• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

TTA 35 vs TTA 27

Started by Comicfollower101-migration,

295 posts in this topic

rjpb

rjpb

Posted
Posted

TTA27 is Henry Pyms 1st appearance and the 1st lame azz appearance of Ant-Man. It will ALWAYS be the major key book of the two. ALWAYS (thumbs u

 

 

 

Now if CGC would just put that on the label we could end this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ken Aldred

Ken Aldred

Posted
Posted
I thought the film was going to be based on 'Irredeemable Ant-Man'...

 

I was hoping for a sequel to Them!

 

THEM9-1.jpg

 

Does that ant have a cigar in it's mouth?

 

Its colony has survived a huge dose of nuclear radiation, so not surprising that it's unbothered about the tar content of cigar tobacco.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BB-Gun

BB-Gun

Posted
Posted
This argument reminds me of that Star Trek episode where Kirk is split into two opposite Kirks by a transporter malfunction. We've split Ant Man from Hank Pym- they are 2 separate beings. My hat's off for the attempts to make 35 a more marketable book when the movie comes out.

 

Why is Action 1 notable and valuable ? Because its the first appearance of Clark Kent? meh

The Spectre doesn't appear in costume until More Fun 53.

More Fun 52

9262806854_f8536ba228_z.jpg

More Fun 53 reprinted in Adventure

9262806626_5932668236_c.jpg

Action 21

2319507584_b3be89fa12_z.jpg

Sorry about the golden age post but I thought the scans would help to clarify the issue.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fallsview

Fallsview

Posted
Posted

 

This thread is somewhat the same debate I saw in another one about Strange Adventures#180 (1st Animal Man, but not in costume, therefore, 1st Buddy Baker ?!?) versus Strange Adventures#190 (1st Animal Man in costume). The cover to #180 reads "The Man with Animal Powers". IMHO, the intent and context of the issue is the introduction of the Animal Man character, regardless if he's in a costume or not. Buddy Baker already has powers, so it doesn't take him until issue #190 to be The Animal Man.

 

The cover to TTA#27 is "The Man in the Ant Hill", whereby intent and context is the introduction of the an Ant-Man character. Again, regardless if he's costume or not. Pym has the powers to shrink already in #27, he's then drawn with a costume added in TTA#35.

 

SA#180 and TTA#27 will always be the bigger key issues.

 

I'm sure there will be those out there who will agree to disagree, but that's my 2c

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thunsicker

thunsicker

Posted
Posted

This thread is somewhat the same debate I saw in another one about Strange Adventures#180 (1st Animal Man, but not in costume, therefore, 1st Buddy Baker ?!?) versus Strange Adventures#190 (1st Animal Man in costume). The cover to #180 reads "The Man with Animal Powers". IMHO, the intent and context of the issue is the introduction of the Animal Man character, regardless if he's in a costume or not. Buddy Baker already has powers, so it doesn't take him until issue #190 to be The Animal Man.

 

The cover to TTA#27 is "The Man in the Ant Hill", whereby intent and context is the introduction of the an Ant-Man character. Again, regardless if he's costume or not. Pym has the powers to shrink already in #27, he's then drawn with a costume added in TTA#35.

 

SA#180 and TTA#27 will always be the bigger key issues.

 

I'm sure there will be those out there who will agree to disagree, but that's my 2c

 

This is where I disagree with you. I don't think the intent in TTA #27 was to introduce a new superhero. I think it was just one of many mad scientist pre-hero stories. Is it the same person they retconned a few issues to become a hero? Sure. But I don't believe that was the plan at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shadroch

shadroch

Posted
Posted

Is Hank Pym in #27? Yes.

Does he use his shrinking power/ Yes?

Is he in costume? No?

 

 

Is Reed Richards in Fantastic Four #1? Yes

Does he use his power? Yes.

Is he in his costume? No

 

 

 

I'd love TTA #35 to become the accepted key issue for one simple reason- I have four copies in the 6.0 range and a few in worse. I only have 2 TTA 27s. One a 5.0 and one a former 1.8

 

Then again, I wish Avengers 26 would become a mega key because I own a dozen copies of that , as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beige

Beige

Posted
Posted

Which apparently is a reference to "happy Days".

I only found out a few days ago what that referred to.

We are still on Happy Days series 3 down under.

I hope Chachi and Joanie get together, they will make a nice couple.

That Fonzie fellow looks a bit of a trouble maker IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
spidrvacc

spidrvacc

Posted
Posted

 

Wait until Mork from Ork shows up in Season 5.

 

Which apparently is a reference to "happy Days".

I only found out a few days ago what that referred to.

We are still on Happy Days series 3 down under.

I hope Chachi and Joanie get together, they will make a nice couple.

That Fonzie fellow looks a bit of a trouble maker IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
spidrvacc

spidrvacc

Posted
Posted

Rgggg , I thought I would never see him again since we got a new coach here in NY/NJ. Good luck Vancouver.

 

 

you have no idea... I'm on pins and needles to see how much trouble "the Fonz" gets up to next year hm

 

image.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bronty

Bronty

Posted
Posted

You'll love Vigneault.

 

Even after 7 years here, he still had a lot of support. Virtually no one thought he was a "bad coach" - the reason we wanted him gone is only because everyone thought his message had gotten stale. Any coach's message gets stale after that long. You got a beauty there (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Killgrave

Killgrave

Posted
Posted

This thread is somewhat the same debate I saw in another one about Strange Adventures#180 (1st Animal Man, but not in costume, therefore, 1st Buddy Baker ?!?) versus Strange Adventures#190 (1st Animal Man in costume). The cover to #180 reads "The Man with Animal Powers". IMHO, the intent and context of the issue is the introduction of the Animal Man character, regardless if he's in a costume or not. Buddy Baker already has powers, so it doesn't take him until issue #190 to be The Animal Man.

 

Established key difference is that Hank went on to be multiple characters, Bernhard didn't thus he is more conclusive as one and the same. Only if Hank was just Ant-Man could that be used as a fair example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bronty

Bronty

Posted
Posted
A Canadian offensive to derail this thread, perhaps? Cool.

 

The Hanson brothers or Bob and Doug MacKenzie; Who likes maple syrup more?

 

Why is it that you guys don't seem to have Cdn references that are newer than 1979? lol:baiting:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lazyboy

Lazyboy

Posted
Posted

This thread is somewhat the same debate I saw in another one about Strange Adventures#180 (1st Animal Man, but not in costume, therefore, 1st Buddy Baker ?!?) versus Strange Adventures#190 (1st Animal Man in costume). The cover to #180 reads "The Man with Animal Powers". IMHO, the intent and context of the issue is the introduction of the Animal Man character, regardless if he's in a costume or not. Buddy Baker already has powers, so it doesn't take him until issue #190 to be The Animal Man.

 

Established key difference is that Hank went on to be multiple characters, Bernhard didn't thus he is more conclusive as one and the same. Only if Hank was just Ant-Man could that be used as a fair example.

 

How many of Pym's alter egos shrink and hang around with ants?

Also, who the hell is Bernhard?

 

 

As for the rest of you, a few people need to learn the difference between a retcon and evolution of a character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AGGIEZ

AGGIEZ

Posted
Posted

This thread is somewhat the same debate I saw in another one about Strange Adventures#180 (1st Animal Man, but not in costume, therefore, 1st Buddy Baker ?!?) versus Strange Adventures#190 (1st Animal Man in costume). The cover to #180 reads "The Man with Animal Powers". IMHO, the intent and context of the issue is the introduction of the Animal Man character, regardless if he's in a costume or not. Buddy Baker already has powers, so it doesn't take him until issue #190 to be The Animal Man.

 

Established key difference is that Hank went on to be multiple characters, Bernhard didn't thus he is more conclusive as one and the same. Only if Hank was just Ant-Man could that be used as a fair example.

 

How many of Pym's alter egos shrink and hang around with ants?

Also, who the hell is Bernhard?

 

 

As for the rest of you, a few people need to learn the difference between a retcon and evolution of a character.

 

Explain the difference....I sure as heck don't know what "retcon" means...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BarryAllen

BarryAllen

Posted
Posted

This thread is somewhat the same debate I saw in another one about Strange Adventures#180 (1st Animal Man, but not in costume, therefore, 1st Buddy Baker ?!?) versus Strange Adventures#190 (1st Animal Man in costume). The cover to #180 reads "The Man with Animal Powers". IMHO, the intent and context of the issue is the introduction of the Animal Man character, regardless if he's in a costume or not. Buddy Baker already has powers, so it doesn't take him until issue #190 to be The Animal Man.

 

Established key difference is that Hank went on to be multiple characters, Bernhard didn't thus he is more conclusive as one and the same. Only if Hank was just Ant-Man could that be used as a fair example.

 

How many of Pym's alter egos shrink and hang around with ants?

Also, who the hell is Bernhard?

 

 

As for the rest of you, a few people need to learn the difference between a retcon and evolution of a character.

 

Yeah lazyboy, you tell all those stupid people!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thunsicker

thunsicker

Posted
Posted

Explain the difference....I sure as heck don't know what "retcon" means...

This one first since it's easy. A retcon (short for retroactive continuity) is when you change the past in a continuity to make it work with the present. For instance someone could take a character who is say... A mad scientist who is not at all heroic and decide to make him heroic and give him a costume to make him a superhero.

 

This thread is somewhat the same debate I saw in another one about Strange Adventures#180 (1st Animal Man, but not in costume, therefore, 1st Buddy Baker ?!?) versus Strange Adventures#190 (1st Animal Man in costume). The cover to #180 reads "The Man with Animal Powers". IMHO, the intent and context of the issue is the introduction of the Animal Man character, regardless if he's in a costume or not. Buddy Baker already has powers, so it doesn't take him until issue #190 to be The Animal Man.

 

Established key difference is that Hank went on to be multiple characters, Bernhard didn't thus he is more conclusive as one and the same. Only if Hank was just Ant-Man could that be used as a fair example.

 

How many of Pym's alter egos shrink and hang around with ants?

Also, who the hell is Bernhard?

 

 

As for the rest of you, a few people need to learn the difference between a retcon and evolution of a character.

 

And this is where I disagree. Are you implying that "The man in the anthill" was planned as a superhero story? If not then what you are looking at here is a classic example of a retcon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing