siro123 Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 (edited) What do you think ? I say its first appearance. Shadows on one page and 2 panels on the last page. Edited January 27 by siro123 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BA773 Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 (edited) But who the hell is that?! Edited January 27 by BA773 crazyhips, Dr. Balls and Dave2739 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marmat Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 First appearance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave2739 Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 Hulk 180 jimjum12, MR SigS and Ken Aldred 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Aldred Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 (edited) On 1/27/2024 at 2:38 PM, Dave2739 said: Hulk 180 Yup. Old topic, again. Same ending and continuation. Edited January 27 by Ken Aldred Dave2739 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Balls Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 I don't know the context of the story, but if the last two pages are independent of the rest of the story (like a lead-in to the next issue), I'd consider it a cameo. Cameos are a brief or noticeable part of the story, or a limited appearance. If the majority of the story does not revolve around his actions, and he appears at the end - it's a cameo. If the story focuses on his actions - despite him not being shown until the end - it's a first appearance. This discussion will go on forever - most likely because people won't combine the elements of the writing and the art - which is essential in making the determination, since both things are inclusive to the book, and can't exist separately on their own. Hulk 180 is a cameo. Take that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chip Cataldo Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 Part of the Oxford definition of "appearance" is... "an act of becoming visible or noticeable; an arrival" So if someone appears, THAT'S the first appearance. There should really be zero debate on this based on the actual definition of the word. BA773 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grendel72 Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 On 1/28/2024 at 2:25 AM, Dr. Balls said: I don't know the context of the story, but if the last two pages are independent of the rest of the story (like a lead-in to the next issue), I'd consider it a cameo. Cameos are a brief or noticeable part of the story, or a limited appearance. If the majority of the story does not revolve around his actions, and he appears at the end - it's a cameo. If the story focuses on his actions - despite him not being shown until the end - it's a first appearance. This discussion will go on forever - most likely because people won't combine the elements of the writing and the art - which is essential in making the determination, since both things are inclusive to the book, and can't exist separately on their own. Hulk 180 is a cameo. Take that. A cameo and a first appearance needn't be mutually exclusive. A characters first appearance could have been a cameo. Think the issue would be the extent of that character's cameo, some half panel silhouette or a full page appearance front and center. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BA773 Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 this "cameo" concept really bother me... In my opinion if the charachter is physically present in the book its an appearence. I would like cameo to only be applicable in the case where the charachter: - is shown in a picture, painting - is remembered in a souvenir of a charachter in the book buttock 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Balls Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 On 1/27/2024 at 10:34 AM, Chip Cataldo said: Part of the Oxford definition of "appearance" is... "an act of becoming visible or noticeable; an arrival" So if someone appears, THAT'S the first appearance. There should really be zero debate on this based on the actual definition of the word. I wouldn’t argue with that - but that lays the groundwork for striking the word “cameo” from comic book lexicon. Which I would be in favor of. BA773, jimjum12 and Gonzimodo 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Chip Cataldo Posted January 27 Popular Post Share Posted January 27 On 1/27/2024 at 3:16 PM, Dr. Balls said: I wouldn’t argue with that - but that lays the groundwork for striking the word “cameo” from comic book lexicon. Which I would be in favor of. Agreed. Either the character appeared...or they didn't. You either saw him for the first time in continuity/story...or you didn't. jimjum12, Juno Beach, Dr. Balls and 2 others 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Readcomix Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 My is the hobby needs to drop the “rookie card” mentality. Comics are stories; sometimes an issue can represent 10 minutes in characters’ fictional world, sometimes days or years. I’ll use Wolverine as my example: his first appearance is Hulk 180 through 182. Without all three, you don’t have his first full story. 181 is most valued as it’s the core chunk; 180 moreso than 182 as it’s the literal first time we lay eyes on the character in actual story content; 182 is still well more valuable than nearby run books for the title as it contains the last (albeit brief) part of Wolverine’s first story. When you stop trying to identify the “rookie card” and think in terms of story content, it gets easier. I still can’t explain Jimmy Olsen 134. Gonzimodo, Dr. Balls, Raze and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattTheDuck Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 On the other hand, a "rookie card" only has value based on future accomplishments that increase a player's reputation and value. Buying a rookie card is pretty speculative, although some (Lebron, Kobe, Michael) seem at the time like more of a sure thing. jimjum12 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Readcomix Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 On 1/27/2024 at 4:44 PM, MattTheDuck said: On the other hand, a "rookie card" only has value based on future accomplishments that increase a player's reputation and value. Buying a rookie card is pretty speculative, although some (Lebron, Kobe, Michael) seem at the time like more of a sure thing. I just meant it in the context of “definitive first object,” which too often seems the myopic goal of first appearance discussions. MattTheDuck 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Design Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 Yes, and No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B3AST Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 On 1/27/2024 at 2:16 PM, Dr. Balls said: I wouldn’t argue with that - but that lays the groundwork for striking the word “cameo” from comic book lexicon. Which I would be in favor of. On 1/27/2024 at 11:34 AM, Chip Cataldo said: Part of the Oxford definition of "appearance" is... "an act of becoming visible or noticeable; an arrival" So if someone appears, THAT'S the first appearance. There should really be zero debate on this based on the actual definition of the word. Agree that cameo shouldn't be the term. Oxford for cameo "a small character part in a play or movie, played by a distinguished actor or a celebrity." The way cameo is viewed in entertainment is when it is someone recognizable.. Say when we see Stan Lee in all the Marvel movies. When it's a brand new characters first appearance it's not a cameo. Wolverine's appearance in IH 180 is his first appearance, it's not a cameo, Wolverine in IH 340, that's a cameo as the character is well established and popular at that point. I wish cameo would go away. Jimmy Olsen 134 is hard to explain though Gonzimodo, PopKulture and Juno Beach 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semicentennial Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 X-Factor 23 has seven panels of Archangel, seven panels over three pages where he talks, at least four full body panels showing some of his powers, but it's considered a cameo appearance, and not the 1st appearance, of Archangel. If that's considered a cameo then who knows what this is. However, as mentioned above, Hulk 180/181 and JO #134 all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axelrod Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 I mean, we all know what the terms are getting at. "Cameo" meaning a very brief appearance where, yes, the character "appears" but doesn't do much, vs. a more "meaningful" extended appearance. Which one is/should be more valuable is kind of a matter of opinion. In comics the "market" decides. Stupidly, in some instances, but what can you do? The market can't really be logically reasoned with. The above is a "cameo" in the standard comic book use of the term, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ares Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 On 1/27/2024 at 12:25 PM, Dr. Balls said: I don't know the context of the story, but if the last two pages are independent of the rest of the story (like a lead-in to the next issue), I'd consider it a cameo. Cameos are a brief or noticeable part of the story, or a limited appearance. If the majority of the story does not revolve around his actions, and he appears at the end - it's a cameo. If the story focuses on his actions - despite him not being shown until the end - it's a first appearance. This discussion will go on forever - most likely because people won't combine the elements of the writing and the art - which is essential in making the determination, since both things are inclusive to the book, and can't exist separately on their own. Hulk 180 is a cameo. Take that. I love that interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Telegan Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 On 1/27/2024 at 3:27 PM, Readcomix said: My is the hobby needs to drop the “rookie card” mentality. Comics are stories; sometimes an issue can represent 10 minutes in characters’ fictional world, sometimes days or years. I’ll use Wolverine as my example: his first appearance is Hulk 180 through 182. Without all three, you don’t have his first full story. 181 is most valued as it’s the core chunk; 180 moreso than 182 as it’s the literal first time we lay eyes on the character in actual story content; 182 is still well more valuable than nearby run books for the title as it contains the last (albeit brief) part of Wolverine’s first story. When you stop trying to identify the “rookie card” and think in terms of story content, it gets easier. I still can’t explain Jimmy Olsen 134. But... but... the rookie card is the "first appearance" (not necessarily) of a player and is just one year of his entire career. Without all years of his play, you don't have his full story. In terms of comics, even if you have 180-182, you still don't have his entire career. I've always been the type of person to not understand the difference between a "cameo" and a "first appearance". What issue did he first appear? Then that's his first appearance - I don't care if it's a cameo, whether he's turned around, or he's in the cliffhanger-you'll-really-see-him-in-the-next-issue shadow or not. But I'll let y'all hash that out since I don't really care about first appearances or cameos all that much. It's different in that regard with rookie cards. I mean, I'm not going to have a first appearance of a green Alex Bregman, red Alex Bregman, gray Alex Bregman or a "cameo appearance, not a first appearance" of Alex Bregman in the MLB card. Now you've got people going after 2nd, 3rd, and 4th appearances of characters in comics. And let's not forget "first cover appearance" vs. "first appearance" vs. "cameo appearance". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
