|
|
Post by pinkfloydsound17 on Sept 11, 2019 8:01:53 GMT -5
Thor is an interesting one, because a warrior by the name of Thor had first appeared in a Marvel comic in Venus (1948), which some people don't seem to be sure if it's the Avengers Thor in a different form or a different Thor altogether: If the writer's did not intend for it to be the same Thor that appears in JIM #83, then it is a different Thor. To my knowledge, no connection was ever made. Perhaps Stan and Jack said "hey there is an old comic with Thor, let's do our own Thor". This still means JIM #83 is the first appearance of the Thor we know. This Venus comic should have a label as "Appearance of Norse God Thor" |
|
|
|
Post by pinkfloydsound17 on Sept 11, 2019 8:03:39 GMT -5
Apparently this was later retconned to be Eddie/Venom. If anyone can inform me when and in what issue this was retconned I would love to know. I remember this being discussed in Wizard Magazine circa 1990 or 1991. This was supposed to be the first cameo introduction of Venom, but then they went another way with the character and his introduction. I was never aware of there being any deliberate retconning involved -- just an avenue they originally intended to pursue and then didn't. So if that hand pushing Peter was supposed to be something that changed completely and was never talked about again, I don't know that I would even call it a prototype for Eddie/Venom. At least other prototypes gave you a basic concept, design....something! This is a hand. I'd be interested in reading that Wizard for clarification... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2019 8:06:34 GMT -5
I read a UK Avengers reprint once where they took on Immortus. Immortus brought past gods to "our" time to battle the Avengers. Thor battled Hercules on one page. The comic reprinted Avengers #10 (1964).
It's clearly a different Hercules (in appearance) to the bearded Hercules who debuted in Journey Into Mystery Annual #1. The Hercules who was an underling of Immortus looked and communicated in a different way - and wasn't as brash as the Hercules we came to know and love.
Were there incarnations of Hercules at Atlas or Timely?
Or do we count Hercules' first Marvel appearance as Journey Into Mystery Annual #1, given that incarnation has stood the test of time?
This topic has kick-started a fascinating debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by pinkfloydsound17 on Sept 11, 2019 8:16:13 GMT -5
What about Swamp Thing? The House of Secrets story "Swamp Thing" doesn't match your definition of a "prototype appearance" so it's clearly a "first appearance," but it's not the same character as the familiar solo-series starring Alec Holland Swamp Thing, and it looks a bit different than the character from the ongoing series. Still, it's crucial enough in the chain to be historically important as the first "real" appearance and I don't think anyone would argue that House of Secrets #93 is the prime target from a collector's viewpoint, rather than Swamp Thing #1 (or any of the issues that had ads which would be the first preview appearance of the Alec Holland Swamp Thing). I think there must be some other cases where a generally complete version of a character was introduced in a one-shot appearance and then later a "different but the same" version went into publication. I know I've run across a few Golden Age characters where after one or two issues they've been inexplicably revamped into a new secret identity under the same basic costume and name, like Simon and Kirby's "Rick Nelson, Manhunter" in Adventure Comics #73 becoming "Paul Kirk, Manhunter" in the next issue (reclaiming the civilian name of the previous, non-costumed Manhunter of earlier issues). And there are more examples of cases like Crimebuster mentioned, "retroactive first appearances," in which a minor character, sometimes unnamed, is later declared to be the same person as a later-developed character. Sometimes, there's evidence that this was intentional, like Norman Osborne, and the "first appearance" is justifiable, but I believe there are others--maybe one of Marvel's "Daughters of the Dragon"?--where it's more certainly a retcon. I wondered who might bring this up and I am glad you did! Revamping an old character into something or different does not negate the characters first appearance. HOS #92 (you meant to say that I know  was Swamp Thing. It was called such. Later on, Wein and Wrightson revamped the character for his own series set in modern day. If a character appears once and then later is changed visually or even in origin but the premise is still there relating back to that originating appearance, then it's original incarnation is still the first appearance. Lots of characters have disappeared for a while and come back differently. The change does not change their first appearance for me at least. As for retcons, you might have me there. I am leaning towards retcons not being first appearances. If intentional from the same writing/creative team like Normie, sure. If years later, a different writer comes along and says "hey remember this figure in this issue?...well now they are a superhero!" That should not make this random book a first appearance. Perhaps it can be noted as being "inspiration for insert character name here" on a label of some kind? |
|
|
|
Post by pinkfloydsound17 on Sept 11, 2019 8:18:34 GMT -5
And to muddy the waters further, wasn't Damian Wayne shown as a baby in an old comic? Son of the Demon. But he was never given a name, and he was given away to an unknowing adopted family. So, while that baby inspired the creation of Damian Wayne, it's questionable whether or not it actually was version one of Damian Wayne. This seems like a retcon type situation again, where future writer's were inspired by a past event. Totally different creative team working on Damian Wayne than did Son of the Demon. Son of the Demon can be listed as containing "inspiration for the character Damian Wayne". Nothing about a first appearance, prototype or preview should be mentioned in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by pinkfloydsound17 on Sept 11, 2019 8:22:15 GMT -5
Here’s a head scratcher: Is Madame McEvil from Iron Man #54 a prototype of Moondragon, or do we accept the retcon that made her the actual character acting weird? (Madame McEvil has the exact same design as Moondragon but is clearly a completely different character in that issue). Also, regarding Constantine: that alleged first appearance in Swamp Thing #25 is not him. Steve Bissette just wanted to draw someone looking like Sting. I like your idea of prototypes, pinkfloydsound17. It perfectly describes the appearance (in design, if not in name) of Barry Smith’s version of Conan, in Chamber of Darkness #4 (as “Starr the slayer”). Another interesting one. Again, if it was retconned by another creative team, perhaps calling it "inspiration for character Moondragon" or adding the category "retconned first appearance of Moondragon". I think we have a new category on our hands.... |
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,959 
|
Post by Crimebuster on Sept 11, 2019 8:26:12 GMT -5
See, I definitely have a more literal view of first appearance. I just don't think it's logical to call something a first appearance when the character or concept wasn't even created yet. In real world terms, there was a year between #54 and #60, and during that period if you asked anyone who read #54 who the Teen Titans were, they would have no idea wtf you were talking about, because the concept hadn't been created yet. I just don't see how you can call something a first appearance when it doesn't actually appear! Anyway, it's moot in this case, because they aren't referred to as a team in #54, and there's no suggestion in the story that it's anything other than a one-time team-up, just like all the other B&B stories. The only use of the word "team" in reference to this story is, I think, in the previous issue's "coming attractions" blurb, which often referred to the B&B team-ups as "teams" since I don't think the term team-up had been devised yet. Like, it might say for #53 "Check out the Atom and Flash team in the next issue!" And in #60, Robin explicitly states to Batman that the Teen Titans were created sometime after the story in #54.  Which is supported in the story by the fact that Wonder Girl is part of the Teen Titans, but was not involved in the team-up in #54. ...yet plenty of people with angrily argue to their grave that #54 is the first appearance of the Teen Titans because DC continuity and decades of fandom have said so, regardless of what reality and the comic itself say. |
|
|
|
Post by pinkfloydsound17 on Sept 11, 2019 8:29:20 GMT -5
I read a UK Avengers reprint once where they took on Immortus. Immortus brought past gods to "our" time to battle the Avengers. Thor battled Hercules on one page. The comic reprinted Avengers #10 (1964). It's clearly a different Hercules (in appearance) to the bearded Hercules who debuted in Journey Into Mystery Annual #1. The Hercules who was an underling of Immortus looked and communicated in a different way - and wasn't as brash as the Hercules we came to know and love. Were there incarnations of Hercules at Atlas or Timely? Or do we count Hercules' first Marvel appearance as Journey Into Mystery Annual #1, given that incarnation has stood the test of time? This topic has kick-started a fascinating debate. JIM Annual #1 is first appearance of Greek God Hercules (who is actually Heracles in Greek mythology but due to similarities, people end up using the same name Perhaps the Hercules, the Roman version, was the one who appeared in the issue of Avengers 10? |
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,959
|
Post by Crimebuster on Sept 11, 2019 8:38:44 GMT -5
I an think of a couple other retcon first appearance.
The most egregious of which has to be Avengers #71, which I think is still listed in Overstreet, and thus all over the place, as the first appearance of the Invaders.
Avengers #71 came out in 1969. In this story, the Avengers travel back in time to WWII and fight Cap, Namor, and Human Torch.
