1st Teen Titans 3 3

[sfcityduck]

Has the market ever shifted on a first appearance?

(honestly asking, I dont know)

 

Sgt. Rock is probably the best-known example. Other first appearances have been and are being debated, too, though.

 

What did they think it was before OAAW83?

 

They thought it was OAAW81.

 

 

Which is what the imfamous DC wiki says is the first Sgt. Rock (as does the writer of that issue -- Bob Haney).

 

DC Wiki

 

 

Edited September 14, 2015 by sfcityduck

[HighStakesComics]

Sharp copy, Duck! Love it!

[Foolkiller]

I'm sure someone already asked this, but why does it matter either way which issue was the first appearance?

 

I don't think enough people are going to change their minds either way, and OS is going to continue to recognize BB 54 as the first appearance.

 

I'm not sure there's going to be a "right" answer to this. And the debate doesn't really yield anything.

[miraclemet]

so with wikipedia being a questionable source is the DC wiki any more valid?

 

The DC wiki is not run by DC. It is run by wikia. Anyone can edit it.

 

Here's what it actually says right now:

 

Origins

 

The Teen Titans were a team of young super-heroes who were the former sidekicks of older, and more experienced heroes. They first came together when Robin, Aqualad and Kid Flash responded to an emergency taking place in the hamlet village known as Hatton Corners. There they fought a mysterious villain calling himself Mister Twister. After defeating Mister Twister and robbing him of his elemental powers, the three young heroes decided to band together as the Teen Titans. [1] This decision was supported by their respective mentors, Batman, Aquaman and the Flash.

 

Their first actual mission as the Teen Titans also yielded the team’s first recruit – Wonder Girl.

 

[fn. 1 Brave and the Bold 54]

 

DC Wiki

 

thats new earth TT,

 

original earth TT still says my quote

 

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

 

 

[miraclemet]

I'm sure someone already asked this, but why does it matter either way which issue was the first appearance?

...

 

I'm not sure there's going to be a "right" answer to this. And the debate doesn't really yield anything.

 

Hi Foolkiller, welcome to the internet!

 

 

(totally kidding!)

 

 

[nearmint]

I'm sure someone already asked this, but why does it matter either way which issue was the first appearance?

 

I don't think enough people are going to change their minds either way, and OS is going to continue to recognize BB 54 as the first appearance.

 

I'm not sure there's going to be a "right" answer to this. And the debate doesn't really yield anything.

 

You were clearly sent here by Mister Twister to confuse us.

 

No, it doesn't really matter which issue was the first appearance, and I agree, there's no right answer that will satisfy everyone.

 

So, as I said before, can we all go back to interacting with our family and friends again?

 

[sfcityduck]

Sharp copy, Duck! Love it!

 

Not mine. I've got a 1, from Dad's childhood collection, though.

[sfcityduck]

so with wikipedia being a questionable source is the DC wiki any more valid?

 

The DC wiki is not run by DC. It is run by wikia. Anyone can edit it.

 

Here's what it actually says right now:

 

Origins

 

The Teen Titans were a team of young super-heroes who were the former sidekicks of older, and more experienced heroes. They first came together when Robin, Aqualad and Kid Flash responded to an emergency taking place in the hamlet village known as Hatton Corners. There they fought a mysterious villain calling himself Mister Twister. After defeating Mister Twister and robbing him of his elemental powers, the three young heroes decided to band together as the Teen Titans. [1] This decision was supported by their respective mentors, Batman, Aquaman and the Flash.

 

Their first actual mission as the Teen Titans also yielded the team’s first recruit – Wonder Girl.

 

[fn. 1 Brave and the Bold 54]

 

DC Wiki

 

thats new earth TT,

 

original earth TT still says my quote

 

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

 

 

Proving how screwed up wikis are - they aren't even internally consistent. Or do you have a line on a "new earth" BB 54 I can buy?

[Crimebuster]

 

Well, we actually know NO team exists when they first gather--since Robin tells us the team wasn't formed until after. But I think as long as you're explicit -- as you're being here (I'm not saying you weren't in the past) -- about what you consider a first appearance, I have no problem with that. I don't want people NOT to buy BB 54, I just don't want them surprised/disappointed by what's inside. So, thanks for hanging in there with the discussion and for your willingness to clarify your position and criteria.

 

I'm really getting tired of this misinformation.

 

Robin never says: "The Teen Titans were formed after BB 54."

 

Instead, he says: "Teen Titans is a group of junior crime-fighters I set up after Kid Flash, Aqualad and I helped the kids of Hatton Corners!*"

 

See the "*"? Below that quote, the editorial box cites to "* See Brave and the Bold 54"

 

A very reasonable interpretation of that text is that when Robin talks about the formation of the Teen Titans he is saying that they were set up immediately after and as a result of the Hatton Corners adventure set forth in B&B 54. And that is clearly DC's editorial position because to support Robin's comment about the setting up of the Teen Titans they tell readers to "See Brave and the Bold 54." DC, of course, reinforced this conclusion in Teen Titans 1 when they started the "brief history of the Teen Titans" with a discussion of B&B 54 and explained that B&B 60 was only the "next time" the group appeared with the "addition" of Wonder Girl.

 

 

I honestly just don't get you, man. You characterize this as "misinformation," and then immediately follow it up with a long explanation that shows this "misinformation" to be completely correct, yet somehow you think you're rebutting it. I just don't follow your logic here at all.

 

Again:

 

A very reasonable interpretation of that text is that when Robin talks about the formation of the Teen Titans he is saying that they were set up immediately after and as a result of the Hatton Corners adventure set forth in B&B 54.

 

Yes. That's precisely what we have been saying.

 

After the story in #54, they formed the Teen Titans.

 

It doesn't matter whether it happened immediately, as a result of their team-up, or not. I don't believe any of us have ever disputed that. What matters is that it happened after, which it clearly did, since it doesn't happen in the story in #54.

 

There's no misinformation here. There's just information that is being interpreted differently. I simply don't understand your interpretation of it, though, because how a quote saying it happened after #54 somehow proves it happened in #54 is beyond me.

[JTLarsen]

 

Well, we actually know NO team exists when they first gather--since Robin tells us the team wasn't formed until after. But I think as long as you're explicit -- as you're being here (I'm not saying you weren't in the past) -- about what you consider a first appearance, I have no problem with that. I don't want people NOT to buy BB 54, I just don't want them surprised/disappointed by what's inside. So, thanks for hanging in there with the discussion and for your willingness to clarify your position and criteria.

 

I'm really getting tired of this misinformation.

 

Robin never says: "The Teen Titans were formed after BB 54."

 

Instead, he says: "Teen Titans is a group of junior crime-fighters I set up after Kid Flash, Aqualad and I helped the kids of Hatton Corners!*"

 

See the "*"? Below that quote, the editorial box cites to "* See Brave and the Bold 54"

 

A very reasonable interpretation of that text is that when Robin talks about the formation of the Teen Titans he is saying that they were set up immediately after and as a result of the Hatton Corners adventure set forth in B&B 54. And that is clearly DC's editorial position because to support Robin's comment about the setting up of the Teen Titans they tell readers to "See Brave and the Bold 54." DC, of course, reinforced this conclusion in Teen Titans 1 when they started the "brief history of the Teen Titans" with a discussion of B&B 54 and explained that B&B 60 was only the "next time" the group appeared with the "addition" of Wonder Girl.

 

If you're now pinning your argument on the placement of the asterisk -- which, :: -- I'm going to have to point out that the asterisk doesn't come after "set up," it comes after "helped the kids of Hatton Corners." In other words, when they say "See Brave and the Bold 54" they're referring to the helping of the kids of Hatton Corners. Which makes sense, because you wouldn't tell someone to see BB 54 for the "set up" part, because you can't see it in there, because it doesn't happen in there.

 

Or else, feel free to show us the panel* you think they want us to see.

 

* see Brave and Bold 60.

[JTLarsen]

I'm sure someone already asked this, but why does it matter either way which issue was the first appearance?

 

I don't think enough people are going to change their minds either way, and OS is going to continue to recognize BB 54 as the first appearance.

 

I'm not sure there's going to be a "right" answer to this. And the debate doesn't really yield anything.

 

I can only speak for myself and say why I'm engaged in the debate -- because I want people who might be inclined to spend money on it to know what they're getting...and not getting.

 

I've been burnt by buying things based on what Overstreet told me, reading them, and finding out Overstreet was wrong. So, I'm trying to let people know, if you buy Brave and Bold 54, don't expect to see a superhero team form -- let alone appear -- within those pages. You get three future members working together, yes, but they don't form a team or even decide to.

[sfcityduck]

 

After the story in #54, they formed the Teen Titans.

 

It doesn't matter whether it happened immediately, as a result of their team-up, or not. I don't believe any of us have ever disputed that. What matters is that it happened after, which it clearly did, since it doesn't happen in the story in #54.

 

There's no misinformation here. There's just information that is being interpreted differently. I simply don't understand your interpretation of it, though, because how a quote saying it happened after #54 somehow proves it happened in #54 is beyond me.

 

Robin doesn't say it happened "after the story in #54" or "after B&B 54" -- that's the misinformation.

 

Let's what we can agree on:

 

(1) The Teen Titans, as a group, were formed off camera. Agree or Disagree?

 

(2) The stated reason why the Teen Titans became a group was "the adventure in Hatton Corners." Agree or Disagree?

 

(3) B&B 60 states the group was formed off-camera prior to the events in that issue. Agree or disagree?

 

(4) B&B 60 specifically cites to B&B 54 when it states that the TT were formed off-camera. Agree or disagree?

 

(5) B&B 54 ends with DC touting a "new team". Agree or disagree?

 

(6) TT 1 begins its history of the TT by starting with B&B 54 and only refers to B&B 60 as the "next time" the group had an adventure. Agree or disagree?

 

(7) TT 1 states that Wonder Girl was an "addition" the "new team." Agree or disagree?

 

If you are honest, you have to agree with (1) through (7).

 

Now, explain to me why the "group" could not have been formed off-camera in B&B 54 as DC states is the case.

 

 

 

 

[sfcityduck]

To put it another way, if, in B&B 60, a flashback to B&B 54 had occurred with Robin, Kid Flash and Aqualad saying to each other while standing in Hatton's Corner: "Wow, what a great job we did together. Let's form a team!" Would you still be calling B&B 60 the first appearance of the Teen Titans even though they'd already had their origin adventure together.

 

Stated differently, yet again, do you really think Avengers 2 is the first adventure of the Avengers?

 

I don't. And therein lies the difference.

[Lazyboy]

(5) B&B 54 ends with DC touting a "new team". Agree or disagree?

 

If you are honest, you have to agree with (1) through (7).

 

Seriously? No, really... seriously?

Are you jaydogrules' shill account?

[Lazyboy]

To put it another way, if, in B&B 60, a flashback to B&B 54 had occurred with Robin, Kid Flash and Aqualad saying to each other while standing in Hatton's Corner: "Wow, what a great job we did together. Let's form a team!" Would you still be calling B&B 60 the first appearance of the Teen Titans even though they'd already had their origin adventure together.

 

That would just be another retcon, like everything used to justify the claim that the Teen Titans first appeared in BB 54.

 

Stated differently, yet again, do you really think Avengers 2 is the first adventure of the Avengers?

 

I don't. And therein lies the difference.

 

The battle against Loki is what led to the formation of the Avengers. The battle against the Space Phantom is the first time the Avengers fight.

 

We know the Hulk left the team almost immediately. What if he had refused to join in the first place? Would it still be the Avengers fighting Loki in your opinion? What if another original member had refused?

 

 

[Lazyboy]

If someone else would like to discuss my comments, I'm more than happy to

 

What made you change your mind?

[sfcityduck]

 

Stated differently, yet again, do you really think Avengers 2 is the first adventure of the Avengers?

 

I don't. And therein lies the difference.

 

The battle against Loki is what led to the formation of the Avengers. The battle against the Space Phantom is the first time the Avengers fight.

 

We know the Hulk left the team almost immediately. What if he had refused to join in the first place? Would it still be the Avengers fighting Loki in your opinion? What if another original member had refused?

 

 

Nothing left to discuss. If you don't think that Avengers 1 tells the first Avengers adventure, then we have no common ground.

 

If Hulk had refused to join the Avengers, Avengers 1 would still have told the first Avengers adventure of the fight against Loki. Hulk just wouldn't have been one of the Avengers.

 

GS X-Men 1 is the first New X-Men adventure even though characters refused to join the team. Or do you also believe that GS X-Men 1 is NOT the first appearance of the New X-Men? !

 

I don't recall a "team" being "officially" formed in GS X-Men 1. I do recall the issue ending with a real question as to who, if anyone, was going to be an X-Man. And in the next issue, we found out that certain characters in the initial adventure would not be joining the team.

 

Yet, it is still the first appearance of the New X-Men. We can at least agree on that, Right? [And if you can, then you should also agree Avengers 1 is the first adventure of the Avengers.]

[sfcityduck]

(5) B&B 54 ends with DC touting a "new team". Agree or disagree?

 

If you are honest, you have to agree with (1) through (7).

 

Seriously? No, really... seriously?

Are you jaydogrules' shill account?

 

I'm quoting the comic. Do you really disagree? I'm not asking for your interpretation of the words. I'm asking for your agreement to the fact that at the end of the issue DC touted a "new team." If you are honest, you have to agree to that fact. The "buts" are all your opinion and argument.

[Lazyboy]

(5) B&B 54 ends with DC touting a "new team". Agree or disagree?

 

If you are honest, you have to agree with (1) through (7).

 

Seriously? No, really... seriously?

Are you jaydogrules' shill account?

 

I'm quoting the comic. Do you really disagree? I'm not asking for your interpretation of the words. I'm asking for your agreement to the fact that at the end of the issue DC touted a "new team." If you are honest, you have to agree to that fact. The "buts" are all your opinion and argument.

 

Without context, words have no meaning.

[Lazyboy]

 

Stated differently, yet again, do you really think Avengers 2 is the first adventure of the Avengers?

 

I don't. And therein lies the difference.

 

The battle against Loki is what led to the formation of the Avengers. The battle against the Space Phantom is the first time the Avengers fight.

 

We know the Hulk left the team almost immediately. What if he had refused to join in the first place? Would it still be the Avengers fighting Loki in your opinion? What if another original member had refused?

 

 

Nothing left to discuss. If you don't think that Avengers 1 tells the first Avengers adventure, then we have no common ground.

 

If Hulk had refused to join the Avengers, Avengers 1 would still have told the first Avengers adventure of the fight against Loki. Hulk just wouldn't have been one of the Avengers.

 

GS X-Men 1 is the first New X-Men adventure even though characters refused to join the team. Or do you also believe that GS X-Men 1 is NOT the first appearance of the New X-Men? !

 

I don't recall a "team" being "officially" formed in GS X-Men 1. I do recall the issue ending with a real question as to who, if anyone, was going to be an X-Man. And in the next issue, we found out that certain characters in the initial adventure would not be joining the team.

 

Yet, it is still the first appearance of the New X-Men. We can at least agree on that, Right? [And if you can, then you should also agree Avengers 1 is the first adventure of the Avengers.]

 

There are no New X-Men, only X-Men. Eventually, there were so many members that they split into two teams, but that was in the 90s.

 

Do people call Avengers 16 the first appearance of the New Avengers?