First Appearance comic Question 4 4

[thunsicker]

On 4/25/2022 at 12:02 PM, valiantman said:

You'll have some trouble convincing... uh... pretty much everyone... to agree with you.

I'm not trying to convince anyone.  Someone asked what I would consider a character's first appearance in comics, and I simply said for me it's when the character first appears in comics.

[valiantman]

On 4/25/2022 at 12:04 PM, thunsicker said:

I'm not trying to convince anyone.  Someone asked what I would consider a character's first appearance in comics, and I simply said for me it's when the character first appears in comics.

Got it.  Since you're aware you're probably in agreement with only about 1% of the comic collecting community (considering More Fun #31 the first appearance of Superman), you are wise to avoid trying to convince the other 99%.

[Gatsby77]

I personally think Wolverine's first appearance is indeed Hulk 180.

He may only appear in the last panel but he talks during two of them - as in, more than one sentence.

I draw the line at advertisements, however.

So Action Comics # 1 over More Fun # 31, and New Mutants # 87 for Cable over New Mutants # 86.

Likewise, I think Spawn 1 is Spawn's first appearance and TMNT # 1 is the TMNT's first appearance (because mere advertisements don't count).

[Qalyar]

On 4/25/2022 at 12:27 PM, Gatsby77 said:

I personally think Wolverine's first appearance is indeed Hulk 180.

He may only appear in the last panel but he talks during two of them - as in, more than one sentence.

I draw the line at advertisements, however.

So Action Comics # 1 over More Fun # 31, and New Mutants # 87 for Cable over New Mutants # 86.

Likewise, I think Spawn 1 is Spawn's first appearance and TMNT # 1 is the TMNT's first appearance (because mere advertisements don't count).

While I'm aware that popular convention and the market occasionally disagree with this, it tends to be my personal philosophy also. Pre-"first appearance" advertisements are cool and all, but "first appearance" means "first appearance in comics". An advertisement is not an appearance in a comic; it is an appearance in an advertisement in a comic book.

Because comic books, it's sometimes a bit complicated, like when they retcon a character's identity or do something different with a previously-existing character (Hank Pym vs. Ant-Man). If a bit wordy, I like the "First appearance of Hank Pym, who later became Ant-Man" verbiage for that sort of thing.

[jjaneaux]

On 4/25/2022 at 12:27 PM, Gatsby77 said:

I personally think Wolverine's first appearance is indeed Hulk 180.

He may only appear in the last panel but he talks during two of them - as in, more than one sentence.

I draw the line at advertisements, however.

So Action Comics # 1 over More Fun # 31, and New Mutants # 87 for Cable over New Mutants # 86.

Likewise, I think Spawn 1 is Spawn's first appearance and TMNT # 1 is the TMNT's first appearance (because mere advertisements don't count).

That's my stance, too, regarding advertisements (and previews, also, which are just glorified advertisements).

[valiantman]

On 4/25/2022 at 12:27 PM, Gatsby77 said:

I personally think Wolverine's first appearance is indeed Hulk 180.

He may only appear in the last panel but he talks during two of them - as in, more than one sentence.

The Canadian military activates Weapon X on page 3 in the story, so the whole time you're reading the book, you're wondering what that Weapon X activation meant, then you find out on the final page.

Hulk #180 has both the "something's coming" early in the background and "he's here" arrival pages at the end with the foreground story in between.

Hulk #180 doesn't have a Wolverine cover, and we don't know how well Wolverine can fight Hulk or Wendigo during Hulk #180, so it's understandable that Hulk #181 is more desirable, but Hulk #180 really is more than just a final panel appearance.

[JC25427N]

On 4/25/2022 at 1:01 PM, thunsicker said:

That is correct.  From my understanding Superman first appears in an advertisement in More Fun Comics #31.  It's not his first "in continuity" appearance.  It's not his first "full" appearance.  It's not his most valuable appearance.  It's not his most sought after appearance.  But it is his first appearance in comics.

Rogue was first planned to appear in Ms.Marvel 25 which was already finished but not released in 1979 because the series got cancelled at issue 23. Avengers Annual 10 which features Rogue came out in 1981 which continued a storyline that was supposed to begin in Ms Marvel 25. The already finished Ms.Marvel 24 and 25 were then for the first time printed in Marvel Super-Heroes Vol 2 11 released in 1992. 

What's her first appearance, the unreleased comic in 1979, the comic that continued the unreleased comic's story in 1981, or the comic that printed the unreleased comic in 1992?

 

edit: sorry I didn't actually mean to quote thunsicker there, what I said has nothing to do with his post there 

Edited April 25, 2022 by JC25427N

[Krydel4]

https://comicbook.com/marvel/news/wolverine-first-appearance-incredible-hulk-180-181-roy-thomas-reveals/

[kav]

On 4/25/2022 at 8:22 AM, valiantman said:

Doomsday - yes or no

KRANG!
@onlyweaknesskryptonite @Bo1983 @Comics4All

[Qalyar]

On 4/25/2022 at 1:27 PM, JC25427N said:

Rogue was first planned to appear in Ms.Marvel 25 which was already finished but not released in 1979 because the series got cancelled at issue 23. Avengers Annual 10 which features Rogue came out in 1981 which continued a storyline that was supposed to begin in Ms Marvel 25. The already finished Ms.Marvel 24 and 25 were then for the first time printed in Marvel Super-Heroes Vol 2 11 released in 1992. 

What's her first appearance, the unreleased comic in 1979, the comic that continued the unreleased comic's story in 1981, or the comic that printed the unreleased comic in 1992?

 

edit: sorry I didn't actually mean to quote thunsicker there, what I said has nothing to do with his post there 

The 1981 comic.

