1st Teen Titans 3 3

[sfcityduck]

This thread has been more interesting than an episode of Comic Book Men. Perry Mason or Matlock would be proud of all the information, evidence and arguments put forth.

 

I hope blazing is having fun, because I've sure enjoyed the discussion. And I've learned a fair bit about the TT I didn't know.

[HighStakesComics]

I love it. You've been a good sport, duck. We may not agree, but for the most part it's been a respectful discussion.

I apologize for my tenacity, but in the words of the immortal Abe Lincoln, "right makes might". I'm a believer in the merits of my argument.

[steveinthecity]

This thread has been more interesting than an episode of Comic Book Men. Perry Mason or Matlock would be proud of all the information, evidence and arguments put forth.

 

I hope blazing is having fun, because I've sure enjoyed the discussion. And I've learned a fair bit about the TT I didn't know.

+1

I was only ever aware of and read one issue(#30) prior to the later Wolfman/Perez relaunch, but I've appreciated the discussion. There's lots of DC SA info I'm not familiar with. This thread has been quite interesting to me.

[JTLarsen]

Still trying to understand the difference between the book pictured above and the BB54

 

Probably the biggest difference is that BB 54 concludes by celebrating the creation of a "new team of DC heroes" and Subby doesn't. Probably the second biggest difference is the next issue of Subby doesn't refer back to the prior issue as the origin of that new team.

 

Just like B&B 60 doesn't refer to B&B 54 as the origin of the Teen Titans. It explicitly says the Teen Titans were formed "after" B&B 54.

[HighStakesComics]

Here's another footnote. TTA 35 fans might have a leg to stand on if Marvel didn't clearly state their position by claiming on the front cover this story is the "Return of the Ant-Man", clearly implying TTA 27 was the debut. It's important to note no such claims are made in BB 60, and as jtlarsen mentioned, DC states within BB 60 the team originated only after the events of BB 54. My position is this:

 

BB 54:1st Aqualad, Kid Flash, Robin team-up. Origin of Teen Titans.

 

BB 60:1st Donna Troy as Wonder Girl; 1st Teen Titans

 

The two key SA TT books no doubt, but the labeling in its current form simply is not correct.

[akaSteveRogers]

...DC states within BB 60 the team originated only after the events of BB 54. My position is this:

 

BB 54:1st Aqualad, Kid Flash, Robin team-up. Origin of Teen Titans.

BB 60:1st Donna Troy as Wonder Girl; 1st Teen Titans

 

(thumbs u

 

Edited October 21, 2014 by akaSteveRogers

[sfcityduck]

Still trying to understand the difference between the book pictured above and the BB54

 

Probably the biggest difference is that BB 54 concludes by celebrating the creation of a "new team of DC heroes" and Subby doesn't. Probably the second biggest difference is the next issue of Subby doesn't refer back to the prior issue as the origin of that new team.

 

Just like B&B 60 doesn't refer to B&B 54 as the origin of the Teen Titans. It explicitly says the Teen Titans were formed "after" B&B 54.

 

No. What Robin says is:

 

"Teen Titans is a group junior crime-fighters I set up, after Kid Flash, Aqualad and I helped the teen-agers of Hatton Corners.* *Brave and Bold 54."

 

Of course, at the end of B&B 54, after the adventure is concluded, it states: "Once again, a startling new team of DC heroes has triumphed!"

 

Taken together, you can easily conclude that the team was formed in BB 54 as a direct result of the Hatton Corners adventure told and concluded therein.

 

This is like instant replay, unless you got clear evidence that the original call was wrong you don't get it over turned. If anything, the evidence supports the view that has been predominant for the last 50 years.

[AGGIEZ]

Still trying to understand the difference between the book pictured above and the BB54

 

Probably the biggest difference is that BB 54 concludes by celebrating the creation of a "new team of DC heroes" and Subby doesn't. Probably the second biggest difference is the next issue of Subby doesn't refer back to the prior issue as the origin of that new team.

 

Just like B&B 60 doesn't refer to B&B 54 as the origin of the Teen Titans. It explicitly says the Teen Titans were formed "after" B&B 54.

 

No. What Robin says is:

 

"Teen Titans is a group junior crime-fighters I set up, after Kid Flash, Aqualad and I helped the teen-agers of Hatton Corners.* *Brave and Bold 54."

 

Of course, at the end of B&B 54, after the adventure is concluded, it states: "Once again, a startling new team of DC heroes has triumphed!"

 

Taken together, you can easily conclude that the team was formed in BB 54 as a direct result of the Hatton Corners adventure told and concluded therein.

 

This is like instant replay, unless you got clear evidence that the original call was wrong you don't get it over turned. If anything, the evidence supports the view that has been predominant for the last 50 years.

 

 

[HighStakesComics]

Still trying to understand the difference between the book pictured above and the BB54

 

Probably the biggest difference is that BB 54 concludes by celebrating the creation of a "new team of DC heroes" and Subby doesn't. Probably the second biggest difference is the next issue of Subby doesn't refer back to the prior issue as the origin of that new team.

 

Just like B&B 60 doesn't refer to B&B 54 as the origin of the Teen Titans. It explicitly says the Teen Titans were formed "after" B&B 54.

 

No. What Robin says is:

 

"Teen Titans is a group junior crime-fighters I set up, after Kid Flash, Aqualad and I helped the teen-agers of Hatton Corners.* *Brave and Bold 54."

 

Of course, at the end of B&B 54, after the adventure is concluded, it states: "Once again, a startling new team of DC heroes has triumphed!"

 

Taken together, you can easily conclude that the team was formed in BB 54 as a direct result of the Hatton Corners adventure told and concluded therein.

 

This is like instant replay, unless you got clear evidence that the original call was wrong you don't get it over turned. If anything, the evidence supports the view that has been predominant for the last 50 years.

 

No one is questioning whether or not Kid Flash, Aqualad and Robin acted as a team. In BB 60 Robin specifically states the "Teen Titans" were formed AFTER the events of BB 54.

 

Did Subby, Hulk and Surfer act as a team in Subby 34? Is 34 not the closest comparable to the discussion at hand? If you can find a better one I am am all ears. But #34 is not considered the first appearance of the Defenders? The book where the entire team is introduced and presented with the name that will stick with them in perpetuity, however, is given that accredation.

 

Shouldn't the same rules apply here?

 

[akaSteveRogers]

Of course, at the end of B&B 54, after the adventure is concluded, it states: "Once again, a startling new team of DC heroes has triumphed!"

 

What was the name of this "startling new team of DC heroes" at the end of B&B #54? That's a big omission and a huge part of the argument.

 

Subby, Hulk and Surfer teamed-up before MP #1 and they were known as the "Titans Three." Unofficially.

 

 

 

Edited October 21, 2014 by akaSteveRogers

[sfcityduck]

 

No one is questioning whether or not Kid Flash, Aqualad and Robin acted as a team. In BB 60 Robin specifically states the "Teen Titans" were formed AFTER the events of BB 54.

 

Did Subby, Hulk and Surfer act as a team in Subby 34? Is 34 not the closest comparable to the discussion at hand? If you can find a better one I am am all ears. But #34 is not considered the first appearance of the Defenders? The book where the entire team is introduced and presented with the name that will stick with them in perpetuity, however, is given that accredation.

 

Shouldn't the same rules apply here?

 

 

You are trying too hard.

 

First, you are misquoting Robin from BB 60 and you are ignoring the last panel of BB 54. Enough said above about that.

 

Second, Marvel Premiere 1 is nothing like BB 60. MP 1 touts itself as the "origin" of a new team comprising Dr. Strange, Hulk, and Submariner. BB 60 does not identify itself as the origin of any team. Instead, BB 60 points backwards to BB 54 as the origin of the new team and BB 54 touts the creation of a "new team" in its final panel. Does MP 1 does cite back to Subby 34 as the origin of the team? No. Further, while the heroes in BB 54 are all in BB 60, the same is not true for MP 1 and Subby 34.

[JTLarsen]

BB 60 does not identify itself as the origin of any team. Instead, BB 60 points backwards to BB 54 as the origin of the new team

 

Um, no. B&B 60 sets the sequence of events as saying the group was formed AFTER 54, not IN or even BECAUSE OF 54. He does not identify that issue as the group's origin and subsequent continuities have offered wildly differing accounts of what their actual origin was. Again, is 54 a vital part of the Teen Titans canon? I think so. Do they FORM a team in that story? No, they act as a team. In which comic do we first see a superhero group called The Teen Titans? That'd be B&B 60.

[AGGIEZ]

Of course, at the end of B&B 54, after the adventure is concluded, it states: "Once again, a startling new team of DC heroes has triumphed!"

 

What was the name of this "startling new team of DC heroes" at the end of B&B #54? That's a big omission and a huge part of the argument.

 

Subby, Hulk and Surfer teamed-up before MP #1 and they were known as the "Titans Three." Unofficially.

 

 

BS...was the specific super-hero name of "Ant-Man" mentioned at all in Tales to Astonish #27? Some people are grasping at straws trying to play up their copies of B&B #60. I'm not buying it...if you want to change the 1st appearance of the Teen Titans, then go change the 1st appearance of Ant-man and a whole host of other superheroes first.

 

Wonder Girl joins the Teen Titans...that's about it

[TeddieMercede]

Of course, at the end of B&B 54, after the adventure is concluded, it states: "Once again, a startling new team of DC heroes has triumphed!"

 

Sorry you are the one mistaken in regards to that last panel in BB 54 - You really are confusing what this statement means to try and prove your point and continually keep posting it without knowing the back story - the fact it starts with "once again" should have told you that this occurred before in these Brave and the Bold books. The team ups starting with Issue 50 were considered new teams by definition and not something special just for 54 which you continually harp on.

 

Don't believe me ?

 

[TeddieMercede]

Also if we are using that TTA 35 cover as reference for the 2nd Appearance and hence "The Return" (which also would signify the Ant Man was previously established) why does Showcase 59 state the "Return of the Teen Titans" ? It sure enough doesn't state that in Teen Titans #1 or TTA 36 which would be the 3rd appearances of both characters/teams. Should those books have had the "Return of the Return" in the cover blurbs ?

 

[akaSteveRogers]

BS...was the specific super-hero name of "Ant-Man" mentioned at all in Tales to Astonish #27?

 

I personally don't think of TTA 27 as "the superhero Ant-Man." Thats TTA 35. I think Lee has been documented as saying that he was just writing a story about a guy who shrunk down to the size of an ant and had insects chasing him. Again both books are important. Im not saying one over the other.

 

Some people are grasping at straws trying to play up their copies of B&B #60. I'm not buying it...

 

I don't own a copy. I don't think I will own one or even have an interest in owning one. I would much prefer a Teen Titans #26 But that's just my collecting taste.

 

 

[Cyclops]

Of course, at the end of B&B 54, after the adventure is concluded, it states: "Once again, a startling new team of DC heroes has triumphed!"

 

What was the name of this "startling new team of DC heroes" at the end of B&B #54? That's a big omission and a huge part of the argument.

 

Subby, Hulk and Surfer teamed-up before MP #1 and they were known as the "Titans Three." Unofficially.

 

 

BS...was the specific super-hero name of "Ant-Man" mentioned at all in Tales to Astonish #27? Some people are grasping at straws trying to play up their copies of B&B #60. I'm not buying it...if you want to change the 1st appearance of the Teen Titans, then go change the 1st appearance of Ant-man and a whole host of other superheroes first.

 

Wonder Girl joins the Teen Titans...that's about it

 

The cover to TTA 35 says The Return of The Ant Man. Note: no hyphen between Ant and Man. It's like calling someone the sports guy (a guy around the office that is crazy about sports).

 

On the cover to TTA 36 you have Ant-Man, a minor difference in punctuation that makes all the difference. The hero Ant-Man did not appear in TTA 27, Hank Pym, the Ant Man (sports guy) did. Around the time of 35, Lee needed a hero so he took the story from 27 and ran with it. Genius!

 

That's my take on the TTA debate, anyway. I still think BB 60 is the first appearance of a formal group called the Teen Titans, though. I don't own a copy of any of these books, sadly.

 

 

[AGGIEZ]

Of course, at the end of B&B 54, after the adventure is concluded, it states: "Once again, a startling new team of DC heroes has triumphed!"

 

What was the name of this "startling new team of DC heroes" at the end of B&B #54? That's a big omission and a huge part of the argument.

 

Subby, Hulk and Surfer teamed-up before MP #1 and they were known as the "Titans Three." Unofficially.

 

 

BS...was the specific super-hero name of "Ant-Man" mentioned at all in Tales to Astonish #27? Some people are grasping at straws trying to play up their copies of B&B #60. I'm not buying it...if you want to change the 1st appearance of the Teen Titans, then go change the 1st appearance of Ant-man and a whole host of other superheroes first.

 

Wonder Girl joins the Teen Titans...that's about it

 

The cover to TTA 35 says The Return of The Ant Man. Note: no hyphen between Ant and Man. It's like calling someone the sports guy (a guy around the office that is crazy about sports).

 

On the cover to TTA 36 you have Ant-Man, a minor difference in punctuation that makes all the difference. The hero Ant-Man did not appear in TTA 27, Hank Pym, the Ant Man (sports guy) did. Around the time of 35, Lee needed a hero so it took the story from 27 and went with it. Genius!

 

That's my take on the TTA debate, anyway. I still think BB 60 is the first appearance of a formal group called the Teen Titans, though. I don't own a copy of any of these books, sadly.

 

 

(thumbs u that's the first time I've heard the punctuation argument in the TTA 27 vs 35 debate...interesting stuff

 

 

 

[yoddler]

Of course, at the end of B&B 54, after the adventure is concluded, it states: "Once again, a startling new team of DC heroes has triumphed!"

 

What was the name of this "startling new team of DC heroes" at the end of B&B #54? That's a big omission and a huge part of the argument.

 

Subby, Hulk and Surfer teamed-up before MP #1 and they were known as the "Titans Three." Unofficially.

 

 

BS...was the specific super-hero name of "Ant-Man" mentioned at all in Tales to Astonish #27? Some people are grasping at straws trying to play up their copies of B&B #60. I'm not buying it...if you want to change the 1st appearance of the Teen Titans, then go change the 1st appearance of Ant-man and a whole host of other superheroes first.

 

Wonder Girl joins the Teen Titans...that's about it

 

The cover to TTA 35 says The Return of The Ant Man. Note: no hyphen between Ant and Man. It's like calling someone the sports guy (a guy around the office that is crazy about sports).

 

On the cover to TTA 36 you have Ant-Man, a minor difference in punctuation that makes all the difference. The hero Ant-Man did not appear in TTA 27, Hank Pym, the Ant Man (sports guy) did. Around the time of 35, Lee needed a hero so it took the story from 27 and went with it. Genius!

 

That's my take on the TTA debate, anyway. I still think BB 60 is the first appearance of a formal group called the Teen Titans, though. I don't own a copy of any of these books, sadly.

 

 

(thumbs u that's the first time I've heard the punctuation argument in the TTA 27 vs 35 debate...interesting stuff

 

 

 

 

[Cyclops]

Of course, at the end of B&B 54, after the adventure is concluded, it states: "Once again, a startling new team of DC heroes has triumphed!"

 

What was the name of this "startling new team of DC heroes" at the end of B&B #54? That's a big omission and a huge part of the argument.

 

Subby, Hulk and Surfer teamed-up before MP #1 and they were known as the "Titans Three." Unofficially.

 

 

BS...was the specific super-hero name of "Ant-Man" mentioned at all in Tales to Astonish #27? Some people are grasping at straws trying to play up their copies of B&B #60. I'm not buying it...if you want to change the 1st appearance of the Teen Titans, then go change the 1st appearance of Ant-man and a whole host of other superheroes first.

 

Wonder Girl joins the Teen Titans...that's about it

 

The cover to TTA 35 says The Return of The Ant Man. Note: no hyphen between Ant and Man. It's like calling someone the sports guy (a guy around the office that is crazy about sports).

 

On the cover to TTA 36 you have Ant-Man, a minor difference in punctuation that makes all the difference. The hero Ant-Man did not appear in TTA 27, Hank Pym, the Ant Man (sports guy) did. Around the time of 35, Lee needed a hero so it took the story from 27 and went with it. Genius!

 

That's my take on the TTA debate, anyway. I still think BB 60 is the first appearance of a formal group called the Teen Titans, though. I don't own a copy of any of these books, sadly.

 

 

(thumbs u that's the first time I've heard the punctuation argument in the TTA 27 vs 35 debate...interesting stuff

 

 

 

It really does.