Superior Spider-Man in DD 21 - Why not notated by CGC? 0

[Get Marwood & I]

4 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

I think I addressed that above.  

Anything else to add?

-J.

Yes.  My dinners ready. But I may return later, as it looks like your debunking of DD21 is opinion based, not fact based. And it seems to stray into the 'cameo isn't a first appearance' debate. Bit like Hulk 180 vs 181 for Wolverine.  

Depending on how the wife's cooking is tonight, "I'll be back"

-GM&I.

[Jaydogrules]

Just now, Get Marwood & I said:

Yes.  My dinners ready. But I may return later, as it looks like your debunking of DD21 is opinion based, not fact based. And it seems to stray into the 'cameo isn't a first appearance' debate. Bit like Hulk 180 vs 181 for Wolverine.  

Depending on how the wife's cooking is tonight, "I'll be back"

-GM&I.

Not quite.  Not only is it just a cameo (*yawn*), it's also out of title, out of continuity and subsequent to the events of ASM 700 (as I stated above). Not an opinion.  Fact.  

-J.

[Get Marwood & I]

9 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

Not quite.  Not only is it just a cameo (*yawn*), it's also out of title, out of continuity and subsequent to the events of ASM 700 (as I stated above). Not an opinion.  Fact.  

-J.

But your assertion that a cameo cannot be considered a first appearance is an opinion. 

-DLS. 

[Jaydogrules]

9 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

But your assertion that a cameo cannot be considered a first appearance is an opinion. 

-DLS. 

I didn't say that.  A cameo is cameo. A first full is a first full.  I said ASM 700 is first full and origin.  

-J.

[Get Marwood & I]

25 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

I didn't say that.  A cameo is cameo. A first full is a first full.  I said ASM 700 is first full and origin.  

-J.

Are you attempting to debate the first appearance, or the first full appearance?

[Jaydogrules]

9 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

Are you attempting to debate the first appearance, or the first full appearance?

I'm not debating that there was an out of continuity cameo in DD 21. That makes it particularly weak, even for a cameo appearance.  Although I could make a pretty strong argument why that doesn't count for anything, my argument is why ASM 700 is, worst case scenario, first full and origin (but I could easily see a CGC label simply calling it first appearance outright with a label note on DD 21 saying something like "SSM Cameo, predates ASM 700").

-J.

Edited September 9, 2018 by Jaydogrules

[Get Marwood & I]

1 minute ago, Jaydogrules said:

I'm not debating that there was an out of continuity cameo in DD 21. That makes it particularly weak, even for a cameo appearance.  Although I could make a pretty strong argument why that doesn't count for anything, my argument is why ASM 700 is, worst case scenario, first full ans origin (but I could easily see a CGC label simply calling it first appearance outright with a label note on DD 21 saying something like "SSM Cameo, predates ASM 700").

-J.

No, that's not clear to me Jaydog.  I asked you what you were trying to debate and gave the two options. You replied what you weren't trying to debate along with more confusing points.

Just tell me what you are trying to establish? 

[Jaydogrules]

5 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

No, that's not clear to me Jaydog.  I asked you what you were trying to debate and gave the two options. You replied what you weren't trying to debate along with more confusing points.

Just tell me what you are trying to establish? 

My central point is that ASM 700 is the first full and origin.

-J.

[Get Marwood & I]

Just now, Jaydogrules said:

My central point is that ASM 700 is the first full and origin.

-J.

No wonder I'm confused. You said you were 'reactivating the debate ' in this thread and this thread has been debating the first appearance. You now say you are looking to confirm the first 'full and origin' yet include DD 21 which has neither. Why include and debunk a book that has neither of the elements you're trying to establish? 

When you've worked out what it is you're trying to say, let me know Jay. 

[Jaydogrules]

2 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

No wonder I'm confused. You said you were 'reactivating the debate ' in this thread and this thread has been debating the first appearance. You now say you are looking to confirm the first 'full and origin' yet include DD 21 which has neither. Why include and debunk a book that has neither of the elements you're trying to establish? 

When you've worked out what it is you're trying to say, let me know Jay. 

Lol Well I think I also made the case for why DD 21 is not particularly compelling or valid even as a cameo.  

-J.

[Jaydogrules]

-J.

Edited September 9, 2018 by Jaydogrules

[Second Blight]

last page in the main story of Avenging Spider-man 15.1 - Doc Oct in Superior Spider-man suit - 1st full appearance of Superior Spider-man

Edited September 10, 2018 by ComicCollectorMatt

[Jaydogrules]

4 hours ago, ComicCollectorMatt said:

last page in the main story of Avenging Spider-man 15.1 - Doc Oct in Superior Spider-man suit - 1st full appearance of Superior Spider-man

Nah.  This is just him in the final costume he made in that issue.  He was "Superior" before this and then went on to make the costume.  

-J.

[I like pie]

16 hours ago, Get Marwood & I said:

No wonder I'm confused. You said you were 'reactivating the debate ' in this thread and this thread has been debating the first appearance. You now say you are looking to confirm the first 'full and origin' yet include DD 21 which has neither. Why include and debunk a book that has neither of the elements you're trying to establish? 

When you've worked out what it is you're trying to say, let me know Jay. 

Although I find it unlikely anyone on these forums has never attempted to have a civil debate with this kid or at least witness one, I'll make it simple. If you don't agree with Jay's opinion, which also happens to always be fact , than you're a stupid person.

[WhatMeWorry]

9 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

Nah.  This is just him in the final costume he made in that issue.  He was "Superior" before this and then went on to make the costume.  

-J.

Wrong. The whole story in Avenging Spider-Man #15.1 is Ock's POV as Spider-Man. Then he creates the costume and Names himself in the same issue......AND the book is published before ASM #700. You said it yourself, "He was "Superior" before this". Well then, he was Superior in this whole book. Also, continuity doesn't matter, it's the first time we see a published image in a full fledged story, IMHO.

Funny, I hated this story idea when I first heard about it but reading it, I loved Ock as a Spider-Man. One of my Fave Marvel Series in a long time and it was nice to see that Marvel committed to it for over two years.

[kairos70]

This is not similar to Wolverine 180 & 181 at all because you have two existing characters melding into a new character. Well, it was revealed in Amazing Spider-man #699 that Otto's golden octobot switched Peter's and Otto's brain waves when Peter was fighting Hobgoblin in Amazing Spider-man #697. So would that be the cameo? If that's the case then would Amazing Spider-man #698 be the first full appearance of Superior Spider-man since Otto is in control of Peter's body and Peter is dying inside of Otto's body? Amazing Spider-man #700- first cameo of Superior Spider-man's suit? Avenging Spider-man 15.1 - First full appearance of Superior Spider-man's suit? DD #21 falls to a guest appearance/crossover?

This is similar to the first appearance of the Red Goblin-another character created from two existing characters. Did the character become Red Goblin when Norman first bonded with the Carnage symbiote in #794 or when he declared himself the Red Goblin in #798? Similarly, did Otto/Spider-man become Superior spider-man when he switched into Peter's body in Amazing Spider-man #697 or when he declared himself Superior Spider-man in Avenging Spider-man 15.1?

I posed all these observations as questions because I am not declaring anything. This is just deductive reasoning based on how the story-line progressed.

[Jaydogrules]

43 minutes ago, WhatMeWorry said:

Wrong. The whole story in Avenging Spider-Man #15.1 is Ock's POV as Spider-Man. Then he creates the costume and Names himself in the same issue......[b)AND the book is published before ASM #700.[/b] You said it yourself, "He was "Superior" before this". Well then, he was Superior in this whole book. Also, continuity doesn't matter, it's the first time we see a published image in a full fledged story, IMHO.

Funny, I hated this story idea when I first heard about it but reading it, I loved Ock as a Spider-Man. One of my Fave Marvel Series in a long time and it was nice to see that Marvel committed to it for over two years.

No, you're actually wrong.  As I correctly stated, Avenging was realeased the same day as ASM 700 (both December 26, 2012):

https://mobilestore.marvel.com/Avenging-Spider-Man-2011-2013-15-1/digital-comic/28109

https://mobilestore.marvel.com/Amazing-Spider-Man-1999-2013-700/digital-comic/28117

However continuity wise Avegning takes place after the events of ASM 700 (obviously), contains the origin of SSM as well as the first time he names himself, and dons his suit (which he tweaks and "perfects" by the end of Avenging, but a costume change of a character is not a new "first appearance"). ASM 698 he is still impersonating Spider-Man, he does not establish his new identity until his mind switch is completed in 700 and he believes Peter and his mind to have died in his old body:

https://www.cbr.com/avenging-spider-man-15-1/

"....the end of “Amazing Spider-Man” #700 left us with essentially a new character who had, in the classic Spider-Man tradition, learned a lesson about responsibility."

And yes continuity DOES matter. Comic books are by their very nature a sequential story telling medium. Pedantic arguments for a "first appearance" rather than substantive ones almost always look agenda driven. 

-J.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

8 hours ago, I like pie said:

Although I find it unlikely anyone on these forums has never attempted to have a civil debate with this kid or at least witness one, I'll make it simple. If you don't agree with Jay's opinion, which also happens to always be fact , than you're a stupid person.

Say what now...?

[divad]

9 hours ago, I like pie said:

Although I find it unlikely anyone on these forums has never attempted to have a civil debate with this kid or at least witness one, I'll make it simple. If you don't agree with Jay's opinion, which also happens to always be fact , than you're a stupid person.

Jay who?