JTLarsen

Yep, it's #60s fault that #54 is so important. It's a real conundrum. I don't think it's a conundrum. 60 is their first appearance, and 54 is very important. Voila! No conundrum!

Except that the same people reappear, only now under a team name. Which is why #54 is different than #53 or #55. You're missing the point again. They reappear AFTER 54. Crimebuster's whole point, as he said explicitly, is that there is nothing "IN" 54 that sets it apart. Your disagreement with him actually proves him right -- it's the REAPPEARANCE (which, obvi, happens OUTSIDE 54) that sets it apart.

BB #54 was not intended to be the 1st TT but in hindsight it ended up being the 1st TT after they appeared in a 2nd issue in #60. Roy, I hate to disagree with you, but the creators have said that the editorial directive that led to BB 54 was to do a "Junior Justice League" adventure. DC had, in fact, suggested in the letters column of BB years before that a JJLA adventure would be forthcoming in response to fan demand. Haney's recollection is that it was Kashdan who made the directive. Haney said in 1996: "I think it was George Kashdan who first said: 'How about a series starring the kid superheroes?' and that later I was the one who came up with the name Teen Titans. ... It was no great earth shaking creative stroke, taking some already existing house characters and combining them into a team...." Right, I meant that it was not the 1st TT in name as the name had not yet been created. Most of the opposition to BB #54 being the 1st TT seems to stem from the name not yet being announced as the TT in BB #54. The editorial intent was there, the characters were there, the team up was there - the only thing missing was the name. This is a stunningly poor summary of the counter-argument. The counter-argument is by no means based on the lack of a name. It's based on the lack of a team. They at no point contemplate let alone decide to work together again, let alone to form some kind of group that will persist over time. The name is irrelevant. The lack of creating a team is the point. Please characterize the argument correctly in the future.

Really? Where do they do that? I'm seeing a lot of misinformation on this thread and not a lot of clarification. Did you go to comics.org? If you had, you'd have gotten the clarification. Here it is. Comics.org's listing for BB 54 clarifies its relationship to the Teen Titans with the following: "Indexer Notes "Kid Flash, Robin and Aqualad - later to become the Teen Titans."

What the heck is an "official" superhero team? Do they get a membership badge? Or is the title of a comic or continuing series enough? By any measure, Green Lantern-Green Arrow was an official superhero team. Have you heard of GL-GA 76? Read the title. It is worth money for a reason. Superman-Flash did not have a steady series of adventures, they had very sporadic cross-overs. Superman-Batman, on the other hand, did have a monthly series of adventures starting with World's Finest 71 (again a "key" worth a premium). Of course, the comic collecting community recognizes Superman 76 and World's Finest 94 as notable for telling the origin of the Superman-Batman team (and, hey, check out the cover of WF 94). And I won't even go into Power Man & Iron Fist, etc. at Marvel. Where was the Green Lantern-Green Arrow headquarters again? And where was the headquarters of the Superman-Batman team? Were there lots of membership changes with any of these teams? And how "steady" does a "team"'s adventures need to be for them to be a team? Are you really saying that Superman-Flash would have been magically transformed into an "official" superhero team if they'd gotten a monthly team-up book? What about bi-monthly? What about a mini-series? Most comic-book fans know the difference between a superhero team and an official superhero team. Batman and Robin are a partnership, hero and sidekick. Superman-Batman and Green Lantern-Green Arrow are equal partnerships, "teams" in the generic sense of the word. Two friends who play basketball together regularly are not a basketball team in the same sense that the Knicks are. Green Lantern-Green Arrow is not a superhero team the same way the JLA is. And, yes, sometimes groups have insignia or other signifiers of membership. (Oh, here's wikipedia's list of DC superhero teams: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_superhero_teams_and_groups#DC_Comics. Note that GL-GA and Superman-Batman are nowhere to be found.) And by the way, your erroneous assumption that I haven't read GL 76 aside, it's not worth the money it's worth because it's the first appearance of the GL-GA "team."

BB #54 was not intended to be the 1st TT but in hindsight it ended up being the 1st TT after they appeared in a 2nd issue in #60. Roy, I hate to disagree with you, but the creators have said that the editorial directive that led to BB 54 was to do a "Junior Justice League" adventure. DC had, in fact, suggested in the letters column of BB years before that a JJLA adventure would be forthcoming in response to fan demand. Haney's recollection is that it was Kashdan who made the directive. Haney said in 1996: "I think it was George Kashdan who first said: 'How about a series starring the kid superheroes?' and that later I was the one who came up with the name Teen Titans. ... It was no great earth shaking creative stroke, taking some already existing house characters and combining them into a team...." Not that it matters, but when did they say that directive led specifically to 54? (The reason it doesn't matter, of course, is that regardless of any directive, no team is actually formed or introduced in 54. Hence the lack of a panel from 54 showing such a team.)

The 'over the top expositioning' by Robin is just the editorial team trying to give the team a 'grand unveiling' because they missed that opportunity in #54. It's just dripping with editorial spin and them saving face. But it's still all based on #54 when they first met. They were teens, they were titans. They just weren't the Teen Titans. A word balloon is hardly a grand unveiling. My point is that I was characterized as requiring a certain formula for the creation of a team. I'm just pointing out that DC seemed to feel that was necessary, too, for a team to exist -- so they had Robin establish that it had happened (after BB 54) so the existence of the Teen Titans in BB 60 would make sense, in light of the fact that no team was formed in BB 54. And, no, it's not "based on" 54. It's based on events that, as Robin says, transpired "after" 54. Did they meet in 54? I dunno. Maybe. But they didn't form a team, which is why DC felt the need to explain how and when (after 54) they did form a team.

Nope. You are stating your opinion. Because there are no "elements" for the formation of a "team." You are making those elements up. I disagree with what you think the "elements" are. For me, it is enough to form a team if disparate heroes come together to fight a common menace, overcome the menace, usually after initial conflict and learning to work together, and then proceed to common adventures together. After all, that is how many teams form, including the Avengers, JLA, etc. I don't need to have someone hit me over the head with a club and say: "We're now a team!" That was fine for Avengers 1, albeing a stilted way to end a story, but not the only way to do it. It sure doesn't defeat that BB54 was the first appearance of the TT, as DC tells us is the case, just because the stilted discussion we see in the last panel of Avengers 1 occurred off-camera. The reality is DC introduced a new team in BB 54, called it a new team in that issue, did several follow up adventures with the new team, including one where they gain a name and a new member, and then gave them their own title wherein DC confirmed again that the team began in BB 54. You seem to want to formulaic story telling. I don't need that. The way the TT was formed had all the elements most of us need without hitting us over the head with the obvious. That's hilarious. At no point did I fault the quality of the story. And by the way, the way the TT was formed was utterly formulaic AND hit you over the head with it -- Robin expositions the hell out of it in BB 60. So it's quite clear that, at the time, the elements you find sufficient fifty years later were NOT at the time considered sufficient. Which is why Robin gave them to us in BB 60. And your definition of "team," by the way, makes Green Lantern-Green Arrow an official superhero team, along with Superman-Flash. So, no, I don't need definitions to be formulaic. But they do need to be consistent. Your definition of a team is so loose it would include any team-up that occurs more than once. If you stand by that, fine, but people should know that's what you mean when you say the Teen Titans appear in BB 54.

But a team should be formed or exist, no? If 3 heroes work to defeat a common foe in one issue, and then 6 issues later add a fourth hero and somewhere in the interim starting calling themselves The Teen Titans, then I consider the first adventure with the 3 heroes as the first appearance of the team. I don't think you do. As I've said twice in this thread, already, I think the BB54 crowd just has a different way of looking at the history of a team than the BB60 crowd, but all I get back are more arguments for BB60 being the first appearance. We will never agree, so let's just agree to disagree and go back to spending time with our families again. You're eliding the fact that "somewhere in the interim" doesn't just involve a name change. Robin very clearly states that they formed the team. After BB 54. And I fully support your right to do so! You can even consider it a first appearance. What's not okay, in my book, is unqualifiedly stating to others that BB 54 is the team's first appearance. That statement needs the kind of qualification you've identified, in terms of having a "different way of looking at" it. Because different people will differ on this, I think the honest thing to do when claiming first appearance status for BB 54 is to explain the applicable factors, as you have (and comics.org does, too, come to think of it).

