IT'S HIS TURN /CO/! IT'S FINALLY TIME FOR THE BIG CHEESE!

File: 1481564829158.jpg (22KB, 476x477px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 476x477px

fans: Ongoing when?
DC: Who cares? Here is a batman event!

File: Armageddon has arrived.jpg (32KB, 526x176px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 526x176px

>>94072404

>>94072404
2 year from now

but the director sure is talkative

why was Billy such an asshole during the New 52? I hope he's a nice boy again

File: Shazam.jpg (220KB, 1191x670px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 1191x670px

Outside of having director, are there any other details on Shazam?

WB should at least give us a solid release date and synopsis.

>>94073322
Same here. I'm okay with it as an alternative, but DC should really stick to Fawcett comics. It's the least they can do after fucking him over for seventy years.

>>94073322
>asshole

Oh here we go again with this shit.

>>94073169
This should be a banner

>>94073322
>I only read out of context panels on /co/

File: billy.png (1MB, 797x861px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 797x861px

>>94073495
>>94073450
did you not read the issue? he was a fucking dick. real billy is kind and optimistic no matter the circumstances

>>94073556
>here let me post this out of context panel I found on /co/

>>94073322
>NOT MUH
>NOT MUH
>NOT MUH
>NOT MUH
>NOT MUH
>NOT MUH

>>94072404
If DC were to do a Golden Age omnibus series for Captain Marvel like they've been doing for a lot of characters, would they have to go back and make his name "Shazam" in all the old comics? Or are they allowed to reprint old stuff with the original name intact?
I've noticed there's very little older Cap Marv/Shazam stuff available.

Still sad that Billy's new 52 family has never been brought up again despite him being in the JL roster for a while. Before new 52 the captain marvel family had been horribly mishandled, I hope rebirth doesn't bring it back to its pre new 52 state with no mention of how or why.

File: mmhmm.png (357KB, 548x543px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 548x543px

>>94073859
Trademark issue not copyright.

>>94073657
nah it's not out of context

>>94073723
>No argument so i'll just say 'not muh' over and over again