bond is nothing like Connery's version. I'd like to see Blofeld try that "James, I am the author of all your pain" line on Connery. Connery's Bond consumed life like a glutton, and was the last character in the world to be defined by his "personal pain."

As for the "literary Bond," I enjoy Fleming, but the movie version became very much his own character decades ago.

 

[kirk55555]

This is really ironic coming from the guy who always goes on about how he absolutely hates any sign of a reinterpretation of a fictional character. Not that I'm complaining, it's quite amusing.

Its actually not ironic at all. I want the actual character, not a stolen name/partial concept slapped on some original character by a comic writer past his prime then adapted by two writers who combined have done nothing more noteworthy then freaking Shrek 4. If you want to use the character, use the real character or don't use the name. But, I suppose you must be the world's biggest fan of movies like Fant4stic based on your posts on the subject

But, that all has nothing to do with people who don't like hearing other opinions. I'm personally fine with other opinions, unlike the poster I quoted.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Connery's Bond consumed life like a glutton, and was the last character in the world to be defined by his "personal pain."

He would have, if Connery--instead of Lazenby--starred in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. There would be no way of avoiding the "personal pain" Bond for Connery at that point.

 

[The Realist]

He would have, if Connery--instead of Lazenby--starred in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. There would be no way of avoiding the "personal pain" Bond for Connery at that point.

Doubt it. They had the good sense in those days to treat iconic characters as icons, not as pretentious psychological case studies. Connery's Bond might have put on a little token sadface, but he certainly wouldn't have moped his pain-wracked way through four joyless movies as Craig has. He would have killed Blofeld, put some flowers on Tracy's grave, and gotten back to the important business of saving the world cock-first.

 

[The Old Mixer]

^ We pretty much got that in the teaser of Diamond Are Forever..."Killed the bastard who killed my wife--Back to work!"

 

[thribs]

Be interesting how they add him to the whole. Will he join the JL later on? Will the Black Adam movie also include Superman like the animated short?

 

[Professor Zoom]

If Tawky Tawny appears, it will be as a Tiger who escapes the zoo and is found eating the corpse of someone "Shazam" decided he wouldn't save because, I don't know, Shazam's crush unfriended him on Facebook or some other stupid thing the writers think teens get angry about these days and that made him too angry to stop the tiger. Either that or "Shazam" will skin the Tiger alive and use his fur as a coat, or maybe just capture the tiger and set him lose on someone that annoyed "Billy".

Lol. It’s like you saw a completely different trailer than I did.

 

[matthunter]

Another point - whatever route they're going with the source of Billy's powers, he doesn't seem to have "The Wisdom of Solomon" (unless we're being factual, because "cut the baby in half" is actually pretty dumb) to help him cover the areas of life-experience that a kid doesn't have yet. He's going to need to muddle through on his own/with Freddy's help.

 

[dahj]

Another point - whatever route they're going with the source of Billy's powers, he doesn't seem to have "The Wisdom of Solomon"

He sneezed and accidentally only said "Hazam!"

 

[matthunter]

He sneezed and accidentally only said "Hazam!"

It's actually "Chazam!" and he gets the snarkiness of Chandler Bing.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Its actually not ironic at all.

Oh, it's very ironic, and the fact that you either don't see it or don't want to admit it is part of the charme.

I want the actual character, not a stolen name/partial concept slapped on some original character by a comic writer past his prime then adapted by two writers who combined have done nothing more noteworthy then freaking Shrek 4.

I could argue with you here, but from experience I know it'd be futile, and your posts also make me chuckle. So I'll take my own advice and just appreciate your traditional comments of irrational hatred.

If you want to use the character, use the real character or don't use the name.

In that case, you might take some gratification, as I think they won't use the name "Captain Marvel".

But, I suppose you must be the world's biggest fan of movies like Fant4stic based on your posts on the subject

I actually haven't seen it. For one thing, the fact the director himself called the final product a bad movie didn't inspire any desire to watch it, and neither has everybody else agreeing with him. But it could have worked. Hell, if it turns up on Netflix, I'd probably watch and find that it might actually works for me.

But, that all has nothing to do with people who don't like hearing other opinions. I'm personally fine with other opinions, unlike the poster I quoted.

You should have noticed by now (who am I kidding?) that what makes people react to your posts like that isn't so much your opinions, but the extreme way you choose to express them.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Doubt it. They had the good sense in those days to treat iconic characters as icons, not as pretentious psychological case studies. Connery's Bond might have put on a little token sadface, but he certainly wouldn't gave moped his pain-wracked way through four joyless movies as Craig has. He would have killed Blofeld, put some flowers on Tracy's grave, and gotten back to the important business of saving the world cock-first.

..which would have trashed the entire point of Bond's growth and the loss he suffered in OHMSS, which was there in the filmed version. It would make him the kind of cardboard, comic book character that Connery wanted to get away from after You Only Live Twice.

^ We pretty much got that in the teaser of Diamond Are Forever..."Killed the bastard who killed my wife--Back to work!"

...and that's the top of 1,000 reasons why the film never held up; people were well aware that the prologue was hollow, with a Bond no more motivated to deal with Blofeld than any other time he faced the villain. It should have been clear he was seeking revenge for Tracy's murder, but its just Bond being violent in the tongue-in-cheek manner seen in Connery's previous outing as Bond.

 

[Christopher]

Another point - whatever route they're going with the source of Billy's powers, he doesn't seem to have "The Wisdom of Solomon" (unless we're being factual, because "cut the baby in half" is actually pretty dumb) to help him cover the areas of life-experience that a kid doesn't have yet. He's going to need to muddle through on his own/with Freddy's help.

Well, the idea of portraying Captain Marvel/Shazam as Billy in an adult body has been around for several decades (although he was originally written as an adult personality that simply took Billy's place). So it's not like it's new to the movie; it's been pretty much the standard portrayal for a long time. (See also the Justice League Unlimited and particularly Young Justice portrayals of CM.)

As for the "facts" about Solomon, what I recall learning in college (though I can't cite a source) was that the story of Solomon was actually ancient political propaganda. Solomon was an illegitimate claimant to the throne of Israel, and the famous "cut the baby in half" story was actually a threat to the reigning monarch -- an allegory to indicate that Solomon (the false mother) was willing to tear Israel (the baby) in half with war, so if the true king (the true mother) really loved his country, he should give it up without a fight. Or rather, the story was spread among the people to make them see things that way and put pressure on the king to step down.

 

[JD]

I feel ya. I read Captain Marvel comics back in the 70's, watched the t.v. show, had the "New Beginning" mini, and collected Power Of Shazam in the 90's and I was excited to hear that Johns was bringing Cap back in the New52 and thought about picking the book up. But reading descriptions of the book, and having paged through a copy, snarky Billy was just too jarring for me.

But unlike too many "fans", I realize that I'm no longer the target audience, nor do I assume that what I like or prefer would capture the imagination of millions of people. Especially the imagination of kids of today. That would be stupid.

But then, I've always felt that Captain Marvel should never have been integrated into the DC universe proper, and should've been left in his own light hearted and poking fun at superheroes universe the way C.C. Beck intended him to be.

I just checked the rating for Geoff John's Shazam and apparently you guys are in the minority, because it has 4.5 stars with 150 ratings on Amazon, 4.05 with 1,550 on Goodreads and 5 stars with 291 ratings on Comixology.

Yeah, people who only want their own opinions parroted back at them really shouldn't bother with forums,

No, it's just pointless to try to have a real conversation with you because you refuse to consider what other people are saying and just keep repeating the same bullshit, even in situations where you've been proven factually wrong (not that this one of those situations).
I actually do listen and consider other opinions, hell I just reconsidered my whole opinion on the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard situation because of a post in the Crimes of Grindlewald thread.

 

[kirk55555]

No, it's just pointless to try to have a real conversation with you because you refuse to consider what other people are saying and just keep repeating the same bullshit, even in situations where you've been proven factually wrong (not that this one of those situations).

Different opinions = bullshit does seem to be your general philosophy from what I've seen.

Also, goodreads and Amazon don't mean shit. In a world where Transformers makes a shit ton of money, a bunch of idiots liking something terrible is meaningless. Geoff Johns Shazam is the one of the worst things DC has published in my life time, which is impressive for all the wrong reasons.

 

[Icemizer]

Have to agree with Kirk55555 on the Johns Shazam. It was the worst version of Billy I have ever read. That being said while the trailer gave us that same setup I didnt get the “Billy is a complete jerk” feel the comic gave.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I really expected to hate this, but the trailer made it look like a lot of fun!

 

[Captaindemotion]

Yep. Agreed. I'm reasonably certain this will be the first superhero movie I take my son to. He'll be almost 7 by the time this comes out. Everything else, up to this point, and given his age, has been far to intense and/or dark (looking at you DCEU.)

But, I think this one will be a good experience for him.



Tawky Tawny or NOTHING!

tee hee

I think I might be able to bring my daughters (11 & 8) to it on the basis that he twerked in the trailer. That got their interest.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I think I might be able to bring my daughters (11 & 8) to it on the basis that he twerked in the trailer. That got their interest.

I’m gonna wait until next year to show the trailer to my kid. I’m hoping he will be interested

 

[Kor]

So... if saying the word "Shazam" changes Billy to the superhero and also changes him back, and his name is now "Shazam," high jinks will ensue whenever he introduces himself by name without stopping to think first.

Kor