Not a CBCS member yet? Join now »
CBCS Comics
Not a CBCS member yet? Join now »
Comics Modern AgeMovies TelevisionPop CultureQuestions

Wolverine #80 X-23 Debunked?3319

COLLECTOR JLS_Comics private msg quote post Address this user
Archived Thread:
clickable text

So the question and debate for some time has been "Is the x-23 tube in Wolverine #80 considered a 1st app/cameo/predated type appearance?"

Well, no according to this article as well as Mr. Yost himself.
clickable text
Post 1 IP   flag post
COLLECTOR shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user
Oh noooo CBCS, best get that label change into the computer right quick 🍺

To be fair, I can certainly understand how the mistake could be made in this case 😬


Post 2 IP   flag post
COLLECTOR DarthLego private msg quote post Address this user
A mention is not an appearance though, no need for CBCS to change it.
Post 3 IP   flag post
COLLECTOR shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user
@DarthLego did you read Craig's comments? He says the book has absolutely nothing to do with X23. Not a mention, not an appearance, complete coincidence.
Post 4 IP   flag post
COLLECTOR Towmater private msg quote post Address this user
A wonderful response to the Marvel VP that said that fans didn't want diversity is X-23. She is massively popular. She is different than Logan who she is based upon. Her success and popularity didn't happen overnight. It grew organically and wasn't forced on the reader/fan with some gimmick. I wish the editors would understand that.

Does anyone think that a great storyteller like Claremont or Miller would be given the opportunity to build a world and storyline like they both did in today's comic industry? It drives me nuts that many of the movies produced are based upon the storylines that those guys imagined and wrote only to have today's comic industry turn away from those types of runs trying to collect a quick buck. Are there any current stories that match what those guys did? I can't think of any. Heck, writers and artist seem to shift off books quicker than the ink in the book dries.

That is one of the bigger issues I see with modern comics. They are more gimmick than substance.

Just my .02
Post 5 IP   flag post
COLLECTOR DarthLego private msg quote post Address this user
Yes I have read it all before. I know that when the original was written there were no plans to create a character. But when the character was created the name was a retcon homage meta joke type thing to the test tube. At that point it became a retconned mention. I see no point in CBCS changing what the label says. It ultimately don't matter, and it is a fact that some collectors seek that issue out just because of the test tube, so the notation is nice for those people.
Post 6 IP   flag post
COLLECTOR dielinfinite private msg quote post Address this user
I think that intentional or not, it's a neat little novelty. Not something I'd pay a premium for but it's a neat little footnote or trivia in the character's history given her origin.

I certainly never considered it a first appearance or anything of the sort.
Post 7 IP   flag post
Collector Despain private msg quote post Address this user
I liked this person's comment:

Why "23" coincidence: Our genetic information is stored in 23 pairs of chromosomes that vary widely in size and shape. Chromosome 1 is the largest and is over three times bigger than chromosome 22. The 23rd pair of chromosomes are two special chromosomes, X and Y, that determine our sex. Females have a pair of X chromosomes (46, XX), whereas males have one X and one Y chromosomes.
Post 8 IP   flag post
COLLECTOR shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthLego
when the character was created the name was a retcon homage meta joke type thing to the test tube.


If that's the case then I agree, the label should stay the way it is and the book HAS significance.

Am I reading Yost's comments wrong? He seems to suggest the contrary, that the naming of X23 had nothing at all to do with that book.
Post 9 IP   flag post
Collector Despain private msg quote post Address this user
@shrewbeer You're correct. Yost said that the test tube marked 23 and Laura being named X-23 was merely a coincidence. Being that we have 23 pairs of chromosomes, it makes sense that both writers would use the number 23.
Post 10 IP   flag post
Collector Ambaryerno private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthLego
Yes I have read it all before. I know that when the original was written there were no plans to create a character. But when the character was created the name was a retcon homage meta joke type thing to the test tube. At that point it became a retconned mention. I see no point in CBCS changing what the label says. It ultimately don't matter, and it is a fact that some collectors seek that issue out just because of the test tube, so the notation is nice for those people.


1) Direct word of god of co-creator Kyle himself EXPLICITLY states that Wolverine #80 has nothing whatsoever to do with X-23. It wasn't an inspiration for the name, it wasn't an inspiration for the character's existence.

2) Marvel has in NO WAY IN ANY OFFICIAL CAPACITY EVER stated that Wolverine #80 has a connection to X-23. It's NEVER been mentioned in any single issue of Marvel Comics ever published. It's not listed as an official mention of her character in ANY official Marvel handbook.

The connection is 100% pure fanon and has NO business being on the label.
Post 11 IP   flag post
COLLECTOR DarthLego private msg quote post Address this user
1) Humans lie...

