|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2019 10:11:30 GMT -5
Honestly, the one that always annoys me the most is Black Suit Spider man. the 1st appearance is ASM 252 period (and the fact I have that in my brain without having to look it up? proves how critical that issue was) THAT is the 1st full appearance of the black suit in action. not "Secret Wars" #8. . which explained the behind the scenes of the suit. when I walk into a comic shop, or a book store (or at a CON.. where folks should *know* better), and they have SW #8 way up-priced with the tag "1st appearance Black Costume" or "1st appearance Venom". . it makes me nuts. that's just price gouging. any comic fan who's been around knows that "Secret Wars" took place between issues, so in ASM 251? normal suit. ASM 252 Black Suit. but it wasn't explained for a good 6 months, until Secret Wars #8 came out. for goodness sakes, look at the damn cover pricing. ASM 252 is 60cents. Secret Wars 8 is 75cents. . the price went up 15 cents during that time. easy to tell which came 1st. ok. . rant over. like I said, the black suit is what makes me nuts.
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Sept 11, 2019 11:03:25 GMT -5
Constantine. Now there is a character with a messy first appearance. Is it Swamp Thing 25, 37 or DC Sampler 3? To my knowledge, no writer has ever come out and said “yes that one panel face in Swamp Thing 25 is Constantine.” The fact that they look similar means nothing. This book is overvalued. DC Sampler 3 is exactly that...a sampler! Thus it fits into my “first preview” appearance because we see a preview for an upcoming character. Finally, Swamp Thing 37 showcases Constantine throughout. It is his first appearance. And that is the only designator that should be labelled for this issue. Bissette said that the face in Swamp Thing #25 was "…a cameo prompted by our mutual affection for Sting of The Police. Meshing Sting’s mug (and a bit of his Aceface persona from the move Quadrophenia) with elements of punk fatalism, Michael Moorcock’s Jerry Cornelius character, and the grand tradition of detectives dating back to Margery Lawrence’s Mile Pennoyter and Seabury Quinn’s Jules de Grandin, Alan then concocted the John Constantine we know and love. Fellow traveler (and Kubert school alum) Rick Veitch was the first to pencil the real John Constantine in “Growth Patterns,” so he too is a key element in the character’s creation." It's sort of like how lots of Doctor Who bit part actors went on to be recast in bigger roles later. Sometimes there was an attempt at an in-story justification, sometimes not.
|
|
|
Post by pinkfloydsound17 on Sept 11, 2019 11:03:55 GMT -5
252 is the first appearance of the Black Suit Marvel Age 12 is the first Prototype of the Black Suit Secret Wars 8 is simply origin of the black suit.
By my definitions continuity of appearance does not the first appearance make!
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Sept 11, 2019 14:18:53 GMT -5
See, I definitely have a more literal view of first appearance. I just don't think it's logical to call something a first appearance when the character or concept wasn't even created yet. Which is supported in the story by the fact that Wonder Girl is part of the Teen Titans, but was not involved in the team-up in #54. ...yet plenty of people with angrily argue to their grave that #54 is the first appearance of the Teen Titans because DC continuity and decades of fandom have said so, regardless of what reality and the comic itself say. Brave and the Bold # 54 was three teen-age sidekicks having an adventure. The "character" might not have been created but the "concept" sure as hell was. Moreover, Brave and the Bold # 54 is structurally, thematically, and tonally the same as any of the first few years of Titans stories. Kids vs, adults, generation gap, bad guy uses weather power to force the population of the town into building a giant brick tornado because he is not given a passenger pigeon feather... this is 100% what early Teen Titans stories were about. The NAME Teen Titans came in B&B 60 and the idea of a team with a formalized structure came in B & B 60, but the concept originated in the JLA letter pages long before either issue hit. Aaaand the conceptual core - the themes, tone, style of character interactions and every other trait that defined how Teen Titans stories were told - showed up in the B&B 54.
|
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,915
|
Post by Crimebuster on Sept 11, 2019 15:01:14 GMT -5
See, I definitely have a more literal view of first appearance. I just don't think it's logical to call something a first appearance when the character or concept wasn't even created yet. Which is supported in the story by the fact that Wonder Girl is part of the Teen Titans, but was not involved in the team-up in #54. ...yet plenty of people with angrily argue to their grave that #54 is the first appearance of the Teen Titans because DC continuity and decades of fandom have said so, regardless of what reality and the comic itself say. Brave and the Bold # 54 was three teen-age sidekicks having an adventure. The "character" might not have been created but the "concept" sure as hell was. Moreover, Brave and the Bold # 54 is structurally, thematically, and tonally the same as any of the first few years of Titans stories. Kids vs, adults, generation gap, bad guy uses weather power to force the population of the town into building a giant brick tornado because he is not given a passenger pigeon feather... this is 100% what early Teen Titans stories were about. The NAME Teen Titans came in B&B 60 and the idea of a team with a formalized structure came in B & B 60, but the concept originated in the JLA letter pages long before either issue hit. Aaaand the conceptual core - the themes, tone, style of character interactions and every other trait that defined how Teen Titans stories were told - showed up in the B&B 54. Okay. But the Teen Titans didn't exist until #60. The idea of a teen team may have existed, and the themes and structures and ideas, but the actual thing didn't exist yet. All the themes, tone, and style of the Bible were established in the Old Testament, but that doesn't make Psalms the first appearance of Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by chaykinstevens on Sept 11, 2019 15:36:28 GMT -5
Jimmy Olsen #134 is “first appearance of Darkseid”. Forever People #1 is “second appearance, first full appearance of Darkseid”. Darkseid's second appearance was in Jimmy Olsen #135.
|
|
|
Post by chaykinstevens on Sept 11, 2019 15:59:04 GMT -5
Web of Spider-Man 18. Here is a potential weird one. When I first read it I was so confused...where was this supposed Venom/Eddie Brock appearance. Wait...that female looking hand that pushes Parker at the end? Apparently this was later retconned to be Eddie/Venom. If anyone can inform me when and in what issue this was retconned I would love to know. As is, I call it a first unknown appearance of Eddie/Venom. As an entity, the fact the symbiote possesses Eddie even when he is still Eddie means Venom is there but definitely not visually. Plus could be anyone’s hand. And in this case it did just look like a random persons hand. So there is my label but again, I’d like someone to confirm when and where event was confirmed to be Eddie/Venom David Michelinie originally intended Venom to be female. link
|
|
|
Post by pinkfloydsound17 on Sept 11, 2019 17:50:33 GMT -5
Jimmy Olsen #134 is “first appearance of Darkseid”. Forever People #1 is “second appearance, first full appearance of Darkseid”. Darkseid's second appearance was in Jimmy Olsen #135. Thanks! It’s a panel or so only too though right? So it’s second appearance and the Forever People is third appearance, first full.
|
|
|
Post by pinkfloydsound17 on Sept 11, 2019 20:34:02 GMT -5
An update, if I may...
After a day of reading and pondering further, I feel my initial musings were a good start but I was not happy with it. I posted because I know people here know more than me and having heard a lot here (and on other sites) I have decided to revise my definitions. So let me try this again
Fan Art
Worth noting because who can ever definitively say that some of these did not inspire the minds at Marvel (or any other company). A book like Foom #2 can be labelled as containing "Fan art for character called Wolverine (predates first appearance)". Again, a completist may want this as part of their collection if they love Wolvie...and if they are willing to pay up that is fine. Heck the book itself contains and awesome Steranko cover so that alone holds value.
Ad Appearances
They are as stated, an ad (thanks to @sfcityduck over on the CGC forums for this new idea). These appearances can be found in magazines or other print items that are not exactly comic books. Malibu Sun #13 fits this bill. So do things like Marvel Age. They are ad books. In addition, an ad in a comic would count. It is advertizing a character to Taracter. Some would likely pay more for something like Malibu Sun since you get a nice cover...others may not want to shell out too much to get a vague blurb about a new character at the bottom of the last page. The ad appearance needs to be visual, so a verbal blurb would not get this label. If the visual is vague as to the character's appearance, it can still be labelled as an ad appearance that predates the first appearance.
First Glimpse
This was suggested by @valiantman over on another forum and I really like the wording better than my previous "first unknown appearance." A first glimpse is just that...a panel or couple of panels where we get a glimpse of a character for the first time in an actual story. We as a reader do not know who it is because we get a hand or vague outline. Think ASM #298 or ASM #360 for Venom and Carnage respectively. Maybe we even get a name but we really cannot put the whole picture (name and face and body) together to get a clear idea of who or what this character is.
