1st Teen Titans 3 3

[sfcityduck]

 

This is probably the most telling panel in BB60:

 

 

This.

 

 

That panel doesn't say what you are claiming. It supports that BB 54 is the origin of the Teen Titans. Why? There is no mention of Wonder Girl as a "charter member." The panel makes clear the formation of the team, whose name is revealed in the last panel on p. 4 prompting Batman's question, was formed prior to BB 60. And as to that formation, Robin corresponds it to the adventure told in BB 54. Which, when coupled with the last panel in BB 54 announcing a new team, makes clear that BB 60 is merely the second appearance of the team (albeit the first appearance of the team name ala TTA 27).

 

[sfcityduck]

 

 

This.

 

What do you think that picture proves? Nothing.

 

It sure doesn't disprove that at the end of the Hatton Corner adventure in BB 54, DC announces "Once again, a startling new team of DC heroes has triumphed!"

 

That BB featured some team-ups, around the same time as it featured the debut of the new team, proves nothing relevant. Kashdan and Haney have made clear that they were creating a "junior Justice League" team, not a mere team-up. You know how dumb the argument that BB was only for team-ups is because you are claiming that BB 60 debuted a team!

Edited October 24, 2014 by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

And lets not forget this. DC's "official" position

 

That mid-70s retcon is contrary to DC's official position a few year earlier:

 

 

And in every subsequent publication reprinting the story from the DC Archives, to the Showcase, and probably through to the 50th Anniversary (1964-2014) compilation BB 54 is identified as a Teen Titans story. And that sets aside the Official Index.

 

But, hey, someone who agrees with you is manipulating some of the wikis!

 

 

 

Edited October 24, 2014 by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

And, meanwhile, you are ignoring what fans, scholars, the price guide, and dealers have thought for at least 40 years.

 

Comics Feature, Amazing Heroes, creator interviews, OSPG, DC reprints, etc., all of these are ignored.

[HighStakesComics]

The answers have all been posted over the last few pages, Duck. I think you might have erased them on accident when you copied the pictures from the examples I provided.

[JTLarsen]

And, meanwhile, you are ignoring what fans, scholars, the price guide, and dealers have thought for at least 40 years.

 

Comics Feature, Amazing Heroes, creator interviews, OSPG, DC reprints, etc., all of these are ignored.

 

Not ignored. We're correcting a tradition of misinformation. Just as happened with the first appearance of Sgt. Rock and just as happened with Neal Adams' first work (for decades it was listed as Archie's Joke Book 41; with no fanfare it was corrected only a few years ago to 44).

 

The only reason you need to cite third-party characterizations of the comics in question is because the comics themselves are insufficient to back up your claim.

[HighStakesComics]

FWIW the DC Wikia post I referred to earlier has not been edited since March, nor do I see where it could be.

 

http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Brave_and_the_Bold_Vol_1_60

[Zonker]

That early 1970s DC Super-Spectacular reprint of B&B 54 certainly was marketed as a Teen Titans story on the cover. It made me curious to seek out the similar reprint of B&B 60, in DC-12, also known as Superboy #185 in 1972:

 

The Astounding Separated Man. In their very first case , the original Teen Titans-- Robin, Kid Flash, Wonder Girl, and Aqualad...

 

[Silver]

That's a great catch, I forgot about that book.I think the Titans are on the back cover, but I don't have that scanned:

 

[Zonker]

I think the Titans are on the back cover

 

 

(thumbs u That's Mal Duncan at the lower left corner of the front cover. The back cover has Robin, Kid Flash, Aqualad, and Wonder Girl in her 1970s red outfit.

[Aman619]

You guys have had some sport arguing about the teal leaves, and the "clues" left by DC editors 50 years ago. I suggest you each take a step backward, and just simply look at this from the perspective of DC back then just trying to come up with ideas to sell some more comics.

 

First they convert B&B into a team up book of their many characters.

 

A few issues into this new idea, they tema up the kid sidekicks.

 

Then bck to Batman more superhero team ups.

 

But sales ficus came in positively for the sidekicks, so they do what they always did: try to capitalize on it. They bring them back, give the them a name and a pay for a logo. And they add another kid sidekick they forgot to dd the first time.

 

And that's the TRUE origin of the teen titans.

 

You guys are actually arguing over the story content and dialogue as if it was recorded verbatim from actual events and dialogue! : ). Sheesh.

 

 

BB54 led directly to BB60. BB60 might have been the first appearance of the Teen Titans name, logo Wonder Girls inclusion, etc etc, but the Teen Titans CONCEPT originated in BB54.

 

But-- that's just my opinion. As was posted, nobody is changing their minds here....

[sfcityduck]

Zonker, that's a great find and another bit of info that I didn't know. DC clearly has not been perfectly consistent in its position. But I think the bulk of the time it has viewed BB 54 as the first appearance. I'm now really curious to see what position they'll take in the 50th anniversary book, as that will probably put the nail in the coffin of one of the two views expressed in this thread.

 

Aman, I obviously agree with your views. But, don't think that when I get into these kind of debates I won't change my mind. The way I test a position is I argue it out, but, in the end, if I like the opposing arguments better, I'll agree with that position. Having said that, though, I think you're right that blazing and I aren't going to reach consensus in this debate. But, that doesn't make it pointless ... until we run out of things to say and no new information comes to light.

[JTLarsen]

You guys have had some sport arguing about the teal leaves, and the "clues" left by DC editors 50 years ago. I suggest you each take a step backward, and just simply look at this from the perspective of DC back then just trying to come up with ideas to sell some more comics.

 

First they convert B&B into a team up book of their many characters.

 

A few issues into this new idea, they tema up the kid sidekicks.

 

Then bck to Batman more superhero team ups.

 

But sales ficus came in positively for the sidekicks, so they do what they always did: try to capitalize on it. They bring them back, give the them a name and a pay for a logo. And they add another kid sidekick they forgot to dd the first time.

 

And that's the TRUE origin of the teen titans.

 

You guys are actually arguing over the story content and dialogue as if it was recorded verbatim from actual events and dialogue! : ). Sheesh.

 

 

BB54 led directly to BB60. BB60 might have been the first appearance of the Teen Titans name, logo Wonder Girls inclusion, etc etc, but the Teen Titans CONCEPT originated in BB54.

 

But-- that's just my opinion. As was posted, nobody is changing their minds here....

 

I think that's pretty much right. And to your point about quoting subsequent texts, I agree there's no point to that--especially when the argument being made is that the conventional wisdom since then is not actually supported by the comics themselves. So, yes, I agree Teen Titans concept originated in BB54...Teen Titans itself had its first appearance in BB60.

 

Peace in our time!

[HighStakesComics]

Zonker, that's a great find and another bit of info that I didn't know. DC clearly has not been perfectly consistent in its position. But I think the bulk of the time it has viewed BB 54 as the first appearance. I'm now really curious to see what position they'll take in the 50th anniversary book, as that will probably put the nail in the coffin of one of the two views expressed in this thread.

 

Aman, I obviously agree with your views. But, don't think that when I get into these kind of debates I won't change my mind. The way I test a position is I argue it out, but, in the end, if I like the opposing arguments better, I'll agree with that position. Having said that, though, I think you're right that blazing and I aren't going to reach consensus in this debate. But, that doesn't make it pointless ... until we run out of things to say and no new information comes to light.

 

Can you site one specific example where DC has posted BB 54 is the first TT with the same clarity as what was posted last evening? By one example I mean one that doesn't require 5 paragraphs of justifications and interpretations to go along with it.

[sfcityduck]

 

Can you site one specific example where DC has posted BB 54 is the first TT with the same clarity as what was posted last evening? By one example I mean one that doesn't require 5 paragraphs of justifications and interpretations to go along with it.

 

The first reprinting of the story, the Official Teen Titans Index, the Silver Age Teen Titans Archive, the Teen Titans Showcase, and we're all waiting on the new 50th Anniversary (1964-2014) book (note BB 60 was 1965). Are you not reading the above posts?

 

I mean, what could be clearer than that DC has picked 2014 as the 50th Anniversary of the Teen Titans (being honored with graphic novel and new 50th anniversary compilation)? 1964-2014. Get it?

Edited October 24, 2014 by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

BB54 led directly to BB60. BB60 might have been the first appearance of the Teen Titans name, logo Wonder Girls inclusion, etc etc, but the Teen Titans CONCEPT originated in BB54.

 

 

So, yes, I agree Teen Titans concept originated in BB54...Teen Titans itself had its first appearance in BB60.

 

I don't think you agreeing with what Aman said.

[HighStakesComics]

 

Can you site one specific example where DC has posted BB 54 is the first TT with the same clarity as what was posted last evening? By one example I mean one that doesn't require 5 paragraphs of justifications and interpretations to go along with it.

 

The first reprinting of the story, the Official Teen Titans Index, the Silver Age Teen Titans Archive, the Teen Titans Showcase, and we're all waiting on the new 50th Anniversary (1964-2014) book (note BB 60 was 1965). Are you not reading the above posts?

 

I mean, what could be clearer than that DC has picked 2014 as the 50th Anniversary of the Teen Titans (being honored with graphic novel and new 50th anniversary compilation)? 1964-2014. Get it?

 

Maybe you did not read the earlier posts. BB 54 is the origin and 60 is the 1st app. No one is arguing BB 54 is not pertinent to the storyline, in a similar manner as FF 66 is to Warlock, but the team is neither complete or named prior to BB 60.

 

If all of your sources site BB 54 as the first app you shouldn't have troubling providing a panel to justify your stance right?

 

Those in the BB 60 camp have provided several panels, front covers, comparable scenarios (Subby 34) that provide reasonable evidence that contradicts your position.

 

Last night another panel was provided that sealed the proverbial deal. You remind me of the last juror to hold out in 12 Angry Men. You cannot base your argument on fact, only emotion.

[sfcityduck]

 

Maybe you did not read the earlier posts. BB 54 is the origin and 60 is the 1st app. No one is arguing BB 54 is not pertinent to the storyline, in a similar manner as FF 66 is to Warlock, but the team is neither complete or named prior to BB 60.

 

If all of your sources site BB 54 as the first app you shouldn't have troubling providing a panel to justify your stance right?

 

Those in the BB 60 camp have provided several panels, front covers, comparable scenarios (Subby 34) that provide reasonable evidence that contradicts your position.

 

Last night another panel was provided that sealed the proverbial deal. You remind me of the last juror to hold out in 12 Angry Men. You cannot base your argument on fact, only emotion.

 

The only emotion in this argument is, apparently, derived from your investment wishes. Let's cut through the fog:

 

You asked for "one specific example" where DC has endorsed BB 54 as the first Teen Titans appearance. I gave you many:

 

* DC's official 50th Anniversary of the first appearance of the Teen Titans keys off of BB 54. This is the elephant in the room you keep ignoring.

 

* DC's two most recent compilations of all Teen Titans stories, the 2003 DC Archives and the 2006 Showcase, both start with BB 54 as the first appearance. Again, you ignore this.

 

* DC's Official New Teen Titans index identifies BB 54 as the first appearance. And that was vetted by DC staff and include notable fan/scholars like Dr. Jerry Bails and George Olshevsky.

 

Obviously, none of the above have "panels" to post.

 

But, what does have "panels" is the cover to the very first reprinting of BB 54 in DC 100 Page No. 21, and it identifies BB 54 as a "Teen Titans" story on its cover! Again, you ignore this.

 

You can dodge, duck and weave, but coming down the pike is DC's official 50th Anniversary compilation of Teen Titans stories. We'll find out on November 25 what position DC takes. Are you going to ignore that too if it doesn't go your way?

[HighStakesComics]

Yep, celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Teen Titans 6 months after the 50 year anniversary of BB 54, but prior to the 50th anniversary of BB 60, a point Ive made previously.

 

Very similar to the formation of the Teen Titans, after 54, but before 60.

 

You were shown a panel last night where DC clearly in plain English references 60 as the 1st appearance of the "original team". You can argue with me all you want, but how can you argue against that? Unless you have something that contradicts the two panels cited no reasonable person could reach your conclusion. There is ample evidence here for a label change.

[HighStakesComics]

Check Mate