“Shazam! Fury of the Gods” and the state of a genre

“Shazam! Shazam! Shazam!”

- Gomer Pyle, USMC

The comic book superhero genre has been with us since 1938 when Siegel and Shuster’s extraterrestrial descended from the world of Krypton and got the ball rolling. National Comics launched Superman in Action Comics #1 and would shortly follow up with giving him his eponymous book and before long, Detective Comics #27 would introduce Batman, or more accurately, The Batman a few months later. 1939 would see Timely Comics bring The Human Torch and Namor, the Sub-Mariner into popular consciousness and Fawcett Comics would grace the world with C.C. Beck and Bill Parker’s Captain Marvel in Whiz Comics #2 (well cover dated 1940, but actually composed in 1939.)

Actions Comics #1 - the one that started it all

Whiz Comics #2 - the first appearance of Captain Marvel, later “Shazam”

It wouldn’t be long before these characters would leap from the page and onto the screen. The first was, in fact, Capt. Marvel in Republic Pictures’ The Adventures of Captain Marvel, in 1941. It was the second most expensive serial produced, after Universal’s “Buck Rogers” in 1936. It is immensely enjoyable with non-stop action and actually memorable characters. Frank Cochran, Jr. played Billy Batson, the young teen who, obeying the warning not to enter a cursed tomb, is granted the powers of Capt. Marvel (B-Western star Tom Tyler, who had a not too bad career). William Whitney and John English maintain a crisp pace, economic story-telling and altogether solid filmmaking for the genre. They were the masters of the serial form (and other B movies) and eventually would find their ways into TV later (including “The Wild, Wild West”, itself very much a direct descendent of the serials).

Tom Tyler as Capt. Marvel in Republic Pictures’ serial “The Adventures of Captain Marvel”

Batman, Captain America, Spy Smasher, and other comic book figures would find their ways to the silver screen in due course with varying levels of success. The 1943 Batman serial has been covered here already, Captain America would arrive in 1944 as a kind of off-brand version of the red, white and blue crusader; no shield, different alter ego, carries a gun, and with the war not over, isn’t even fighting Nazis (plus, what a dad bod.) Batman would return as a Columbia production in 1949 and Superman would finally see himself in live action the same year (Fleischer Studios produced a stunning animated series beginning in 1941). 

Fast forward to 2023 and the landscape of the superhero genre has changed considerably. The stories are more sophisticated, the budgets higher by magnitudes unimaginable the better part of a century ago, and in general, the overall production standards are better (this is relative; in what follows, I have to critique some of the less attractive aspects of some of the films we’ve seen in the past fifteen plus years). Also, Capt. Marvel is no longer called Capt. Marvel under the umbrella of DC Comics Extended Universe, just as DC Comics is the name of what was formerly National Comics. The name “Captain Marvel” is trademarked by Marvel Comics (Timely Comics from 1939 through the early fifties before changing over to Atlas Comics and in the early sixties to Marvel Comics.)

Captain Marvel became Shazam in the early seventies when DC decided to capitalize on its holdings of the IP that had been licensed to DC by Fawcett (DC would later acquire all rights to Captain Marvel and his family of related characters, but owing to Marvel Comics’ trademark on the name Captain Marvel (and who was introduced in 1968 as a completely different character - and an alien, to boot), DC elected to change the name to Shazam. Carmine Infantino at DC attempted to give the comic book Shazam! the subtitle of “The Original Captain Marvel”, but were slapped with a cease and desist from Marvel. If there is a saving grace here, it’s that DC had the presence of mind to bring Beck into the fold to illustrate his creation again, 20 years after ceasing publication. 

Beck drew the stories for the first ten issues and quit, owing to creative differences with DC but what I found fascinating at the time was the traction the character got. As a young collector, I appreciated the history of the character and saluted DC’s willingness to relaunch Captain Marvel, even if under a different name; but I think a lot of us assumed it would be of minimal interest to the greater culture. Captain Marvel, uh, Shazam, was a figure of nostalgia we thought, but Denny O’Neil crafted some compelling stories for the former captain, although Beck struggled to bring this iteration of the captain to life. There is a charm to Beck’s rendering and a general decency that no doubt appealed to many who may have tired of the direction both major houses were going with their characters (both Marvel and DC were incorporating pretty heavy themes into their story lines; drugs, racism, societal unrest, and so on), but it might be that they were in the minority. Even so, the series persisted and went through a soft redirection.

Barry Bostwick as Shazam

After I left the field as a collector, I still kept an eye on the industry, if at a distance, and was surprised over the years when adaptations of the Shazam character proved to be pretty successful. A live action series with Barry Bostwick, animated cartoons on network TV, and later, entire series and features released to video. 

When Warners/DC announced a feature version of the Shazam character a few years ago, I was cautiously optimistic. With Zack Snyder heading the various adaptations of the DC cinematic properties, I worried that we’d wind up with a grimdark Billy Batson and a sourpuss Shazam. I needn’t have worried; the first Shazam movie was, frankly, really entertaining. In fact, it felt more like a Marvel movie than anything in the DCEU and if it wasn’t groundbreaking, it was a nice shift away from the heavy-handedness of the Snyderverse. Between Patty Jenkins’ first Wonder Woman film and the first Shazam picture, it felt as though DC might just find its footing, after all. James Wan’s Aquaman was a mixed bag, but at least, it felt like Warners/DC were capable of doing something different.

Of course, by 2019, Disney/Marvel were the juggernaut of the genre, but four years down the line, even the MCU is showing signs of fraying. As I watched “Shazam! Fury of the Gods”, I kept drifting off into a kind of ad hoc survey of where the genre is at present and where it feels likely to go.

That said, much of what I was thinking was also reflecting on the ebbs and flows of the genre and how, for every Richard Lester “Superman” and a Donner sequel, there was the embarrassment of the subsequent two chapters. Tim Burton’s interpretation of Bob Kane and Bill Finger’s Batman were followed by one, charitably assessed as “eccentric” and one execrable sequel, both at the hands of Joel Schumacher. Marvel was on its heels as a company through the nineties, but one can make a case that the Blade trilogy gave us a good start, an excellent middle (directed by Guillermo del Toro, no less), and a weak finish. 

Other properties had come and gone based off IP from other publishers. Joe Johnston’s “The Rocketeer” is a fine showing that presaged the work he would do for Marvel, introducing into the MCU Captain America. “Spawn” garnered a kind of following but really isn’t much of a movie. But then, something was happening at Sony.

Bryan Singer’s first two X-Men movies were revelations. An A-list director with strong scripts and a cast of exceptional actors proved that, in fact, there could be merit and maybe even art to these types of movies. One could argue that Lester and Burton before him recognized this, too, but Singer was looking at the themes under the surface of these specific characters and produced one of those instances where the sequel was better than the first entry (less said about Brett Ratner’s third entry to the trilogy, the better, however). On another lot, Sam Raimi was doing something similar with a cast led by Toby Maguire that included Kirsten Dunst, Willem Dafoe, Rosemary Harris, James Franco, and J.K. Simmons. 2002’s “Spider-Man” provided additional support that not only could the superhero genre present human stories, but it could be used as a vehicle for amplifying those stories in ways equivalent to but different from, say, similar genres like science fiction or fantasy. 

The Marvel stories had the additional benefit of existing in a world immediately recognizable and with the right assembly of talent, could tell stories that audiences could respond to with a sense of groundedness (despite the inherent silliness and suspension of disbelief required for insanely powerful/enhanced human beings or mutants). Not all all the efforts at the time worked. Tim Story’s outings with Marvel’s Fantastic Four were pretty sad (but we got a first look at what Chris Evans could do in a costume) and Ang Lee’s “Hulk” remains an interesting fiasco. It’s hard for me to say it failed because it’s too well-done and once you see what he’s going for, it’s not easy to dismiss out of hand.

All of this was going on in the early 00s, leading up two very different approaches to two not so dissimilar characters. Christopher Nolan’s take on Batman would produce a trilogy of fascinating films that would cover the arc of a pathological billionaire who fights crime to save his city, eventually meets his match in a nemesis who is practically his mirror image and who drives him to bend the law to spy on regular citizens to find said nemesis. The third act is a mess with “The Dark Knight Rises” but remains thoughtful enough as it concludes Bruce Wayne’s journey of sacrifice against a backdrop of class divisions and the anarchy that can ensue when people decide they’ve had enough but find themselves under the boot of a demagogue who is going to simply blow it all up. Both the Joker and Bane “just want to see the world burn”, despite Bane’s professed allegiance to the League of Shadows, an organization designed to wipe out what it sees as irredeemable societal evils via a scorched earth policy. 

Favreau’s Tony Stark, also a billionaire with less scruples than Wayne, but with an equally inventive mind, travels from self-absorbed and self-aggrandizing arms developer and dealer to knight in gold and red armor, also taking the law into his hands, though unlike Wayne, he does so in full view of the public. It is also a different style of story telling we have here as Stark’s journey will play out and he will evolve over the course of ten years and a couple of dozen films. Even if Robert Downey, Jr. doesn’t show up in them, his presence is felt throughout. Indeed, once the MCU gains traction with its initial introductions of Iron Man, the Hulk, Thor, and Captain America, a shift in the ways these stories can be told occurs. 

Releasing trilogies of each major character and having stories intertwine and interrelate was a daring proposition. Of necessity, there would be variations in quality, but aside from a couple of pictures, it’s difficult to say that any of the MCU offerings are less than good. Indeed, the quality of most of the films is solid and in some cases, exceptional. That over the course of those ten or so years, there was an over-arching epic being spun and very often cohesive (if not always coherent), populated by characters well-written and acted enough to care about, and that this epic concluded as satisfying in the ways epics are intended to do is a master stroke that is unlikely to be replicated. Even by Marvel.

Since the launch of Marvel’s Phase Five, I’ve been mostly satisfied by the streaming series and only occasionally have the film releases come close to the same level of satisfaction of either the works of the earlier phases or those series. I can’t say I dislike “Quantumania” or “Dr. Strange in the Multiverse of Madness” or “Thor: Love and Thunder” but all three suffer from a lack of focus, bloat, and the sense of not being their own stories alone; they all serve as cogs in a machine that doesn’t feel as compelling, urgent, or as - that word again - grounded - as the earlier outings. 

I actually do like “Eternals” and I positively stand behind “Shang-Chi” as a solid film. But even “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever”, for all its considerable strengths, still feels of a piece of something else that doesn’t quite matter. Indeed, I wonder if the MCU shouldn’t have just taken a break after the end of “Spider-Man: No Way Home” and simply developed this fifth phase on streaming. The advantage to the streaming option is the intimacy with which we get to know the characters that we meet on the big screen (or will see again there). Also, for the most part, there is greater efficiency and less distraction of this as-yet-unknown larger plan in the immediacy of the smaller screen. 

While I may not dislike the films I’ve mentioned, I don’t like them as much as most of their predecessors. The MCU still maintains my interest, but it is growing less urgent for me to have to watch them (though you know I will). 

Conversely, with Warners/DC promoting James Gunn and Peter Safran as their Kevin Feige equivalent, I don’t know what to expect. It’s a bold move and if nothing else, Gunn is a much better director and storyteller than his predecessor. That may not be enough to ensure the success of an entire cinematic ecosystem, but we’ll see. 

My understanding is that the upcoming Flash movie with Ezra Miller will be the final entry of the old Snyderverse. I’m looking forward to it with a higher degree of anticipation than most, if only because of both Michael Keaton and Ben Affleck returning to their respective turns as Batman/Bruce Wayne. Gunn’s transition over to Warners is telling for an additional reason.

In the comics, both Marvel and DC have run up against issues of redundancy, overlap, contradiction, and botched timelines. Marvel introduced its multiverse and DC took a bolder move of blowing everything up and starting over with the Multiple Earths approach (in effect, their own multiverse). Thus, for both companies the original tales could exist side by side with variations or completely different versions of characters in other timelines/universes. What I think Gunn is going for may be something like that, where a series like Matt Reeves’ Batman and Penguin tales can exist in their own framework apart from whatever Gunn and his team are going to do, and apparently, the Snyder versions may be tabled completely. Or perhaps, if Miller’s iteration of the Flash is going to continue as some rumors have suggested, there may be references to Snyder’s time at DC, after all.

In each case, both at Disney and Warners, we’re seeing re-orgs and retcons in both narratives and how these stories are deployed. Do I find myself suffering “superhero fatigue”? No, but I am certainly detecting variable quality in storytelling and execution and that’s a problem.

Both companies seem to be struggling to keep audiences engaged with characters that, while charming and momentarily engaging, aren’t as fleshed out as they could be or in cases where we are familiar with them from prior outings, are underserved by lackluster scripts (Ant-Man, Dr. Strange, and Thor all fall under this rubric). I think this is to be expected. After the Beatles broke up, none of the four individually were going to recapture that lightning in a bottle. Similarly, now that the first generation of MCU heroes is making way for a newer one, it really isn’t a matter of market saturation, it’s about telling similar stories with fresh voices and compelling approaches. Same for DC; the big three of Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman are all well-known and practically universal in pop culture the world over, but keeping the stories fresh is the primary challenge.

Zachary Levi as Shazam

“Shazam! Fury of the Gods” is not a bad movie, I found it fun, but again, overfilled with too much of the same. Zachary Levi leads a strong cast and the whole “Big” approach to the family of superheroes is, frankly, unique and refreshing. Helen Mirren and Lucy Liu provided both a sense of gravitas and stakes but at the end of the movie, it all felt weightless. Aye, there’s the rub; the weightlessness of it all. Even after the stentorian delivery of Djimon Hounsou as the wizard (and he is so, so good), even after the world destroying capability of the Daughters of Atlas (Helen Mirren, Lucy Liu, and Rachel Zegler proving to be a ray of light post-“West Side Story”), even after all that, the film is kind of forgettable. And I liked it! I really did, but if I’m being honest, I have to question why it should stick with me.

It’s full of lovely lessons, witty banter, and strong performances, but it does go on and while, as I’ve intimate earlier (I think), the tone of the old Captain Marvel/Shazam books was lighter by default, it might be that the present movie is merely just that; pleasant, like popcorn. And just as light and empty of substance.

Do I mean to infer that all the superhero stories are supposed to be weighty or full of portent or meaning? No, not necessarily; it’s just that what’s happening is that they’re all beginning to blend into one another. I said earlier that the first Shazam movie felt more like a Marvel movie than a DCEU flick.What happens in that case? Does this mean that each studio could potentially lose their distinct flavor by catering to what are becoming notes that have to be hit according to genre conventions? Is it possible that the genre rules will result in some kind of homogenization? Is it happening already?

Let’s look at the genre for a bit, just by itself. What constitutes a superhero story? Well, generally speaking, it’s a tale about an individual who possesses unique powers or skills beyond the norm. Flight, super strength, imperviousness to the elements, death rays that shoot out from the eyes, whatever. Typically, the hero is human but could also be a cyborg, mutant, or god. In most circumstances, god equals extraterrestrial. Thor, Odin, Zeus, Hercules, et alia, are just ET’s or perhaps extradimensional beings. The point is that in the course of the stories, the superhero is often more human than we or they would believe. Conflicts arise, typically in the form of a nefarious antagonist and by story’s end, the antagonist is defeated and the hero’s journey either continues to fight another day or if it’s a limited run, concludes as tragedy or success. 

There isn’t much to differentiate the genre from Westerns, fantasy epics, science fiction, or any other genre that is based on the hero’s journey except that superheroes generally wear costumes, masks, capes, etc. and many may have secret identities (though this is increasingly less the case). Superheroes may also be monsters; the Hulk, Hellboy, Swamp Thing, and the Fantastic Four’s Ben Grim aka “the Thing”, are all humans or former humans who may or may not be fighting to retain their humanity.

The tropes of the superhero are the same as in any heroic tale; the underdog is to be protected, justice is to be served and the superhero exists to either mete out justice where law enforcement can’t go (vigilantism or a superhero may be retained by or deputized as law enforcement agencies), the villain defeated and the world saved. Wash, rinse, repeat. 

What does this all matter, though, for cinema? Well, right off the bat, the superhero genre has proved ridiculously profitable. These movies and merchandising are going to continue as long as there’s a market for them and so far, the consumer base remains steady. 

Superhero films put butts in seats. Superhero TV shows have proven popular for both the MCU and the DCEU, but also, consider shows that are neither: “The Boys”, “The Umbrella Academy”, “Invincible”, and so on. 

From a capitalist perspective, they’re important. From a cinematic perspective? Well, it depends on what we’re shooting for, eh? The Infinity Saga of the MCU unfolded over a decade and delivered. It was a ten year experiment and it worked. Why didn’t things go as well at Warners/DC? Likely, corporate structure and a lack of sympathy between the creative side of the venture and the executive side of the company, unlike Disney/Marvel where it seems there was a genuine unified corporate strategy that supported the overall artistic aims of Marvel Studios and their constituent casts and crews.

I’m writing this ahead of the release of the third Guardians of the Galaxy movie and the last film for Marvel by James Gunn. I am expecting it to be at least very good, and probably the last film that might have a sense of the original magic of the earlier MCU. Later in the year, “Marvels” will be released and my expectation is that Brie Larson’s Carol Danvers/Captain Marvel will anchor that film. Somewhere along the way, too, “Secret Invasions” will be released to streaming and the hope is that it will sharpen Phase Five’s focus leading up to whatever the rest of the Phase has in mind. All I really care about, though, is that the stories are well-told. If they’re thematically rich, fine. If they transcend the genre, cool. Just tell a good yarn is the baseline.

For DC, there’s “The Flash”, and later, the second Aquaman movie. We also get “The Blue Beetle”, the trailer of which I found interesting. In any case, I repeat what I said regarding Marvel: just spin a good yarn.

Last thoughts

Have any films in the genre transcended it? Arguably, Nolan’s “The Dark Knight” and Coogler’s “Black Panther”. One could make a case for James Mangold’s “Logan” and perhaps Raimi’s second Spider-man movie film or possibly Singer’s second X-Men film. In other words, is there a superhero film that is equivalent to “The Unforgiven” or “High Noon”? I think the ones mentioned come close. Genres are handy mirrors but for many, they are the tools of the journeyman and sparingly or rarely, the canvases of the artist. 

One might only need to look at Howard Hawks’ work on “The Thing” in the 1950s or Kubrick’s “2001: a Space Odyssey” or Tarkovsky’s “Solaris” to see how a genre is used to examine and interrogate issues and themes that are often unexpected in what is often thought of as disposable pop cultural artifacts. 

Artistically, I’m hoping that at least one of the films due for release is complete and satisfying. My money is on James Gunn, but I’d be happy if they were all just good movies with no bloat, minimal exposition, and told well. 

We’re a week and a half or so out from “Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 3”; I’ll see you at a matinee.