• 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.

1st Teen Titans
3 3

Started by HighStakesComics,

1,128 posts in this topic

Lazyboy

Lazyboy

Posted
Posted
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?

 

1. Batman and Robin aren't a "team"

2. "The Dynamic Duo" is just a nickname

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lazyboy

Lazyboy

Posted
Posted

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.

 

 

 

 

That's the opposite of what the duck is arguing. He's saying Haney intended for BB 54 to be the first appearance of the team, but couldn't be bothered to actually form the team or come up with a name.

 

But that generic editorial blurb fixes everything! :luhv:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JTLarsen

JTLarsen

Posted
Posted

 

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.

 

That's hilarious. At no point did I fault the quality of the story. And by the way, the way the TT was formed was utterly formulaic AND hit you over the head with it -- Robin expositions the hell out of it in BB 60. So it's quite clear that, at the time, the elements you find sufficient fifty years later were NOT at the time considered sufficient. Which is why Robin gave them to us in BB 60.

 

And your definition of "team," by the way, makes Green Lantern-Green Arrow an official superhero team, along with Superman-Flash. So, no, I don't need definitions to be formulaic. But they do need to be consistent. Your definition of a team is so loose it would include any team-up that occurs more than once. If you stand by that, fine, but people should know that's what you mean when you say the Teen Titans appear in BB 54.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted

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.

 

 

 

 

That's the opposite of what the duck is arguing. He's saying Haney intended for BB 54 to be the first appearance of the team, but couldn't be bothered to actually form the team or come up with a name.

 

But that generic editorial blurb fixes everything! :luhv:

 

I could be wrong but that's not what I got from SFCD's argument.

 

What I got was similar to what I'm seeing in that they put the team (or team up if you must) together in #54, realized they had a hit after that issue and then gave them an actual 'Showcase' appearance (in BB of course :insane: ) as the Teen Titans in #60 which automatically retconned #54 as their 1st appearance since 3 of the 4 originally appeared in there first.

 

I realize this doesn't follow traditional formulas of 'we are introducing this team for the 1st time here' but comics didn't have a set formula - they simply printed whatever would sell and most universes grew organically based on what would sell, not with a grand master plan that started in a board room.

 

This is the only logical way for me to see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted
And by the way, the way the TT was formed was utterly formulaic AND hit you over the head with it -- Robin expositions the hell out of it in BB 60. So it's quite clear that, at the time, the elements you find sufficient fifty years later were NOT at the time considered sufficient. Which is why Robin gave them to us in BB 60.

 

The 'over the top expositioning' by Robin is just the editorial team trying to give the team a 'grand unveiling' because they missed that opportunity in #54. It's just dripping with editorial spin and them saving face.

 

But it's still all based on #54 when they first met. They were teens, they were titans. They just weren't the Teen Titans.

 

lol

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sfcityduck

sfcityduck

Posted
Posted

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.

 

 

Roy, I hate to disagree with you, but the creators have said that the editorial directive that led to BB 54 was to do a "Junior Justice League" adventure. DC had, in fact, suggested in the letters column of BB years before that a JJLA adventure would be forthcoming in response to fan demand. Haney's recollection is that it was Kashdan who made the directive. Haney said in 1996:

 

"I think it was George Kashdan who first said: 'How about a series starring the kid superheroes?' and that later I was the one who came up with the name Teen Titans. ... It was no great earth shaking creative stroke, taking some already existing house characters and combining them into a team...."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sfcityduck

sfcityduck

Posted
Posted

 

And your definition of "team," by the way, makes Green Lantern-Green Arrow an official superhero team, along with Superman-Flash. So, no, I don't need definitions to be formulaic. But they do need to be consistent. Your definition of a team is so loose it would include any team-up that occurs more than once. If you stand by that, fine, but people should know that's what you mean when you say the Teen Titans appear in BB 54.

 

What the heck is an "official" superhero team? Do they get a membership badge? Or is the title of a comic or continuing series enough? By any measure, Green Lantern-Green Arrow was an official superhero team. Have you heard of GL-GA 76? Read the title. It is worth money for a reason.

 

Superman-Flash did not have a steady series of adventures, they had very sporadic cross-overs.

 

Superman-Batman, on the other hand, did have a monthly series of adventures starting with World's Finest 71 (again a "key" worth a premium). Of course, the comic collecting community recognizes Superman 76 and World's Finest 94 as notable for telling the origin of the Superman-Batman team (and, hey, check out the cover of WF 94).

 

And I won't even go into Power Man & Iron Fist, etc. at Marvel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sfcityduck

sfcityduck

Posted
Posted
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?

 

I'm seeing a lot of misinformation on this thread and not a lot of clarification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted

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.

 

 

Roy, I hate to disagree with you, but the creators have said that the editorial directive that led to BB 54 was to do a "Junior Justice League" adventure. DC had, in fact, suggested in the letters column of BB years before that a JJLA adventure would be forthcoming in response to fan demand. Haney's recollection is that it was Kashdan who made the directive. Haney said in 1996:

 

"I think it was George Kashdan who first said: 'How about a series starring the kid superheroes?' and that later I was the one who came up with the name Teen Titans. ... It was no great earth shaking creative stroke, taking some already existing house characters and combining them into a team...."

 

Right, I meant that it was not the 1st TT in name as the name had not yet been created.

 

Most of the opposition to BB #54 being the 1st TT seems to stem from the name not yet being announced as the TT in BB #54.

 

The editorial intent was there, the characters were there, the team up was there - the only thing missing was the name.

 

And then BB #60 ran on the coat tails of #54's success and a name was given to a team which had already been formulated 7 issues prior.

 

I think we're in agreement in theory. I just worded it poorly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
goldust40

goldust40

Posted
Posted

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.

 

 

Roy, I hate to disagree with you, but the creators have said that the editorial directive that led to BB 54 was to do a "Junior Justice League" adventure. DC had, in fact, suggested in the letters column of BB years before that a JJLA adventure would be forthcoming in response to fan demand. Haney's recollection is that it was Kashdan who made the directive. Haney said in 1996:

 

"I think it was George Kashdan who first said: 'How about a series starring the kid superheroes?' and that later I was the one who came up with the name Teen Titans. ... It was no great earth shaking creative stroke, taking some already existing house characters and combining them into a team...."

 

Right, I meant that it was not the 1st TT in name as the name had not yet been created.

 

Most of the opposition to BB #54 being the 1st TT seems to stem from the name not yet being announced as the TT in BB #54.

 

The editorial intent was there, the characters were there, the team up was there - the only thing missing was the name.

 

And then BB #60 ran on the coat tails of #54's success and a name was given to a team which had already been formulated 7 issues prior.

 

I think we're in agreement in theory. I just worded it poorly.

 

And it only took 91 pages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Crimebuster

Crimebuster

Posted
Posted

And it only took 91 pages.

 

What did?

 

I've been in agreement with SFCD's points all along. There is disagreement coming. :preach:

 

Well, yes. Because this:

 

Most of the opposition to BB #54 being the 1st TT seems to stem from the name not yet being announced as the TT in BB #54.

 

The editorial intent was there, the characters were there, the team up was there - the only thing missing was the name.

 

And then BB #60 ran on the coat tails of #54's success and a name was given to a team which had already been formulated 7 issues prior

 

 

"Most of the opposition" is not because the name wasn't there, it's because the team wasn't there.

 

If there was editorial intent to create a new team in #54, they failed spectacularly to show it in the actual story.

 

Any importance that #54 has was retroactively imbued on it by the introduction of the Teen Titans in #60. If #60 had not introduced the Teen Titans, #54 would just be another team-up like #53 or #55. There is nothing in #54 that sets it apart from the other team-up issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted
If #60 had not introduced the Teen Titans, #54 would just be another team-up like #53 or #55. There is nothing in #54 that sets it apart from the other team-up issues.

 

Except that the same people reappear, only now under a team name. Which is why #54 is different than #53 or #55.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
3 3
Go to topic listing