1st Teen Titans 3 3

[sfcityduck]

 

3. The Inclusion of Wonder-Girl-Making her first appearance in 60, the addition of Wonder Girl as a founding member constitutes the formation of the original team. Prior to her debut, there was never any reference to the Teen Titans, therefore it would be hard to argue that the team existed prior to 60.

 

And the same 3 points I made on page 5 hold true. None of these can be disputed without the use of a subjective argument.

 

Sure they can. As an example, you're item number 3 is not based in any fact. Wonder Girl, according to the "brief history of the Teen Titans" set forth in Teen Titans 1, was "an addition to the new team" not a "founding member."

 

All of your assertions boil down to one argument: You think that the group named the Teen Titans could not come into existence until it was named. That's a subjective evaluation that most of comicdom and D.C. disagree with.

 

 

The first panel to introduce Wonder Girl is the same panel that "introduces comicdom to the Teen Titans", or do you still contend this doesn't really mean comicdom was introduced to the Teen Titans?

 

Nothing in BB 60 says "introducing the Teen Titans." Teen Titans 1 doesn't say what you keep claiming it says. It states:

 

"Next time around, in B&B 60, we took the lead from the vast number of fans who called for the addition of Wonder Girl to the new team, and we introduced them to comicdom as the Teen Titans."

 

Get it? The team started in BB 54, "next time" it appeared was BB 60, with the "addition of Wonder Girl" and the new roster was introduced (e.g. named) "as the Teen Titans." Added a member and gained a name. That's what BB 60 did.

 

[HighStakesComics]

 

3. The Inclusion of Wonder-Girl-Making her first appearance in 60, the addition of Wonder Girl as a founding member constitutes the formation of the original team. Prior to her debut, there was never any reference to the Teen Titans, therefore it would be hard to argue that the team existed prior to 60.

 

And the same 3 points I made on page 5 hold true. None of these can be disputed without the use of a subjective argument.

 

Sure they can. As an example, you're item number 3 is not based in any fact. Wonder Girl, according to the "brief history of the Teen Titans" set forth in Teen Titans 1, was "an addition to the new team" not a "founding member."

 

All of your assertions boil down to one argument: You think that the group named the Teen Titans could not come into existence until it was named. That's a subjective evaluation that most of comicdom and D.C. disagree with.

 

 

The first panel to introduce Wonder Girl is the same panel that "introduces comicdom to the Teen Titans", or do you still contend this doesn't really mean comicdom was introduced to the Teen Titans?

 

Nothing in BB 60 says "introducing the Teen Titans." Teen Titans 1 doesn't say what you keep claiming it says. It states:

 

"Next time around, in B&B 60, we took the lead from the vast number of fans who called for the addition of Wonder Girl to the new team, and we introduced them to comicdom as the Teen Titans."

 

Get it? The team started in BB 54, "next time" it appeared was BB 60, with the "addition of Wonder Girl" and the new roster was introduced (e.g. named) "as the Teen Titans." Added a member and gained a name. That's what BB 60 did.

 

The (e.g named) and the subjective underlining are blatent misrepresentations

[JTLarsen]

FWIW, here my $.02. I believe a strong case can be made for the #60. Here's why:

 

1. The Title-Whereas 54 appears to be a Brave and the Bold featuring an an Aqualad, Kid Flash & Robin team-up, 60 clearly defines on the FC that these are indeed the Teen Titans.

 

 

And the same 3 points I made on page 5 hold true. None of these can be disputed without the use of a subjective argument.

 

And, yet another subjective argument based on a factual misstatement. BB 54 does not say it is a "team-up." A team-up is a one time short that doesn't lead to anything. In contrast, BB 54 used the term "team," which is when a "team-up" evolves into a regular grouping, which is clearly what happened here. BB 60 is the "next time" the "new team" appeared according to Teen Titans 1, so the facts don't support your subjective opinion.

 

There's a reason comic fans didn't rise up in outrage when the Price Guide listed BB 54 as the first Teen Titans in 1980. It was obvious to everyone that it was.

 

Did you miss the PAGES worth of examples of BB calling other "team-ups" by the term "team"? Or do you consider every single teaming that occurred in BB a new superhero team?

 

Oh, and fans didn't rise up in outrage about the Sgt. Rock listing, either. Which has since been corrected, as this one gradually is being.

[JTLarsen]

Again, this is where we disagree. I don't think a team name or roster need to be revealed in order for it to be the first appearance.

 

But a team should be formed or exist, no?

[JTLarsen]

 

3. The Inclusion of Wonder-Girl-Making her first appearance in 60, the addition of Wonder Girl as a founding member constitutes the formation of the original team. Prior to her debut, there was never any reference to the Teen Titans, therefore it would be hard to argue that the team existed prior to 60.

 

And the same 3 points I made on page 5 hold true. None of these can be disputed without the use of a subjective argument.

 

Sure they can. As an example, you're item number 3 is not based in any fact. Wonder Girl, according to the "brief history of the Teen Titans" set forth in Teen Titans 1, was "an addition to the new team" not a "founding member."

 

All of your assertions boil down to one argument: You think that the group named the Teen Titans could not come into existence until it was named. That's a subjective evaluation that most of comicdom and D.C. disagree with.

 

 

The first panel to introduce Wonder Girl is the same panel that "introduces comicdom to the Teen Titans", or do you still contend this doesn't really mean comicdom was introduced to the Teen Titans?

 

Nothing in BB 60 says "introducing the Teen Titans." Teen Titans 1 doesn't say what you keep claiming it says. It states:

 

"Next time around, in B&B 60, we took the lead from the vast number of fans who called for the addition of Wonder Girl to the new team, and we introduced them to comicdom as the Teen Titans."

 

Get it? The team started in BB 54, "next time" it appeared was BB 60, with the "addition of Wonder Girl" and the new roster was introduced (e.g. named) "as the Teen Titans." Added a member and gained a name. That's what BB 60 did.

 

There is textual evidence for both sides. Comics.org, editorial captions, Haney interviews, you name it. None of what people SAY about BB54 can change the fact that at no point does a superhero team exist in that issue. That's why we've seen no panel of it (unlike Avengers).

[VintageComics]

Did you miss the PAGES worth of examples of BB calling other "team-ups" by the term "team"? Or do you consider every single teaming that occurred in BB a new superhero team?

 

How often did a DC 'team up' become a 'team'?

 

That seems to be the defining line.

 

3 people team up as a one off and it's just a 'team up'.

 

If the team up is repeated then the team up becomes redefined as a team (even retroactively - which is common in comics as nobody thought they had a sure thing on their hands, ever).

 

I have no problem agreeing that if the 3 characters did not initially team up again in #60 then #54 would just be considered a simple team up issue. But the characters did continue and that fact alone redefines what #54 was.

 

During issue #54 it was simply a team up.

 

Once the editorial team decided to perpetuate the team up #54 became the origin (and by definition) the 1st appearance of the team, even if they weren't named.

 

Again, just how I logically see it.

 

 

[Lazyboy]

There was no team formed or named in BB 54. Only in hindsight does it look any different than the team-ups from any other issue of The Brave and the Bold.

 

At what point does action trump intent?

[sfcityduck]

There was no team formed or named in BB 54. Only in hindsight does it look any different than the team-ups from any other issue of The Brave and the Bold.

 

At what point does action trump intent?

 

I don't think it looks like the other stories in BB. It's a story telling of how three teen sidekicks come together in the face of a common enemy with a teen specific angle. At the end of the story, after initial conflict, the three have learned how to work as a team and a "new team" is declared. And the introduction of this team of JLA sidekicks occurs in the same comic that earlier gave us the JLA. I don't think DC was lying in TT 1 when DC said that the issue was recognized by the fans as a JJLA team (a team promised earlier by DC in the pages of BB) and that fans wanted more stories with Wonder Girl added to the "new team." The intent was to have a JJLA adventure and that's what happened; they just gave the team a different name and added a member for the "next time" the "new team" appeared in BB 60. So, here, there was intent to have a JJLA adventure and action (they presented it) followed by reaction (fans demand more and WG addition) followed by more action by DC.

Edited September 9, 2015 by sfcityduck

[nearmint]

Again, this is where we disagree. I don't think a team name or roster need to be revealed in order for it to be the first appearance.

 

But a team should be formed or exist, no?

 

If 3 heroes work to defeat a common foe in one issue, and then 6 issues later add a fourth hero and somewhere in the interim starting calling themselves The Teen Titans, then I consider the first adventure with the 3 heroes as the first appearance of the team. I don't think you do.

 

As I've said twice in this thread, already, I think the BB54 crowd just has a different way of looking at the history of a team than the BB60 crowd, but all I get back are more arguments for BB60 being the first appearance. We will never agree, so let's just agree to disagree and go back to spending time with our families again.

[JTLarsen]

Did you miss the PAGES worth of examples of BB calling other "team-ups" by the term "team"? Or do you consider every single teaming that occurred in BB a new superhero team?

 

How often did a DC 'team up' become a 'team'?

 

That seems to be the defining line.

 

3 people team up as a one off and it's just a 'team up'.

 

If the team up is repeated then the team up becomes redefined as a team (even retroactively - which is common in comics as nobody thought they had a sure thing on their hands, ever).

 

I have no problem agreeing that if the 3 characters did not initially team up again in #60 then #54 would just be considered a simple team up issue. But the characters did continue and that fact alone redefines what #54 was.

 

During issue #54 it was simply a team up.

 

Once the editorial team decided to perpetuate the team up #54 became the origin (and by definition) the 1st appearance of the team, even if they weren't named.

 

Again, just how I logically see it.

 

First of all, thank you for acknowledging that BB54 was not an appearance of a new superhero team at the time (until, in your view, BB 60 made it so).

 

I'm okay with people calling 54 the origin -- in that it explains how the heroes first came to fight together. But the group, named or not, does not form in 54. It forms afterward. So I'm okay with however people want to CHARACTERIZE 54 -- prototype, origin, try-out. Go nuts. If people want to THINK of that as the first appearance, they're obviously free to do that, too. But to make the factual (or logical) claim that a team appeared is not open to subjectivity. The team appeared or it didn't. Members of the team appeared. But they did not form a team, nor were they, at the time, members of that later team.

 

A team's origin can occur off-camera or elements of it can occur on-camera, without the team appearing. You can call my parents' first date my origin, if you want, without me having to appear. BB 54, obviously, is only a partial origin, in that it doesn't actually establish how the TEAM was formed -- it just addresses how some individual members met, which is a different thing.

 

Note that this isn't how I see it, these are statements of fact, easily disprovable IF BB54 had the elements to disprove them.

[JTLarsen]

Again, this is where we disagree. I don't think a team name or roster need to be revealed in order for it to be the first appearance.

 

But a team should be formed or exist, no?

 

If 3 heroes work to defeat a common foe in one issue, and then 6 issues later add a fourth hero and somewhere in the interim starting calling themselves The Teen Titans, then I consider the first adventure with the 3 heroes as the first appearance of the team. I don't think you do.

 

As I've said twice in this thread, already, I think the BB54 crowd just has a different way of looking at the history of a team than the BB60 crowd, but all I get back are more arguments for BB60 being the first appearance. We will never agree, so let's just agree to disagree and go back to spending time with our families again.

 

You're eliding the fact that "somewhere in the interim" doesn't just involve a name change. Robin very clearly states that they formed the team. After BB 54. And I fully support your right to do so!

 

You can even consider it a first appearance. What's not okay, in my book, is unqualifiedly stating to others that BB 54 is the team's first appearance. That statement needs the kind of qualification you've identified, in terms of having a "different way of looking at" it. Because different people will differ on this, I think the honest thing to do when claiming first appearance status for BB 54 is to explain the applicable factors, as you have (and comics.org does, too, come to think of it).

[sfcityduck]

 

Note that this isn't how I see it, these are statements of fact, easily disprovable IF BB54 had the elements to disprove them.

 

Nope. You are stating your opinion. Because there are no "elements" for the formation of a "team." You are making those elements up. I disagree with what you think the "elements" are.

 

For me, it is enough to form a team if disparate heroes come together to fight a common menace, overcome the menace, usually after initial conflict and learning to work together, and then proceed to common adventures together. After all, that is how many teams form, including the Avengers, JLA, etc.

 

I don't need to have someone hit me over the head with a club and say: "We're now a team!" That was fine for Avengers 1, albeing a stilted way to end a story, but not the only way to do it.

 

It sure doesn't defeat that BB54 was the first appearance of the TT, as DC tells us is the case, just because the stilted discussion we see in the last panel of Avengers 1 occurred off-camera. The reality is DC introduced a new team in BB 54, called it a new team in that issue, did several follow up adventures with the new team, including one where they gain a name and a new member, and then gave them their own title wherein DC confirmed again that the team began in BB 54.

 

You seem to want to formulaic story telling. I don't need that. The way the TT was formed had all the elements most of us need without hitting us over the head with the obvious.

[sfcityduck]

 

You're eliding the fact that "somewhere in the interim" doesn't just involve a name change. Robin very clearly states that they formed the team. After BB 54. And I fully support your right to do so!

 

 

No where does Robin say they formed a team "after BB 54." To the contrary, when Robin informs Batman that they formed a team, he refers to the adventure told in BB 54 as the team's first adventure. Just like the Avengers formed a team "after the adventure with Loki" in Avengers 1, Robin says they formed a team "after the adventure in Hatton's Corner." In short, in both cases they formed the team because of those adventures and those adventures are the team's first adventures.

 

Or do you think the first Avengers adventure was in Avengers 2 and the adventure in Avengers 1 was the adventure of a "prototype" group?

[sfcityduck]

I think the honest thing to do when claiming first appearance status ... is to explain the applicable factors, as ... comics.org does.

 

Really? Where do they do that?

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

You're eliding the fact that "somewhere in the interim" doesn't just involve a name change. Robin very clearly states that they formed the team. After BB 54. And I fully support your right to do so!

 

 

No where does Robin say they formed a team "after BB 54." To the contrary, when Robin informs Batman that they formed a team, he refers to the adventure told in BB 54 as the team's first adventure. Just like the Avengers formed a team "after the adventure with Loki" in Avengers 1, Robin says they formed a team "after the adventure in Hatton's Corner." In short, in both cases they formed the team because of those adventures and those adventures are the team's first adventures.

 

Or do you think the first Avengers adventure was in Avengers 2 and the adventure in Avengers 1 was the adventure of a "prototype" group?

 

This was a point I wanted to make.

 

"After the adventure in Hatton's Corner" doesn't have to mean "after B&B #54."

 

The "adventure in Hatton's Corner" was over once Mr. Twister was stopped. So, anytime after that particular event ended is "after the adventure." It doesn't necessarily have to be after the issue is over. It could very well have occurred between panels.

 

Since, ya know, we're making those kinds of arguments...

[Lazyboy]

There was no team formed or named in BB 54. Only in hindsight does it look any different than the team-ups from any other issue of The Brave and the Bold.

 

At what point does action trump intent?

 

I don't think it looks like the other stories in BB. It's a story telling of how three teen sidekicks come together in the face of a common enemy with a teen specific angle. At the end of the story, after initial conflict, the three have learned how to work as a team and a "new team" is declared. And the introduction of this team of JLA sidekicks occurs in the same comic that earlier gave us the JLA. I don't think DC was lying in TT 1 when DC said that the issue was recognized by the fans as a JJLA team (a team promised earlier by DC in the pages of BB) and that fans wanted more stories with Wonder Girl added to the "new team." The intent was to have a JJLA adventure and that's what happened; they just gave the team a different name and added a member for the "next time" the "new team" appeared in BB 60. So, here, there was intent to have a JJLA adventure and action (they presented it) followed by reaction (fans demand more and WG addition) followed by more action by DC.

 

 

Multiple characters meet up for some reason, work together to accomplish a goal, then go their separate ways. That was the formula BB started using with issue 50 and 54 followed it to the letter.

 

Please stop taking that generic editorial blurb out of context.

[Lazyboy]

 

You're eliding the fact that "somewhere in the interim" doesn't just involve a name change. Robin very clearly states that they formed the team. After BB 54. And I fully support your right to do so!

 

 

No where does Robin say they formed a team "after BB 54." To the contrary, when Robin informs Batman that they formed a team, he refers to the adventure told in BB 54 as the team's first adventure. Just like the Avengers formed a team "after the adventure with Loki" in Avengers 1, Robin says they formed a team "after the adventure in Hatton's Corner." In short, in both cases they formed the team because of those adventures and those adventures are the team's first adventures.

 

Or do you think the first Avengers adventure was in Avengers 2 and the adventure in Avengers 1 was the adventure of a "prototype" group?

 

This was a point I wanted to make.

 

"After the adventure in Hatton's Corner" doesn't have to mean "after B&B #54."

 

The "adventure in Hatton's Corner" was over once Mr. Twister was stopped. So, anytime after that particular event ended is "after the adventure." It doesn't necessarily have to be after the issue is over. It could very well have occurred between panels.

 

Since, ya know, we're making those kinds of arguments...

 

Then that would be just another retcon, which would make Teen Titans 53 the actual first appearance.

[Lazyboy]

 

You're eliding the fact that "somewhere in the interim" doesn't just involve a name change. Robin very clearly states that they formed the team. After BB 54. And I fully support your right to do so!

 

 

No where does Robin say they formed a team "after BB 54." To the contrary, when Robin informs Batman that they formed a team, he refers to the adventure told in BB 54 as the team's first adventure. Just like the Avengers formed a team "after the adventure with Loki" in Avengers 1, Robin says they formed a team "after the adventure in Hatton's Corner." In short, in both cases they formed the team because of those adventures and those adventures are the team's first adventures.

 

Or do you think the first Avengers adventure was in Avengers 2 and the adventure in Avengers 1 was the adventure of a "prototype" group?

 

It wasn't a prototype, that was the adventure that formed the Avengers. But the Avengers still didn't exist until the end of the issue.

[VintageComics]

Then that would be just another retcon, which would make Teen Titans 53 the actual first appearance.

 

BB #54 was not intended to be the 1st TT but in hindsight it ended up being the 1st TT after they appeared in a 2nd issue in #60.

 

 

 

 

[50 CENT LONG BOX]

Another analogy- the team of Batman and Robin is known as "The Dynamic Duo" right?

 

Anybody dispute that......... Okay then.....

 

When were they first called "The Dynamic Duo"? Is that their first appearance?