First Appearance
Like before, we see the character in full for the first time. We may not get a name but visually we know so that when we do get a name, we can say "oh yes, they clearly appeared last issue and I got a glimpse of them the issue before that." Hulk #180, ASM #299 as examples.
First Full Appearance
Character appears in full throughout the story. They can be found on more than 5 panels in the story. If a first appearance is also a full appearance, the label would only state "first full appearance" (like ASM #129). If the first full appearance appears after a first appearance, label reads "second appearance, first full appearance." Hulk #181 or Avengers #196.
First Cover Appearance
Same as before. Labelled for the first time we see a character on a cover. This is different from a first appearance. If it all happens in the same ish (again example ASM #129), label can read "first full appearance, first cover appearance". For a character like Gwenpool, her first cover appearance would be labelled. Her first story appearance would be labelled as a "first appearance (appears prior on cover only)".
Prototype Appearance
I am reusing this label but changing the definition. Blame Sgt. Rock for this but hey, I think the definition does actually fit his situation. He was a character who grew and morphed into the Sgt. Rock we see today. However, if I use this definition as a catch all for all comics, it means I have to classify House of Secrets #92 as a first prototype appearance of Swamp Thing. That Swamp Thing is not the one we knew. It was changed and adapted later for a new (albeit very similar) character. This case can also be applied to the Teen Titans. Brave & Bold is a first prototype appearance for the Teen Titans...the original team we know and recognize does not start until issue #60. Again, I am not trying to shift any market...I think that HOS #92 is an amazingly iconic cover that could still hold its own. Those who know Swamp Thing's history know how the original creative team revamped their old idea so it clearly is important, arguably more so than the first app of Swamp Thing we see in issue 1.
Retcon Appearance
A retcon appearance happens well after the fact and works in an old moment or an old character into a new character. At the time the character or characters first appeared, they were not viewed as the are later. Example here is Misty Knight. Marvel Team Up #1 would be the "retcon first appearance of Misty Knight". This tells people that later on someone played with continuity to turn an unknown into a known. Avengers #71 would also fit this bill...it is a retcon first apppearance of the Invaders. Again, a completist may want these too. For me though, these retcon appearances are akin to when your fav character makes a cameo in another title. If I am collecting a run from a series, I am more focused on that series. Sure, I may become interested if and when my fav character pops up in another book, and I will seek out what happened there. That should be the case for a book like Avengers #71. Otherwise, GS Invaders should be "first full appearance, first cover appearance of Invaders". In Avengers #71, they were not a team. There was no eventual thought they would be. Heck, did the three never interact in the Golden Age of comics? If so, wouldnt that be the first appearance of the Invaders? Anyways, because a later writer worked it into their story, its a retcon first appearance. The term retcon itself should imply that it comes before the comic that is labelled their first appearance.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,333
|
Post by shaxper on Sept 11, 2019 21:46:33 GMT -5
See, I definitely have a more literal view of first appearance. I just don't think it's logical to call something a first appearance when the character or concept wasn't even created yet. Which is supported in the story by the fact that Wonder Girl is part of the Teen Titans, but was not involved in the team-up in #54. ...yet plenty of people with angrily argue to their grave that #54 is the first appearance of the Teen Titans because DC continuity and decades of fandom have said so, regardless of what reality and the comic itself say. Brave and the Bold # 54 was three teen-age sidekicks having an adventure. The "character" might not have been created but the "concept" sure as hell was. Moreover, Brave and the Bold # 54 is structurally, thematically, and tonally the same as any of the first few years of Titans stories. Kids vs, adults, generation gap, bad guy uses weather power to force the population of the town into building a giant brick tornado because he is not given a passenger pigeon feather... this is 100% what early Teen Titans stories were about. The NAME Teen Titans came in B&B 60 and the idea of a team with a formalized structure came in B & B 60, but the concept originated in the JLA letter pages long before either issue hit. Aaaand the conceptual core - the themes, tone, style of character interactions and every other trait that defined how Teen Titans stories were told - showed up in the B&B 54. I laid out a pretty thorough argument as to why Brave and the Bold #54 is not their first appearance and is, in most respects, actually a showcase for Robin. Take it or leave it, of course. And here's my argument that Brave and the Bold #60 isn't the first appearance of Donna Troy.
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Sept 11, 2019 22:01:49 GMT -5
It should be noted that Alan Moore later tied the 19th century Swamp Thing from House of Secrets #92 to the Alec Holland version, establishing that A) both were part of a long line of plant elementals and B) the HoS Swampi lived on in the contemporary DCU as a member of the Parliament of Trees.
Also, yes, the three founding Invaders did interact on numerous occasions throughout the Golden Age but did not formally team up (along with Bucky, Toro, Whizzer, and Miss America) until All Winners Comics #19 in 1946.
Cei-U! I summon the precedents!
|
|
|
Post by pinkfloydsound17 on Sept 11, 2019 22:10:27 GMT -5
It should be noted that Alan Moore later tied the 19th century Swamp Thing from House of Secrets #92 to the Alec Holland version, establishing that A) both were part of a long line of plant elementals and B) the HoS Swampi lived on in the contemporary DCU as a member of the Parliament of Trees. Also, yes, the three founding Invaders did interact on numerous occasions throughout the Golden Age but did not formally team up (along with Bucky, Toro, Whizzer, and Miss America) until All Winners Comics #19 in 1946. Cei-U! I summon the precedents! Neat! I still think Swamp Thing fits my new prototype bucket. Moore adapted it further. Clearly the HOS Swamp Thing is very important and should be. The notation of a prototype app is not meant to be negative
|
|
|
Post by MWGallaher on Sept 11, 2019 22:14:06 GMT -5
Sounds pretty solid to me, although I would quibble with acknowledging Avengers #71 a "first retcon appearance of the Invaders." The entire concept of the Invaders implies that almost any WWII teaming of Cap, Torch, and Namor is, in retrospect, an adventure of the Invaders (assuming that team-up occurred after the chronological naming of the team). Just because a writer later worked that appearance into an officially published Invaders story doesn't feel like it grants any particularly relevant status to that appearance over any other Golden Age crossover. Actually, it feels more like a prototype first appearance, in that Roy Thomas later decided "Hey, that issue was pretty cool and got some attention, maybe we could publish this team on a regular basis", similar to the Defenders. (Unless, I just realized, this Avengers team-up was written up to be the occasion on which they decided to form the team. I don't remember the issue clearly enough, but if that was the case, then yeah, "first retcon appearance" sounds right. I still think "first prototype appearance" has some justification in this case, as well.)
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Sept 11, 2019 23:33:34 GMT -5
(Unless, I just realized, this Avengers team-up was written up to be the occasion on which they decided to form the team. I don't remember the issue clearly enough, but if that was the case, then yeah, "first retcon appearance" sounds right. I still think "first prototype appearance" has some justification in this case, as well.) Nope. The events of Avengers #71/Invaders Annual #1 occur between Invaders #16 and 17, so the team was already established.
Cei-U! I summon my handy-dandy Invaders index!
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Sept 12, 2019 3:35:13 GMT -5
Brave and the Bold # 54 was three teen-age sidekicks having an adventure. The "character" might not have been created but the "concept" sure as hell was. Moreover, Brave and the Bold # 54 is structurally, thematically, and tonally the same as any of the first few years of Titans stories. Kids vs, adults, generation gap, bad guy uses weather power to force the population of the town into building a giant brick tornado because he is not given a passenger pigeon feather... this is 100% what early Teen Titans stories were about. The NAME Teen Titans came in B&B 60 and the idea of a team with a formalized structure came in B & B 60, but the concept originated in the JLA letter pages long before either issue hit. Aaaand the conceptual core - the themes, tone, style of character interactions and every other trait that defined how Teen Titans stories were told - showed up in the B&B 54. I laid out a pretty thorough argument as to why Brave and the Bold #54 is not their first appearance and is, in most respects, actually a showcase for Robin. Take it or leave it, of course. And here's my argument that Brave and the Bold #60 isn't the first appearance of Donna Troy. Did I not start a huge fight about that in the thread? That doesn't sound like me. Was I sick that week?
|
|