How often did a DC 'team up' become a 'team'? That seems to be the defining line. 3 people team up as a one off and it's just a 'team up'. If the team up is repeated then the team up becomes redefined as a team (even retroactively - which is common in comics as nobody thought they had a sure thing on their hands, ever). I have no problem agreeing that if the 3 characters did not initially team up again in #60 then #54 would just be considered a simple team up issue. But the characters did continue and that fact alone redefines what #54 was. During issue #54 it was simply a team up. Once the editorial team decided to perpetuate the team up #54 became the origin (and by definition) the 1st appearance of the team, even if they weren't named. Again, just how I logically see it. First of all, thank you for acknowledging that BB54 was not an appearance of a new superhero team at the time (until, in your view, BB 60 made it so). I'm okay with people calling 54 the origin -- in that it explains how the heroes first came to fight together. But the group, named or not, does not form in 54. It forms afterward. So I'm okay with however people want to CHARACTERIZE 54 -- prototype, origin, try-out. Go nuts. If people want to THINK of that as the first appearance, they're obviously free to do that, too. But to make the factual (or logical) claim that a team appeared is not open to subjectivity. The team appeared or it didn't. Members of the team appeared. But they did not form a team, nor were they, at the time, members of that later team. A team's origin can occur off-camera or elements of it can occur on-camera, without the team appearing. You can call my parents' first date my origin, if you want, without me having to appear. BB 54, obviously, is only a partial origin, in that it doesn't actually establish how the TEAM was formed -- it just addresses how some individual members met, which is a different thing. Note that this isn't how I see it, these are statements of fact, easily disprovable IF BB54 had the elements to disprove them.

And the same 3 points I made on page 5 hold true. None of these can be disputed without the use of a subjective argument. Sure they can. As an example, you're item number 3 is not based in any fact. Wonder Girl, according to the "brief history of the Teen Titans" set forth in Teen Titans 1, was "an addition to the new team" not a "founding member." All of your assertions boil down to one argument: You think that the group named the Teen Titans could not come into existence until it was named. That's a subjective evaluation that most of comicdom and D.C. disagree with. The first panel to introduce Wonder Girl is the same panel that "introduces comicdom to the Teen Titans", or do you still contend this doesn't really mean comicdom was introduced to the Teen Titans? Nothing in BB 60 says "introducing the Teen Titans." Teen Titans 1 doesn't say what you keep claiming it says. It states: "Next time around, in B&B 60, we took the lead from the vast number of fans who called for the addition of Wonder Girl to the new team, and we introduced them to comicdom as the Teen Titans." Get it? The team started in BB 54, "next time" it appeared was BB 60, with the "addition of Wonder Girl" and the new roster was introduced (e.g. named) "as the Teen Titans." Added a member and gained a name. That's what BB 60 did. There is textual evidence for both sides. Comics.org, editorial captions, Haney interviews, you name it. None of what people SAY about BB54 can change the fact that at no point does a superhero team exist in that issue. That's why we've seen no panel of it (unlike Avengers).

But a team should be formed or exist, no?

