Jim Rhodes in Iron Man #118 should be 1st appearance (cameo or brief)??

[joe_collector]

I don't think anyone actually *reads* comics anymore, as evidenced by my pet peeve, the "brief/cameo appearance" of Thanos in Iron Man 55.

 

Who came up with that gem - Thanos is featured throughout the entire book, appearing in at least 7-8 pages, including a climatic scene where he steps out in a full shot, announces his name and crushes Iron Man's glove. WTF?

 

Its been changed. You must have been heard.

 

I guess all my screaming and yelling did some good - has OS changed it as well in the latest version?

[akaSteveRogers]

But don't expect CGC to change the label or Overstreet rush to print on this one though...

 

...unless War Machine takes off.

 

 

He already has taken off. Marvel Vs Capcom, Former Leader of the West Coast Avengers, he was Marvel Superhero Squad, and in Iron Man Armored Adventures.

Recently had his own series to change him out of cyborg form. He was In the first movie,when Rhodes looks at the War Machine armor and says "Not, yet baby not yet." The crowd where I watched the film erupted.He's on a movie poster of Iron Man 2, the actor playing him is signed for Iron Man 3 and the Avengers.In addition, to how the crowd reacted at the footage War Machine reaction at Comic Con.

 

He's still a B-Lister. Movie hype and comic fanboys aside, there is psuh for the Jim Rhodes character going back to the Copper Age ( I think JC pointed this out). But he's not there yet. Id like to see the War machine title go beyond #12 or 25 for me the general public to argue whether his 1st appearance is a cameo/brief or full.

 

Until the $$$ that need to be associated with IM #118 reach a constant, high level...this is debate (or lack thereof) is simply academic.

 

We will know in a couple of years whether #118 and #120 will merit debate if #118's price remains constant, there is still a solid demand, and it doesn't take that substantial dip in price.

 

 

[catch21]

But don't expect CGC to change the label or Overstreet rush to print on this one though...

 

...unless War Machine takes off.

 

 

He already has taken off. Marvel Vs Capcom, Former Leader of the West Coast Avengers, he was Marvel Superhero Squad, and in Iron Man Armored Adventures.

Recently had his own series to change him out of cyborg form. He was In the first movie,when Rhodes looks at the War Machine armor and says "Not, yet baby not yet." The crowd where I watched the film erupted.He's on a movie poster of Iron Man 2, the actor playing him is signed for Iron Man 3 and the Avengers.In addition, to how the crowd reacted at the footage War Machine reaction at Comic Con.

 

He's still a B-Lister. Movie hype and comic fanboys aside, there is psuh for the Jim Rhodes character going back to the Copper Age ( I think JC pointed this out).

 

Comic fanboys aside?? We are talking about the comic book. Why would they be aside? I can name examples where after reading the book the wrong label was changed without waiting til A status. I dont know where your getting this B list A list stuff. Especially, for a period the man was Iron Man.Enlighten me, why do we have to wait to fix a label? When has this happen?

[Bronty]

Actually after 120, he appears very regular in Iron Man.

 

he's in very many issues yes.... and is a regular part of the story.... but they are still not traditional early appearances because he's not the focus of the story. At least that's my recollection from having read #1 to about #300 or so, albeit many years have passed

[Bronty]

I don't think anyone actually *reads* comics anymore, as evidenced by my pet peeve, the "brief/cameo appearance" of Thanos in Iron Man 55.

 

Who came up with that gem - Thanos is featured throughout the entire book, appearing in at least 7-8 pages, including a climatic scene where he steps out in a full shot, announces his name and crushes Iron Man's glove. WTF?

 

Its been changed. You must have been heard.

 

I guess all my screaming and yelling did some good - has OS changed it as well in the latest version?

 

. all you get is shots of the back of his boots and the like until the last page.

[joe_collector]

. all you get is shots of the back of his boots and the like until the last page.

 

Ah, it's always nice to meet another person who shoots his mouth off without actually reading the book in question.

 

You see his face, while sitting, full body shots, etc,. and he even battles The Destroyer over a 2-page fight.

[joe_collector]

You might be misremembering, since there are some panels like that on this page, but check out the top one, where Thanos is clearly identified and shown.

[BradleyX2]

I don't think anyone actually *reads* comics anymore, as evidenced by my pet peeve, the "brief/cameo appearance" of Thanos in Iron Man 55.

 

Who came up with that gem - Thanos is featured throughout the entire book, appearing in at least 7-8 pages, including a climatic scene where he steps out in a full shot, announces his name and crushes Iron Man's glove. WTF?

 

Its been changed. You must have been heard.

 

 

As far as I know CGC has never listed IM #55 as the 1st "brief" or "cameo" appearance of Thanos. It's always been listed as "1st appearance" period.

 

(I could be wrong about the "always", but that's how it's been since as far back as 2003 for sure.)

[akaSteveRogers]

Comic fanboys aside??

 

I was talking about your "crowd that erupted". The "Not, yet baby not yet" was clearly a line in the movie for fanboys. As the mainstream wouldn't have gotten that reference.

 

I can name examples where after reading the book the wrong label was changed without waiting til A status.

 

The label is actually not completely wrong. It is Rhodes 1st appearance. The arguement from the start was whether it was a brief/cameo appearance and is #120 his first full appearance.

 

I actually agree that it is a brief appearance. But I don't think that CGC/Overstreet will go through the trouble of specify the "type" of appearance on such a character due to the character's and IM #118's status. Im not saying it hasn't been done (I sited Mary Jane Watson).

 

When you compare the $$$ and status of characters like Thanos & IM #55 and Wolverine & Hulk #181...those characters first appearance are hotter topics of debate. Even their first FEW appearance are hot commodities. Ive seen issues where they have labeled Thanos' 1st, 2nd and 3rd apps. in a particluar title.

 

As much of a push as there have been for James Rhodes since the Copper age when he first took over as Iron Man, his books didn't take off...until the movie hype. No one even KNEW his first app unless you [font:Book Antiqua]Google[/font]d it until 2 - 2 1/2 yrs ago.

 

Hey it can happen. CGC could change their minds tomorrow. My point is that if the book and/or character is not that big of a deal to everyone else, if there is any big $$$ tied to it being labeled one way or another...why go through the trouble of specifying first, cameo, brief, or full appearance? Leave it at an ambigous "1st appearance." Its not wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

[Logan510]

Doesn't matter to me. I've got both issues to sell when the 'Rhodey' craze starts. and, is Don Cheadle the best they could do to play him? Rhodey is more like Apollo Creed than Steve Erkel.

 

I never even thought of that...but if we had a time machine I think a younger Carl Weathers would make an awesome Jim Rhodes...good call dude (thumbs u

[catch21]

Comic fanboys aside??

 

I was talking about your "crowd that erupted". The "Not, yet baby not yet" was clearly a line in the movie for fanboys. As the mainstream wouldn't have gotten that reference.

 

I can name examples where after reading the book the wrong label was changed without waiting til A status.

 

The label is actually not completely wrong. It is Rhodes 1st appearance. The arguement from the start was whether it was a brief/cameo appearance and is #120 his first full appearance.

 

I actually agree that it is a brief appearance. But I don't think that CGC/Overstreet will go through the trouble of specify the "type" of appearance on such a character due to the character's and IM #118's status. Im not saying it hasn't been done (I sited Mary Jane Watson).

 

When you compare the $$$ and status of characters like Thanos & IM #55 and Wolverine & Hulk #181...those characters first appearance are hotter topics of debate. Even their first FEW appearance are hot commodities. Ive seen issues where they have labeled Thanos' 1st, 2nd and 3rd apps. in a particluar title.

 

As much of a push as there have been for James Rhodes since the Copper age when he first took over as Iron Man, his books didn't take off...until the movie hype. No one even KNEW his first app unless you [font:Book Antiqua]Google[/font]d it until 2 - 2 1/2 yrs ago.

 

Hey it can happen. CGC could change their minds tomorrow. My point is that if the book and/or character is not that big of a deal to everyone else, if there is any big $$$ tied to it being labeled one way or another...why go through the trouble of specifying first, cameo, brief, or full appearance? Leave it at an ambigous "1st appearance." Its not wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

If you need to change the description of the label (cameo/brief ,1st appearance,origin), it's the wrong label. As a comic book investor, if I am going spend over $300 on a book, that's labeled 1st appearance, it better be a 1st appearance, not a cameo. At the same time, if a book has a no label and it's a first appearance as a Collector/Reader why wouldnt I say something?

 

Mainstream doesnt buy majority of comic books, comic book fanboys do. Comic Book Fanboys determine a large portion of the demand prices,especially back issues.

 

Investment wise, there is huge a difference cameo and 1st appearance in "comic book terms." We are in a comic book forum, where the majority of the people here invest in comics. Why would a comic book investor/reader wait to have their books labeled properly? Especially, knowing there's three movies definite, two current cartoons where the charcter appears in, and a potiential spin off movie. Plus, add in the attention if Don Cheadle can take over as Rhodey, in more a dominent role the upcoming movie, than an Academy Award winning actor. I fail to see this "character is not that big of a deal to everyone else" When is the time to discuss this?

[akaSteveRogers]

If you need to change the description of the label (cameo/brief ,1st appearance,origin), it's the wrong label.

 

Some will argue that it is his first appearance. Whether its brief or not doesn't matter, to others (primarily the guys that

 

 

As a comic book investor, if I am going spend over $300 on a book, that's labeled 1st appearance, it better be a 1st appearance, not a cameo. At the same time, if a book has a no label and it's a first appearance as a Collector/Reader why wouldnt I say something?

 

No one said you shouldn't. Then what you should do is to start stockpiling those #120s. Then give CGC and Overstreet a call. Let them know that it's Rhodey's first full appearance and to change those labels on the #118s to cameo or brief appearance since he's only in 3 panels on the last page. Good luck.

 

Mainstream doesnt buy majority of comic books, comic book fanboys do. Comic Book Fanboys determine a large portion of the demand prices,especially back issues.

 

I never tried to breakdown the demographics of who buys comics. But one thing is for sure. More people like #118 and will pay more for it than #120. And whoever is buying it up sure as hell isn't reading them to see if its a cameo or not. Either that or, like I said, its not a big deal to the masses.

 

Investment wise, there is huge a difference cameo and 1st appearance in "comic book terms."

 

Really? Right now, it would seem that the market says that they like #118 over #120. And #118 only took off within the IM movie hype. Prior to that there was no real significant difference in price.

 

 

We are in a comic book forum, where the majority of the people here invest in comics. Why would a comic book investor/reader wait to have their books labeled properly? Especially, knowing there's three movies definite, two current cartoons where the charcter appears in, and a potiential spin off movie. Plus, add in the attention if Don Cheadle can take over as Rhodey, in more a dominent role the upcoming movie, than an Academy Award winning actor. I fail to see this "character is not that big of a deal to everyone else" When is the time to discuss this?

 

I was a fan of Rhodey character before the masses, so you're preaching to the choir. Let me know when CGC and Overstreet makes those changes. Maybe the money will shift to #120. Just let me get my 9.8s copies first...

 

 

 

[catch21]

If you need to change the description of the label (cameo/brief ,1st appearance,origin), it's the wrong label.

 

Some will argue that it is his first appearance. Whether its brief or not doesn't matter, to others (primarily the guys that

 

You show me the collectors that say after reading the book. Thats the whole point of the conversation,is after reading the comic book . I too , at one point would have said that #118 is the 1st appearance, but that was before reading the book.

 

As a comic book investor, if I am going spend over $300 on a book, that's labeled 1st appearance, it better be a 1st appearance, not a cameo. At the same time, if a book has a no label and it's a first appearance as a Collector/Reader why wouldnt I say something?

 

No one said you shouldn't. Then what you should do is to start stockpiling those #120s. Then give CGC and Overstreet a call. Let them know that it's Rhodey's first full appearance and to change those labels on the #118s to cameo or brief appearance since he's only in 3 panels on the last page. Good luck.

 

I already did let them know way before starting this thread. I am giving you the heads up. Actually , I gave three labels request additions/changes in the Iron man series. This is one of them. The other two keys, seems very obvious however you wont know unless you read the book.

 

 

 

Investment wise, there is huge a difference cameo and 1st appearance in "comic book terms."

 

Really? Right now, it would seem that the market says that they like #118 over #120. And #118 only took off within the IM movie hype. Prior to that there was no real significant difference in price.

 

If you are going to quote me, read what you quote me on or dont quote me. #118, currently is not labeled cameo, is it? No, its labeled as 1st appearance. Is #120 currently labeled 1st appearance? No, it's labeled as Sub Mariner appearance. We don't know yet. if you are going to give examples, use examples of what we know that are labeled . That's whole point of this thread is about how it is labeled.

 

We are in a comic book forum, where the majority of the people here invest in comics. Why would a comic book investor/reader wait to have their books labeled properly? Especially, knowing there's three movies definite, two current cartoons where the charcter appears in, and a potiential spin off movie. Plus, add in the attention if Don Cheadle can take over as Rhodey, in more a dominent role the upcoming movie, than an Academy Award winning actor. I fail to see this "character is not that big of a deal to everyone else" When is the time to discuss this?

 

I was a fan of Rhodey character before the masses, so you're preaching to the choir. Let me know when CGC and Overstreet makes those changes. Maybe the money will shift to #120. Just let me get my 9.8s copies first...

 

I see CGC should wait til the masses and you to receive your 9.8

Actually, if you prove to CGC they will check it and change accordingly. That's what happen with my Goon Avatar #3( origin of the Goon). Have you experience with cgc in changing/adding labels?

[Bronty]

. all you get is shots of the back of his boots and the like until the last page.

 

Ah, it's always nice to meet another person who shoots his mouth off without actually reading the book in question.

 

 

well you shoot off at the mouth about everything, so I'm in good company

 

I owned the book for many years and read it several times. It didn't do much for me as a first app. Yes I understand what you are saying but to me its similar to IM 120... kind of walks the line between a first appearance and a cameo.

 

You don't even see thanos' frickin' face until the last page as I recall. That's a spoony spoon of an excuse for a "first appearance", if you want to call it that.

 

 

[joe_collector]

You don't even see thanos' frickin' face until the last page as I recall. That's a spoony spoon of an excuse for a "first appearance", if you want to call it that.

 

You need to stop NOW and go read the book. Seriously.

 

Once again, Thanos was featured on EIGHT of the issue's pages, and obviously they wanted to save the full "I'm Thanos!" effect for the "stamping on hand" scene, but if you're complaining about EIGHT pages, then why not hammer The Kingpin appearance in ASM 50, where he's barely in 1-2 and not even part of the story, or a large percentage of other villain first apps.

 

Head shot:

[kdoginohio]

Um.... This a bad time to bring up the whole Wolverine appearance thing?

[catch21]

I stand corrected CGC does have this book labeled first appearance of Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell character in Iron Man 2).

[catch21]

Iron man 118 made the Top 5 Negative on GPA. Even with the Buzz of the new movie this book is falling.

[akaSteveRogers]

Iron man 118 made the Top 5 Negative on GPA. Even with the Buzz of the new movie this book is falling.

 

But that is been expected. Its market regualtion. Speculators, flippers and the like have made there money off the book for 1 1/2 years now. IM #282 is down as well.

 

The money has clearly moved to the new "hot" Iron Man book ToS #97. This book has skyrocketed! But it too shall pass. But it will not come down like the #118. That is still a silver age TOS book that would be sought after in HG regardless.

 

Are you insinuating that its because people are starting to shift to #120 becuase its the first full appearance of Jim Rhodes!!?!

 

 

That book has barely had a hiccup even with Justin Hammer being introduced in the movie.

[supapimp]

the first appearance of cable is actually in NM 86 not NM 87.