EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Superman/Shazam! Director Joaquim Dos Santos

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Superman/Shazam! Director Joaquim Dos Santos

Superman/Shazam!, the 22-minute adventure debuting on the DC Showcase DVD/Blu-ray on November 9th, is directed by Joaquim Dos Santos, who discusses the adventure in this exclusive interview.

By EdGross - Aug 10, 2010 09:08 AM EST
Filed Under: Superman
SUPERMAN Star David Corenswet Reveals How He Prepared For Clark Kent And Superman; Teases Lex Luthor Dynamic
Related:

SUPERMAN Star David Corenswet Reveals How He Prepared For Clark Kent And Superman; Teases Lex Luthor Dynamic

SUPERMAN: Daily Planet Article Reveals Another Villain (Not Grodd) And Some Potentially Major Plot SPOILERS
Recommended For You:

SUPERMAN: Daily Planet Article Reveals Another Villain (Not Grodd) And Some Potentially Major Plot SPOILERS

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

ThaMessenger07
ThaMessenger07 - 8/10/2010, 10:13 AM
The Cover art is Incredible! I'm anxious to see all the shorts more then the full lengths.
loganoneil
loganoneil - 8/10/2010, 10:24 AM
FINALLY, a release date! C'mon November 9th!

Too bad it isn't a FULL-LENGHT film!
REDSTORM
REDSTORM - 8/10/2010, 10:47 AM
Maybe you should use one of these pics instead, since theres already an article with the DVD cover
Photobucket

Photobucket
Layperson
Layperson - 8/10/2010, 10:47 AM
I've never really read Captain Marvel, I suppose I should. As a teacher I see teens who are struggling with physical growth and development, identity issues, and role model disallusionment all the time. I think if they could mimic some of those difficulties in a unique and adult way I could see a Captain Marvel/Superman crossover really working. I'm sure they've probably done this to death, but like I said i've never really read Cpt. Mar.
ROMACK
ROMACK - 8/10/2010, 11:48 AM
Black Adam is awesome.
113
113 - 8/10/2010, 12:32 PM
What I don't get is why DC didn't release this as a full animated movie??? These animated films have been so successful for DC, why shortchange the fans who love their movies? It just makes no sense.

SupermanReturns2006
SupermanReturns2006 - 8/10/2010, 12:46 PM
This movie is spectauclar
loganoneil
loganoneil - 8/10/2010, 1:34 PM
113 - Notice the lineup? They made shorts because DC/WB consider them 'second-stringers'. Let's face it, DC has NEVER had any faith in the Big Red Cheese. Why would they when they've got the Big Blue Schoolboy? That's one of the main reasons the good Captain has never had his day after he was 'acquired' (more like stolen) from Fawcett Comics. Why would they promote a character who was the direct competition to their 'bread-and-butter' man?
GLFanboy
GLFanboy - 8/10/2010, 2:29 PM
@loganoneil That's a pretty half-assed interpretation of how DC aquired Captain Marvel. Better do a little more research. Also, DC, since aquiring the rights to the character has tried on many occasions over the last 30+ years to reinvigorate the character.
And yes, we do notice the lineup! The stated PURPOSE of the DC Showcases was to give LESSER known characters a chance to have a spotlight by giving them exposure by packaging them with bigger releases thereby increasing brand recognition. What? You think they should release a feature length Spectre film? Blue Beetle? Captain Marvel? Sure WE would buy those (hell I'd wet my pants for a Cap. Marvel film) but even GL and Wonder Woman DTV's didn't sell as well as they were expecting and fans alone can't fully support a direct to video release. I think we should consider ourselves lucky to get these!
loganoneil
loganoneil - 8/10/2010, 2:39 PM
GLFanboy - Well, if you're REALLY trying to call me out on my Captain Marvel knowledge...

When he was owned by Fawcett, Captain Marvel was THE MOST POPULAR comic book character - outselling BOTH Superman AND Batman (that's a FACT).

DC instigated a series of copyright infringement lawsuits against Fawcett over the 'similarities' between the Big Red Cheese and their own Big Blue Schoolboy (also a FACT).

