Warlock First Appearance - Marvel Premiere 1

[Lonzilla]

I'd disagree about the Kree through since Mar-Vell was around from his creation until death. I'll give you Paste Pot Pete / Trapster

[Wall-Crawler]

I decided to crack my issue of MP #1...First page it says: "Featuring: The awesome unleashed power of the being known only as HIM".

 

On page 7, the High Evolutionary finds a familiar looking cocoon. On Page 9, the High Evolutionary asks "Him" some questions and "Him" recounts the FF #66-67 story. Page 10 recounts the tale of the only other time he returned to Earth (battles Thor). On page 24 "Him" emerges from the cocoon to defend the High Evolutionary. Page 27 the High Evolutionary gives "Him" the soul gem (but it is not called that). Last panel ends with High Evolutionary saying "Men Shall Call You Warlock".

 

I get what you are saying, how Adam Warlock is different than his previous appearances as "Him" but to me, Warlock is clearly just part of the evolution of the character.

 

Plus he still has many similarities and abilities as "Him" as he does "Warlock". He stayed gold skinned, super powerful...it is not like he went from a 'normal' human to super-powered (a la Carol Danvers to Ms. Marvel)...Much of the core of the character is still there and referenced right in MP #1...

 

I could see it though as the FF appearances being labeled as first HIM, the Thor being 1st full "Him" and MP #1 1st Warlock (formerly Him) - He was never called "Adam Warlock" in MP #1.

 

Either way, MP #1 should be in any Guardian's speculators list. MP #1 may also be a tad underappreciated but I disagree Adam Warlock is a completely different character, yes he has evolved from those early days but they have always been clearly based on "Him".

 

Very interesting debate. Hope it stays classy.

 

 

 

[Crimebuster]

It is interesting that CGC notes "1st Tigra" and bizarrely (and quite mistakenly) refers to Marvel Premiere # 1 as "Origin of Warlock", which is insane, since Warlock did not exist before MP 1.

 

No matter how you feel on the Him - Warlock front, "origin of Warlock" is just plain wrong.

 

I don't follow. Your entire argument is that MP #1 explains the origin of Warlock - how he got the soul gem, the name, the costume and Counter-Earth.

 

So...

[drestauro]

why should they spend time researching first, second, cameo appearances for every character under the sun?

 

Did you just fall off the turnip truck yesterday?

 

If you had any knowledge of CGC, you would know they don't do any of this, and simply wait until the appearance or storyline becomes popular enough to warrant inclusion on the label. What the CGC label says has a great deal to do with how much it sells for, and many dealers send their books in for reholdering when a "first appearance" makes its way to the label, due to movie popularity, dealer requests or collector demand. And CGC regularly changes their labels due to the above.

 

Look at the situation here, FF 67 was initially identified as:

 

1st appearance of Him

 

Lately it's changed to:

 

First appearance of Him (Warlock)

 

And all of this is good business strategy, but I cannot believe you people think CGC is a pile of simpletons without an iota of business sense. They know how important the label information is when it comes to first appearances, and you're insulting their intelligence when you say they don't care.

 

Then why isn't Ultron mentioned at all on the Avengers 54 label? Not saying your wrong, just posing the question.

[joe_collector]

It is interesting that CGC notes "1st Tigra" and bizarrely (and quite mistakenly) refers to Marvel Premiere # 1 as "Origin of Warlock", which is insane, since Warlock did not exist before MP 1.

 

No matter how you feel on the Him - Warlock front, "origin of Warlock" is just plain wrong.

 

I don't follow. Your entire argument is that MP #1 explains the origin of Warlock - how he got the soul gem, the name, the costume and Counter-Earth.

 

So...

 

 

There was no Warlock before Marvel Premiere 1. The character did not exist before that point, just as Tigra did not exist in Cat #1. Same basic entity, but two different incarnations with different powers, looks, costumes, etc.

[___]

I decided to crack my issue of MP #1...First page it says: "Featuring: The awesome unleashed power of the being known only as HIM".

 

On page 7, the High Evolutionary finds a familiar looking cocoon. On Page 9, the High Evolutionary asks "Him" some questions and "Him" recounts the FF #66-67 story. Page 10 recounts the tale of the only other time he returned to Earth (battles Thor). On page 24 "Him" emerges from the cocoon to defend the High Evolutionary. Page 27 the High Evolutionary gives "Him" the soul gem (but it is not called that). Last panel ends with High Evolutionary saying "Men Shall Call You Warlock".

 

I get what you are saying, how Adam Warlock is different than his previous appearances as "Him" but to me, Warlock is clearly just part of the evolution of the character.

 

Plus he still has many similarities and abilities as "Him" as he does "Warlock". He stayed gold skinned, super powerful...it is not like he went from a 'normal' human to super-powered (a la Carol Danvers to Ms. Marvel)...Much of the core of the character is still there and referenced right in MP #1...

 

I could see it though as the FF appearances being labeled as first HIM, the Thor being 1st full "Him" and MP #1 1st Warlock (formerly Him) - He was never called "Adam Warlock" in MP #1.

 

Either way, MP #1 should be in any Guardian's speculators list. MP #1 may also be a tad underappreciated but I disagree Adam Warlock is a completely different character, yes he has evolved from those early days but they have always been clearly based on "Him".

 

Very interesting debate. Hope it stays classy.

 

 

 

 

[joe_collector]

Very interesting debate. Hope it stays classy.

 

I think a lot of people are misunderstanding my stance.

 

I am not, and I don't believe anyone is, saying that Warlock did not emerge from the initial concept that was Him, as that is clearly his origin.

 

What I am saying is that the character evolved to such a level, of getting a new name (Warlock), new powers, new world, new personality, and most importantly, the Soul Gem that started off decades of cosmic storylines from Marvel. I don't see this any differently than The Cat changing into Tigra - new name, new powers, new abilities, etc., but still created from the same basic clay of Greer Nelson.

 

So Marvel Premiere should follow along with other similar transformations and state:

 

First Appearance of Warlock (from Him)

 

rather than the idiotic

 

Origin of Warlock

 

which makes zero logical sense, since the entity of Warlock did not exist prior to MP 1.

[___]

makes sense JC

 

 

I am still a fan of the person under the suit per say, i.e. that is why I would always prefer The Cat #1 because Greet Grant who became tigra started there

[shadroch]

In The Cat, Greer is a human in a costume. When she becomes Tigra,she is no longer human.

In MP 1, the being formerly known as Him emerges once again from his cocoon, stronger and more powerful than before, but is still a gold skinned enigma. He is given a new costume and a new name.

I don't see how the two equate.

I'd just as soon forget the 1972 series and skip from Thor 166 to Strange Tales 178, or at least to Hulk 176.

[shadroch]

Mothra started life as a caterpillar, went into cocoon and emerged as a giant butterfly.

Would anyone argue he didn't exist prior to becoming the butterfly?

[Crimebuster]

It is interesting that CGC notes "1st Tigra" and bizarrely (and quite mistakenly) refers to Marvel Premiere # 1 as "Origin of Warlock", which is insane, since Warlock did not exist before MP 1.

 

No matter how you feel on the Him - Warlock front, "origin of Warlock" is just plain wrong.

 

I don't follow. Your entire argument is that MP #1 explains the origin of Warlock - how he got the soul gem, the name, the costume and Counter-Earth.

 

So...

 

 

There was no Warlock before Marvel Premiere 1. The character did not exist before that point, just as Tigra did not exist in Cat #1. Same basic entity, but two different incarnations with different powers, looks, costumes, etc.

 

So?

 

How does that preclude this being an origin story?

 

[joe_collector]

How does that preclude this being an origin story?

 

Uh oh, Troll alert.

 

Most first appearances are origins too, but AF 15 doesn't delete "1st appearance Spider-man" and just put "Origin of Spider-man" does it?

 

But you already know all this and are just trolling.

[joe_collector]

makes sense JC

 

I am still a fan of the person under the suit per say, i.e. that is why I would always prefer The Cat #1 because Greet Grant who became tigra started there

 

I agree, which is why the proper notation, as per similar precedent should be:

 

1st Appearance Warlock (from Him)

 

That denotes the obvious transformation of the old, defunct character Him into the new Warlock, Tomorrow's Hero... Today!.

[shadroch]

There are three pages of the story that tell the Heroes backstory-how he chose to be in the cocoon, how he killed his creators and how he encountered Thor. If that isn't an origin, what is it? Tales of Suspense 63 tells Captain America's backstory and is labeled an origin.

I'm also confused by your claim of new powers. He is wearing New clothes, although they seem to be part of the cocoon itself, but I don't see any new powers.

[joe_collector]

There are three pages of the story that tell the Heroes backstory-how he chose to be in the cocoon, how he killed his creators and how he encountered Thor. If that isn't an origin, what is it?

 

It's backstory, and even if it's an "origin", it's the "Origin of Him", right?

 

He is wearing New clothes, although they seem to be part of the cocoon itself, but I don't see any new powers.

 

Have you actually read MP 1-2 and Warlock 1-8?

 

He gets a lot of crazy new powers, some from his evolution within the cocoon and a lot from his crazy Soul Gem. I believe there is even a page explaining these.

 

To me, Warlock = Him + Soul Gem (along with Costume + Counter Earth + + New Powers + New Personality/Values) , making him a totally new character going forward. The Soul Gem alone changed everything going forward, and planted the seeds for decades worth of stories.

[AGGIEZ]

How does that preclude this being an origin story?

 

Uh oh, Troll alert.

 

Most first appearances are origins too, but AF 15 doesn't delete "1st appearance Spider-man" and just put "Origin of Spider-man" does it?

 

But you already know all this and are just trolling.

 

 

I love when people expect one-sided discussions and immediately pull the 'troll' card, or attacked your intelligence, when you present a discenting opinion....wait, no, I actually hate that...

[joe_collector]

How does that preclude this being an origin story?

 

Uh oh, Troll alert.

 

Most first appearances are origins too, but AF 15 doesn't delete "1st appearance Spider-man" and just put "Origin of Spider-man" does it?

 

But you already know all this and are just trolling.

 

I love when people expect one-sided discussions and immediately pull the 'troll' card

 

Come on, wake up, he's obviously trolling. Read his comments, rather than just going on all wounded fanboy because I'm the one posting.

 

He's playing on words, trolling for a response - being a jerk IOW.

[Crimebuster]

How does that preclude this being an origin story?

 

Uh oh, Troll alert.

 

Most first appearances are origins too, but AF 15 doesn't delete "1st appearance Spider-man" and just put "Origin of Spider-man" does it?

 

But you already know all this and are just trolling.

 

I've been on the internet for 20 years now and this is literally the first time anyone has called me a troll.

 

I'm asking you a pretty basic question here. This issue clearly does have the origin of Warlock in it, as you have pounded into the ground over the course of this thread. So why are you insistent that the label should not list this issue as the origin of Warlock?

 

If I am reading between the lines correctly, your actual point is that the label should also read "1st appearance" of Warlock. Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't correctly note the origin story that does appear in this comic book.

[AGGIEZ]

How does that preclude this being an origin story?

 

Uh oh, Troll alert.

 

Most first appearances are origins too, but AF 15 doesn't delete "1st appearance Spider-man" and just put "Origin of Spider-man" does it?

 

But you already know all this and are just trolling.

 

I love when people expect one-sided discussions and immediately pull the 'troll' card

 

Come on, wake up, he's obviously trolling. Read his comments, rather than just going on all wounded fanboy because I'm the one posting.

 

He's playing on words, trolling for a response - being a jerk IOW.

 

 

That's rich! HE'S the jerk? Riiiiiiiiight....... (thumbs u

[joe_collector]

How does that preclude this being an origin story?

 

Uh oh, Troll alert.

 

Most first appearances are origins too, but AF 15 doesn't delete "1st appearance Spider-man" and just put "Origin of Spider-man" does it?

 

But you already know all this and are just trolling.

 

I've been on the internet for 20 years now and this is literally the first time anyone has called me a troll.

 

Then stop acting like one.

 

Your troll stance is bizarre, as you apparently believe that all 1st Appearances should be deleted from the CGC labels and replaced with "Origin of XXX". WTF?