if there is a "Shazam" movie Captain Marvel

will it be Captain Marvel, just himself or would it feature Billy Batson

You can't have Shazam without Billy.

^Pretty much.

I don't like captain marvel new outfit. He looks like a wrestler for the WWE.

This.

@jedixman: YES YOU CAN.

Caps lock, man.

Also, you really can't. It's kind of like having a Spider-Man movie without Peter Parker, or Superman without Clark Kent. Without Billy, he's just Superman with magic.

personally, I prefer it to his old one. Though I'd imagine, if they did make a movie, they would come up with re-design just for the film. Maybe taking elements from both pre and post New 52 designs.

It'll have Billy. Whether he'll be ten to fourteen years old like he should be, or in his later teens like Hollywood would want him is up for debate.

There isn't going to be a Shazam film, it was confirmed

Any SHAZAM/Captain Marvel movie would have to feature Billy Batson because Billy Batson is SHAZAM/Captain Marvel.

Exactly. It's not possible to have a Shazam feature film without Billy Batson.

Yes it is. Bill Batson the name,or the character does not make shazam. Why people are saying it is not possible just arises because people are too afraid to accept change. You can easily do a revision story in which a young man (early 20's). Who is an avid reader of comics,and goes to comic convention. Ends up becoming the superhero called Shazam.

Heck smallville storyline about the kid Alec Abraham becoming a superhero known as warrior angel could easily be used as a basis for captain marvel new origin storyline. You don't need a character to be BILLY BATSON IN NAME for captain marvel to exist either.

@shonen3: I don't...just...what

Is God of War about Deimos ? Is Captain America replaceable as the Avengers leader ? Could Goku be replaced by Uub? Does any of this make sense to you? The least they could do is keep the original character and what if he got extremely popular like IM for Marvel then fans would be confused about the movie and the actual character in the comics

1) You do not want to use the bolded words around comic fans who have endured the Dark Reign.

2) If you're not adapting Billy Batson being Captain Marvel, what's the point? He is and has always BEEN Captain Marvel. It's a central part of his character, that beneath all the wisdom and power is the somewhat naive ideals of a child. That's what MAKES him who he is: The Big Red Cheese. It doesn't work with an older dude because anyone whose made it to twenty has endured some crap. And I'm not talking about war zone, trauma crap. Just the kind of crap that makes up the world and turns children willing to run around and play together into cynical, selfish, douchebags, and from there into somewhat responsible, slightly less selfish, more cynical adults.

But y'know what? Don't take it from me. YO, @billy_batson! This guy wants to make a Shazam movie without your namesake!

What you describe changes the character dramatically. Dramatically enough to turn off fans of the character - the very fans likely to give the most support to a movie about the character and thus the people most likely to make the movie a success. Change the character into somebody new and you lose that built-in supporting fan base and become more likely to fail.

It would not be the same character because billy's personality affects Captain Marvel. Is like saying that It doesnt matter If superman was founded by the Kents but It does because that would change too much the character. Having the same powers even the same name doesn't mean it is the same character so wound t being making a movie about Captain Marvel, only a movie with a character who has the same powers as Marvel.

Why would they not use Billy? Anyway its academic coz I cant see a Shazam movie any time soon, sadly.

@glabal500: He's called Shazam (Copyright reasons)

If he ever gets a film it would have to have billy or it would'nt be shazam

hate to break it to you but the fan base alone does not equal the majority of the movie tickets for superhero movies. What should matter if they can pull off a good plot, believable origin story, and good story background. If fans cannot support changes, that to a character.It just shows said fans lack the ability to try something new,and would rather read the same story over and over. In short it equates to a fan wanting to watch reruns of a dead show,rather than check out new episodes of the reamped show because they are still stuck in nostalgia.

So... let me get this straight: You're saying a Shazam/Captain Marvel movie doesn't need Billy Batson because comic fans don't make the majority of the tickets, and that if comic fans can't accept that, it just shows that we want to watch/read the same old stories over and over?

Are you serious?

Tell me, when you heard that Batman Begins would feature Bruce watching his parents die in an alley, did you suggest, "That's not necessary." When Man of Steel revealed that Clark would be raised by the Kents, blasted to Earth by his father Jor-El, did you think, "Why can't they do something different?"

These things are at the core of the characters. They are the bedrock from which everything else about the character is built. Without these things, they'd be DIFFERENT characters. They wouldn't be the characters in the title. Who do you think Bruce Wayne would be if his parents hadn't died? What kind of man do you think Superman would be without the Kents?

This is especially true when it comes to Billy Batson/Captain Marvel, because Billy was SPECIFICALLY chosen for the power because of his age and viewpoint: BECAUSE he had that inherent childish belief in the goodness of the world, the belief that one person can make always make a difference, only a child can possess. Because of these qualities he was chosen for that power.

You say Billy Batson isn't needed in a Captain Marvel/Shazam movie? You say that wanting him is just people unable to accept something new? That only fans stuck in nostalgia would want him? I don't even KNOW the f***ing character. I've never read a single comic where he was the main character. And even I know that kid Billy Batson is as central to the character as Batman's parents dying, Superman being found by the Kents. It's called an origin for a REASON: It's where the character begins. You can mess with some of the finer points, but something as clear cut as Billy Batson being a child chosen to turn into the Earth's Mightiest Mortal?

You don't mess with that.

You do know right here is where your argument falls to pieces. For they are many adults in the world who have these qualities, in believing that they are still goodness in this world. They are many people who risk their lives everyday to protect their fellow man. They are many grown up male men who still act like children. Have you ever heard the term "Man child". If not look it up. Just because you have grown up jaded as an adult thinking the world is a corrupt place,and everyone is bad. Does not mean that they arn't people who still hold on to their childish ways as adults, are gullible, and always strive to see the good in someone.

Of course you have to kill the parents of batman, and superman, but Billy being a child, or having said name. Is and definitely not a necessity for a backstory as captain marvel.

There's a difference between people fighting because they BELIEVE people are good, in spite of evidence to the contrary than adult would have, and a child's inherent belief that people are good because they don't know different.

The difference is: When confronted with evil, an adult will try to stop that evil, because they RECOGNIZE that evil. Even if they believe humans are FUNDAMENTALLY good, like Superman does, he'll fight an obvious threat in a heartbeat. Billy, being a child, a good kid, tries talking first, because he doesn't believe in or recognize evil. He knows it exists, as one might know a statistic is real, but it's not real, if you get what i mean.

That's why Captain Marvel has always been considered even more of a boyscout than Superman: Superman's a good man. In a lot of ways, he's similar to Captain Marvel in his methods. But again, we go back to that CORE: Superman is one of those people who always strive to see the good in someone. He strives to see it, he believes it's there, but he also recognizes that there's the capacity for evil in them. Billy doesn't see that capacity, because he's a child.

He'll fight because he knows right from wrong, and he knows people DO wrong. But as a child, he doesn't believe they do it because they're evil, or because they just don't care. He just doesn't think about that sort of thing.

An adult will always gain a certain degree of cynicism. ALWAYS. Varying degrees, but always some degree.

Put it this way: There's an episode of Justice League Unlimited where Lex Luthor builds a city for the unemployed. Superman doesn't buy it. Captain Marvel does. Why? Lex is a wanted murderer, whose lied and backstabbed hundreds if not thousands of people in the search for personal gain and power. Any adult, 'manchild' or not, who knows what he's capable like Superman and Captain Marvel do wouldn't believe that the city is good for two seconds.

But Cap does, while Superman doesn't. Why? Because Superman believes there's good in Lex, he really does, but he believes it's vastly outweighed by the evil. Cap only see's that good, and as such is prepared to accept a 180 in Lex's apparent morals.

You saying Billy doesn't need to be a child, or a part of Captain Marvel/Shazam betrays the fact you know even less about the character than I do. And we've already established I know very little. That being the case, what makes you think you're even remotely qualified to state what can and can't be taken away?

Very arrogant. This right here is why internet debates turn into flame wares. People don't like your view point. They begin stating you lack knowledge, or string about loosely the word "illogical", but provide no basis to back it up.

Your argument comes with the notion that a child cannot know the capacity for evil. Hell this new 52 had captain marvel, under the advice of his friend to use his powers to pull money from an ATM machine. Does this sound like something a "good" kid would do ? Nope. I haven't seen a thread asking TO burn down DC because of this.

Your viewpoint on adults is rather generalizing and seems to be under the assumption that it is all encompassing. Well let me assure you that your wrong, because people undergo different experiences in life, and just like life will be exposed to different measures of good, and evil. A person who is grown up into a pampered life, could have life exposure to evil, than someone like Billy who grew up poor. Thus, it is entirely possible for an adult to have the same qualities as Billy Batson.

They are adults who are gullible, and will give pepole over and over second chances because they believe in the good in someone and never stop giving up on them, they are adults who still see the good in people know matter how much negative in their life because they refuse to believe people are inherently evil. They are people who will turn the other cheek after being screwed over, many times over. Don't act like all adults are somehow corrupt. They are many who have peter pan syndrome, and still live in dream land where they think people are good.

You seem to believe also a child of Billy's age is unable to perceive evil. I'm going to link you are an article which show to you that this is a load of BS, and children at an early age of 6 months already have a moral code of right from wrong, and can perceive evil. You should read it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1275574/Babies-know-difference-good-evil-months-study-reveals.html

1) In regards to stating you lack knowledge, you say the main character in a work isn't the main character and isn't necessary to the story. If I told you Luke Skywalker was unnecessary for the original Star Wars trilogy, I imagine you'd say I knew nothing about that trilogy, yes? Billy Batson IS Captain Marvel. If he's anyone else, Captain Marvel isn't the same person, isn't the same cahracter, and therefore, everything will be different. Again, it's like saying Batman in a Batman movie doesn't HAVE to be Bruce Wayne. Superman doesn't HAVE to be Clark Kent. Yet you refuse to see that.

2) In regards to the New 52, going to level with you, I haven't really had much interaction with the New 52 Captain Marvel. You can tell because I keep CALLING him 'Captain Marvel'. And I'm sure if you looked, you'd find a thread like that. PRIOR to the New 52, as far as I know, Billy was a good kid. The kind of kid who went out of his way to help people, even BEFORE he was Earth's Mightiest Mortal. Again: I'm not overly familiar with the character. I've seen him cameo in other works, in both identities, and even that cursory knowledge was enough to convey WHY Billy was chosen, and why he was a kid.

3) M'kay, let's assume an adult could have all the qualities Billy does. I'm not certain I believe it, but for the sake of the argument, and because I have nothing further to bring to that argument, I'm willing to concede the point. IF that's the case... Why bother? If the intention is to create a character with all the qualities of Billy Batson so that Captain Marvel is the same character... Why not just MAKE it a kid named Billy Batson and not ruffle any feathers? What's gained if he has all the same qualities as his child self, with the only differences being that he's always an adult?

1) I never said these words. What I said was that the main character in a story does not need to be attached to a fix name, or be fixed to particular age that is not necessary for the character. I am essentially saying we can mold over malleable elements in a character, that does not change who they fundamentally are. Like I've suggested Billy does not have to be a kid, and as the article has shown children already have a perception of right from wrong. They can identify evil, and have an inherent knowing of when someone is bad.

3) Maybe because we've already gone the route of seeing a kid (Bill Baston) becoming a superhero. Thus, we've already fulfilled the fantasy desire of young comic book readers on what it would be like if they were bestowed with superhero powers. However, as we know comic book fanbase is not only little kids. They are many adults who still have the fantasy of wanting to fight crimes and be superhero. I am merely suggesting having for the sake of change, and something new, fulfilling the fantasy of adult comic book readers of what it would be like if they gain superhero powers may not be a bad thing.

... At the risk of returning to sounding insulting (and I apologize if that's how I came across previously), your argument seems to be pretty... Well, for lack of a better word, foolish.

In your first paragraph, if I'm not misunderstanding you, you're saying, "As long as the character is fundamentally the same character, why does his name and age matter?" And up to a point, I agree with you, but if the character is fundamentally the same, again, why not just give him his comic name and age? Why reinvent the wheel, y'know?

And in your second paragraph, your argument is that, hey, Billy's fulfilled his purpose: He's fulfilled the fantasy of kid's who wanted to gain superpowers. But now those kids have grown up. Now their adults. So if making a movie, why not make Billy older to KEEP fulfilling those fantasies?

And to that I say: Hogwash. Also, tomfoolery, rigmarole, and nonsense. There are plenty of stories about adults who gain powers. Back in the day, they were the standard. Billy's unique in that there aren't many heroes his age. If you're talking about changing him to fulfill fantasies, what's wrong with fulfilling the fantasies of kids? The adult comic readers you want to fulfill more than likely have a passing knowledge of the character, like yours truly, and know that he's a kid, so changing him will probably ruffle their feathers on principle.

So changing him in the name of fulfilling fantasies robs one group of fantasies for another that's got a surplus already, potentially angers the group you're hoping to fulfill, and given that that is your apparent sole purpose FOR changing the character, again, what's the point?

In cannon we've seen a non Pete Spidey. So there can be a Spidey movie without pete. The movies aren't cannon anyway,remember when Clark and Lois had a kid? Spider-Man and Superman are more of a mantle moreso than Captain Marvel, he has always been Billy Batson. Unless you want Captain Marvel as the 6 kids circa Flashpoint.

Adaptable/nostalgic fans or not, the majority of movie goers are even less likely to get behind a watered down version of a classic superhero. If a character has a name the public recognizes they expect that character to be the character they recognize, too. The type of movie you want might just as well be about a new character.

If a movie studio did decide to make a SHAZAM movie along the lines you describe, then that movie would be less likely to succeed financially. Movie makers don't make movies hoping for "adaptable fans" they make movies to make money.

@shonen3: You are either going all out troll and no has picked up on it yet or you're just not very smart in thinking that they'd making Shazam someone other than Billy Batson. That'd be like making Superman Peter Parker.

Sort of like Man of Steel

@neonpheonix: Yeah. Though Man of Steel's didn't have much Pre-New 52 influence...

Sort of like how they made halle berry cat woman ?

Actually majority of movie goers as you put it would see a movie as long as it looks cool, and it has a good story plot. Most of them would have very little knowledge on what is an adaption, and what is true to the source materials.