And the same 3 points I made on page 5 hold true. None of these can be disputed without the use of a subjective argument. And, yet another subjective argument based on a factual misstatement. BB 54 does not say it is a "team-up." A team-up is a one time short that doesn't lead to anything. In contrast, BB 54 used the term "team," which is when a "team-up" evolves into a regular grouping, which is clearly what happened here. BB 60 is the "next time" the "new team" appeared according to Teen Titans 1, so the facts don't support your subjective opinion. There's a reason comic fans didn't rise up in outrage when the Price Guide listed BB 54 as the first Teen Titans in 1980. It was obvious to everyone that it was. Did you miss the PAGES worth of examples of BB calling other "team-ups" by the term "team"? Or do you consider every single teaming that occurred in BB a new superhero team? Oh, and fans didn't rise up in outrage about the Sgt. Rock listing, either. Which has since been corrected, as this one gradually is being.

Excuse me, friend of Jesus? Could you speak about women in some way that doesn't reduce them to a sexualized body part? We're trying to make this hobby an inclusive one, so let's act as if people of all kinds may be checking this forum out. Pretty sure Jesus didn't talk that way about women. Well, as long as you are apologizing, I guess it's ok. But please try to avoid this behavior in the future. Not all posters here are men, my friends. Lotsa of ladies out there ❤️ the 60 ? ... my apologies if anyone took offense. It was intended as a joke. I watched a 20 something female cosplayer buy a 2 issue Byrne X-Men arc from my friend Gene at the last show..... we talked for a minute and she said her Dad was a collector and that these two issues were her favorite story and she wanted her OWN copies. I like seeing the gals get involved..... comics are fun. GOD BLESS... -jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u .... I showed Judy this thread and she agreed that a night on the town would be a good idea for some of the posters (...she reads comics too ) ..... D.C. had an ongoing strategy of trying new concepts out to gauge reader response..... it would seem BB 54 was a gamble that paid off.... I wasn't offended, but I appreciate and thank you for the apology. I'm sure we, myself included, can all do better to ensure that this forum and other public spaces in our hobby are as inclusive and welcoming to everyone as possible. (That way, more people want to buy our comics some day!) I must confess, when you first confronted me, my "inner child" bristled..... but after a more objective analysis I couldn't help but determine that I may have been a bit of a boorish . Sometimes a refreshing slap in the face can be a positive motivator (.... after the fact, of course ) GOD BLESS.... -jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u Appreciate that. For what it's worth, it wasn't intended as a slap. "Excuse me," I should have realized, can sound very snotty. I intended it in a tap-on-the-shoulder way, but should've realized it could've been seen otherwise. So, thanks for being open-minded and focusing on my intent rather than my communication style.

Excuse me, friend of Jesus? Could you speak about women in some way that doesn't reduce them to a sexualized body part? We're trying to make this hobby an inclusive one, so let's act as if people of all kinds may be checking this forum out. Pretty sure Jesus didn't talk that way about women. Well, as long as you are apologizing, I guess it's ok. But please try to avoid this behavior in the future. Not all posters here are men, my friends. Lotsa of ladies out there ❤️ the 60 ? ... my apologies if anyone took offense. It was intended as a joke. I watched a 20 something female cosplayer buy a 2 issue Byrne X-Men arc from my friend Gene at the last show..... we talked for a minute and she said her Dad was a collector and that these two issues were her favorite story and she wanted her OWN copies. I like seeing the gals get involved..... comics are fun. GOD BLESS... -jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u .... I showed Judy this thread and she agreed that a night on the town would be a good idea for some of the posters (...she reads comics too ) ..... D.C. had an ongoing strategy of trying new concepts out to gauge reader response..... it would seem BB 54 was a gamble that paid off.... I wasn't offended, but I appreciate and thank you for the apology. I'm sure we, myself included, can all do better to ensure that this forum and other public spaces in our hobby are as inclusive and welcoming to everyone as possible. (That way, more people want to buy our comics some day!)

I'm not trying to debate which was the first appearance, I'm more trying to learn in this instance. That being said, comics.org is not infallible. I think the indexers and editors there do a terrific job of compiling data, but how would they know any more than those of us here which comic was the first appearance other than by their own interpretation and perspective? Well, by their experience for one thing. Meaning, they've read a lot of comic books and so have more experience than newbies do at determining what distinguishes a Superhero Team from a superhero team-up. Secondly, their high profile ensures that they are liable to get pushback from fellow experts if/when they screw something up. So, these two factors and related factors are what help give them more credibility than some average schmo. In other words, empiricism and epistemology matter. Not everything is mere opinion.

