Where does Old Man Logan appear in Fantastic Four 558 1 1

[ygogolak]

The character depicted in the images above looks nothing like the true Old Man Logan. There are probably 50 different versions of Wolverine at this point from different universes.

[Broke as a Joke]

4 hours ago, Lazyboy said:

Years? No. It was known shorty after Venom's (full) debut. People just didn't notice and/or care at the time.

Known by who?  Michelinie waited until May 1993 Wizard magazine to tell people his intentions.  So yes, it was years.

[Gatsby77]

2 hours ago, ygogolak said:

The character depicted in the images above looks nothing like the true Old Man Logan. There are probably 50 different versions of Wolverine at this point from different universes.

Exactly.

If anything, by MIllar's own admission, he was simultaneously writing about three different incarnations of Old Man Logan in three different timelines.

The one people care about first appeared in Wolverine # 66 - and this was only solidified when the storyline that began in Wolverine # 66 was adapted for the film Logan.

While I'm a huge Wolverine fan, I own neither of these issues, so I have no financial stake in the matter.

But I also don't like BS revisionist history, like:

• Web of 18 is the first appearance of Eddie Brock. It's not.
• X-Force 11 is the first appearance of Domino. It's not.
• Werewolf by Night 37 is Moon Knight's third appearance. It's not.
• X-Men 201 is the first appearance of Cable. It's not.
• Our Army at War 83 is the first appearance of Sgt. Rock. It's not.

 

[William-James88]

33 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Exactly.

If anything, by MIllar's own admission, he was simultaneously writing about three different incarnations of Old Man Logan in three different timelines.

 

I know we are talking about Wolverine here but in this case he is not the only character to appear in both FF and Old Man Logan. Millar also introduced a new Hulk. We see him in FF 558 and it's at the end of his Old Man Logan story that we see the origin of that Bruce Banner and when Logan met him.

[seanfingh]

Doesn't anybody ever actually read these stories?  OML starts in 66. Bruce Banner is the leader of a skeevy incestuous cannibal cult.  Logan is 40 years older than he is shown in the FF book. The OML character never existed before 66.  The FF book is no more the 1st appearance of OML than Hulk 181 (or 180 if that floats your boat) is.  This is after the fact hype machine pump dump retconning.

[fastballspecial]

20 hours ago, kairos70 said:

It's the same character(James Howlett of Earth-807128) in Wolverine #66 and FF #558 but because of lazy writing and even lazier editing Wolverine #66 is Old man Logan's first appearance "chronologically" whereas FF #558 is his first appearance "historically".

I remember reading that FF story. There displaced on wanted to fix the timeline by killing I think it was Galactus right?
How do we know its the same character I cant remember. I know Millar wrote it, but where does it say that's who he is.

How does that tie into Old Man Logan universe? Is it from that timeline or a different one?

 

Edited July 16, 2020 by fastballspecial

[Gatsby77]

13 minutes ago, fastballspecial said:

I remember reading that FF story. There displaced on wanted to fix the timeline by killing I think it was Galactus right?
How do we know its the same character I cant remember. I know Millar wrote it, but where does it say that's who he is.

How does that tie into Old Man Logan universe? Is it from that timeline or a different one?

 

This. I don't have the FF issues in front of me, but from what's been written here:

1) He's never identified as Logan, let alone Old Man Logan in the FF issue itself, and

2) It's a different version of the character anyway, in a different timeline - hence what SeanFingh says above.

I am interested, however, if someone could verify whether the FF issue indeed came out first. I don't doubt it, since CGC says as much, but the FF issue and Wolverine 66 were released the same month. I'd like verification that the FF issue *actually* preceded it by at least a week.

Not that it matters - we all know that X-Men 266 was supposed to be the first appearance of Gambit but scheduling delays meant that X-Men Annual 14 happened to come out a few weeks earlier - which is why no one in that issue is like "Wait - who the F are you?"

[kairos70]

23 minutes ago, fastballspecial said:

I remember reading that FF story. There displaced on wanted to fix the timeline by killing I think it was Galactus right?
How do we know its the same character I cant remember. I know Millar wrote it, but where does it say that's who he is.

How does that tie into Old Man Logan universe? Is it from that timeline or a different one?

 

Like William-James88 posted on the first page. Info comes from the Marvel Database Wikia.

[William-James88]

32 minutes ago, fastballspecial said:

How does that tie into Old Man Logan universe? Is it from that timeline or a different one?

 

He`s from that timeline and, as I wrote, he isn't the only one. There is Bruce Banner Jr as well.

"Old Man Logan actually debuted as a character in Mark Millar's run on Fantastic Four, which featured characters who are heavily implied to be the aged Wolverine and Bruce Banner Jr. as an adult. "

Anyways, here is marvel's wiki where both issues are listed as being important: https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/James_Howlett_(Earth-807128)

And here is wikipedia which only has FF 558 as his first apearance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_Logan

[Gatsby77]

2 hours ago, William-James88 said:

"Old Man Logan actually debuted as a character in Mark Millar's run on Fantastic Four, which featured characters who are heavily implied to be the aged Wolverine and Bruce Banner Jr. as an adult. "

"Heavily implied to be" is what screws you here.

If it's not obvious -- as in, if an average reader can read the issue and not go "Oh cool - that's Old Man Logan," then it's BS.

And literally two people have piped up in this thread alone to state exactly that -- one even bought the issue, read it, and couldn't figure where or if the character appears.

If a character named Clark appears in More Fun # 6 and 10 years later Siegel and Shuster are like "Oh yeah - little known fact - that was Clark Kent" - it doesn't make More Fun # 6 the first appearance of Superman.

Why is this relevant?

We already know -- from Spawn # 10, no less -- that the primary trademark for Superman involves the "S" on his chest. If he doesn't have that part of the costume on, it's not Superman, so it's not trademark infringement. Period.

Likewise, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the relevant character designs and trademarks for "Old Man Logan" refer to how he looks in Wolverine 66, not the "younger-timeline-version undercover-in-a-cloak-during-an-alternate-time" FF version.

Edited July 16, 2020 by Gatsby77

[William-James88]

1 hour ago, Gatsby77 said:

"Heavily implied to be" is what screws you here.

 

I'm just reporting what's written to have all the facts on the table during the discussion. It was I who couldn't spot him, that was the initial point of the thread.

And if this issue is not the character's first appearance, then shouldn't someone change the wiki?

Edited July 16, 2020 by William-James88

[Lazyboy]

5 hours ago, Broke as a Joke said:

Known by who?  Michelinie waited until May 1993 Wizard magazine to tell people his intentions.  So yes, it was years.

Well, it was published in The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe years before that. So...

[Lazyboy]

1 hour ago, Gatsby77 said:

"Heavily implied to be" is what screws you here.

If it's not obvious -- as in, if an average reader can read the issue and not go "Oh cool - that's Old Man Logan," than it's BS.

And literally two people have piped up in this thread alone to state exactly that -- one even bought the issue, read it, and couldn't figure where or if the character appears.

If a character named Clark appears in More Fun # 6 and 10 years later Siegel and Shuster are like "Oh yeah - little known fact - that was Clark Kent" - it doesn't make More Fun # 6 the first appearance of Superman.

Why is this relevant?

We already know -- from Spawn # 10, no less -- that the primary trademark for Superman involves the "S" on his chest. If he doesn't have that part of the costume on, it's not Superman, so it's not trademark infringement. Period.

Likewise, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the relevant character designs and trademarks for "Old Man Logan" refer to how he looks in Wolverine 66, not the "younger timeline version undercover in cloak during an alternate time" FF version.

I assume you don't own a Strange Tales 97.

[Lazyboy]

3 hours ago, Gatsby77 said:

Exactly.

If anything, by MIllar's own admission, he was simultaneously writing about three different incarnations of Old Man Logan in three different timelines.

The one people care about first appeared in Wolverine # 66 - and this was only solidified when the storyline that began in Wolverine # 66 was adapted for the film Logan.

While I'm a huge Wolverine fan, I own neither of these issues, so I have no financial stake in the matter.

But I also don't like BS revisionist history, like:

• Web of 18 is the first appearance of Eddie Brock. It's not.
• X-Force 11 is the first appearance of Domino. It's not.
• Werewolf by Night 37 is Moon Knight's third appearance. It's not.
• X-Men 201 is the first appearance of Cable. It's not.
• Our Army at War 83 is the first appearance of Sgt. Rock. It's not.

 

Web 18 is the first (brief, obscured) appearance of Venom

X-Force 11 is definitely not the first appearance of Domino. That's X-Force 8.

WBN 37 is not Moon Knight's third appearance (at least from all I've seen and heard without actually reading the issue). But that's a separate issue of calling any drawing of a character an appearance as if comics contain only random pictures and not stories.

UXM 201 is not the first appearance of Cable, only the first appearance of the character who would later become Cable.

I'm not going to get in to the whole Sgt. Rock thing. that!

 

How about this for "revisionist history" though: is Norman Osborn actually the Green Goblin? That wasn't revealed until much later.

[Gatsby77]

39 minutes ago, Lazyboy said:

I assume you don't own a Strange Tales 97.

Exactly! I was thinking of that too - but couldn't remember the issue.