JTLarsen

19 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Not quite. Causality is not necessarily limited to only one factor at a time. If the goal of the PR is to point out how they're being diverse for the sake of diversity, then your argument does not stand, and darkstar is correct. PR is not the end, the "reason" for doing it...PR is just the means. 

If you claim someone is doing something JUST for the sake of doing something, you are explicitly ruling out other factors. That's what just means. You are making my argument, that Marvel obviously had ends it wanted to achieve and PR was a means.

19 minutes ago, darkstar said:

Except you're wrong, they are doing it just for the sake of diversity, as it's good PR. Hey mainstream media look at us, we're progressive, make sure you write about our latest minority character! You can tell it isn't genuine because of the lazy approach. Taking a mantle character and making the latest iteration a minority. Taking an iconic character and killing them or exiling them and replacing them with a minority. Hey look at us non-white male readers we care about you, now you have a character you can relate to! Except using an established character and effectively just giving them a fresh skin is by definition derivative. If Marvel actually had an honest interest in diversity as a means of acquiring new readers they would hammer away at regularly creating NEW minority characters not as stand-ins piggybacking off the popularity of existing ones. The effort to do that is not there. 

Here's how causality works. When you claim someone is doing something "just for the sake of" something else, you're saying there is no other reason to do it. When you then helpfully add the phrase, "as it's good PR," you're identifying good PR as the reason for doing it. Which means they're not doing it just for the sake of diversity.

13 minutes ago, 1p36DSA said:

what's your point??? Marvel isn't doing it for the sake of people, they are doing it just to diversify and are loosing business over it, and that is very clear.

Saying someone is doing X just for the sake of doing X is tacitly admitting you don't know why they're doing it. So I told you.

13 hours ago, 1p36DSA said:

well said my friend. The diversity for the sake of diversity has just gotten out of hand, just like the media and Hollywood they need to go back to their roots and figure a way out to create new characters here and there versus making thor a girl and captain America black. I have many friends and family now from various backgrounds and heritages and can't seem one to find that agrees with how Marvel is approaching their current !

Diversity isn't for the sake of diversity. It's for the sake of people.

2 hours ago, SquareChaos said:

It isn't too unusual for people to dislike Dillon's work. I happen to like it in Preacher, but have been put off by his work on some other titles (Punisher most recently comes to mind). Overall, I still fall on the fan side, I'm sorry we won't see anymore Steve Dillon comic books - when all of the various pieces of a comic book were hitting on all cylinders, he produced some classic stuff.

Never seen Dillon stuff I didn't enjoy the hell out of. Visually, at least.

I confess I'd rather the good deals go to people who are already knowledgeable based on their own investment of time and love in the hobby and the artform.

Wonder Woman 184? Hughes cover...

48 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

Miller is more of a perfecter than an innovator.  His DD layouts were straight out of the Krigstein work book (probably also owed some to LW&C).  His Ronin style owed a lot to Moebius as well.

Everyone stands on the shoulders of giants.

2 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

OAAW 83 versus 81 and 82 is not a good example.  Why?  Because the conclusion that OAAW 81 is not the first Sgt. Rock is largely based on the fact that the artist of "The Rock of Easy Co." was Ross Andru (writer Bob Haney), and the artist of the story "Hold Up Easy" in 82 was Mort Drucker (writer Bob Haney). 

Although both those stories are pretty clearly "Sgt. Rock" stories, neither was drawn by Kubert the artist of the story "The Rock and the Wall" (writer Kanigher) in 83.   As a result, comic fandom has made the questionable decision to overlook 81 and 82 (although DC did not in the Sgt. Rock Archives), and instead christen the first Sgt. Rock story to be the one that first featured Kubert art (and Kanigher writing), the man most associated with the character. 

It is hard to defend this decision, given that the cover of 83 states "The Rock and the Wall" is "a NEW Easy Co. story," clearly indicating that it is a continuation of the Easy Co. stories in the prior two issues.   Kubert just has vocal fans, I guess.

TTA 27 and 35 is a far better analogy, because like with BB 54 and 60, they feature the same writer/artist teams (Haney/Premiani for BB and Lee/Kirby for TTA).

I forget the others, but Kubert is hardly the only factor re 83.

2 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

Re-read the early pages of this massive debate and you'll discover that the "dc.wikia.com" is not owned, controlled or run by DC.  It's a wiki.  Like wikipedia.  Editable by anyone.  DC's official position is most recently found in the Teen Titans archives and Teen Titans anniversary edition, both of which identify BB 54 as the origin and first appearance of the TT.

Ah, didn't realize that. Luckily, as I said, it doesn't matter.

On 10/10/2014 at 11:15 AM, HighStakesComics said:

So is BB 54 or BB 60 the first Teen Titans? OPG and CGC list it as BB 54, however........

 

http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Brave_and_the_Bold_Vol_1_60

 

DC seems to think otherwise. The name "Teen Titans" also never appears in BB 54. Is CGC right on this or is DC?

 

Totally forgot about all this. Doesn't matter to ME...the contents of 54 and 60 speak for themselves...but if your argument is that it matters what the company says, well...

6 hours ago, Point Five said:

Hey guys,

Lifelong Titans fan here. I just noticed this thread the other week, and read it all the way through. Much enjoyed the spirited debate.   I'm way, way late to the party but wanted to throw in my two cents anyhow.

I would say Brave & Bold #54 is the first appearance of the Teen Titans, but I would frame the question differently than most have done in this thread: the concept of the Teen Titans as it has more or less endured for 5+ decades seems to me to be quite firmly in place in B&B 54. You may reasonably disagree, but personally I wouldn't attach much importance to what the characters say is the precise moment of formation of the team, or when the team name debuted, or what the writers or the editors or the company have said or written later. The story is in continuity and the Teen Titans idea is right there.

As an exercise,

What is the concept of the Avengers? More or less, superheroes from existing Marvel titles teaming up in one book to fight villains. That idea is there in Avengers #1, regardless of when the characters picked out their team name, when Cap joined, which members came and went, etc. And even if most of the characters look different, that idea of the Avengers is still there in 2017.

What is the concept of the X-Men? Again more or less, a group of mutants cast out by humans join forces and fight villains. That idea is right there in X-Men #1, regardless of when the characters picked out their team name, when other members joined, etc etc. The X-Men universe now looks completely different, but that idea that debuted in issue #1 is still there in 2017.

And you could do the same for FF #1 and B&B #28 and so forth. To me it doesn't matter when the characters went and said 'we are a team', or picked out their costumes or built an HQ or what have you. It's the first appearance of that core idea.

So what is the concept of the Teen Titans? I'd say the concept is, again broadly, junior characters from existing DC titles join forces to fight villains. That concept is present from B&B #54 and #60, through the Titans' title in the 1960s, through the reincarnation of the group as the New Teen Titans in the 1980s (the formula stretches out a bit more, as new characters are introduced, but even Beast Boy/Changeling is a tie back to the original concept, as were other recurring characters)... all the way to (amazingly) the Teen Titans Go cartoons running in 2017. And so on.

I see that concept in B&B #54 without a doubt, so for me at least that's the Teen Titans right there, no question. A group of junior DC heroes (even led by Robin, which is not entirely essential to the concept of the TT but a bit of a bonus in this context) working together to fight a villain, even if the villain is a complete turkey.

With that said, I do like B&B #60, I respect its importance and I'd like to own both books. I see why the 'first appearance' is a bit messy to some because of the logo situation and the dialogue between characters in #60, and it would ideally be otherwise. But "first Titans"? Clear as day to me.
 

 

Eminently reasonable.

1 hour ago, sfcityduck said:

No the right analogy is TTA 27.   Your analogy fails, except to show how ridiculous your reasoning is.  Shouting "SQUIRRELS!" won't work here.

The first time any member of the Teen Titans appears in BB 60 is on the top of the fifth page of the story.  Here's what happens:

Batman:  "What's this?  Calling the Teen Titans:

Robin:  Check, Batman!  Teen Titans is a group of junior crime-fighters I set up after Kid Flash, Aqualad and I helped the teenagers of Hatton Corners!

Of course, Hatton Corners was the story told in BB 54.  Thus, Robin (1) ties the creation of the Teen Titans directly to the adventure of Hatton Corners, (2) confirming that adventure as the origin of the Teen Titans, and (3) establishes that the Teen Titans exist prior to the story told in BB 60.  Any doubt that BB 54 is the origin of the Teen Titans is removed because that panel is footnoted with the editorial comment "See Brave and the Bold 54."  

Thus, the story you claim is the first Teen Titans appearance refers you back to BB 54 for the origin of the pre-existing team.  The CONTINUITY was clear from day one.  Again, you are elevating the trademark over the story continuity.  That's your choice.  I and many others choose differently.

When Robin says the team was formed "after Kid Flash, Aqualad and I helped the teenagers of Hatton Corners" he's just referring to the old staid sequence of events of all group origin stories:  The members meet, have an adventure, THEN decide to form a team.  Just as with Avengers 1 and GS X-Men 94/X-Men 94.  

Pretending you don't understand the argument for BB 54 as the origin of the Teen Titans seems more than a wee bit disingenuous.  The more honest approach is just to admit that you agree the story of the Teen Titans begins in BB 54, but you view the emergence of the "Teen Titans" name and trademark as more significant.  

You are bad at knowing things. I've ALREADY SAID go ahead and call 54 the origin. I've ALREADY SAID I don't care about trademarks. Robin's remark doesn't "tie" or "confirm" anything except the sequence. "After" doesn't equal "because of." Look it up.

Also look up "straw man." I've ALREADY SAID the Titans existed before 60. Which is how they can appear...for the first time...in 60.

You can call 54 an origin, prototype, tryout or any other SUBJECTIVE term you want. It is OBJECTIVELY false to claim that the superhero team "The Teen Titans" appears in it.

14 hours ago, Bomber-Bob said:

Both Overstreet and CGC give it to #54. Get them to change and the marketplace will go along. Until then, the #60 side can argue all they want, it doesn't matter.

Of course it matters. If one person sees this and buys either 60 OR 54 as an INFORMED choice, it matters to them.