2) That would be the biggest coincidence in the history of human kind.

3) I don't believe in coincidences.

4) That is all I have to say about that.
Post 12 IP   flag post
Collector Ambaryerno private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthLego
1) Humans lie...

2) That would be the biggest coincidence in the history of human kind.

3) I don't believe in coincidences.

4) That is all I have to say about that.


What POSSIBLE reason would Kyle have to lie about that? I don't care WHAT you believe, the word of the character's CREATOR counts for a hell of a lot more than yours.

AND as I already noted: Marvel has NEVER themselves acknowledged any connection between Wolverine #80 and X-23 in ANY COMIC BOOK THEY'VE EVER PUBLISHED.

It's fan wank, pure and simple.
Post 13 IP   flag post
COLLECTOR dielinfinite private msg quote post Address this user

Post 14 IP   flag post
COLLECTOR DarthLego private msg quote post Address this user

Post 15 IP   flag post
COLLECTOR shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthLego
1) Humans lie...

2) That would be the biggest coincidence in the history of human kind.

3) I don't believe in coincidences.

4) That is all I have to say about that.


Ok I'll play ball. I can see a possibility where they lie so that they are credited with creation, whereas if #80 IS 1st mention then Churchill and/or Milgrom inked/penciled it on there nd thus they therefore technically created her.

So there *could be motive to lie.
Post 16 IP   flag post
COLLECTOR DarthLego private msg quote post Address this user
I'm just playing Dr. House's advocate here.


Post 17 IP   flag post
Collector Ambaryerno private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by shrewbeer
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthLego
1) Humans lie...

2) That would be the biggest coincidence in the history of human kind.

3) I don't believe in coincidences.

4) That is all I have to say about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthLego
1) Humans lie...

2) That would be the biggest coincidence in the history of human kind.

3) I don't believe in coincidences.

4) That is all I have to say about that.


Ok I'll play ball. I can see a possibility where they lie so that they are credited with creation, whereas if #80 IS 1st mention then Churchill and/or Milgrom inked/penciled it on there nd thus they therefore technically created her.

So there *could be motive to lie.


Which is ultimately a moot argument for a number of reasons:

1) Marvel takes ownership of all characters created for its books. So Kyle and Yost submitting this character TO Marvel would have been caught from the beginning.

2) Even if they claim "Well we didn't know..." the best such an argument would do if it went to court would be that it forces the ones accusing them of using their material as the basis of the character is that now the it has to be PROVEN they had foreknowledge of the character. Most likely it would go to settlement.

Ultimately, however, it's irrelevant. To reiterate: there's no issue of any Marvel comics ever published that corroborates a connection between Wolverine 80 and X-23. As far as all officially-published materials are concerned, the sample Dale Rice salvaged from the Weapon X project and was picked up by Martin Sutter in X-23 Innocence Lost #1 is a completely unrelated sample from the one shown in Wolverine #80.

Hell, the Wolverine #80 sample doesn't EVEN say "X-23" on it. The X and 23 are on two completely separate labels.
Post 18 IP   flag post
COLLECTOR Towmater private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambaryerno
Quote:
Originally Posted by shrewbeer
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthLego
1) Humans lie...

2) That would be the biggest coincidence in the history of human kind.

3) I don't believe in coincidences.

4) That is all I have to say about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthLego
1) Humans lie...

2) That would be the biggest coincidence in the history of human kind.

3) I don't believe in coincidences.

4) That is all I have to say about that.


Ok I'll play ball. I can see a possibility where they lie so that they are credited with creation, whereas if #80 IS 1st mention then Churchill and/or Milgrom inked/penciled it on there nd thus they therefore technically created her.

So there *could be motive to lie.


Which is ultimately a moot argument for a number of reasons:

1) Marvel takes ownership of all characters created for its books. So Kyle and Yost submitting this character TO Marvel would have been caught from the beginning.

2) Even if they claim "Well we didn't know..." the best such an argument would do if it went to court would be that it forces the ones accusing them of using their material as the basis of the character is that now the it has to be PROVEN they had foreknowledge of the character. Most likely it would go to settlement.

Ultimately, however, it's irrelevant. To reiterate: there's no issue of any Marvel comics ever published that corroborates a connection between Wolverine 80 and X-23. As far as all officially-published materials are concerned, the sample Dale Rice salvaged from the Weapon X project and was picked up by Martin Sutter in X-23 Innocence Lost #1 is a completely unrelated sample from the one shown in Wolverine #80.

Hell, the Wolverine #80 sample doesn't EVEN say "X-23" on it. The X and 23 are on two completely separate labels.


