• 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.

Warlock First Appearance - Marvel Premiere 1

Started by joe_collector,

250 posts in this topic

AGGIEZ

AGGIEZ

Posted
Posted
I love these arguments...and I always circle back to Tales to Astonish #27 vs. #35.

 

That's not the same thing, as it was just a costume really.

 

Him and Warlock are two totally different characters, like Carol Danvers and Ms Marvel. Marvel did the same thing with both, and dug into the past when they needed a new superhero.

 

I think it's pretty much the exact same thing you're defending here. Was he called "Ant-Man" in TTA #27? NO. Could he speak to ants in TTA #27? NO. Did he have the Ant-Man costume in TTA #27? NO.

 

I do admit, I really like this book, but if it's the 1st appearance of Warlock then TTA #35 is the 1st appearance of Ant-Man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
whetteon

whetteon

Posted
Posted
I love these arguments...and I always circle back to Tales to Astonish #27 vs. #35.

 

That's not the same thing, as it was just a costume really.

 

Him and Warlock are two totally different characters, like Carol Danvers and Ms Marvel. Marvel did the same thing with both, and dug into the past when they needed a new superhero.

 

I think it's pretty much the exact same thing you're defending here. Was he called "Ant-Man" in TTA #27? NO. Could he speak to ants in TTA #27? NO. Did he have the Ant-Man costume in TTA #27? NO.

 

Does the market seek out TTA #35 as the 1st Ant-Man? NO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Illustrious

Illustrious

Posted
Posted
I love these arguments...and I always circle back to Tales to Astonish #27 vs. #35.

 

That's not the same thing, as it was just a costume really.

 

Him and Warlock are two totally different characters, like Carol Danvers and Ms Marvel. Marvel did the same thing with both, and dug into the past when they needed a new superhero.

 

I think it's pretty much the exact same thing you're defending here. Was he called "Ant-Man" in TTA #27? NO. Could he speak to ants in TTA #27? NO. Did he have the Ant-Man costume in TTA #27? NO.

 

Does the market seek out TTA #35 as the 1st Ant-Man? NO.

 

^^

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeffro.

Jeffro.

Posted
Posted
I love these arguments...and I always circle back to Tales to Astonish #27 vs. #35.

 

That's not the same thing, as it was just a costume really.

 

Him and Warlock are two totally different characters, like Carol Danvers and Ms Marvel. Marvel did the same thing with both, and dug into the past when they needed a new superhero.

 

I think it's pretty much the exact same thing you're defending here. Was he called "Ant-Man" in TTA #27? NO. Could he speak to ants in TTA #27? NO. Did he have the Ant-Man costume in TTA #27? NO.

 

Does the market seek out TTA #35 as the 1st Ant-Man? NO.

 

Maybe they should. Collector attitudes can and do change. An example of that change is how the 1st appearance of Sgt Rock was, for many years, considered to be Our Army At War 81, now it's 83.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jbud73

jbud73

Posted
Posted
Well Vince I would :censored: love it if the collectorate agreed with you for a very selfish reason. I currently have a 9.0 Thor 165 and want to upgrade to a 9.4 copy but this book has been getting some attention lately, the black cover already makes it a bit tougher, so the cost of the two grade increments has been jumping and this is currently a $500 book in 9.4 :facepalm:

$500 you say?

 

Check this out.

 

As I said the book is on the rise. It cracked the 500 barrier in the fall and seems to be catching a big wave on its way to cracking the 4 figure mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jbud73

jbud73

Posted
Posted
Sorry Whet--I'm with JC on this one.

 

The Warlock who appears in Marvel Premiere 1 is _not_ the same as the prior Him character--new name, new costume, new power, from the soul gem--which indeed defines the character.

 

It'd be like arguing that the Sandman character who first appears in the 1989 # 1 is the same as the Kirby iteration from the 70s series. While technically true, it's...just...not.

 

Keith Contario said as much in a 1991 Overstreet's update, when he acknowledged FF 66 was technically the first appearance of the character, but MP 1 was far and away the most _important_ in the character's mythos--new costume, new name, origin and power.

 

Other than that, I have no dog in this fight--I sold my CGC 9.0 and 9.6 copies of MP 1 earlier this year.

 

Your Sandman analogy is a very powerful one. (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AGGIEZ

AGGIEZ

Posted
Posted
I love these arguments...and I always circle back to Tales to Astonish #27 vs. #35.

 

That's not the same thing, as it was just a costume really.

 

Him and Warlock are two totally different characters, like Carol Danvers and Ms Marvel. Marvel did the same thing with both, and dug into the past when they needed a new superhero.

 

I think it's pretty much the exact same thing you're defending here. Was he called "Ant-Man" in TTA #27? NO. Could he speak to ants in TTA #27? NO. Did he have the Ant-Man costume in TTA #27? NO.

 

Does the market seek out TTA #35 as the 1st Ant-Man? NO.

 

 

Does the market seek out MP#1 as the 1st appearance of Warlock? NO.

 

 

The market is speaking...and not to MP#1

 

Check this out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jaeldubyoo

jaeldubyoo

Posted
Posted

The fact is that Overstreet considered FF #66 to be the introduction of Him, who became Warlock. In the Overstreet #5, FF #67 was “Intro. Him (later to become Warlock).” OPG #6 erroneously states that #61 was the intro. In OPG #7, Overstreet begins to refer to FF #66 as the “Intro of Him (who later becomes Warlock).” Collectors have accepted that for years and that’s what most collectors go by. It is written in the bible of comic collectors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DavidTheDavid

DavidTheDavid

Posted
Posted

The modern Warlock is pretty clearly a re-casting of the original HIM. Here's what Roy Thomas has to say iIn Marvel Masterworks Warlock Volume 2:

Gil [Kane] and I co-designed Warlock's costume at the Marvel offices. I'd already decided he'd be derived from an existing Marvel character: Him, the gold-skinned humanoid created by scientists in Fantastic Four #66-67. I do so largely because, having long since accepted that nay characters I made up for Marvel would belong to the company, I preferred to base "new" heroes, whenever possible, on ones already extant.

 

[...]

 

The High Evolutionary--whose initials "H.E." made a nice parallel to a character who'd started out called simply "Him"--was a godlike entity introduced in Thor #134-35 [sic], in a 1966 Lee & Kirby story which owed a debut to H.G. Werlls' novel The Island of Dr. Moreau. He (H.E.?) became more than ever the equivalent of the Deity in this tale [the new version], creating Counter-Earth from a hunk of rock--but not out of nothingness....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
  • Author
Posted
It'd be like arguing that the Sandman character who first appears in the 1989 # 1 is the same as the Kirby iteration from the 70s series. While technically true, it's...just...not.

 

That Sandman example is exactly what we're talking about here, an old, unused character model being used *years later* as the basic "clay" with which to transform him into a brand new creation, not something like the stupid Antman example (a few issues later, he gets a costume and a new name doh! ) being bandied around here over and over.

 

Hank Pym - Antman is not even in the same area code as Him - Adam Warlock. :makepoint:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
  • Author
Posted
It is written in the bible of comic collectors.

 

Until they suddenly change their tune like they did with the Bronze Age, cranking it up to 1985 or something stupid just because dealers have dead early-80's stock. lollol

 

Once dealers discover they have more HG copies of Marvel Premiere 1 than FF 67, then OS will do an about face and finally print the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Keith Contario said as much in a 1991 Overstreet's update, when he acknowledged FF 66 was technically the first appearance of the character, but MP 1 was far and away the most _important_ in the character's mythos--new costume, new name, origin and power.

 

For those who don't know, Keith Contarino *was* one of the best and brightest of the OS advisors and I literally bought the OS and OS updates just to read what he had to say. All the other low-IQ OS contributors would just blither on like 5-year olds, while Keith would post thought-provoking essays on first appearances, undervalued issues, comics that could break out, new artists and writers, etc. and it was worth the cover price.

 

Too bad about the crazy :censored: that recently happened with him, as he's always been a standup guy in my experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AGGIEZ

AGGIEZ

Posted
Posted
It'd be like arguing that the Sandman character who first appears in the 1989 # 1 is the same as the Kirby iteration from the 70s series. While technically true, it's...just...not.

 

That Sandman example is exactly what we're talking about here, an old, unused character model being used *years later* as the basic "clay" with which to transform him into a brand new creation, not something like the stupid Antman example (a few issues later, he gets a costume and a new name doh! ) being bandied around here over and over.

 

Hank Pym - Antman is not even in the same area code as Him - Adam Warlock. :makepoint:

 

 

 

OK, so now it's the # of issue between appearances argument? Make up your mind lol

 

And "same area code"? You're right. One is getting a solo film and the other might show up in a film as part of a universe of characters... :makepoint:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Sorry, but no one is disputing the fact that Him was used as the base for the Adam Warlock transformation in Marvel Premiere, only that the change was so significant as to be an entirely new character.

 

I've read those issues multiple times, and unless you knew it ahead of time, there is no possible way you would link the Warlock in ST 178 with Him from FF 67.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
  • Author
Posted
OK, so now it's the # of issue between appearances argument? Make up your mind

 

lollol

 

Obviously some people are just popping in here without the necessary background on the subject. I'll post the Wiki information again, so you can read it - I've even bolded the years, and yes an "old, unused character" was posted several times:

 

First appearance

 

(as Him) Fantastic Four #66-67 (September–October 1967)

 

(as Adam Warlock) Marvel Premiere #1 (April 1972)

 

Created by

 

(Him)

Stan Lee

Jack Kirby

 

(Adam Warlock)

Roy Thomas

Gil Kane

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing