• 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

joe_collector

joe_collector

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

 

No, you're quite the mouthy jerk too. :hi:

 

You take you two guys out of the conversation, and things are civil. Even Shad is being cool - think about it. Rather than continually blaming others for your continued in ability to act in an appropriate manner, why not take responsibility for your own actions. hm

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Lot of jerkish behavior in this thread and it's distracting from what should be a good discussion

 

There seems to be some people on here who don't want to discuss anything, and would rather devolve it into an online brawl.

 

Hell, even Shad and I are debating like human beings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
___

___

Posted
Posted
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.

 

Strange Tales 178 :cloud9:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Strange Tales 178 :cloud9:

 

The Starlin books are great, but I can't ignore that he used what came before in Marvel Premiere #1 - imagine what Marvel would look like without the introduction of the Soul Gems (Infinity Gems to the newbs)?

 

That represents a whole section of Marvel continuity.

 

144312.jpg.420deb3a07cb82f790f8224c57c19bbe.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Crimebuster

Crimebuster

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

 

No, you're quite the mouthy jerk too. :hi:

 

You take you two guys out of the conversation, and things are civil. Even Shad is being cool - think about it. Rather than continually blaming others for your continued in ability to act in an appropriate manner, why not take responsibility for your own actions. hm

 

I challenge anyone to find a post from me in this thread that hasn't been civil.

 

I have posed a pretty innocuous question and in response you have attacked me and labeled me a troll. And honestly, I have no idea why.

 

I'm also not sure how you manage to twist me asking this question into some kind of statement that labels should have first appearance removed. Just as I am unclear on why you think a label saying an issue has a character's origin in it somehow prevents CGC from also noting the issue as a character's first appearance.

 

This is not an either/or situation. They are not mutually exclusive.

 

Daredevil1_CGC_Label.jpg

 

See?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
  • Author
Posted
What if the MP#1 label simply stated "Him becomes Warlock" ?

 

According to CGC precedent on other similar transformations, the label should read:

 

1st Appearance of Warlock (from Him)

 

The key element (like in other similar cases (like Tigra)) is that once Marvel Premiere 1 comes along, the unused Him clay no longer exists, and the new & improved "Tomorrow's Hero... Today" of Warlock is the new character going forward.

 

So to put JUST (read it, JUST) "Origin of Warlock" is illigocal and totally incorrect, as Warlock never existed prior to MP #1 and if you wanted to go that Origin route, it then *must* have a "1st Appearance *and* Origin of Warlock (from Him)" notation or an "Origin of Him" to denote the starting sequence where Him's background is replayed.

 

No matter which way you look at it, JUST (again, reread JUST) an "Origin of Warlock" notation makes no sense whatsoever, as Warlock never existed prior to this issue, and JUST "Origin of..." notations like this are done to highlight origins that are relayed much later, like the Punisher's.

 

Again, I'm just going on previous CGC precedent, not making up my own rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shadroch

shadroch

Posted
Posted

I just read MP 1 this morning, to see what I was missing.

The first page clearly states this is an adventure of Him. When the High Evolutionary(HE) ask Him what his name is, he replies he has no name. Others had called him HIM, but he didn't think that was his name.

I see no new powers in MP #1, except perhaps to adapt some of his cocoon into a flashy new costume. In Thor 165/166, he already posses the power to hold his own against Thor. I know he levitates

The three page spread recounting his backstory is certainly an origin.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wall-Crawler

Wall-Crawler

Posted
Posted
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.

 

 

 

 

:golfclap:

 

Don't get me wrong, I wish MP #1 was the more valuable book in the marketplace, I have a few of them... ;)

 

I just have a hard time, given the above things saying that Warlock is a "completely different" character when the book itself starts off saying Warlock is "HIM". Yes the character evolved significantly during subsequent storylines but "HIM" IS Adam Warlock - They are the same person. It says so right in MP #1 on the first page.

 

With regards to the argument of Carol Danvers/Ms. Marvel, the market place has decided that it is the 1st 'super powered' appearances of these characters that matter more. HIM/Adam Warlock was ALWAYS super powered. His look is fundamentally the same.

 

Also, as Warlock is not named until the final panel on MP#1, yes it is for sure the Origin of Warlock but I doub't you could call it a first appearance as he goes by "HIM" right up until that last panel.

 

SO, at best you could argue MP#1 is the Origin and Brief Cameo of Warlock. If you were to make a distinction that Adam Warlock is completely different, then wouldn't MP #2 would be the "First Full Appearance of Adam Warlock"?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ItsJustRyan

ItsJustRyan

Posted
Posted
Wiki has it right. Two different characters, two different appearances and list of creators:

 

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

 

How does this one play out then (see label)?

 

9759656615_2850312f49_c.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
djpinkpanther67

djpinkpanther67

Posted
Posted
I just read MP 1 this morning, to see what I was missing.

The first page clearly states this is an adventure of Him. When the High Evolutionary(HE) ask Him what his name is, he replies he has no name. Others had called him HIM, but he didn't think that was his name.

I see no new powers in MP #1, except perhaps to adapt some of his cocoon into a flashy new costume. In Thor 165/166, he already posses the power to hold his own against Thor. I know he levitates

The three page spread recounting his backstory is certainly an origin.

You're WRONG. His perm DEFINITELY gave him more power...

It wasn't the Soul GEM.

It was the Soul GLO

soul-glo.gif

 

Note the lightning bolt on the Soul Glo ad CLEARLY resembles the same one on his new costume

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Also, as Warlock is not named until the final panel on MP#1, yes it is for sure the Origin of Warlock but I doub't you could call it a first appearance as he goes by "HIM" right up until that last panel.

 

lol, you're joking right - was your copy missing both the cover and the first page? lollollol

144313.jpg.505e0368e5da4dd9168ad6c36d5ef1c7.jpg

144314.jpg.b83ab8c1d7c253cfa5cc95e7d8d67411.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Don't get me wrong, I wish MP #1 was the more valuable book in the marketplace, I have a few of them... ;)

 

This is why you can never have any real comic-based conversations on here, because all the FF 66/76 owners get angry and all the Thor 165/166 CGC owners get pizzed, and it devolves as such into a broohaha of angry responses and insults.

 

I personally don't care how a rat's hass much these issues are worth in CGC 9.4-9.8 and I am just talking about the S-T-O-R-I-E-S and the C-O-M-I-C-S, but this is becoming increasingly-difficult to do here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ItsJustRyan

ItsJustRyan

Posted
Posted
Don't get me wrong, I wish MP #1 was the more valuable book in the marketplace, I have a few of them... ;)

 

This is why you can never have any real comic-based conversations on here, because all the FF 66/76 owners get angry and all the Thor 165/166 CGC owners get pizzed, and it devolves as such into a broohaha of angry responses and insults.

 

I personally don't care how a rat's hass much these issues are worth in CGC 9.4-9.8 and I am just talking about the S-T-O-R-I-E-S and the C-O-M-I-C-S, but this is becoming increasingly-difficult to do here.

 

Who's angry?

 

I don't care either way, but like these types of conversations. Just like the Hulk180/181 debate... all good fun. As a Warlock fan I want to own them all :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Don't get me wrong, I wish MP #1 was the more valuable book in the marketplace, I have a few of them... ;)

 

This is why you can never have any real comic-based conversations on here, because all the FF 66/76 owners get angry and all the Thor 165/166 CGC owners get pizzed, and it devolves as such into a broohaha of angry responses and insults.

 

I personally don't care how a rat's hass much these issues are worth in CGC 9.4-9.8 and I am just talking about the S-T-O-R-I-E-S and the C-O-M-I-C-S, but this is becoming increasingly-difficult to do here.

 

Who's angry?

 

I mean in general. Some people cannot separate themselves from their significant investment in CGC slabs. This particular debate also gets into SA vs. BA, where all the SA fans want the popular Warlock 1st app as part their group, when the actual character was introduced in the BA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing