TTA 35 vs TTA 27

[AGGIEZ]

I'm not saying that 27 is not valuable I'm just saying 35 is ant man and 27 is Pym, their two separate characters

 

Except they clearly aren't two separate characters. So what the heck are you even talking about?

 

#35 is the first appearance of the costume and the code name Ant-Man. Both of which belong to Hank Pym, the man in the anthill, whose first appearance and origin are in #27. Hank Pym is Ant-Man. That's in the story. That is the story.

 

The level of semantic chicanery necessary to claim otherwise is boggling.

 

The costumes and code names Yellowjacket and Goliath also belong to Hank Pym...TTA #27 = 1st appearance of Henry Pym, Ant-Man, Yellowjacket, Goliath, Giant-Man, Wasp?

[AGGIEZ]

It's #35 for me. The only reason they wrote "Return of the Ant-Man" is because it reads much better than "Return of that guy who was in the ant story - remember that one? - we've made him a super hero now!".

 

 

[Speedy-D]

It's #35 for me. The only reason they wrote "Return of the Ant-Man" is because it reads much better than "Return of that guy who was in the ant story - remember that one? - we've made him a super hero now!".

Even written your way, it's still a return. :shrug:

[rjpb]

I wonder how much of this debate is generational. Anyone who collected SA Marvel comics in the 70s ( and probably for some time after that) considered TTA 27 to be the first appearance, and didn't really think of 35 as having much importance at all.

 

Much of this debate is about intent. Ant-man is unique among early Marvel heroes in that his origin wasn't meant to kick off a superhero series, but the proximity to the appearance of the costumed Ant Man is to close to be considered mere retconning.

 

While the significance of TTA 35 was underappreciated for some time, it's growing stature in no way diminishes TTA 27, this is not an OAAW 81 vs. 83 situation.

 

No one is going to argue that TTA 35 isn't the first appearance of a costumed hero called Ant-Man, but to argue that 27 is of small consequence to the origins of that character specifically is absurd. Marvel could randomly pluck some other character from a pre-hero book and turn them into a hero today ( Groot), but it wouldn't make that book an important part of the history of Marvel. TTA 27 was not intended to be the first appearance of a character called Ant-Man, but it is his origin, and was accepted as such as soon as 35 appeared, at a time when the Marvel Universe was at it's infancy.

 

As for the argument that if TTA 27 Henry Pym = Ant-man , then TTA 27 Henry Pym = Giant-Man, Goliath, Yellowjacket, etc., the logic escapes me. There is no direct relationship between the story in TTA 27 and those later identities.

[AGGIEZ]

I wonder how much of this debate is generational. Anyone who collected SA Marvel comics in the 70s ( and probably for some time after that) considered TTA 27 to be the first appearance, and didn't really think of 35 as having much importance at all.

 

Much of this debate is about intent. Ant-man is unique among early Marvel heroes in that his origin wasn't meant to kick off a superhero series, but the proximity to the appearance of the costumed Ant Man is to close to be considered mere retconning.

 

While the significance of TTA 35 was underappreciated for some time, it's growing stature in no way diminishes TTA 27, this is not an OAAW 81 vs. 83 situation.

 

No one is going to argue that TTA 35 isn't the first appearance of a costumed hero called Ant-Man, but to argue that 27 is of small consequence to the origins of that character specifically is absurd. Marvel could randomly pluck some other character from a pre-hero book and turn them into a hero today ( Groot), but it wouldn't make that book an important part of the history of Marvel. TTA 27 was not intended to be the first appearance of a character called Ant-Man, but it is his origin, and was accepted as such as soon as 35 appeared, at a time when the Marvel Universe was at it's infancy.

 

As for the argument that if TTA 27 Henry Pym = Ant-man , then TTA 27 Henry Pym = Giant-Man, Goliath, Yellowjacket, etc., the logic escapes me. There is no direct relationship between the story in TTA 27 and those later identities.

 

 

They are all the same dude...Hank Pym If one is going to argue that the first appearance of the non-superhero scientist is actually the first appearance of Ant-Man then how is that different from saying his appearance is the 1st appearance of all of the characters he later becomes?

 

As for the bolded comment above, Marvel's history continues to be written. If the GOTG movie is a big winner, and they do multiples, the 1st appearance of Groot could very well be a major key book when my kids are collecting funny books...

[Speedy-D]

I wonder how much of this debate is generational. Anyone who collected SA Marvel comics in the 70s ( and probably for some time after that) considered TTA 27 to be the first appearance, and didn't really think of 35 as having much importance at all.

 

Much of this debate is about intent. Ant-man is unique among early Marvel heroes in that his origin wasn't meant to kick off a superhero series, but the proximity to the appearance of the costumed Ant Man is to close to be considered mere retconning.

 

While the significance of TTA 35 was underappreciated for some time, it's growing stature in no way diminishes TTA 27, this is not an OAAW 81 vs. 83 situation.

 

No one is going to argue that TTA 35 isn't the first appearance of a costumed hero called Ant-Man, but to argue that 27 is of small consequence to the origins of that character specifically is absurd. Marvel could randomly pluck some other character from a pre-hero book and turn them into a hero today ( Groot), but it wouldn't make that book an important part of the history of Marvel. TTA 27 was not intended to be the first appearance of a character called Ant-Man, but it is his origin, and was accepted as such as soon as 35 appeared, at a time when the Marvel Universe was at it's infancy.

 

As for the argument that if TTA 27 Henry Pym = Ant-man , then TTA 27 Henry Pym = Giant-Man, Goliath, Yellowjacket, etc., the logic escapes me. There is no direct relationship between the story in TTA 27 and those later identities.

 

 

They are all the same dude...Hank Pym If one is going to argue that the first appearance of the non-superhero scientist is actually the first appearance of Ant-Man then how is that different from saying his appearance is the 1st appearance of all of the characters he later becomes?

 

As for the bolded comment above, Marvel's history continues to be written. If the GOTG movie is a big winner, and they do multiples, the 1st appearance of Groot could very well be a major key book when my kids are collecting funny books...

Try this way: you have two guys. One is scientist Hank Pym, who creates a serum that allows him to shrink down and do the whole ant thing. The second is has a costume and calls himself Ant-Man. Which are you gonna consider the Marvel superhero? I'd go with the first, as the characteristics he displays most represent the character.

[Crimebuster]

No, youre trivializing it down to a costume and a code name; there is more to it than that.

 

27 is a prehero story. 35 is a hero story. Those are facts.

 

27 is the first hank pym as the man in the ant hill.

 

35 is the first Ant Man proper.

 

Now whether one decides for themselves that they like 27 or 35, that's up to them, but the points above are facts.

 

 

Sure. Except, this still looks to me to be exactly what I just said. So...

 

Look, I get the general idea here. For example, if anybody wants to argue that Star Spangled War Stories #151 is the first appearance of Unknown Soldier rather than Our Army At War #168, I am in total agreement. If people want to argue that Ms. Marvel #1 is more important than Marvel Super-Heroes #13, I can understand the argument, even though I don't necessarily agree with it.

 

But TTA #27 is the first appearance of Hank Pym. And Hank Pym is Ant-Man in #35. It's not a different character named Hank Pym who happens to have the exact same back story and powers. What's new in #35 is that he's wearing a costume and calling himself by the code name Ant-Man.

 

Now, if people feel that the costumed identity of Ant-Man is more important than the actual character, well, that doesn't make much sense to me really, but they are welcome to feel that way. But to say that #27 isn't the character's first appearance doesn't. Because the character is Hank Pym, and #27 is his first appearance.

 

 

The costumes and code names Yellowjacket and Goliath also belong to Hank Pym...TTA #27 = 1st appearance of Henry Pym, Ant-Man, Yellowjacket, Goliath, Giant-Man, Wasp?

 

Wait, I just realized this whole argument is about what the CGC label says. Is that it? Because Avengers #59 says "1st appearance of Yellowjacket" but TTA #35 says "1st appearance of Ant Man in costume" instead, we're having a whole fight about it? Even though everybody is willing to acknowledge that Henry Pym - who is Ant-Man - first appeared in TTA #27, using his Ant-Man powers.

 

This is how hard I just facepalmed myself.

 

[Speedy-D]

No, youre trivializing it down to a costume and a code name; there is more to it than that.

 

27 is a prehero story. 35 is a hero story. Those are facts.

 

27 is the first hank pym as the man in the ant hill.

 

35 is the first Ant Man proper.

 

Now whether one decides for themselves that they like 27 or 35, that's up to them, but the points above are facts.

 

 

Sure. Except, this still looks to me to be exactly what I just said. So...

 

Look, I get the general idea here. For example, if anybody wants to argue that Star Spangled War Stories #151 is the first appearance of Unknown Soldier rather than Our Army At War #168, I am in total agreement. If people want to argue that Ms. Marvel #1 is more important than Marvel Super-Heroes #13, I can understand the argument, even though I don't necessarily agree with it.

 

But TTA #27 is the first appearance of Hank Pym. And Hank Pym is Ant-Man in #35. It's not a different character named Hank Pym who happens to have the exact same back story and powers. What's new in #35 is that he's wearing a costume and calling himself by the code name Ant-Man.

 

Now, if people feel that the costumed identity of Ant-Man is more important than the actual character, well, that doesn't make much sense to me really, but they are welcome to feel that way. But to say that #27 isn't the character's first appearance doesn't. Because the character is Hank Pym, and #27 is his first appearance.

 

 

The costumes and code names Yellowjacket and Goliath also belong to Hank Pym...TTA #27 = 1st appearance of Henry Pym, Ant-Man, Yellowjacket, Goliath, Giant-Man, Wasp?

 

Wait, I just realized this whole argument is about what the CGC label says. Is that it? Because Avengers #59 says "1st appearance of Yellowjacket" but TTA #35 says "1st appearance of Ant Man in costume" instead, we're having a whole fight about it? Even though everybody is willing to acknowledge that Henry Pym - who is Ant-Man - first appeared in TTA #27, using his Ant-Man powers.

 

This is how hard I just facepalmed myself.

 

11:47 PM Eastern, 7/7/13: Crimebuster realizes he's participating in a comic book message board conversation.

[BarryAllen]

No, youre trivializing it down to a costume and a code name; there is more to it than that.

 

27 is a prehero story. 35 is a hero story. Those are facts.

 

27 is the first hank pym as the man in the ant hill.

 

35 is the first Ant Man proper.

 

Now whether one decides for themselves that they like 27 or 35, that's up to them, but the points above are facts.

 

 

Sure. Except, this still looks to me to be exactly what I just said. So...

 

Look, I get the general idea here. For example, if anybody wants to argue that Star Spangled War Stories #151 is the first appearance of Unknown Soldier rather than Our Army At War #168, I am in total agreement. If people want to argue that Ms. Marvel #1 is more important than Marvel Super-Heroes #13, I can understand the argument, even though I don't necessarily agree with it.

 

But TTA #27 is the first appearance of Hank Pym. And Hank Pym is Ant-Man in #35. It's not a different character named Hank Pym who happens to have the exact same back story and powers. What's new in #35 is that he's wearing a costume and calling himself by the code name Ant-Man.

 

Now, if people feel that the costumed identity of Ant-Man is more important than the actual character, well, that doesn't make much sense to me really, but they are welcome to feel that way. But to say that #27 isn't the character's first appearance doesn't. Because the character is Hank Pym, and #27 is his first appearance.

 

 

The costumes and code names Yellowjacket and Goliath also belong to Hank Pym...TTA #27 = 1st appearance of Henry Pym, Ant-Man, Yellowjacket, Goliath, Giant-Man, Wasp?

 

Wait, I just realized this whole argument is about what the CGC label says. Is that it? Because Avengers #59 says "1st appearance of Yellowjacket" but TTA #35 says "1st appearance of Ant Man in costume" instead, we're having a whole fight about it? Even though everybody is willing to acknowledge that Henry Pym - who is Ant-Man - first appeared in TTA #27, using his Ant-Man powers.

 

This is how hard I just facepalmed myself.

 

 

 

I love these debates!

[oakman29]

Not only is TTA 27 Pym's 1st appearance,but the market has deemed it so.NUFF SAID!

 

Ok Mr. Hulk #180...

 

 

The Strange Adventures #180 is a perfect parallel.... http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2011/09/17/silver-age-september-animal-man-in-strange-adventures/

Hulk 180 is different.Wolvie actually appears in several panels!

[AGGIEZ]

No, youre trivializing it down to a costume and a code name; there is more to it than that.

 

27 is a prehero story. 35 is a hero story. Those are facts.

 

27 is the first hank pym as the man in the ant hill.

 

35 is the first Ant Man proper.

 

Now whether one decides for themselves that they like 27 or 35, that's up to them, but the points above are facts.

 

 

Sure. Except, this still looks to me to be exactly what I just said. So...

 

Look, I get the general idea here. For example, if anybody wants to argue that Star Spangled War Stories #151 is the first appearance of Unknown Soldier rather than Our Army At War #168, I am in total agreement. If people want to argue that Ms. Marvel #1 is more important than Marvel Super-Heroes #13, I can understand the argument, even though I don't necessarily agree with it.

 

But TTA #27 is the first appearance of Hank Pym. And Hank Pym is Ant-Man in #35. It's not a different character named Hank Pym who happens to have the exact same back story and powers. What's new in #35 is that he's wearing a costume and calling himself by the code name Ant-Man.

 

Now, if people feel that the costumed identity of Ant-Man is more important than the actual character, well, that doesn't make much sense to me really, but they are welcome to feel that way. But to say that #27 isn't the character's first appearance doesn't. Because the character is Hank Pym, and #27 is his first appearance.

 

 

The costumes and code names Yellowjacket and Goliath also belong to Hank Pym...TTA #27 = 1st appearance of Henry Pym, Ant-Man, Yellowjacket, Goliath, Giant-Man, Wasp?

 

Wait, I just realized this whole argument is about what the CGC label says. Is that it? Because Avengers #59 says "1st appearance of Yellowjacket" but TTA #35 says "1st appearance of Ant Man in costume" instead, we're having a whole fight about it? Even though everybody is willing to acknowledge that Henry Pym - who is Ant-Man - first appeared in TTA #27, using his Ant-Man powers.

 

So what would you propose the label on TTA 35 say? Curious...

[rjpb]

Exactly as I said in the first post Killgrave, he was yellow jacket, wasp, Goliath so by the logic of "1st Pym= ant man than it also means that 27 Is first of those 3 characters"

 

By that logic Captain America #1 would be the first appearance of Nomad. TTA 27 is the origin of just Ant-man, not any further identities.

 

Why? That makes absolutely no sense. You can't cherry-pick. If TTA 27 is the first appearance of a character that doesn't appear until 8 issues later how is it any different for the other characters Pym later becomes? Is there a statute of limitations on how long that logic qualifies?

 

It's not a matter of time between appearances, but of direct correlation between the origin of a character's "superpower" in this case shrinking down to ant-size and the nascent ability to communicate with friendly ants, and that character's putting on a costume.

 

Effectively TTA 27 is the first appearance of a character who would later become Giant-man, Yellowjacket, etc, just as Captain America 1 is the first appearance of a character who would eventually become Nomad, but my point was to illustrate that no one considers these books to be the first appearance of those characters, whereas TTA 27 is broadly considered the origin of Ant-Man, wether or not one considers it a "first appearance", and making the Giant- Man Yellow Jacket argument is as absurd as the Nomad one.

 

[Speedy-D]

No, youre trivializing it down to a costume and a code name; there is more to it than that.

 

27 is a prehero story. 35 is a hero story. Those are facts.

 

27 is the first hank pym as the man in the ant hill.

 

35 is the first Ant Man proper.

 

Now whether one decides for themselves that they like 27 or 35, that's up to them, but the points above are facts.

 

 

Sure. Except, this still looks to me to be exactly what I just said. So...

 

Look, I get the general idea here. For example, if anybody wants to argue that Star Spangled War Stories #151 is the first appearance of Unknown Soldier rather than Our Army At War #168, I am in total agreement. If people want to argue that Ms. Marvel #1 is more important than Marvel Super-Heroes #13, I can understand the argument, even though I don't necessarily agree with it.

 

But TTA #27 is the first appearance of Hank Pym. And Hank Pym is Ant-Man in #35. It's not a different character named Hank Pym who happens to have the exact same back story and powers. What's new in #35 is that he's wearing a costume and calling himself by the code name Ant-Man.

 

Now, if people feel that the costumed identity of Ant-Man is more important than the actual character, well, that doesn't make much sense to me really, but they are welcome to feel that way. But to say that #27 isn't the character's first appearance doesn't. Because the character is Hank Pym, and #27 is his first appearance.

 

 

The costumes and code names Yellowjacket and Goliath also belong to Hank Pym...TTA #27 = 1st appearance of Henry Pym, Ant-Man, Yellowjacket, Goliath, Giant-Man, Wasp?

 

Wait, I just realized this whole argument is about what the CGC label says. Is that it? Because Avengers #59 says "1st appearance of Yellowjacket" but TTA #35 says "1st appearance of Ant Man in costume" instead, we're having a whole fight about it? Even though everybody is willing to acknowledge that Henry Pym - who is Ant-Man - first appeared in TTA #27, using his Ant-Man powers.

 

So what would you propose the label on TTA 35 say? Curious...

Dude, did you see what he just did to his face? He's in no state to answer right now.

[AGGIEZ]

Not only is TTA 27 Pym's 1st appearance,but the market has deemed it so.NUFF SAID!

 

Ok Mr. Hulk #180...

 

 

The Strange Adventures #180 is a perfect parallel.... http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2011/09/17/silver-age-september-animal-man-in-strange-adventures/

Hulk 180 is different.Wolvie actually appears in several panels!

 

 

I kid...

 

One comic nerd argument per thread please...

[Crimebuster]

I don't mind these kind of arguments, I just am having a hard time even understanding what the other side is trying to say.

 

But if you guys really want to get into it, let's try and figure out the first appearance of the Silver Age Black Canary.

 

[Bronty]

No, youre trivializing it down to a costume and a code name; there is more to it than that.

 

27 is a prehero story. 35 is a hero story. Those are facts.

 

27 is the first hank pym as the man in the ant hill.

 

35 is the first Ant Man proper.

 

Now whether one decides for themselves that they like 27 or 35, that's up to them, but the points above are facts.

 

 

Sure. Except, this still looks to me to be exactly what I just said. So...

 

You're not the only one facepalming himself

 

Look, let me put it this way. I collect pre hero books. The "mad scientist makes an incredible discovery which he must destroy for the good of mankind" isn't just "a" pre-hero story, its probably "the" most common basic pre hero plot. Its a pre hero story, period.

 

#35 takes the basic material from 27, expands the origin and explains how he's now become a hero. He's chosen to study the ant world for months to better understand them, he's built himself this incredible helmet with which to communicate with ants, he's recreated the very thing he destroyed... etc... clearly now a hero book.

 

Its not just a "costume and a code-name." I don't know why you keep saying that Its a whole new twist on the raw material from 27.

[Crimebuster]

 

So what would you propose the label on TTA 35 say? Curious...

 

Oh, I think the labels for both 27 and 35 are fine the way they are. That's why I am arguing that TTA #27 is the more important issue and the first appearance of the character.

 

 

 

Look, let me put it this way. I collect pre hero books. The "mad scientist makes an incredible discovery which he must destroy for the good of mankind" isn't just "a" pre-hero story, its probably "the" most common basic pre hero plot. Its a pre hero story, period.

 

 

 

Okay, I get what you are saying. But I just don't think you can divorce Ant-Man from Hank Pym as though they are two separate things. #27 isn't a prototype like Aunt May and Uncle Ben in Strange Tales #97, it's explicitly the same guy, with the story from #27 in continuity. The events of the story in #27 are key to the character. "Mad scientist makes an incredible discovery which he must destroy for the good of mankind" is actually a recurring motif for Hank Pym - he later faces the same issue with Ultron. It's a lynchpin to understanding the character.

 

Maybe that's why the character has bounced around through so many identities over the years and writers have constantly had to try and remake him, because he's a pre-hero character forced into a supehero story structure, meaning he's an archetype that doesn't actually fit the stories he's being put in. It's an interesting thought. But it still doesn't make #35 his first appearance.

 

[Crimebuster]

This must be what Steve Ditko feels like every second of his entire life.

 

 

 

 

[Bronty]

 

So what would you propose the label on TTA 35 say? Curious...

 

Oh, I think the labels for both 27 and 35 are fine the way they are. That's why I am arguing that TTA #27 is the more important issue and the first appearance of the character.

 

 

 

Look, let me put it this way. I collect pre hero books. The "mad scientist makes an incredible discovery which he must destroy for the good of mankind" isn't just "a" pre-hero story, its probably "the" most common basic pre hero plot. Its a pre hero story, period.

 

 

 

Okay, I get what you are saying. But I just don't think you can divorce Ant-Man from Hank Pym as though they are two separate things. #27 isn't a prototype like Aunt May and Uncle Ben in Strange Tales #97, it's explicitly the same guy, with the story from #27 in continuity.

 

I agree completely with all of that. Its not a prototype. Its the same guy (hank pym).

 

But.. he hasn't become Ant-Man yet.

 

You seem to state more than once that Hank Pym = Ant Man so 1st Hank Pym = 1st Ant Man. Well, I take issue with that. The Baby Nathan analogy was a good one. Until the character has become the hero, its not the first appearance of the hero.

 

Anyways, a rousing nerd debate this has been.

[Bronty]

This must be what Steve Ditko feels like every second of his entire life.

 

 

 

 

well put!