Giant-Size Invaders #1, which is the first appearance of the Invaders, came out in 1975.
Invaders Annual #1 came out in 1977. In this story, continuity wank Roy Thomas brought in the events of Avengers #71 as part of the Invaders story.
Thanks to this retcon, which is essentially just slapping the name "Invaders" on the group of heroes in a story from 8 years earlier, Avengers #71 is listed as the first appearance of the Invaders.
That's just stupid.
Another first appearance retcon is Misty Knight, which to me is also egregious in a different way. It's very similar to Swap Thing #25, only worse. I do believe the artist for Swamp Thing #25 has claimed the background character was intended to be Constantine. IN this case, Misty KNight was first mentioned in 1975's Marvel Premiere #20, and then appeared in #21.
in 1977, in MTU #64, Chris Claremont and John Byrne decided to connect the dots by retconning it so that Misty KNight had appeared as an unnamed character in 1972's Marvel Team-up #1. The basis is simply that the character in MTU #1 is also a black woman. That's it. Apparently Bryne and Claremont decided there could only be one African-American woman in Marvel New York.
So now MTU #1 is flacked by some peole as being Misty Knight's first appearance, because of this retcon. It's not, because Marvel continuity can't actually change the publication order of books in the real world, or the cronology of when characters were actually created and introduced to readers in the real world.
|
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,959
|
Post by Crimebuster on Sept 11, 2019 8:41:01 GMT -5
One character I've also had arguments about - and had my mind changed on - is the first appearance of Ant-Man. Tales to Astonish #27, or #35? And which should be considered more important? I think at this point you can guess how I feel about it now, but I argued the other side for a long time before my mind was changed.
Arguing about this stuff on the CGC forums, I often feel like this:
|
|
|
|
Post by pinkfloydsound17 on Sept 11, 2019 8:57:32 GMT -5
Perhaps this category needs to be used
First Retcon Appearance
A first appearance that is adapted or used later by a future/different writing team. It can be a background character or a group that is later connected woven into the continuity as having existed all along but did not actually exist until a certain creative team took control. Avengers #71 would be "first retconned appearance of the Invaders" while Giant Size Invaders would be "first appearance (second retconned appearance) of Invaders". For Misty, Marvel Team-Up #1 can be first retconned appearance, while Marvel Premiere #20 can be her first unknown appearance (if she is only mentioned) and #21 is her first appearance (second retconned appearance).
|
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Sept 11, 2019 9:00:20 GMT -5
The Hercules in Avengers #10 was retroactively identified as either a Dire Wraith (Roger Stern) or a Space Phantom (Kurt Busiek). The god himself first appeared in a Timely comic way back in Daring Mystery Comics #6 (September '40), where he played a prominent role in the origin of Simon & Kirby's Marvel Boy (no relation to any later characters of that name). S far as I know, that series (and its Herc) has never been folded into the main Marvel Universe, not unlike the original Ka-Zar.
Tales to Astonish #27 is the first appearance of Henry Pym and his size-changing serum, but #35 is the first appearance of Pym as the costumed hero Ant-Man. you can no more claim #27 as Ant-Man's first appearance than you can claim Tales of Suspense #48 (the first appearance of Pepper Potts) as the first appearance of Rescue.
Cei-U!
I summon my random responses!
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil Maurice on Sept 11, 2019 9:27:55 GMT -5
I find it oddly appropriate that The Spectre fails to appear in his first appearance. He is on the cover of More Fun 52, of course, and in an imposing teaser panel on the title page, but not in the story proper.
|
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Sept 11, 2019 9:32:19 GMT -5
Which one is the first appearance? Whichever one s will make the back issues dealers the most money. Cei-U! I solve the eternal question! Fixed it for you |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Sept 11, 2019 10:01:57 GMT -5
I have one that might qualify , the first appearance of the Defenders is Marvel Premiere #1 but the prototype appeared in Submariner 34-35 where Subby, the Surfer and the Hulk team up and Even take on the Avengers.
|
|
was Swamp Thing. It was called such. Later on, Wein and Wrightson revamped the character for his own series set in modern day. If a character appears once and then later is changed visually or even in origin but the premise is still there relating back to that originating appearance, then it's original incarnation is still the first appearance. Lots of characters have disappeared for a while and come back differently. The change does not change their first appearance for me at least. 
