Was Iron Man 55 really Thanos true first appearance?

[conditionfreak]

For Thanos, Iron Man 55 is very similar to Ultron in Avengers 54 where the character shows up in very limited form and is not really the character in question.

 

I think you really need at actually READ the comic before commenting, as Thanos is on SEVEN pages, including a full-body reveal, not counting the last 2 pages where he inserts a robot in order to blow up his ship. It shows him fighting with the Destroyer, talking to the imprisoned Destroyer, there is even an extended origin sequence, and the classic bit of him crushing Iron Man's glove under his heel.

 

I posted them on the FIRST page of this thread, which you obviously didn't read either.

 

In fact, Thanos may hold a record for "most pages for a BA villain first app" as most are only one a few pages, and some only 1-2.

 

Fixed that for you.

 

What is the default posts per page? I don't remember changing mine, and I just checked and the images are in the first page.

 

Well, it is on the 2nd page for me. I was just trying to help anyone that may be looking for it.

[Jeffro.]

For Thanos, Iron Man 55 is very similar to Ultron in Avengers 54 where the character shows up in very limited form and is not really the character in question.

 

I think you really need at actually READ the comic before commenting, as Thanos is on SEVEN pages, including a full-body reveal, not counting the last 2 pages where he inserts a robot in order to blow up his ship. It shows him fighting with the Destroyer, talking to the imprisoned Destroyer, there is even an extended origin sequence, and the classic bit of him crushing Iron Man's glove under his heel.

 

I posted them on the first page of this thread, which you obviously didn't read either.

 

In fact, Thanos may hold a record for "most pages for a BA villain first app" as most are only one a few pages, and some only 1-2.

 

 

Do you have any clue how patronizing you are or are you oblivious to it?

 

How much did you pay for that JC post detection app? Does it alert you by text?

 

I've got more Trolls than the Brothers Grimm.

 

If anyone deserves them, it's you

[General Zod]

Agree the inconsistencies are a little maddening. This is where CGC can be very helpful. We tend to take the designation on the slab as gospel so it would be awesome if CGC released a list of all major first (cameo and full) appearances of major characters. This would allow fanboys to duke it out and petition CGC with any disagreements.

 

If you look at the history of labels on one particular book, you'll notice that sometimes CGC also changes their minds or finally bring some clarity to what they think. I have seen this happen on many books graded from 5 years past and so on - missing notes about appearances, even creator credits! As Jeffro said, taking the label as gospel is the problem. Most collectors don't notice that errors abound have and still being made.

 

And I seriously doubt a list from CGC would happen because of the very last sentence in your paragraph. They have enough things to do in grading and catching restoration than to argue with us on the merits of cameos signifying first appearances.

 

And okay, here is my strong stance about cameos being the "true" first appearance. The very definition of "appearance" is literally the act or fact of appearing, as to the eye or mind or before the public. That is, in essence, what a cameo is. Appearing to us in public.

 

Now, where I agree with some people about cameos is whether the appearance in question correctly identifies the new character in said book. I don't believe shadows and vague forms should be considered an appearance because we are not given a clear identity of this person, deity, pet or what have you. In the cases of Darkseid and Wolverine among countless others, you are given at minimum their face AND name.

 

But ah ha, the "full" appearance crowd isn't satisfied with this, and I can see where they're coming from. The "full" appearance is the establishment of said identity. "We need a story!" Well, yes, but history shows that it's boring as hell to reveal a mystery on the cover/first page. The butler doesn't always do it.

 

If we are going to say "so and so appeared this many times in a book" or such, we all need a detailed, structured outline of what constitutes what, by Overstreet or a press release by CGC. Something. Anything with solid authority that can become part of a collector's "bible" to follow.

 

Phew. I wrote a lot more than I intended to and now I'm going to be late for a meeting. Good discussion, though.

[slym2none]

A cameo can be a first appearance. If I character has a "cameo" in one book and it is the first time we ever see this character, and shows up "fully' in another one later, then the "cameo" is the first appearance.

 

Why do some people think that a cameo can't be the first time a character appears??

 

 

 

 

-slym

[Zack1973]

IM55 is first appearance of Drax and Thanos hands down, you can argue the rest of Titan's minor characters too. Thanos' appearance is very significant, even the Robot switcheroo shows us what kind of villain your dealing with.

 

Great issue and one that was undervalued for way way too long, and I believe priced accordingly right now. However with the new Guardians movie and Avengers 3 we will see another spike and now is the time to get it before it becomes unattainable for most peoples budget.

[kav]

Thanos first appeared in ASM 19 but he was behind a building so you couldn't see him.

[Bronx]

For Thanos, Iron Man 55 is very similar to Ultron in Avengers 54 where the character shows up in very limited form and is not really the character in question.

 

I think you really need at actually READ the comic before commenting, as Thanos is on SEVEN pages, including a full-body reveal, not counting the last 2 pages where he inserts a robot in order to blow up his ship. It shows him fighting with the Destroyer, talking to the imprisoned Destroyer, there is even an extended origin sequence, and the classic bit of him crushing Iron Man's glove under his heel.

 

I posted them on the first page of this thread, which you obviously didn't read either.

 

In fact, Thanos may hold a record for "most pages for a BA villain first app" as most are only one a few pages, and some only 1-2.

 

Do you have any clue how patronizing you are or are you oblivious to it?

 

If you don't want a "smack in the head" type post, then don't write several paragraphs about

something you obviously have never read.

 

Thanks Aggiez. joe collector can't seem to tell the difference with who wrote what on a post. I'm assuming he didn't read the posts or the names involved. If he wants to be condescending, he is free to be as douchey as he wants to be. No skin off my back.

Let's keep it to the facts. Thanos is technically on seven pages. This consists of approx 16 mostly tiny panels. Those panels consist of:

(4) thanos leg

(1) hand

(1) arm

(4) side view with no face

(4) thanos robot

(2) very nice Thanos full shots (assuming this is not the robot)

More than a one panel cameo but certainly not a record breaking first appearance. Based on the difference of opinions on this thread, it's not so clear cut which is why we are respectfully having this debate.

 

 

[Bronx]

 

And okay, here is my strong stand about cameos being the "true" first appearance. The very definition of "appearance is literally the act or fact of appearing, as to the eye or mind or before the public. That is, in essence, what a cameo is. Appearing to us in public.

 

Now, where I agree with some people about cameos is whether the appearance in question correctly identifies the new character in said book. I don't believe shadows and vague forms should be considered an appearance because we are not given a clear identity of this person, deity, pet or what have you. In the cases of Darkseid and Wolverine among countless others, you are given at minimum their face AND name.

 

But ah ha, the "full" appearance crowd isn't satisfied with this, and I can see where they're coming from. The "full" appearance is the establishment of said identity. "We need a story!" Well, yes, but history shows that it's boring as hell to reveal a mystery on the cover/first page. The butler doesn't always do it.

 

If we are going to say "so and so appeared this many times in a book" or such, we all need a detailed, structured outline of what constitutes what, by Overstreet or a press release by CGC. Something. Anything with solid authority that can become part of a collector's "bible" to follow.

 

Phew. I wrote a lot more than I intended to and now I'm going to be late for a meeting. Good discussion, though.

 

excellent post Zod. Agree on the Collectors bible. Both Overstreet and CGC have the clout and collector cred to make this happen. There just needs to be a forum to discuss and make a case should a large number of collectors disagree.

[porcupine48]

I have argued ST 114 is the first SA app. of Cap forever.

But just saying.

[rjpb]

I have argued ST 114 is the first SA app. of Cap forever.

But just saying.

 

Whatever you do, just don't bring up Ant-man.

[djpinkpanther67]

Was Iron Man 55 really Thanos true first appearance?

Yes.

[Dick O.]

I've read every comic book featuring Thanos, and consider IM55 to be his 1st appearance.

[slym2none]

OK, some posts got poofed... and IDK why.

 

:shrug:

 

 

 

-slym

[porcupine48]

I have argued ST 114 is the first SA app. of Cap forever.

But just saying.

 

Whatever you do, just don't bring up Ant-man.

35! 27 was a prototype!

[conditionfreak]

Who woulda thunk that a characters "first appearance" is not that characters "first appearance"?

 

Too funny.

 

In my personal opinion. The first appearance should actually be when we first see the character. Even if that is in an ad for a future issue. And/or, even if that appearance is not full and complete. Such as a silhouette (that is discernible as the character). For instance. If Spiderman originally had six arms, and there was a silhouette of him swinging from a webbing, in an ad which first appeared in FF #1. Then, IMO, that would be spidey's first appearance.

 

Be it Mickey Mouse or Batman. First time you see the character, is that characters first appearance. But if you don't subscribe to the "ad" thing I mentioned. Then Hulk #180 = first appearance of Wolverine. No doubt about it. In glorious full color, named, and everything. Hulk #180 is NOT A CAMEO. What could be more obvious. Iron Man #55, IS NOT A CAMEO.

 

But the hobby as a whole, does not reflect my opinion for Hulk #180, and many other first appearances. Not in agreement, nor in monetary values.

 

So....I will go with the flow.

 

 

[Lazyboy]

Hulk #180 is NOT A CAMEO.

If ONE PANEL - the absolute minimum appearance in comics - isn't a cameo/brief appearance, I don't know what is.

[kav]

Hulk #180 is NOT A CAMEO.

If ONE PANEL - the absolute minimum appearance in comics - isn't a cameo/brief appearance, I don't know what is.

Cameo is a movie term and shouldn't even be used in comics. A cameo is a first appearance. Even in movies.

[bronze_rules]

Hulk #180 is NOT A CAMEO.

If ONE PANEL - the absolute minimum appearance in comics - isn't a cameo/brief appearance, I don't know what is.

 

I used to be on the side of the 181 FA guys, but the more I read about it and think about it, I'm a convert: the 1st Appearance in a Comic Story IS 180. More appropriately, it is a 1st appearance AND cameo, while 181 is a first full story appearance.

 

I just think that collectors fret about it, because they (and I) just feel 181 has far more value and I suppose that somehow the honor of first appearance is or should somehow be related to (particularly) monetary value and significance. But from a language viewpoint, one can't deny that wolverine made a prior appearance (or 1st one, albeit briefly) in 180. They should just denote it that way and let the investors sort out the values.

 

As others point out, Darkseid is a perfect example of a double standard in this line of thinking.

 

The main problem with denoting things like an Ad or even 180 as a first appearance in guides, is that it would/could mislead investors who aren't that familiar with the history. That's why it's important to denote the 1st appearance and cameo part.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Who woulda thunk that a characters "first appearance" is not that characters "first appearance"?

 

Too funny.

 

In my personal opinion. The first appearance should actually be when we first see the character. Even if that is in an ad for a future issue. And/or, even if that appearance is not full and complete. Such as a silhouette (that is discernible as the character). For instance. If Spiderman originally had six arms, and there was a silhouette of him swinging from a webbing, in an ad which first appeared in FF #1. Then, IMO, that would be spidey's first appearance.

 

Be it Mickey Mouse or Batman. First time you see the character, is that characters first appearance. But if you don't subscribe to the "ad" thing I mentioned. Then Hulk #180 = first appearance of Wolverine. No doubt about it. In glorious full color, named, and everything. Hulk #180 is NOT A CAMEO. What could be more obvious. Iron Man #55, IS NOT A CAMEO.

 

But the hobby as a whole, does not reflect my opinion for Hulk #180, and many other first appearances. Not in agreement, nor in monetary values.

 

So....I will go with the flow.

 

 

 

Do you have a copy of IRON FIST 13? When was the last time you read it? If it's been a while....you may want to go grab your copy & check out the last page again.

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

Hulk #180 is NOT A CAMEO.

If ONE PANEL - the absolute minimum appearance in comics - isn't a cameo/brief appearance, I don't know what is.

Cameo is a movie term and shouldn't even be used in comics. A cameo is a first appearance. Even in movies.

 

No. In movie terms....a cameo can NEVER be a first appearance.