It can't be the 1979 book, because the 1979 book doesn't exist. There was artwork for those pages, but "first appearance in comic book artwork" is not "first appearance in comics". Gotta have an actual comic to be in a comic. And it can't be the 1992 comic, because -- chronologically -- that character had already appeared.

To sort of underscore why that's the only sane outcome, imagine for a moment that, tomorrow, a copy of the 1933 version of Superman, famously rejected for publication by Consolidated and then destroyed by Shuster (except for the cover), was discovered to still exist. And, of course, was promptly published. Just as the surviving 1933 cover does not beat out Action Comics 1 as the first appearance of Superman, neither would the 2022 publication of a Superman story that was written -- but not published -- before AC1 hit the press.

[Gatsby77]

I will die on hill that Doomsday's first (cameo) appearance is Man of Steel # 17, while his first full (and cover) appearance wasn't until weeks later in Man of Steel 18 (with continued cameo appearances in the other Superman books in between).

But I refuse to offer the same courtesy to say...Web of Spider-Man 18 / 24 re. Venom.

Because nobody at the time knew...and many folks who were reading ASM weren't also reading Web. I can't shake the feeling it was (at least in part) revisionist history by Michelini -- not so with the Doomsday intro.

However, I also *hate* the decades later revisionist history that OAAW 83 is now the "first Sgt. Rock."

 

[Comics4All]

On 4/25/2022 at 3:43 PM, kav said:

KRANG!
@onlyweaknesskryptonite @Bo1983 @Comics4All

Krang is worth 301,000 Galcactuses!

[F For Fake]

On 4/25/2022 at 9:33 AM, thunsicker said:

I'm one of those crazy people who believes that when a character first appears it's his first appearance.  That doesn't mean it will be his most valuable appearance, or the one that people want most, but it does mean it's his first appearance.

+1000

[Qalyar]

On 4/25/2022 at 2:43 PM, kav said:

KRANG!
@onlyweaknesskryptonite @Bo1983 @Comics4All

No, no, the first appearance of Krang in comics is here. Well, probably.

There are, of course, Krang-looking characters as far back as TMNT 3 (the Utroms). Krang, as a named villain, didn't exist; he was explicitly invented for the the animated TV series, and then back-adapted to that book above. The Utroms in TMNT 3 are clearly precursor characters, but I don't think that pushes the first appearance back any more than the existence of The Heap in Air Fighters Comics 3 affects the first appearance of Man-Thing or Swamp Thing or any of the other sundry swamp monsters.

Also, I've just been informed that this Krang has nothing at all to do with that Krang. Carry on!

[kav]

On 4/25/2022 at 1:39 PM, Qalyar said:

No, no, the first appearance of Krang in comics is here. Well, probably.

There are, of course, Krang-looking characters as far back as TMNT 3 (the Utroms). Krang, as a named villain, didn't exist; he was explicitly invented for the the animated TV series, and then back-adapted to that book above. The Utroms in TMNT 3 are clearly precursor characters, but I don't think that pushes the first appearance back any more than the existence of The Heap in Air Fighters Comics 3 affects the first appearance of Man-Thing or Swamp Thing or any of the other sundry swamp monsters.

Also, I've just been informed that this Krang has nothing at all to do with that Krang. Carry on!

[Lazyboy]

On 4/25/2022 at 3:31 PM, Heavyheavyheavy said:

Even if it wasn't originally Venom, it's clear he was setting up some kind of "nefarious" villain/appearance. Why else would Peter be so distraught that his Spider Sense failed him and he was almost killed?

 How many people would or could attack Peter Parker without setting off his Spider Sense?

It is true that Venom hadn't been finalized at that time, but it was still meant to be the symbiote with a new host.

[siro123]

On 4/25/2022 at 8:41 AM, Cat said:

Can you give us the character's name, please, so we can have a look ourselves, and see what we think? At least that way we can give an informed opinion. 

I'm not giving the character i'm talking about because sometimes that changes peoples opinions depending on what issue they have.

No it is not gambit.

My personal opinion is that both are first appearances whether they talk or not.

 

Edited April 26, 2022 by siro123

[jcjames]

On 4/24/2022 at 9:15 PM, siro123 said:

Appears in 11 panels says nothing.

First Appearance ?   or Cameo ?

Also

Appears in 10 panels and says help me in one panel.

First appearance or Cameo ?

 

Too vague to answer.

Is the character actually recognizable and distinguishable in panels?

Is the character named by others?

Does the character actually do anything or interact with anyone/thing in the story?

Is it actually the character in-person, or is it like a portrait of the character hanging on the wall in the background, or just shadow/outline or something like just his/her/its coat, sleeve, hat or shoe?

These are pertinent as to whether it's actually an appearance or not. 

 

ETA: I don't like the term "cameo", I'd prefer either using "1st brief appearance" or "1st full appearance" (or "1st cover appearance" for a major character like Wolverine or Dr. Strange, etc.)

Edited April 26, 2022 by jcjames

[Buzzetta]

Whichever one I have that people will pay me the most money.

[siro123]

On 4/26/2022 at 4:17 PM, jcjames said:

Too vague to answer.

Is the character actually recognizable and distinguishable in panels?

Is the character named by others?

Does the character actually do anything or interact with anyone/thing in the story?

Is it actually the character in-person, or is it like a portrait of the character hanging on the wall in the background, or just shadow/outline or something like just his/her/its coat, sleeve, hat or shoe?

These are pertinent as to whether it's actually an appearance or not. 

 

ETA: I don't like the term "cameo", I'd prefer either using "1st brief appearance" or "1st full appearance" (or "1st cover appearance" for a major character like Wolverine or Dr. Strange, etc.)

  Yes , No, Yes, In person