Wolverine #80 X-23 Debunked?3319
 If I could, I would. I swear.
|
DrWatson private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Ambaryerno  |
||
| Post 26 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector*
|
Towmater private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Ambaryerno 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 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 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 | ||
|
Collector
|
Ambaryerno private msg quote post Address this user | |
| A first appearance is whatever the creator and/or owner of the character says it is. If Marvel defines Hulk #180 as Logan's first appearance, then however brief it is that's his first appearance. If there's a disparity in the value of 180 vs. 181, you can chalk that up to "first appearance" vs. "first significant appearance" (Comic Book Realm and even Marvel themselves do make that distinction). Thus why Hulk 181 has higher value, as Logan had an actual impactful role in the book as opposed to a single-panel cameo, thus increasing its value. X-23 herself has some bizarre valuation of her comics. Her first appearance in NYX #3 is actually LESS valuable than the Del'Otto variant of X-23 #1, (2011 series). And the Mattina variant of All-New Wolverine #19 is even higher than that. And ultimately, ALL our opinions are irrelevant against what the creator and owner of the characters says. If Marvel says Wolverine 80 is unconnected to X-23, it's unconnected. If they change their minds and retcon it, then that's the position that matters. If Marvel themselves are silent on the matter, than Kyle, as her creator, is the one who has say. |
||
| Post 31 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
Despain private msg quote post Address this user | |
| So is this situation concerning X-23 similar to Marvel saying that Marvel Graphic Novel no. 17 is the true first appearance of Apocalypse and not X-Factor 5 (cameo) 6 (full)? Someone needs to ask Weezie Simonson. |
||
| Post 32 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Ambaryerno private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Despain I would say IF Marvel were to later retcon it in the same manner that Uncanny X-Men #365 retconned Apocalypse into MGN #17, then yes. Because Marvel is the only entity that can make that determination as the actual owners of the characters. Anything else is fanon. |
||
| Post 34 • IP flag post | ||
|
If I could, I would. I swear.
|
DrWatson private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Logan X + #23 = X-23 | ||
| Post 35 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Ambaryerno private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by DrWatson You keep on grabbing that handful of straws. This isn't mathematics. |
||
| Post 36 • IP flag post | ||
 COLLECTOR
|
DarthLego private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by DrWatson  |
||
| Post 37 • IP flag post | ||
|
If I could, I would. I swear.
|
DrWatson private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Ambaryerno It's "new" math. |
||
| Post 38 • IP flag post | ||
|
COLLECTOR
|
shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user | |
Even if none of it is true, which it probably isnt, it would be cool if it was. So theres that.  |
||
| Post 39 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
Oxbladder private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Anyone who believes Wolverine #80 has anything to do with X-23 really doesn't know the history of the character or the separation in time of that book and the introduction of Laura Kinney. Yes the market makes all sorts of decisions but that doesn't mean they are correct ... Or consistent. As a long time fan of X-23 Wolverine #80 it means absolutely zero to me. |
||
| Post 42 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Oxbladder private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Towmater Actually, there was a lot of whining and crying when X-23 was created. Very similar to the wailing about diversity. As for the popularity ... It took time to grow, probably because the creators kept plugging on trying to create a character that was more than what she was labeled as by fandom. It is really really hard for "organic" to happen now when so many people just want the status quo maintained. Fact is the "great" storylines came from creators willing to step out of the comfort zone and create something all new. In essence, it is forced on the reader. However, whether the reader goes with the flow or not is a whole other thing. Nowadays people don't want it they want story arcs that are ancient history. Sadly though that doesn't work so well since the numbers also say that status quo isn't exactly selling like gangbusters. Personally, I think some people would be surprised that if they actually gave some of the Marvel and DC stuff a chance they may actually get into it. Or if they don't, which happens, they give some indie stuff a try. There is really zero reason not to enjoy modern books as there is a wealth of good material out there covering many genres and styles. Sadly, too many people just keep crying about Marvel and DC and writing of every other modern book because of them. It is really frustrating as a modern comic fan to always have people, IMHO, dumping on them. It s not like you find many of the modern folks dump on the older material and there is PLENTY of bad/mediocre material. Heck, there is probably more of it. |
||
| Post 43 • IP flag post | ||
|
COLLECTOR
|
DarthLego private msg quote post Address this user | |
| No one claimed there was a connection in the manner you just described. We know #80 was never intended to create or set up anything. No one is arguing that it is. I postulated, that the choosing of the name by the creative team was an intentional homage/joke (even if denied by those who did) because of the sheer astronomical odds of that being pure unintended consequence. Actually it's 1 in 99 odds, which is hardly astronomical, but I enjoy saying the word astronomical, it's a fun word. That of course assuming they never thought of three or more digit numbers. And of course, I have to also consider that the decision was entirely subconscious, brought forth by the buried knowledge base of the creator. As I said, I don't believe in coincidence. This is a deeply personal and spiritual belief of mine. (That of lack of any coincidence in the universe. And no, I'm not joking about that.) And as with all opinions, not a damn soul on this earth is required, nor expected to agree. This is why human beings engage in open debate. If anyone wishes to continue to cudgel this expired equine, I suggest popping some popcorn and getting comfortable. |
