RockMyAmadeus

I very much understand and comprehend what is being stated here. So no need to point that out. Excellent! Sometimes, we get a little ahead of ourselves, and lose focus on who's saying what to whom. I'm glad we could get that straightened out. I understand, but the issue isn't about how strongly one feels. It's about basic facts, and the facts are, there wasn't a production planning issue, and the flow of the story was accounted for by editorial...hence, the note. Was it poorly planned on Claremont's part...? Possibly. But that's really only a claim that can be made in hindsight. For everyone beyond Claremont and the creative team, it really wasn't an issue. "In case you're wondering who this character is, check out our upcoming issues!" is, in effect, what the "See X-Men #265-267" is saying. It's not an opinion - it's right there in black and white. Feelings shouldn't play into it. I can feel that Batman #449 should be known as the first appearance of the Penguin, but that doesn't make it so, right? And no, the world will not spin out of control if people believe things that aren't true. That is demonstrated here on an hourly basis.

I'd say an error in a production process shows there is room for other defects. And as massive an output as Marvel had at the time, having some errors could be expected. It's the nature of the beast. Yes, but not this particular "error", that is, a publication scheduling error. You would probably have to go back to the 40's to find a production scheduling issue at Timely/Atlas/Marvel. There were legal issues at stake that made production scheduling extremely important very early on. I dunno, I thought the example illustrated the concept quite well.

Again, I would stick with the facts versus making statements that are not really going to add value here to the discussion. Did Marvel's production team make errors in their output during the 90's? What's that say in the upper left-hand corner? I think it states 'printing error' that came out of an efficient and capable process, producing millions of comics sometime during 1993. Marvel, like any production process, experienced errors. To state otherwise is not based in fact, and leans toward fanciful statements to support a claim. Again, we should shy away from such statements. I think a printing error in this case is not the same as a production error. But yes, I'm sure SOME ERRORS were made across the board at every level during that time, no one was perfect or immune. But error or not, I'm not sure it makes a difference in this argument. The first appearance would be the first released book, regardless of storyline continuity or even the intentions of the publisher. If you were having twins and one was positioned in the womb to be born first, but then you decided to have a C-section and the order was reversed...guess what? The twin who came out first is older, whether by necessity or doctor's choice or nature or pure luck. Agreed.

Again, I would stick with the facts versus making statements that are not really going to add value here to the discussion. A point of philosophical distinction on your statement here: "sticking to the facts" and "adding value to the discussion" are not mutually exclusive concepts, as you seem to suggest here. One may stick to facts, like "X-Men #279 came out after X-Men #143", which is a fact, but one that doesn't add any value to this particular discussion. Or, one may also add value to a discussion by giving an opinion, like "I think it's important to consider Marvel's production capabilities at the time before classifying the situation as an "error", which is, of course, not a fact but an opinion, but does add considerably to the discussion. And, after all, one person's idea of "adding value to the discussion" may not be another's, so I, myself, would be careful in presuming to speak for everyone in regards to that assumption. As entertaining as philosophical asides are, however, we are getting a bit afield from the topic. Marvel's production department had nothing to do with that error, so that particular example is not going to illustrate the point you are trying to make. It is always prudent to make sure one thoroughly understands what is being said in the discussion before responding. For example, it would be incorrect to state that, because this particular scheduling situation was not in error, and that Marvel's production team was efficient and capable, that they therefore made no errors of any kind whatsoever. That would be a leap past the boundaries of reason, not justified by statements made previously.

What a beauty. There shouldn't be any debate. Here is the Copyright office info: v. 1, no. 252, May84. Created 1984; Pub. 1984-01-10; Reg. 1984-03-20; TX0001319971 v. 1, no. 90, May84. Created 1984; Pub. 1984-01-24; Reg. 1984-03-20; TX0001325179 v. 1, no. 141, May84. Created 1984; Pub. 1984-01-24; Reg. 1984-03-20; TX0001328284 And, of course, anyone with basic common sense will realize that, just from the cover of #252 alone, it was a big deal to Marvel, and they wouldn't spoil it by releasing the other two books concurrently (not that they could; the publication schedule was set.)

Of course the length of time between books factors into a situation. Especially if something becomes key from those books that readers later on wish to figure out like this thread has worked to achieve. Except, of course, that we now know most, if not all, of details surrounding the release of these books, and we know precisely what came out, when. There is no longer any reasonable dispute regarding release dates. The length of time between books is no longer a factor in dispute, so that really should settle the matter. Quite the contrary. I was not speaking to the personal opinions and feelings of those working at Marvel at the time (because, as you rightly imply, no one but they can know them, and those with whom they share them), but to basic reason. Most people take a certain amount of pride in their work, or, at least, not doing it so badly they would screw up a process that had been in place for decades. It is, therefore, simple, basic common sense, rather than presumption, to state that they were not "cranking out books" at a pace that would cause them to commit such a substantial error. In fact, to suggest otherwise is to impugn them quite unfairly, especially in light of the facts as we now know them. It is a well established fact, not an assumption, that Marvel's production department was an efficient, well-running system that had been in place for decades. Surely, no one can reasonably dispute this. The assumption, therefore, lies with those who would suggest some type of mistake was made in a system that was efficient and capable of producing millions of comic books every month, month in and month out, for decades.

