First Full Appearance?

[blowout]

One of my favourite SS stories was done during Byrne's run on the FF title. THE FANTASTIC FOUR, SILVER SURFER, DOCTOR DOOM and TERRAX. Great SS appearance.......no GALACTUS

 

That story fits into my prefered criteria. Terrax is another of Galactus's heralds and the interplay between the Surfer and the other herald's has a lot to do with how each feels about their former 'boss' (Galactus).

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

Only because it's been misused and vaguely applied since the beginning. And aren't we all really just after the same thing - accuracy? As long as we apply a term consistently, isn't that what's really important here? Or are we just interested in having something to argue about? Where would these message boards be if we sorted everything out and everybody was finally happy about all of it? Frightening thought, isn't it?

[joe_collector]

>>Only because it's been misused and vaguely applied since the beginning. And aren't we all really just after the same thing - accuracy?

 

Sure, but I don't see your point. If a character, any character, at any time, appears for a limited (1 panel/page) in a comic, then it's been referred to as a Cameo for as long as I can remember.

 

That's consistent, irregardless of what term IMDB uses for a Cary Grant walk-on cameo as JFK.

 

In comic terms, the word Cameo has been consistently used, and is accurate as far as I'm concerned. We're not debating jewelry/movie origins of the term, but its subsequent evolution to mean something slightly different in the comics medium.

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

In looking through a few dozen articles and countless references in the Guide itself, I find numerous uses of the "Cameo" term to refer to brief appearances by established characters and just as many inexplicable uses in this way - "1st app. Cameo" - which not only seems intrinsically contradictory but very confusing. My point is simple - in comic terms, it looks like the word has *always* been misused, and here is a chance to set things right and prevent confusion in the future by making its use consistent and in line with the proper, familiar usage of the word in all other areas. I don't know why we should willfully use a generic term like that differently than in the "real world," and if it helps to make these little notations clearer and easier to follow, so much the better.

[joe_collector]

>>My point is simple - in comic terms, it looks like the word has *always* been misused, and here is a chance to set things right and prevent confusion in the future

 

Think about that for statement for a moment and ask yourself if changing the "standard comic usage" of Cameo would result in less confusion or more?

 

Like I mentioned before, language evolves, and what works for movies may not be applicable to a static medium like comic books. I believe cameo works, as long as you can tell the difference between Cary Grant and Luke Cage.

 

Don't take this the wrong way, but sound a lot like an English friend of mine, who's always telling me that we don't know how to speak the language over here, and thinks we're guttural savages for misusing the "Queen's English".

 

I'd imagine he'd have a lot to say about your English usage, but it doesn't make him right.

[OldGuy]

I speak English more weller then most people. I got learned real good.

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

I don't hide the fact that I *am* often a purist when it comes to English. I think being very conservative about English usage at this time in its development is extremely necessary, since the language is being warped beyond common understanding thanks to Internet-speak among other things. I teach literature at my alma mater, and when you've seen the state of English writing among college students - seniors, for God's sake! - you will weep for the future. And it's not because they're an indication that the language is evolving. It's *disintegrating*. Evolution suggests that meaning and understanding will walk hand in hand with the transformation, but all I see are people incapable of structuring a single thought because they can't communicate in any meaningful way, even with each other. Now in comics, we have a disproportionate number of highly literate, language-oriented people. At least we have that going for us.

 

But that's not what this is about as much as consistency, and I maintain there is no consistency here when you look at a wide range of examples.

 

"Think about that for statement for a moment and ask yourself if changing the "standard comic usage" of Cameo would result in less confusion or more?"

 

But that's what I keep saying - based on what I see in the Guide and elsewhere, there *is* no "standard comic usage" of the word. It refers to cameos in the traditional sense, but it's also used to refer to brief first appearances, which seems ludicrous, and in some cases in reference to situations that have no relation to the term at all. I think what needs to be done, at least for the Guide's sake, is to *pick* a standard and stick with it, and I can think of no better standard than to use the word "cameo" as anyone would normally define it. If we can manage to make all the references consistent, then a kid who's just picking up a Guide for the first time and has a basic command of the language won't be thrown by the inconsistent use of the word and wonder why we're a bunch of lunatics.

 

I only want them to find that out *after* they've gotten into comics .

[FlyingDonut]

WARNING THREAD HIJACK:

 

To ArnoldT's point about language, I give you Gene Weingarten from The Washington Post:

 

Below the Beltway

By Gene Weingarten

Sunday, April 27, 2003; Page W17

 

 

I am worried. I am worried because I just learned something. What I learned was bad.

 

I learned it from a letter I got. It was from a man. His name is Bill.

 

Bill is an authority on how people read and write. "Authority" is a great big word. It means that Bill is an expert. "Expert" is a medium-big word. It means that Bill knows a lot about words.

 

Bill should really be called Mr. DuBay because he is a teacher and it is good to call teachers Mr. (or Ms. if they are ladies). Mr. DuBay is not like most teachers. He doesn't teach kids. He goes to office places and teaches us grown-ups. He teaches us how to write. We already know how to write but we sometimes do it with big words that a lot of people don't understand.

 

Here comes the bad part. Mr. DuBay says most people in this country don't read any better than seventh-graders!

 

It's true. Smart people have studied this. But hold on! It's worse than that!

 

Seventh-graders can read seventh-grade books if you make them, but they don't like to do it. That is because it makes them think too much. It is too hard. So, instead, they like to read things that are written for fifth-graders. If you want seventh-grade kids to want to read all by themselves, you have to give them fifth-grade books! So, Mr. DuBay says that to make most grown-ups want to read something, you have to write it so seventh-grade kids will like it. That means you really need to write for fifth-graders!

 

Big companies pay Mr. DuBay money to tell them that. Then they do what he says. It is called "effective business communication." "Effective business communication" is a whole lot of great big words that mean talking and writing so other people know what you mean.

 

I asked Mr. DuBay if it made him sad that people are dumb. He said maybe a little, but that this was just a "fact of life." He did not mean the facts of life, like your mom told you about that time and it made you feel all icky-doody. Mr. DuBay would not say that. He is a nice man. He meant that it is sad that people do not read real well, but that he has a job to do. His job is not to make people read better. His job is to tell us how to talk to all the dumb people.

 

So, soon when you read things by big companies or by your country, things like your tax form or something you get about stocks you own, it will read more like this.

 

I said I thought this was condescending. "Condescending" is a great big word that means talking down to. I said maybe it would be better if we could just make people smarter. Mr. DuBay said that would be great but first things first. He said it is a hard problem because grown-ups watch too much TV and when they read books it is books by people like Mr. Cussler and Mr. Grisham. Mr. Cussler and Mr. Grisham write like this. There is a test you can do on books, and the test shows their books are for fifth- and sixth-graders. Mr. Cussler and Mr. Grisham are rich.

 

Mr. Herman Melville did not write for fifth-graders. He did not get rich. Isn't Herman a funny name?

 

Here is why I am worried. I am worried because life is not easy to explain. Life can be pretty hard to explain. Things are not simple all the time even if we want them to be. And sometimes you might have to say things that make people think. And it is hard to do that if you have to talk like this all the time. Just because we are dumb and watch dumb shows on TV and don't read hard things, that doesn't mean we don't need to know hard things. But what if no one tells us about them? It could happen! What if someday we look around and no one is using hard words? What if they are just using small words, like good and bad? Everyone, even the president of the United States!

 

Uh-oh.

[joe_collector]

>>It refers to cameos in the traditional sense

 

Could you please explain to me the "tranditional sense" of comic book cameos?

 

I understand the movie reference, but that simply doesn't work in comics, unless you have Luke Cage dressing up as Spider-man in one panel.

 

Example:

 

A Julia Roberts cameo as the Death Row Victim in The Player is referred to as a "Julia Roberts Cameo" of another fictional character. It's not a "Death Row Victim Cameo", so I am wondering how a fictional character can even have a cameo, using the movie definition???

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

As if I wasn't depressed enough already...

 

 

Maybe we should get back to talking about comic book cameos to soothe our souls...

[FlyingDonut]

just a general call - Weingarten has a "chatroom" on Tuesday on the Post site at noon eastern that is absoutely hilarious.

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

With all due respect, I *really* think you're making this more difficult than it needs to be. I meant "traditional" in the sense that the word "cameo" is most commonly used to refer to the brief appearance of a familiar figure in a small but often significant role. So if Julia Roberts makes an uncredited (or even credited) walk-on in a movie, it's a cameo. Similarly, if Spider-Man swings by the Baxter building for two panels, lobs a verbal jab at the Torch and swings away, it's a cameo. I don't see why this has to be any more complicated than that. My point about the misuse is *only* in the area of first appearances, and what I'm trying to say is that a cameo by its very nature is an appearance by a FAMILIAR person in that traditional sense. If this is the first time the character appears, then it can't be a cameo yet.

 

And that's all, this is all I mean. No more. Nothing else. Just that. And only that.

 

I'm starting to think I should pitch the idea of an OFFICIAL OVERSTREET GUIDE TO THE USE OF THE TERM CAMEO.

[joe_collector]

I can see your point, but to me, live-action movies are real people playing fictional characters, while comics are static images of fictional characters.

 

That makes comparing the meaning of Cameo across both an extremely difficult (impossible?) task. That's why I adhere to the notion that a Comic Cameo has a distinct meaning outside of movies, and has evolved on its own.

 

And just as a P.S., movie cameos are sometimes done retroactively, such as some unknown having a walk-on, then later becomes a star. IMDB and movie reference tomes update this type of Cameo credit appropriately.

 

It's entirely possible some movie star "first appearances" were actually in Cameo roles, that were only identified retroactively.

[OldGuy]

"all I see are people incapable of structuring a single thought because they can't communicate in any meaningful way"

 

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

"That makes comparing the meaning of Cameo across both an extremely difficult (impossible?) task."

 

I didn't seem to have much trouble with it. But then this is all about our own personal viewpoints. I see it one way, you see it another. The world won't stop spinning if we can't agree on how "cameo" should be used. So as far as I'm concerned, we've reached a perfectly acceptable impasse, and that's cool with me.

 

*walks off, having made his latest cameo appearance on the boards...*

 

 

 

[fiendish]

Perhaps a simple litmus test is:

 

If the character is seen, but has no dialog: it's a "cameo."

 

If the character has lines (e.g., last panel of FF 48), it's a "bit part" or "appearance."

 

We'd better settle this debate quickly. We don't want the super-heroes to get their union involved.

[blowout]

If the character is seen, but has no dialog: it's a "cameo."

 

That doesn't always apply, there are many instances where a character has had a profound effect/ invovlement in a story without speaking. Also many 'silent' books have been published in the past, recent exapmle of this, Marvels 'Nuff said' month of books.

 

I think this debate has gone off on a tangent, it doesn't really matter what term/designation is used to describe first/small/full appearances but whatever it is has to be consistent. It is all the mistakes and inconsistencies in Overstreet that are confusing, not the use of the word 'cameo' specifically.

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

There you go, I couldn't agree more. It's consistency that we are obviously after.

[PovertyRow]

I find numerous uses of the "Cameo" term to refer to brief appearances by established characters and just as many inexplicable uses in this way - "1st app. Cameo" - which not only seems intrinsically contradictory but very confusing.

 

I am most impressed with this because your concept of the term "cameo" IS accurate. They should just replace what we now call "cameo" with informative appelations like "first appearance - 1 panel" or "first appearance - 2 panels" or "first appearance - out of character" (like TTA 27). Give some INSIGHT into the howds and whys this was a first. Then use something like "first appearance - full" - for one of those first appearances where the new character actually does appear as a main character.

[vic6string]

Blowout said:

I don't think the Surfer has ever worked so well in his Earth based, human interaction stories.

 

I agree, and it ties to what I said in another thread about continuity and cohesive story writing. The Silver Surfer has the "Power Cosmic" (whatever that truly is)... Earth-bound heroes and villains aren't playing on the same field. I hate when they take a charcter like say Daredevil or Batman and put them in a story with someone like Silver Surfer or Thanos (circa Infinity Gauntlet). I am all for David/Goliath stories, but if David is a regular guy, the Silver Surfer is a Psychic Goliath on speed and steroids and then some. Writing an Earth-bound story with Silver Surfer is like writing a movie about the 1927 Yankees playing a little league special olympic team.... there is no way to make it both entertaining and believable.