||
| Post 44 • IP flag post | ||
|
COLLECTOR
|
shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @SteveRicketts where does CBCS stand on this now, label notation removed or not? Please dont make me submit one at terrificon just to find out  |
||
| Post 45 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Ambaryerno private msg quote post Address this user | |
| It should never have been added in the first place. It's never been anything more than fanon, and I challenge anyone to find me a page from a published Marvel comic that explicitly confirms there's a connection between this issue and X-23. I don't get what's so hard to understand about this. |
||
| Post 46 • IP flag post | ||
 COLLECTOR
|
JLS_Comics private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Shameless plug, here is way more than you'd ever want to know about X-23 and her multiple origin stories (yes there are 3 now) |
||
| Post 47 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector*
|
Towmater private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Oxbladder My point was that she grew organically over time. Yes, she wasn't popular when she first arrived on the scene or she was ignored. However, she wasn't forced on the reader with a story-line that old hero guy is retiring and well put a female teen in his place to take over. Is there bad old stuff? Sure. Is there good new stuff? Ummm, I can't think of anything that Marvel and DC have done that reaches the length or quality of Miller's run on Daredevil, Claremont on the X-Men, Perez's run on New Teen Titans/Crisis/Wonder Woman. Maybe you can. The best modern stories in DC/Marvel I can think of... Batman - The Long Halloween - 13 issues and done in 1997 Superman, Red Son - 3 issues and done in 2003 I start reaching after that into independents and that isn't what we are chatting about. |
||
| Post 48 • IP flag post | ||
|
COLLECTOR
|
JLS_Comics private msg quote post Address this user | |
| She was popular when she debuted on X-Men Evolutions and that's why they decided to bring her over to comic books. It was when Quesada got his hands on her and made her a prostitute that it took a while for her popularity to grow | ||
| Post 49 • IP flag post | ||
|
COLLECTOR
|
shrewbeer private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Ambaryerno Nobody is saying or has said that there is any documented confirmation whatsoever. The argument is so thin that it is reduced to speculation of INTENT/ORGIN of the creators in naming her, accidental/subconscious or not. I don't get what's so hard to understand about that. Hell, I'm with you that it is not true and that it is coincidence; but some of us think it is worth exploring rather than just talking in black and white. |
||
| Post 50 • IP flag post | ||
|
COLLECTOR
|
JLS_Comics private msg quote post Address this user | |
| We're talking about 23 pairs of chromosomes and the "23" coming up on a vial in a genetics lab. It's not all the surprising that this number would come up more than once over a decade or so. Wolverine 80 came out in what? 1994? and then Innocence lost was like 10 years later (I say IL because not much was told about her in NYX). The number 23 makes sense for a character like this | ||
| Post 51 • IP flag post | ||
|
COLLECTOR
|
DarthLego private msg quote post Address this user | |
She was the 23rd attempt at cloning Logan, her name has nothing to do with chromosomes. Hence bad Logan is X-24.  |
||
| Post 52 • IP flag post | ||
|
COLLECTOR
|
JLS_Comics private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by DarthLego It's true on the 23rd attempt but it dealt with a duplicated x chromosome and made a female instead of a male. They "Y" chromosome kept disintegrating that's why Dr Kinney took an "X" chromosome on that last attempt |
||
| Post 53 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Ambaryerno private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by shrewbeer In this case it's important because you're talking about something that people are using to inflate the value of what's otherwise a comic that has no real significance. It has...Cyber. And a few plot points that contribute nothing to the grand scheme of things. So Wolverine #80 isn't particularly iconic or meaningful. Tack on an, "Oh, but it's technically the first appearance of X-23" and it's going to add a few bucks on eBay. And now, even if the "X-23 Appearance/Mention" IS removed from the CBCS grading, it's STILL going to get interest from collectors just from the controversy this has caused. The latter I'm fine with, but advertising it as something it's NOT is a problem. Kyle himself openly discourages X-23 collectors from picking this issue up for that very reason. Quote: Originally Posted by DarthLego Quote: Originally Posted by JLS_Comics She's specifically the 23rd attempt at a FEMALE clone ("X" refers to "X chromosome," not "Weapon X"  . In Innocence Lost several male cloning attempts fail before Sarah Kinney proposes the female clone. When she defies her orders and begins the attempt to create the female we see her make an entry on her computer to the effect of "X Chromosome Trial 1. A second entry is shown later with X Chromosome Trial 17. Then finally we get Trial 23, which is successful. So there were 22 attempts at the female BEFORE Laura was successfully conceived.This one is also confirmed by Kyle. |
||
| Post 54 • IP flag post | ||
|
COLLECTOR
|
JLS_Comics private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Yup and as a punishment for defying Rice's orders she was forced to carry the baby to full term | ||
| Post 55 • IP flag post | ||
This topic is archived. Start new topic?