Sorry. You missed my point. The Amazing Spider-Man#252 (May 1, 1984) Marvel Super Heroes Secret Wars#8 (December 1, 1984) ------------------------ 7 month gap between them = No confusion which came first The Incredible Hulk#181 (November 1974) Wolverine #10 (August 1989) ------------------------ 15 years, 3 month gap between them = No confusion which came first X-Men Annual#14 (August 1, 1990) The Uncanny X-Men#266 (August 1, 1990) ------------------------ 0 month gap between them = Potential for confusion So comparing the other books to the X-Men Ann #14/UXM #266 situation is not the same. They were published in the same month. That is why it is easily assumed Marvel messed up the release of this book because (1) who cared about Gambit anyway, and (2) Marvel just wanted to crank books out without a care of which order the books had to be released. I didn't miss your point, no. The length of time in between is not the issue. Whether it was 7 months, or 7 days, the issue is the same. The assumption that Marvel "messed up", while certainly an old one, doesn't make it so. The publication data clearly shows there was no "mess up" (and, indeed, for a company that had been publishing comics, month in and month out, for 50+ years by this point, they had it down to a science.) That some people, who didn't have all the information, came up with the "mess up" story, and it stuck, does not therefore mean that it is valid. As far as Marvel "cranking out books without a care of which order the books had to be released"...I suspect the production team at Marvel might be a bit insulted by that. It may have seemed like that in the heady days of youth, but it wasn't ever really that way. There was, and is, a process, from start to end, that Marvel followed. And the books weren't published in the same month. One was published in May, the other in June. They were published in the same 30 day time frame, but not the same month.

Any Brigade movie rumors...? I have a boatload of golds to sell.

If Mozart had lived, no one would have ever remembered Ludwig van Beethoven. We all live in the shadow of Wolfgang.

Wait... That math doesn't add up! Um...it doesn't....?

That is fantastic.

A monkeypox on all your houses!

If you actually read the stories from book to book, the events shown in X-Men Annual #14 take place right after the events of UXM 265-267. There is no need to dig up any letter from Marvel apologizing for the publication error to prove that. That's why the annual references those flashbacks. And the events of Amazing Spiderman #252 take place literally seconds after the events of Secret Wars #12. That doesn't mean Secret Wars #8 is the first appearance of the symbiote. There is no letter from Marvel apologizing for an error, because there was no error to apologize for. All that matters is: what hit the stands first?

One more point....since X-Men Annual came out first, then X-Men #266-#267 are rightfully flashback stories....and since when have flashbacks, even in the context of the main title, ever been properly considered "first appearances" without qualification?

"Appearance in continuity" has never mattered in the entire history of the comics hobby. Otherwise, Secret Wars #8 is the "real" first appearance of the symbiote, Detective Comics #33 would be the first appearance of Batman, and Wolverine #10...no, wait, Origin #1...would be the first appearance of Wolverine....until someone comes along and depicts Logan as a baby, fetus, zygote, egg and sperm, etc.... Obviously, it doesn't work that way, and cannot work that way, because it would constantly change what is the real first appearance, so it's not reasonable to apply that standard to every book except X-Men #266. And "supposed to be published" still sticks to the now discredited idea that Marvel made some sort of mistake. They did not.

1761, at the age of 5, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart begins composing. 1791, at the age of 35, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart begins decomposing. Such an old, terrible joke.

It's too bad Falco is dead...he and DeFalco could have teamed up. Sorta like matter/anti-matter.

Brother, you SAID it....

And that is poor on its part being focused more on getting books out, and not enough on the story flow. On page 17 of the X-Men Annual #14 it says in the top panel to "For Details see X-Men #265 - 267 " when Gambit mentions escaping. I'll stick with X-Men #266 as the 1st full appearance for the sake of story continuity as Marvel meant it to be. I don't care about printing release dates. The annual #14 was meant for 1990 and Marvel could've easily released it in September as it was in May. It's dissecting semantics. Except it's not. For 80 years now, the "first appearance" has been what first was available to the public, because that is, literally, the first time the public saw the character in a story context. Gambit appears on multiple pages. He is named. The book was on sale before X-Men #266 was printed. The annual is his first full appearance.

Promise made. Promise kept.

Yes, please get out, we have enough people here as it is. Thank you and goodbye. I wasn't referring to this site... No, you were referring to California, were you not...?

Or ABOVE...??

Yes, please get out, we have enough people here as it is. Thank you and goodbye.

Thank you, I'll be here all week, please don't forget to tip your waitress. (It's almost 4 AM. Why am I still up....?)