As Captain Marvel was Fawcett's only real 'big-hitter', they soon went bankrupt because of the suits (FACT).

DC STOLE (oh, I'm sorry, "PURCHASED") Captain Marvel from the bankrupt Fawcett for a song and burried him, so that he could never compete with their first-stringers again (FACT)

Some time later, Marvel Comics (with their own Captain Mar-Vell), instigated their own lawsuits for the naming rights. As Big Red was now only being used OCCASIONALLY, Marvel's arguement was one of propriety. DC didn't give a crap about Big Red and Marvel won, even though Captain MARVEL had been around DECADES before Mar-Vell. THAT's why all Captain Marvel titles are now called 'Shazam' or 'Power of Shazam', etc. - further pushing him down the comic book food chain (FACT).

You say that DC has been trying "over the last 30+ years to reinvigorate the character," yet all they've done for him was treat him like a second-stringer and throw him a FEW bones evey now and again. Artists like Alex Ross (a HUGE Captain Marvel fan) have tried on NUMEROUS occasions to get something going for the Big Red Cheese, and each time the brass at DC has shot them down - does that sound like a company that actually CARES for the character? As far as they've been concerned (until recently), the only thing they truly care about was their 'holy trinity' (Batman, Superman, and to a lesser extent, Wonder Woman). They are the Kirk, Spock and McCoy of DC's USS Enterprise. Captain Marvel (and the rest of the DC universe) are just crew.

You were saying something about 'researching'...?

bjvb997
bjvb997 - 8/10/2010, 2:48 PM
This looks cool, good article Ed.
GLFanboy & loganoneil, keep it going I love reading this little disputes on here.
GLFanboy
GLFanboy - 8/10/2010, 3:30 PM
@logan I love how you can attribute "(FACT)" to your own commentary and interpretation of events.

I don't think anyone would ever dispute the fact that Captain Marvel outsold Superman in the 40's. I think that's pretty common knowledge and I don't recal disputing that but if it makes you feel better you can pretend I did.

You're arguement for DC "stealing" Captain Marvel is soley based on the premise that DC Comics didn't have a legitimate case for infringement. They did (unless you can think of any other superhero's prior to Superman who could fly under their own power, wore a cape, had super strength, a secret identity and an almost identical face)!

The other thing you fail to mention is that the courts found the lawsuit to be VALID. Fawcett settled with DC out of court. They paid DC something in the area of 300-400K for damages and agreed not to publish Captain Marvel after that.

The lawsuites are not the only contributing factor to Cap's downfall. BESIDES the lawsuit there were MASSIVELY declining sales for Captain Marvel in the late 40's which contributed to their decision to settle. And by the way, Fawcett didn't go BANKRUPT after the suit, they simply closed their comics division since Cap was all they really had going for them and sales were declining. Fawcett itself, operated well into the 80's. It's not like DC kicked a 3 legged dog.

DC didn't even begin to aquire the license to the character until 1972! And what the hell was Fawcett gonna do with him? They couldn't publish anything with him because of the settlement! It took DC almost 20 years to fully aquire all the rights to the character, the final rights were aquired in 1991. Not exactly something they would do if they didn't care about the character.

And Marvel didn't win it's lawsuit over the name Captain Marvel because "DC didn't care about" it. Marvel gained the trademark in the 60's in the time between the Fawcett lawsuit and '72 when DC began aquiring the license. That means, if you are unclear with how the law works, MARVEL HAD A LEGAL RIGHT TO IT!! How you go from Marvel had a legal right to the trademarked name "Captain Marvel" to your assessment that "as DC didn't give a crap...Marvel won" is beyond me.

I don't know how old you are but I can tell you this: Captain Marvel stopped being publish in 1953. He didn't appear again until 1973 by DC Comics. I don't know about you but I have to think if it weren't for DC Comics keeping that character alive YOU never would have even heard of him! Nothing says DC had to ever let him see the light of day ever again. So instead of shitting on DC, why don't you A) acknowledge that Fawcett infringed on their copyright and B) thank them for bringing him back after 20 years of laying dormant and subsequently keeping him around and in the public consciousness for another 40!! The only reason you know about him is because of DC COMICS!

Your research is fine. Your juvenile interpretation of your findings leaves a lot to be desired.


GLFanboy
GLFanboy - 8/10/2010, 3:56 PM
@Witty Sad thing is I'm not even a huge Cap fan or Supes fan. I just hate fuzzy logic.
LP4
LP4 - 8/10/2010, 4:32 PM
@loganoneil- You are blaming the wrong company. I called DC comics (I actually found their number online and spoke with the secretary) and they said it themselves- they as in- DC, do NOT control the films...ANY of them- it's all in the hands of Warner Bros. So if you're angry about the lack of a film, blame WB, not DC. As for Cap Marvel, you have to admit...looking at the character and seeing his powers, he is a major ripoff of Superman. Yeah their powers are of different origins and yeah Cap Marvel is really just a kid, but all in all he was a copy. Are you telling me, that if someone copied your unique idea and they actually made buttloads of money off of it, you're telling me you wouldn't be pissed??! DC had a right to sue. Regardless of sales, fact is- Fawcett copied DC. As for the "holy trinity' of DC, yeah Superman being the FIRST superhero, deserves to be positioned the way he is in the DCU, him- batman and wonder woman were all the firsts.
EdGross
EdGross - 8/10/2010, 5:12 PM
You know, when I read back and forth debates like the ones between GLFanboy and loganoneil, I find myself wondering how I can get posters and page creators like that over at Earth's Mightiest to spice things up.

And bjvb, thanks. I thought Joaquim had an interesting perspective on the film and I'm really looking forward to seeing how it plays out.
Magicfingers
Magicfingers - 8/10/2010, 8:53 PM
Man, I can't wait for this movie to come out. I know what is going on my Christmas list... :D
connielingos
connielingos - 8/11/2010, 4:28 AM
Is it correct to say that, when Captain Marvel came along DC Comics "copied" some of the concepts in his comic? For example: when additions to the Marvel family came along: Mary Marvel, Capt. Marvel Jr., Superman comics came out with Superboy and Supergirl?

loganoneil
loganoneil - 8/11/2010, 7:15 AM
LP4 - I KNOW that the DC's parent company WB runs the movies aspects of their properties. I'm just frustrated at the OVERALL lack of support DC showed to characters like Captain Marvel. It seems that it's a Superman/Batman world, and everyone else who exists in the DC universe is just living in it.

As for the WB, don't get me started on them (LMAO)!
GLFanboy
GLFanboy - 8/11/2010, 7:25 AM
@connielingos Not really. Although Superboy didn't appear until '45, Siegel and Shuster had been floating Superboy around since the late 30's before Captain Marvel existed. I think DC's decision to go ahead with the character had much more to do with the success of Robin. Kids like heroes they can relate to. The success of Billy Batson/Cap may also have played a part in DC's decision to go ahead and publish Superboy but considering that Superboy was conceptualized prior to Captain Marvel's release and the doubling of Batman sales due to the immediate success of Robin, I don't think it's fair to say DC copied Captain Marvel. There was already a huge growing market for teen heroes/sidekicks.
(I wouldn't attribute Supergirl to Cap. Marvel at all since Supergirl didn't appear until 1958. Long after Cap was out of print, Golden Age characters were nixed, and the Silver Age was already underway.)
GLFanboy
GLFanboy - 8/11/2010, 7:33 AM
@logan hang in there my friend! It's a frustration we all share but they are making strides towards bringing all their other characters into the fold. Which is why it's important for US to support their efforts when they do! The DC Showcases are the "first small steps"! Green Lantern is their "giant leap"! In fact in the last 2 years I'd say it's a Green Lantern/Batman world over at DC. You can't swing a dead cat in a comic shop without hitting a book with a Green Lantern tie-in.
Give it a few years and I have a feeling you'll be getting your live action Shazam movie!!
Love your enthusiasm! Peace.
loganoneil
loganoneil - 8/11/2010, 8:05 AM
GLfanboy - I have to crrect a FEW of your assessments:

"You're arguement for DC "stealing" Captain Marvel is soley based on the premise that DC Comics didn't have a legitimate case for infringement. They did (unless you can think of any other superhero's prior to Superman who could fly under their own power, wore a cape, had super strength, a secret identity and an almost identical face)!"

- No, my arguement is one based on the series of events, not for 'infirngement'. As for your infringement arguement, your logic would dictate that ANY non-DC character that flies, has super strength, a cape and a secret identity would be subject to lawsuit? DC didn't 'cpoyright' flying, super-strong, cape-wearing superheros that live secret lives. Now if the good Captain derrived his powers from the fact that he was from another planet instead of acquring them through magic, I could see the argument.

"The lawsuites are not the only contributing factor to Cap's downfall. BESIDES the lawsuit there were MASSIVELY declining sales for Captain Marvel in the late 40's which contributed to their decision to settle. And by the way, Fawcett didn't go BANKRUPT after the suit, they simply closed their comics division since Cap was all they really had going for them and sales were declining. Fawcett itself, operated well into the 80's."

- No, the lawsuits were one of the PRIMARY reasons Fawcett pulled out of comic books. Captain Marvel WAS their ONLY heavy hitter, and with the loss of him, Fawcett's comics division was defunct by 1953, not the "80's" (as you claim).

"DC didn't even begin to aquire the license to the character until 1972! And what the hell was Fawcett gonna do with him? They couldn't publish anything with him because of the settlement! It took DC almost 20 years to fully aquire all the rights to the character, the final rights were aquired in 1991. Not exactly something they would do if they didn't care about the character."

Correction - in 1972 DC LICENCED the Big Red Cheese and in 1980 acquired him outright.

"And Marvel didn't win it's lawsuit over the name Captain Marvel because "DC didn't care about" it. Marvel gained the trademark in the 60's in the time between the Fawcett lawsuit and '72 when DC began aquiring the license. That means, if you are unclear with how the law works, MARVEL HAD A LEGAL RIGHT TO IT!! How you go from Marvel had a legal right to the trademarked name "Captain Marvel" to your assessment that "as DC didn't give a crap...Marvel won" is beyond me.

Marvel didn't have a legal right to the trademark name 'Captain Marvel' - it LEGALLY belonged to Fawcett. Just because they couldn't publish any more stories, didn't mean that they also lost the right to the NAME. As a licensee, did DC say ANYTHING about this? NO, they didn't. And when DC finally acquired the full rights, did they press Marvel Comics for THEIR infringement on the property? NO, they didn't.

"I don't know about you but I have to think if it weren't for DC Comics keeping that character alive YOU never would have even heard of him! Nothing says DC had to ever let him see the light of day ever again. So instead of shitting on DC, why don't you A) acknowledge that Fawcett infringed on their copyright and B) thank them for bringing him back after 20 years of laying dormant and subsequently keeping him around and in the public consciousness for another 40!! The only reason you know about him is because of DC COMICS!"

- Actually I knew about his Fawcett days - I've got a lot of them in my collection (no, I'm not that old, I'm just an avid comic book collector). And I never said, "DC had to ever let him see the light of day ever again," I said DC treated him like a 'second-stringer' - a character that once was beating the capes off of their big-leaguers (Superman & Batman).

I just re-read the entire thread and it's obvious from our conversation here that we both know A LOT more than the average casual Captain Marvel reader. While we could endlessly go back and forth about sticking points, it's clear that we both share an affinity for the Big Red Cheese. I say 'agree-to disagree' over this and let's both look forward to this DVD release. As far as I'm concerned regarding Captain Marvel, something is better than nothing, right?
GLFanboy
GLFanboy - 8/11/2010, 9:03 AM
Wow, I was trying to make peace and pay you a compliment. Oh well.

First of all, a person doesn't need a wikipedea to know the basis of their arguement and the facts surrounding them but you can bet your ass that I or anyone would use resources to make sure they have dates straight before making a complete arguement. Although i do know the chain of events that transpired, I'm sorry I don't keep exact years in my head. I'm not trying to get into a dick swinging contest about who knows more about Captain Marvel. I'm trying to point out your incorrect assessment of events. As such:

1. Re: The lawsuit. You're just wrong. DC had a legitimate case which most people agree was a pretty blatant case of copying but moreso, the courts ultimately agreed with it and Fawcett settled out of court. I can't do much more to argue that point. It's just a fact.

2. Re: Fawcetts "bankrupcy". You just said exactly what I said. Reread what I wrote. Maybe you read over it too fast. Fawcett closed their comics division but "Fawcett ITSELF (i.e. Fawcett as a publishing company) operated well into the 80's". Feel free to use Wikipedia to confirm that date.

3. Re: DC's License of the character. Again reread what I wrote. You're saying the same thing I said only with more anger. And it WAS 1991 when DC had finally aquired the rights to the entire Marvel family by aquiring the rights to Fawcetts comics library. Again, Wikipedia is a wonderful tool for confirming dates. Or as I like to call it, FACT CHECKING!

4. Re: Marvel vs. DC vs. Fawcett. Yes Marvel did and still does have a right to the trademark. There's a significant difference between a trademark and a copyright. And DC couldn't say anything since they had the trademark before DC had a vested interest in aquiring it. Pretty black and white. What was their arguement going to be in court? "But I waaaant it:("

5. I agree that he's treaded as a 2nd stringer. But let's face it, he is. Sure he's tough enough to be a starter but every attempt and bringing him forward has been met with luke warm fan response.

That all being said, I'll try again. Peace? I promise if you post anything in reponse to this posting I'm just gonna let you have it and I'll agree to disagree.
I look forward to the release as well and yes, something IS better than nothing. However, if we resolve this, maybe you and I should begin work on the Isreali/Palestinian conflict. Maybe we can resolve that too! lol
GLFanboy
GLFanboy - 8/11/2010, 9:20 AM
On second thought, let's just go grab a beer! lol
niknik
niknik - 8/11/2010, 9:31 AM
Sorry to take sides here but you are wrong GLFanboy. All one needs to do is read Steranko's two volume set on the history of comic books, or better yet find a copy of Roy Thomas' "Alter Ego" issue number 3 to know that National Periodicals lawsuit was completely out of line. They went after not just the Big Red Cheese, but virtually every other superhero that had super strength and could fly. They "bullied" a large number of other smaller publishers heros out of print. They had the deep pockets where the other publishers did not. Fawcett was the one that stood their ground the longest, fighting them in the courts for nearly a decade!

The lawsuit was frivelous (most characters they went after didn't resemble Superman at all) but it didn't matter as they got what they wanted in the end. If you doubt that, then just ask yourself what would happen if they tried it with Marvel in the 60's or for that matter anyone now? The answer is obvious. If Captain Marvel were introduced within the last four decades by Marvel, Dark Horse, Etc., DC wouldn't have a chance in court and most likely wouldn't even waste their time and money. All you have to do is look at all of the Superman clones that HAVE been introduced by other publishers in the last 20 years to see that this is true. Supreme, Hyperion, Majestic, Gladiator, Etc. The list is a long one.

You can't win a lawsuit for copyright infringement just based on a character having super strength and the ability to fly whether or not they even look like your character, yet back in the 40's they bullied and got their way with characters like "Wonder Man" from "Wonder Comics". A blond haired, red costume wearing superhero that looked nothing like Superman in any way shape or form other than super strength.

And yes, once National had broken Fawcett, they stole Captain Marvel for a song and BURIED him for nearly two decades. And once again yes, that is the reason Marvel was able to acquire the copyright for the name "Captain Marvel". DC had allowed it lapse due to their deep sixing of the Big Red Cheese.

Logononeil is spot on.





"Bob Ingersoll's guided tour of the SUPERMAN/CAPTAIN MARVEL lawsuit!"


loganoneil
loganoneil - 8/11/2010, 9:39 AM
GLFanboy -

1. If you read my updated post, you'll notice that I took out the Wikipeada slam. After reading it, I realized that the remark was cruel and baseless - my apologies. I tend to be a bit 'passionate' about things near and dear to my heart and oftentimes write what I feel wihtout thinking when in that mood.

