Cameos That Should be First Appearances

[joe_collector]

As per Bruce's suggestion, here's a thread to talk about cameos, full appearances and what some solutions might be.

 

I'll toss out X-Men 120, which I feel is the most blatant example of a full appearance, that is denoted as an Alpha Flight cameo.

[BronzeBruce13]

Thanks V,

I wasn't exclusively talking about issues that should have been classified as something else/more. My suggestion was a bit broader. Continuing from the previous thread in which this topic started, I feel the term "Cameo" is insufficient in measuring and relaying the true, varying impacts of many "Limited First Appearances". I'm speaking for myself and my impression, but I always considered the term to be minimizing in certain instances. I took it to mean that the appearance was basically insignificant and barely worth mentioning... maybe a brief, partially shown, non/limited speaking part that had little/nothing to do with the storyline much. The Sabretooth cameo in PMIF 78 comes to mind in describing the level of meaning the term "Cameo" represented to me, and what I assumed was nearly everyone else's too? I could certainly be wrong and this could be just a specific gripe of mine that others don't share.

 

In the previous thread when you astutely brought up X-men 120 as an appearance that was more deserving of additional recognition... or maybe even a re-evaluation, I had a moment of clarity that put me in better touch with what I was "trying" (somewhat unsuccessfully) to get across with another favorite cameo of mine that I don't feel garners the level of respect it deserves for the impact/content/importance of the limited appearance. I had focussed on just that one issue. If however, I considered the topic in a broader sense I could have saved myself 50 posts or so and arrived at the same place.

 

I'm not sure exactly what the process is, and who specifically is in charge of deciding/designating the value of an comic-apperance in the Overstreet Guide, but I'd like to know how that works. Perhaps ArnoldT could shed some inside-knowledge on the process?

 

Regardless of the definition of the term, I think it needs MORE so it does not "over" or "under" emphasize the real impact of any particular "Limited Appearance". So, I'm suggesting the forming and implementation of a "Cameo" or "Limited First Appearance" Rating System to try and communicate a more accurate representation of the impact/content/importance of the appearance.

 

Of course, it will be subjective like grading... BUT its the beginnings of an idea that I'd like to hear some thoughts on. Maybe a 1-10 scale with a few letters/abbreviations used to describe certain characteristics?

 

For instance (please understand this is rough). I'm not suggesting that this should necessarily be printed out in the guide, it may be too much. BUT maybe its a checklist used to assign a numerical value to the "Cameo" or "Limited First Appearance" at worst.

 

"FCam(?)"..... indicating First App. Cameo and (maybe with a numeral indicating how many panels the character(s) is/are shown in?)

"SCam(?)"..... indicating Secondary App. Cameo (maybe with a numeral indicating how many panels the character(s) is/are shown in?)

"MCam"........ indicating Misc/Undefined Cameo > specifically for types of varying (referenced = r, talking only = to, partially shown = ps, etc.) cameos.. such as MJ in ASM

"FS"............... indicating the character was "Fully Show" essentially

"FCvr............. indicating character(s) was/were on the front cover

"Story"........... indicating the character was involved in the plot/story a bit more obviously > might be tough to use

 

 

Here is the system applied on a few books I'm relatively sure of the content and my impression of the rating...

 

PMIF 78 and Sabretooth...... Cameo 1- MCam/ps

Hulk 180 and Wolverine...... Cameo 5- FCam(1), FS, Story

 

Now consider for one moment.... PMIF 78 and Hulk 180... both are reported to be a Cameo Appearance... and yes I know they have follow-up comments in the guide (1st App Wolverine) and (hidden under cloak). However, doesn't this system still seem a bit lacking when its used to describe Hulk 180, PMIF 78, X-Men 120? Does the term really get across what it needs to? Do most people just refer to the appearances with the term and overlook the content and forget the qualifiers if they have not read the book in awhile or at all? We just seem to rely on the lacking Overstreet characterization and much may be lost.

 

Anyway, I realize this is VERY ROUGH and needs plenty of work, input, and fine-tuning. Any suggestions in adding to, improving a system that could be used to solve this problem? Also, maybe try applying the formula to some other "Cameos" or "Limited First Appearances" and give the book a rating on its impact/content/importance in your opinion?

 

 

BTW...V, rate the 2 issues I did and also XM 120 and others you can think of that you can open the book and check the details (and don't give 180 a "1" or I'll flog ya'

[joe_collector]

I'll use my own notations, since I don't fully agree with yours, especially your continued insistence that the story in Hulk 180 is "about Wolverime" :

 

PMIF 78 and Sabretooth...... Cameo 0.5 - Not Shown

Hulk 180 and Wolverine...... Cameo 4 - First App Cameo, 1-Panel

ASM 134 and Punisher:..... Cameo 3 - Second App Cameo, 1 Panel

New Mutants 86 and Cable... Cameo 1 - Teaser

X-Men 120 and Alpha Flight.... Cameo 9.99999 - On Cover, Featured from 1st to Last Page. Really a 1st Full Appearance.

 

 

 

[BronzeBruce13]

I tried to avoid focusing on the book, please try to do the same... that's my impression and does not need to be revisited. I'm not trying to say he's a big part of the story by far, just that there is some involvement in the plot/story to some extent and this may be a measuring point/factor eligible for consideration with all cameos... I also think whether the character is fully shown or not, and at what size.. is also relevant IMHO. We can agree to disagree on those small points if you wish, but lets move on, eh?

 

I had a feeling you would not like my notations. Its probably too much to expect to be printed. What do you think of its merits, once finalized, as a checklist to be used in more efficiently establishing a number/value? You know, like a "known standard" to work with when evauating.

 

I was going to try and avoid half-points or decimals for practical reasons, but its hard not to agree with your ".05" rating of PMIF 78 . That sort of clarifies part of my impression of how little or much the term stands for. Look at PMIF 78 vs X-Men 120... worlds of difference in importance! I just checked the new guide on 120 and it says "(cameo) story line begins". It does mention "1st appearance Vindicator" in addition. Perhaps, at the time it was considered, they felt he was the major character and making this notation was more important than the group? Another point would be... why was it ONLY Vindicator's 1st App.. and not ALL the members in the issue? Especially now/still?

 

Either way, since other members of Alpha Flight turned out just as popular (or more) than Vindicator (and really the team as a whole too)... we can certainly agree that this issue is clearly minimized by the term and not accurately credited by a long shot. Its also by far, the best candidate (thus far) for a nomination for a upgrade to "First Appearance"... sans cameo Status.

 

Since ArnoldT is the editor and a board member, perhaps we can make a worthwhile case and ask for an appeal

[valiantman]

Not to confuse the issue...(or maybe to make it worse)

 

Under your proposals, what would happen with the "arm-only cameo"

of Eddie Brock/Venom in Web of Spider-man #2?

[BronzeBruce13]

"MCam"........ indicating Misc/Undefined Cameo > specifically for types of varying (referenced = r, talking only = to, partially shown = ps, etc.) cameos.. such as MJ in ASM

 

I'm not sure if this really applies as it would be about a .001 cameo if you use V's decimal system. At best it would be...MCam/ps (of EB who becomes Venom). Even If it was Venom, it would rate a (1) probably.

[blowout]

I have always thought that if a character plays an INTEGRAL PART in the story/plot then this is a full appearance. Anything less is a cameo and should be denoted as such.

The example that JC uses (X-Men #120) is clearly a full appearance using this definition and is a mistake to be noted as a cameo..

As far as the different types of 'cameo' appearance go, I feel the best way to indicate them is to note as a cameo with qualifiying notes. There are just too many variations and complicated cameo apps for a numbered scale to work. Number One example of this is the convoluted first appearances of Mary Jane Watson.

I think the way Overstreet currently list cameo's is about right, although there are currently numerous mistakes and omissions that need to be addressed.

[joe_collector]

>>The example that JC uses (X-Men #120) is clearly a full appearance using this definition and is a mistake to be noted as a cameo..

 

I think this was a mistake made "way-back" that never got corrected. Byrne obviously wanted to create a bit of a teaser for the next-issue's showdown/brawl, so didn't have any big "team shots" in the issue.

 

But X-Men 120 has Alpha Flight on the cover, the members are all named and their faces shown, the entire story revolves around their attempts to corral Wolverine and their battles with various team members.

 

We see Vindicator throughout, Shaman is clearly shown, there are several panels with Sasquatch in there (tossing the plane, giving a beat-down to Wolvie) and everyone (except maybe Snowbird) is fighting or interacting with the X-Men throughout.

 

That's a key element of any First Appearance for me, that the characters are talkiing, interacting, fighting and otherwise making themselves an integral and (more importantly) very active part of the story.

[BronzeBruce13]

Give it a chance Lee...

 

Why not? If you can take the time to list qualifying notes, which are clearly not descriptive enough in many cases... why not consider trying to get a measure of the cameo's relevance by constructing a standard system or checklist to evaluate it. Not all cameos are created equal.

 

Even with the MJ situation, I think it could work. There would just be several "MCam's" (r, ps, etc.) until she has a more relevant appearance.

 

Why not just try a few cameos on books you can read and check, consider their merits, and try and assign it a number... before you decide it can't work. You have to at least "test-run" it before giving up on a new idea.

 

"MCam"........ indicating Misc/Undefined Cameo > specifically for types of varying cameos (referenced = r, talking only = to, partially shown = ps, etc.) .. such as MJ in ASM

 

If you're suggesting expanding the qualifying remarks to be more descriptive... possibly a couple sentences in some instances where necessary... that would work for me as well. My goal is to simply relay more of the content of the cameo in the listing so people have a better idea how to measure it. Many forget or have never read the books to actually know and form their own opinion.

[BronzeBruce13]

Makes sense to me...

 

I just checked the new guide on 120 and it says "(cameo) story line begins". It does mention "1st appearance Vindicator" in addition. Perhaps, at the time it was considered, they felt he was the major character and making this notation was more important than the group? Another point would be... why was it ONLY Vindicator's 1st App.. and not ALL the members in the issue? Especially now/still?

 

As mentioned above, do you think maybe because Weapon Alpha/Vindicator was the first member to show up in XM 109, that Overstreet focussed in on him as the major force of the team? The fact that the other characters are not singled out as having their first appearance in 120 still seems odd. Is Vindactor shown more often or illustrated larger? Why just Vindicator in 120 when its really just a name change... 109 was the first Weapon Alpha

[FlyingDonut]

Tales to Astonish 92 - First Silver Surfer outside of FF. One page, last page of the Hulk story. Just as much Surfer in this book as Wolverine is in Hulk 180.

[joe_collector]

Agreed and TTA 93 is a much cooler book, and in far more demand from collectors.

[blowout]

If you can take the time to list qualifying notes, which are clearly not descriptive enough in many cases... why not consider trying to get a measure of the cameo's relevance by constructing a standard system or checklist to evaluate it. Not all cameos are created equal.

 

I agree with what you are saying in general. The thing is though if the qualifying notes are not discriptive enough how will a numbered scale make things clearer? In theory I think the kind of scale you are proposing is a sound idea, the problem is that there are just too many variables. A scale would only really be viable if it was kept down to say 3 or 4 options, now the question is, can all cameo types be covered in such a scale. I have my doubts.

But maybe the way to go is to compile a list of all cameo types out there and see if they can be crunched into some kind of scale.

If we can make it viable then it could be put it under Robert Overstreet's nose and see what happens.

[Titan777]

I have always thought that if a character plays an INTEGRAL PART in the story/plot then this is a full appearance. Anything less is a cameo and should be denoted as such.

 

whats your guys take on the black costume in SW #8 that turns to Venom ??..........first appearance ?? or is his first appearance spiderman #299 or #300

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

"I'm not sure exactly what the process is, and who specifically is in charge of deciding/designating the value of an comic-apperance in the Overstreet Guide, but I'd like to know how that works. Perhaps ArnoldT could shed some inside-knowledge on the process?"

 

I usually play coy in situations like this, but I won't this time. I still find it a bit surprising just how formal some people think this all is . Sorry to say there IS no process, no set of rules, no system by which anything is being determined in this way. If someone finds something and it can be corroborated, then there we go and somebody makes a note. But there's no board reviewing anything and no one in "charge" per se. We just look and listen and do.

 

Now granted my own personal beliefs are not necessarily reflected in the plethora of cameo and first app. notations in the Guide, most if not all of which were well in place long before I was here, but there have been quite a few discussions of late about this and I think I've come to a conclusion that makes sense to me. So here it is:

 

To me the most familiar and widely accepted usage of the word "cameo" is that which appears in its third definition in the America Heritage: "3. A brief appearance of a prominent actor, as in a single scene of a motion picture." For most people, if you say the word "cameo," it implies a fleeting but significant appearance by a *familiar* character or person. In that sense then, I don't see how a cameo can precede a first appearance.

 

Therefore, from *my* perspective alone, I would say that a brief first appearance would not be called a cameo, but a "brief first app." or a "limited first app." which could then be followed by "first full app." or "first full app. in costume." See what I mean? Then, *subsequent* appearances could be cameos if they are brief but important.

 

OK, that's my personal editorial opinion on the entire matter and how it should be handled. But I don't control the system, I just help maintain it .

 

Arnold

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

How would you "rate" IRON FIST #13?

[BronzeBruce13]

Hey Dan... We've essentially moved passed comparisons to 180 directly. V just wants to keep it alive to bust my stones. That topic has been more than fully covered by now and even I'm no longer interested in discussing it specifically (nor is anyone else I think) I've put my view out there for all to agree or disagree with and I'm done with it.

 

However, V brought up a point in a recent thread which has helped me focus in on, and define part of what my problem has been, in a broader sense.... the fact that "cameo" often does not relay enough info about the appearance... and in a side-point, that there are even some that may have been mis-evaluated. Example X-Men 120.

 

The goal now is to see if there is a better way to relay the content/releavance, etc. of "Limited First Appearances" and/or "cameos". The example you cited.. although I have never read it, sounds like it would earn a 3 to 5 rating on my proposed scale.

 

[BronzeBruce13]

Hey V, I'm not sure if we are missing each others posts in real time (more you missing mine) before additional discussion takes place, but you have not responded to some questions I put to you. I'm interested in having an idea exchange with you on this topic, but you have to read and respond to some of my posts to accomplish this... as I do with yours.

[BronzeBruce13]

The breakdown I proposed probably would be too much in the listings... BUT I still feel the rating could work somehow. Maybe if they posted the standard somewhere near the glossary/key in the guide... and then explained the scenarios that they feel were relevant for evaluation. Then explain the process... that the "advisors" were all given a "limited 1st Appearance and/or cameo" survey and that the results were averaged and that is how the rating numeral was established.

 

.. again though, an expanded explanation/synopsis, particularly for more important characters couldn't hurt as an alternative.

 

Maybe we can put it together, but it probably won't get off the ground. It does not seem to me that "new ideas" get too far here as too many ar far more skilled at seeing the holes in the idea (which is necessary too) rather than being "brainstormer" types (like myself, I like to think) that are looking for a ways to improve the idea or make it workable.

 

That's usually too much to overcome whether the idea has promise or sucks. Even ideas with serious holes can evolve with positive energy directed at them

[BronzeBruce13]

Thanks Arnold,

 

... I still find it a bit surprising just how formal some people think this all is . Sorry to say there IS no process, no set of rules, no system by which anything is being determined in this way. If someone finds something and it can be corroborated, then there we go and somebody makes a note. But there's no board reviewing anything and no one in "charge" per se. We just look and listen and do.

 

Forgive my ignorance, but I just have no real idea how things work over there. I wasn't sure if you guys even read the books before making an evaluation, or just ask a few advisors, etc. I considered that it may have indeed been a more formally discussed topic because the project seems serious and important enough to me to make the best effort to communicate the true relevance/characterization of any "Limited 1st Appearance" and/or "cameo" .

 

 

...To me the most familiar and widely accepted usage of the word "cameo" is that which appears in its third definition in the America Heritage: "3. A brief appearance of a prominent actor, as in a single scene of a motion picture." For most people, if you say the word "cameo," it implies a fleeting but significant appearance by a *familiar* character or person. In that sense then, I don't see how a cameo can precede a first appearance.

 

Therefore, from *my* perspective alone, I would say that a brief first appearance would not be called a cameo, but a "brief first app." or a "limited first app." which could then be followed by "first full app." or "first full app. in costume." See what I mean? Then, *subsequent* appearances could be cameos if they are brief but important.

 

OK, that's my personal editorial opinion on the entire matter and how it should be handled. But I don't control the system, I just help maintain it

 

Well put... I fully agree with that view. I wish I would have thought of that point a long time ago. Obviously, I've clearly been on record as being less than impressed with the use of the "cameo" term to describe "Limited First Appearance". I have to say though, to hear from not just "an editor", but an "Overstreet Editor" that the term is likely being misused, gives my gripe a level of validation I was hoping to find. I would much rather see "Limited/Brief First Appearance" used to describe those type appearances, as again, I feel "cameo" is minimizing in many of those cases. The use of "Limited/Brief First Appearance" would simply give a more accurate representation of the appearance, especially if there was a way to give a very brief overview of the content. I also think the term "cameo" would be better used as you described... to JUST identify subsequent appearances AFTER the "Limited First Appearance(s)" and "First Full Appearance". Of course, some situations will be unique (like MJ in ASM) and may need a different solution, but that would be an overall improvement in my view. So the Hulk/Wolverine Trilogy descriptions using this line of thinking, could be... Hulk 180 (Limited 1st Appearance WeaponX/Wolverine. fully shown in last panel)... Hulk 181 (First FULL Appearance Wolverine)... Hulk 182 (Cameo App. Wolverine first page). >BTW. I would have used a different example, if I could have thought of one that used all 3 classifications so well.

 

How would you suggest contacting the Overstreet Guide to consider a new idea or re-evaluate a current way of reporting information? Would a poll or petition (specifically for the point you clarified in this case) have any chance at all of being considered for next year's guide, or the upcoming monthly product you're launching? Considering you basically defined the point, you'd have some clout to implement a change.

 

Also, in respects to the suggestion that X-men 120 may have been mis-evaluated (not just with the term cameo) but as even a Limited First Appearance... what case would have to presented to see this listing re-evaluated and possibly credited as the First Appearance of Alpha Flight (or at minimum, all the characters individually, like Vindicator?), with 121 being 2nd/Continued Full Appearance? I'm not sure what to call 121 in this case. It's unique too, but 120 is clearly not defined properly.

 

I appreciate that you took the time to listen and offer your opinion. I think its great that Gemstone has 2 VIP's here on the board that are willing to mix it up with the people that use your product (yes I bought the guide) and are also open to suggestions... thanks again.