On 9/11/2017 at 10:34 PM, sfcityduck said:

No.  IMHO, 60 is the first time that the team that first appeared in 54 is called the Teen Titans.

On 9/11/2017 at 10:34 PM, sfcityduck said:

No.  IMHO, 60 is the first time that the team that first appeared in 54 is called the Teen Titans.

OMG, this again. Fine, please post the panel in which they are a team (as opposed to heroes working together prior to forming a team.) And if you read 60 he literally says they formed the team after 54.

 It's like saying America was founded the first time Washington, Madison, and Jefferson met. 

32 minutes ago, SECollector said:

Hello!

I am aware of two more fellow collectors here on the boards that live in Europe, but how many are we really? It sometimes feels a bit lonely collecting Silver Age stuff here on the other side of Atlantic  so I thought that it would be cool to know who else is here and maybe exchange some info about interesting stores (doubt there are really any really interesting), cons, European or "EU-friendly" dealers or whatever. Or maybe help each other flood the boards while everyone else is sleeping .

I myself live in Stockholm, Sweden.

Cheers

 

Hej from America!

I know there's a guy who works at the Pharoah's Cigarer in Copenhagen who collects...!

10 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

You and I disagree on who is being dishonest here.  I take comfort in my honesty from the fact that DC itself adopts my view.  

DC's view is that people who disagree with you care about the trademark? You continually shade your descriptions toward your argument, not just on the intellectually dishonest characterization of your opponents' argument. DC doesn't tout a "new team" in the sense you suggest--as we've litigated ad nauseam, they referred to every teamup at that time as a new team. Robin doesn't say the team formed AS A RESULT of the adventure in 54. You saying that 54 is the origin doesn't make it so. You saying that "all" that happens in 60 is adopting a name and having a "second" adventure doesn't make it so. IIRC correctly, the name and team are established before the events of 60, but after 54, making 60 their first, not second adventure. First appearance, even. If you want to say 54 is their "origin," go right ahead, there's nothing in the text to contradict you. But 60 is the first time a superhero team called the Teen Titans appears in comics.

6 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

Yep.  The cases are laid out in detail.  We just disagree on what matters most: the trademark or the continuity of the story of the team.

When you dishonestly represent your opponents' side, you reveal the paucity of your own argument. The argument isn't that "the trademark" doesn't appear in 54. It's that the team doesn't appear, form, or get named in 54. If you truly valued the continuity of the story, you'd care about the details of each. No team is formed in the story told in 54. The story told in 60 reveals that the continuity of the team began in the events after 54. 

1 hour ago, VintageComics said:

I still lean towards 54 as well and can also see the argument for 60 - but I'm not a legalistic person. It doesn't need to be spelled out for me. The spirit of something is enough and in this case to me they are the Teen Titans even though they weren't name as such.

I believe that was it. Can someone post a picture of that blurb as I don't remember what it was....

This seems fair. If 54 "feels" like the first appearance to you, go for it. I just don't want unwary buyers not to know the facts.

4 hours ago, Aman619 said:

The books are clearly connected, because 60 references 54 as their first adventure together and the reason they formed the TT. But after going with the status quo that 54 is the first appearance, I've been leaning toward 60 more and more. We will see if the Sgt Rock analogy finally applies here too. The hobby speaks with its wallets.  

Yeah. 60 refers to 54, but says it preceded the formation of the TT. Which, it'd have to, since there is no TT in 54.

5 hours ago, VintageComics said:

It wasn't that simple. There was something that referenced #54 as being the 1st time and 60 the 2nd. I'll try to find it when I have some time.

Lots of things reference 54 as the first. But none of them are 54 itself (or 60).

5 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

I remember having this discussion in the 1st Teen Titans app thread. I just can't remember where it appeared.

I don't know if it was in BB #54 that somewhere they were called that (at the end of the story or on the editor's page) or in BB #60 there was a reference made to them being together 'again' but there was something we discussed.

At the time I had a copy of both books raw so that I could check. I no longer do.

Yup. 60 refers to them forming the Teen Titans after the events of 54.

1 hour ago, Howling Mad said:

Agreed!

Not to mention they're missing Wonder Girl...I'm not sure why it hasn't been re-evaluated. I suppose their concerned about backlash at this point?

I've definitely seen issues we're they've modified the label though. Just take a look at Justice League of America #75. It went from being the first SA appearance of Dinah Lance and now it's not marked that way. I believe it states that she joins the JLA, or something like that.

Not to mention Sgt. Rock and OAW 81 and 83. It does happen, it just takes time.

26 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

Isn't the name used at the end part of the story in BB #54? Just going from memory.

26 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

Isn't the name used at the end part of the story in BB #54? Just going from memory.

Nope. No team. No name. Most non-appearance first appearance I've ever seen.

9 hours ago, Howling Mad said:

I want to like it, but it's just a mess. Though I also fall firmly into the BB54 isn't really the 1st appearance of the Teen Titans camp, so that probably doesn't hurt. I wouldn't mind owning a copy though.

Total mess. That scribbled tornado. That villain. That lack of Teen Titans logo or appearance or mention. Just an ughy book. (That I also wouldn't mind owning.)