It really doesn't matter, does it? Believe what you want on either side of the fence. The collectors' market decide what is an important book. Example, the whole Hulk 180 vs 181 thing.
Post 19 IP   flag post
Collector DrWatson private msg quote post Address this user
At least Wolverine is in Hulk 180,
Post 20 IP   flag post
Collector DrWatson private msg quote post Address this user
Coincidence or not, you have a test tube labeled X-23. Next thing you know, there's a pseudo-clone based on Wolverines DNA named X-23. I can see a connection.
Post 21 IP   flag post
Collector Ambaryerno private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrWatson
Coincidence or not, you have a test tube labeled X-23. Next thing you know, there's a pseudo-clone based on Wolverines DNA named X-23. I can see a connection.


Except it's NOT labeled "X-23."

The big label at the top top says "Logan X"

A small label on the bottom says "#23."

So it has one label with an "X" and another with a "23," but nowhere does it actually say "X-23."

Without any official confirmation from Marvel, this connection is the very definition of "fanon."
Post 22 IP   flag post
COLLECTOR Towmater private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrWatson
At least Wolverine is in Hulk 180,


That wasn't the point I was attempting to make.
Post 23 IP   flag post
Collector Ambaryerno private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by Towmater
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrWatson
At least Wolverine is in Hulk 180,


That wasn't the point I was attempting to make.


Your point is irrelevant. The collectors market decides VALUE, it doesn't decide what IS. That is determined solely by Marvel Comics. And Marvel themselves have established no connection between that book and the character exists.
Post 24 IP   flag post
Collector Savage_Spawn private msg quote post Address this user
Sheeezz Wilikers Wilbur!!!!! I hate to see the explosive "controversy" outbursts when the new offspring X-24 makes her first appearance. Followed up by The Son of X-24 and X-24-Gwen......😎
Post 25 IP   flag post
Collector DrWatson private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambaryerno
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrWatson
Coincidence or not, you have a test tube labeled X-23. Next thing you know, there's a pseudo-clone based on Wolverines DNA named X-23. I can see a connection.


Except it's NOT labeled "X-23."

The big label at the top top says "Logan X"

A small label on the bottom says "#23."

So it has one label with an "X" and another with a "23," but nowhere does it actually say "X-23."

Without any official confirmation from Marvel, this connection is the very definition of "fanon."


Post 26 IP   flag post
COLLECTOR Towmater private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambaryerno
Quote:
Originally Posted by Towmater
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrWatson
At least Wolverine is in Hulk 180,


That wasn't the point I was attempting to make.


Your point is irrelevant. The collectors market decides VALUE, it doesn't decide what's canon. That is determined solely by Marvel Comics. And Marvel themselves have established no connection between that book and the character exists.


While your point might be relevant in the current Marvel continuum and what the original creator says he meant her to be created from. It would be irrelevant if Marvel decided tomorrow to reset their universe and say she came from the X-23 sample in Wolverine 80.

My point about the market would apply in the above situation too. People would run with their dollars to pick-up what they wanted. The free market tends to do that.
Post 27 IP   flag post
Collector Ambaryerno private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrWatson
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambaryerno
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrWatson
Coincidence or not, you have a test tube labeled X-23. Next thing you know, there's a pseudo-clone based on Wolverines DNA named X-23. I can see a connection.


Except it's NOT labeled "X-23."

The big label at the top top says "Logan X"

A small label on the bottom says "#23."

So it has one label with an "X" and another with a "23," but nowhere does it actually say "X-23."

Without any official confirmation from Marvel, this connection is the very definition of "fanon."




Cute graphic. Completely incorrect, but cute. Here's one for you that's much more accurate.


Post 28 IP   flag post
COLLECTOR shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user
@Ambaryerno its not moot. Im not talking lawsuits. Im talking the possibility of someone being able to say "hey you created the character, but named it after something you saw these guys draw".
Thus the possibility of a motive to lie.

Not that I actually believe this to be true.
Post 29 IP   flag post
COLLECTOR Towmater private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambaryerno
Quote:
Originally Posted by Towmater
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrWatson
At least Wolverine is in Hulk 180,


That wasn't the point I was attempting to make.


Your point is irrelevant. The collectors market decides VALUE, it doesn't decide what IS. That is determined solely by Marvel Comics. And Marvel themselves have established no connection between that book and the character exists.


Really? Wanna help me understand what a first appearance is then? I ask as the entire 180 vs 181 argument surrounds how that is defined. I'm sure you know that.

BTW, to continually write that someone's point is "irrelevant" is rude. It is your opinion, nothing more.
Post 30 IP   flag post
183731 62 30
destitute