Excuse me, friend of Jesus? Could you speak about women in some way that doesn't reduce them to a sexualized body part? We're trying to make this hobby an inclusive one, so let's act as if people of all kinds may be checking this forum out. Pretty sure Jesus didn't talk that way about women.

That's fine if that's the definition you want to use, but we should be clear that that's not the universal definition of a team. A team is more than slapping a name on a bunch of individuals--and it's more than those individuals working toward a common goal. The teenagers of Hatton Corners, for instance, and the grownups and cops were all working toward the same goal as the superheroes. It's not that they weren't considered an official team, it's that they did not in any way formalize their cooperative efforts, they didn't even agree to work together again. By your definition of a superhero team, every combination of more than one superhero working together is its own superhero team. You may think that, but that's not the understanding most people will have when you refer to a superhero team so go ahead and follow your own definition yourself, but when you're speaking in a public forum, I think the responsible thing to do is be specific about your definition and usage of the word "team."

I find the Teen Titans Archives vol. 1 (starts with BB 54) and Teen Titans: A Celebration of 50 Years (keys off of BB 54) much more interesting. Why? We already know that the conventional wisdom says BB 54 is their first appearance. Lazyboy's citation is, actually, more interesting, because it's an example of a departure from the norm. Now, that said, comics.org is the single most authoritative source for comics info. And they don't consider BB 54 the first appearance of the Teen Titans. If I were interested in the Teen Titans, I'd definitely find that interesting.

BB 54 - First appearance of Teen Titans. BB 60 - First named appearance of Teen Titans; First appearance of Donna Troy as Wonder Girl. BB 60 also contains Robin's revelation that the Teen Titans formed after the events of BB 54. So, um, which panel in BB 54 do the Teen Titans first appear in?

Still ignoring this post, sfcityduck? Maybe hoping if you ignore it long enough it will just disappear? All of those positions have been addressed over and over. Let me make it simple enough you can understand. The group now known as the TT formed in BB54 when Robin, Kid Flash and Aqualad came together for the very first time in a shared adventure against a common menace. That story is essentially the same as Avengers 1. Heroes come together due to common menace, come into conflict, learn to work together. We also know that behind the scenes this comic was created in response to fan demand leading to an editorial directive for a "Junior Justice League" issue. Bob Haney explained this in interviews because its an interesting topic and he was asked. He certainly knows what happened. What did not happen in BB54 is the naming of that team as the JJL. Instead, six issues later, the team was named the "Teen Titans." The editorial narrative was that the team was formed as a result of the events in BB54 and the team name was selected after that, but before BB60. The continuity is clear. Team forms, then picks up name. Haney concurs. So does DC, Overstreet, dealers, fans, etc. Keep spitting against the wind. Remind me again in which panel the team "formed"? And why the Justice League didn't "form" in Superman 76? If this is all you got, you are struggling mightily. Superman 76 was the origin of the Superman-Batman (and Robin) team. It was a GA book and the JLA is a SA team. A more relevant example, no one here is contending that the X-Men 1 is the first appearance of the Champions because Iceman and Angel were in that team. That would be absurd. There's no continuity to support that assertion and the timing is too far removed. Ditto for Superman 76 and the JLA. But, BB 54 and BB 60 share continuity, BB 60 refers back to the BB 54 story and clearly is a continuation. If you read the issues, which I'm not sure you have if you think Superman 76 and the first JLA are analogous, it is obvious that the team in BB 60 is the same team in BB 54 (plust a new member). And that's what DC said way back in TT 1. The entire issue of BB54 tells the story of how Robin, Kid Flash, and Aqualad learned to work as a team -- and the new team is reflected on the final panel and in BB 60 itself. You may want neat and tidy packages, but sometimes life isn't like that. Sometimes a hero appears without a name (Animal Man) and so too with groups (TT). Yes, it makes it a bit harder to recognize and understand, but the test for a first appearance is not the lowest common denominator. You don't have to beat hit over the head with a baseball bat to recognize a first appearance. Sometimes, it's ok if they are more subtle, like TTA 27, BB 54, and Strange Adventures 180. Wait, so now BB60 matters? Including the part where Robin says they formed the Teen Titans "after" the events of BB54? I don't need neat and tidy packages at all. I just need appearances to appear. The Teen Titans -- with or without name -- don't appear in BB54. Some of its members do. And, yes, they work collaboratively. They just don't form an actual team (as the Avengers do in their first appearance). That happens after BB54, as Robin tells us in BB60, which you concede shares the continuity. I get and accept that some first appearances are subtle -- I own those Animal Man appearances. But all of them have neat and tidy explanations (first named appearance, in costume, etc.). And I happily conceded BB54 is material to the formation (on- and off-screen) of the Teen Titans. I agree it's important and even a Teen Titans key book. I won't argue with anyone who calls it a tryout or prototype or whatever. That's how comfortable with un-neat and un-tidy packages I am. But for a comic book to constitute something's first appearance, that thing has to appear, and no superhero team appears in BB54. If you think heroes appearing together in a book constitute an appearance of the team to which those heroes (later) belong, then, yeah, BB54 appears to be the first appearance of the Teen Titans (unless someone digs up Robin and Aqualad appearing together beforehand or something). If you require people to form or have formed a superhero team for that superhero team to exist, then BB60 is the first appearance.

No it isn't, as you well know, since we've gone over this before. Because Avengers #1 has a half page sequence where they actually form a team. I bolded that to make it easier for you to see. Okay, good point. But we all remember when this happens in BB54, right? Um, anyone?

Still ignoring this post, sfcityduck? Maybe hoping if you ignore it long enough it will just disappear? All of those positions have been addressed over and over. Let me make it simple enough you can understand. The group now known as the TT formed in BB54 when Robin, Kid Flash and Aqualad came together for the very first time in a shared adventure against a common menace. That story is essentially the same as Avengers 1. Heroes come together due to common menace, come into conflict, learn to work together. We also know that behind the scenes this comic was created in response to fan demand leading to an editorial directive for a "Junior Justice League" issue. Bob Haney explained this in interviews because its an interesting topic and he was asked. He certainly knows what happened. What did not happen in BB54 is the naming of that team as the JJL. Instead, six issues later, the team was named the "Teen Titans." The editorial narrative was that the team was formed as a result of the events in BB54 and the team name was selected after that, but before BB60. The continuity is clear. Team forms, then picks up name. Haney concurs. So does DC, Overstreet, dealers, fans, etc. Keep spitting against the wind. Remind me again in which panel the team "formed"? And why the Justice League didn't "form" in Superman 76?

Well, no. I don't think anyone's arguing that more people consider BB60 the first appearance. We're not talking about what people think. We're talking about what's actually IN BB54. And what's not--i.e., a superhero team. I'm sure most people aren't aware of that. Yet.

That's as convincing as it gets. Yep, in TT 1, DC clearly states that the history of the TT begins with BB54. BB60 is denoted as the "next time around" for the group, and where they get their name, but not as a "first appearance" -- for the obvious reason that BB54 takes that spot in DC's "history of the Teen Titans." Couple that with the first reprinting of BB54 in the 70s being denoted as a TT story, and DC's stated positions that BB54 is the first TT story in Archives and the 50th Anniversary celebration (calculated off of BB54), and its pretty obvious that DC took the position that BB54 was the first TT appearance in the 60s, 70s, and onward. The erroneous statements in the 70s reprint of BB60 and the retcon caption in the late 70s TT comic (the dark age of the series) have never been repeated. Generally, if you're referring to something happening multiple times (in ages you approve of or not), that tends to be the textbook definition of being repeated.