2. Court rulings are subject to interpretation on how each side presents their case, not necessarily on who is 'right' or 'wrong'. Just ask Steve Jobs about the ruling against him with the Apple vs Microsoft case (LMAO!)

3. In the Marvel vs DC vs Fawcett case, their arguement SHOULD have always been, "We had the name FIRST, Marvel's 'claim' to it came after the fact."

4. The problem with Captain Marvel and his waning popularity is mostly due to all of the legal bruhaha we've been discussing. My arguement is that if Big Red was allowed to evolve over time naturally (like Batman or Superman), his popularity might have once again reached heights of former years (or even surpassed it).

5. Do you want to be Palestine or Isreal (LOL)?

Deal - first one's on me! We can discuss the INFINATE potetial of DC's 'lesser-known' charaters (like the Big Red Cheese) and how DC/WB could/SHOULD be exploit them (LMFAO!)!
loganoneil
loganoneil - 8/11/2010, 9:46 AM
niknik - thanks for the support (much appreciated), but I THINK GLFanboy and I have just 'agreed to disagree' and move on. Bring on the DVD! I just wish it was more...!
GLFanboy
GLFanboy - 8/11/2010, 10:01 AM
@Niknik, I will be happy to check out the two references you mention but regarding this thread however, I think my position is being misunderstood. I'm not, in any way, trying to say that I agree with how DC (yes, then National) went about shoring up competition. The point that I'm trying to make, is simply that DC did what any company would have done if they had created something and everyone started popping up with their own tweaked versions of their characters ESPECIALLY if they started outselling them. Regarding Captain Marvel specifically, an appelate court found their case to be valid and ruled in DC's favor. DC of course, would legal the sh!@ out of them but that's what every single corporation tries to do. Is it fair? No. I'm not disputing that. I'm simply saying they had a right to challenge it and it held up in court. I would also argue that they never "broke" Fawcett. Fawcett was a big publishing company with comics being a very small division within the larger company. They were quite capable of fighting the case in court. Fawcett Publications did a cost assessment and determined that the fight wasn't worth the effort. Also as I mentioned, DC didn't BEGIN to aquire the license until 72. If I'm interpreting you correctly, you're saying that in '53, after the lawsuit, DC aquired the rights to the character at that time and then sat on them for 20 years which just isn't accurate.
SHAZAM171
SHAZAM171 - 8/11/2010, 10:11 AM
GLFanboy
GLFanboy - 8/11/2010, 10:16 AM
@Logan I'm gonna stick to my promise:) And no worries, I too tend to let my passions and penchant for smart assery get the best of me.
Besides I don't want to even touch your question about which side I would pick! lol
And if exploting lesser known DC characters is the subject of discussion we'll be closing the joint down! Good times!
Thanks for the enjoyable debate. To be continued! lol
niknik
niknik - 8/11/2010, 10:45 AM
Sorry if that came out wrong when I said the buried him for 20 years. I meant him along with Fawcett. You are correct in that they didn't license his character until 72. It was in those 20 years (53 to 72) that he was for all intents buried and dead.

Sure National had "the right" to sue, but that doesn't mean it IS right. It was frivelous to say the least, but those bullying tactics worked on the smaller guys. Again, it was a different time. That would never hold an ounce of water today.
loganoneil
loganoneil - 8/12/2010, 8:29 AM
Niknik - NIIIIICE! I've got that issue (being a Big Red Cheese fan, I just HAD to have it just for the cover alone - LMAO!)!
loganoneil
loganoneil - 8/12/2010, 8:39 AM
Well, if DC/WB ever reads discussions like this (yeah, like that will ever happen), maybe they'll realize "there's gold on them thar' hills" of their lesser-exploited characters, and they'll FINALLY see some more action! Yeah, right - and maybe monkeys will fly out of my @ss....
mhy
mhy - 8/18/2010, 8:23 PM
View Recorder