KAMALA KHAN 1 1

[krighton]

I think I only have 1 Point One that's a NM and I picked it off the shelf on release day....the others all seem to be VF or worse.

[UltraMaximus]

Well the others I paid a whopping $2.25 for, so buying a NM one for $12 with the current eBay trends at almost $20 seemed legit. Plus I have sold one already and basically made my NM one cover or less.

 

Might have to slab it even if it is a 9.2 or a 9.0. still has the letters NM on it as far as I am concerned.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

 

Neither CM14 nor CM17-2nd Print have any mention of any character named "Kamala Khan", although a cover image unrelated to the inner storyline may be interpreted as an appearance - but cannot be mistaken for the "first appearance" of the character "Kamala Khan" that is clearly and unequivocally seen and announced in ANMNPO#1.

 

 

 

 

When a character or event is depicted on a cover, but not in the actual story inside the book, do we consider it as "happening"?

 

It's an old marketing ploy you used to see more often. I've never considered an image of a character on a cover an appearance in said book if he/she did not actually appear in the story inside.

 

Add to that a publisher retroactively placing it on a second print cover, and the notion of any appearance - much less first appearance - becomes even more spurious.

What we have here is the same situation as Marvel Age #97 and Darkhawk #1.

 

Marve Age 97 features Darkhawk on the cover, and is a nice collectible for Darkhawk fans, but he's not on the inside. Thus, Darkhhawk #1 (not Marvel Age 97) is considered his 1st appearance.

Rarely is there a first appearance debate that has a predecent with very similar details, and that holds true here too. First off, Marvel Age was a news magazine, not a comic book, regardless of whether it was the same size. Second, Ms. Marvel does appear in the interior of CM #17 2nd print, and she also has two appearances in-story published prior to that, regardless of how minor the appearance is.

[UltraMaximus]

You know, this argument is the same as Uncanny X-men 1st Bishop. 282, on cover, appears last panel, 283 1st full.

 

283 is winning that argument, so I see ANMN.1 being the winner long term.

[jcjames]

To truly research and debate a matter, the author must find and provide evidence which supports their theory. There's plenty out there...

When does the character "Kamala Khan" first appear?

 

Provide evidence that it is in any book OTHER than ANMNPO#1.

The writer explicitly stated that she was intentionally placed in issue 14.

 

http://1979semifinalist.podomatic.com/entry/2013-11-18T01_13_14-08_00

 

Start listening at 1:37:30

I get it - the first cameo. Not a problem.

 

I don't get the 1st unnamed non-speaking background cameo > 1st named/costumed/full appearance thing.

 

But like I said, the market is fickle and irrational. If the writer has to after-the-fact explain who the person in the background is, then it's not much of a significant appearance at all, IMO.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 31, 2015 by jcjames

[d19113]

I have officially jumped into the madness.

[Batman]

I have officially jumped into the madness.

Now you're here, just sit back and marvel at it

[d19113]

I actually read all 30+ pages of this thread and the comedy level is high. Ie "The Cameo Bicep"

[MadGenius]

I actually read all 30+ pages of this thread and the comedy level is high. Ie "The Cameo Bicep"

 

Mark my words - some writer at Marvel will retcon that cameo in CM 17 as Mystique or a Bizarro Kamala Khan. It's possible since we don't see her face or find out her name. That bicep could literally be anybody - maybe She-Hulk with a tan getting her cosplay costume ready.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

To truly research and debate a matter, the author must find and provide evidence which supports their theory. There's plenty out there...

When does the character "Kamala Khan" first appear?

 

Provide evidence that it is in any book OTHER than ANMNPO#1.

The writer explicitly stated that she was intentionally placed in issue 14.

 

http://1979semifinalist.podomatic.com/entry/2013-11-18T01_13_14-08_00

 

Start listening at 1:37:30

I get it - the first cameo. Not a problem.

 

I don't get the 1st unnamed non-speaking background cameo > 1st named/costumed/full appearance thing.

 

But like I said, the market is fickle and irrational. If the writer has to after-the-fact explain who the person in the background is, then it's not much of a significant appearance at all, IMO. 2

The facts are the facts. Individual collectors will have to decide what is most important to them. The big argument arises from people that are looking to sell books making the case for the particular book that they are looking to sell.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

You know, this argument is the same as Uncanny X-men 1st Bishop. 282, on cover, appears last panel, 283 1st full.

 

283 is winning that argument, so I see ANMN.1 being the winner long term.

I don't see how they're comparable. UXM 282 is Bishops first appearance (cameo) and first cover on the first print. KK has a previous cameo and no cover on the first print. KK's case is pretty much unique, I would say. There are a few first appearance situations that I would say don't have a parallel. (Bloodshot is another that comes to mind.)

[jcjames]

To truly research and debate a matter, the author must find and provide evidence which supports their theory. There's plenty out there...

When does the character "Kamala Khan" first appear?

 

Provide evidence that it is in any book OTHER than ANMNPO#1.

The writer explicitly stated that she was intentionally placed in issue 14.

 

http://1979semifinalist.podomatic.com/entry/2013-11-18T01_13_14-08_00

 

Start listening at 1:37:30

I get it - the first cameo. Not a problem.

 

I don't get the 1st unnamed non-speaking background cameo > 1st named/costumed/full appearance thing.

 

But like I said, the market is fickle and irrational. If the writer has to after-the-fact explain who the person in the background is, then it's not much of a significant appearance at all, IMO. 2

The facts are the facts. Individual collectors will have to decide what is most important to them. The big argument arises from people that are looking to sell books making the case for the particular book that they are looking to sell.

I'm not selling ANY of them!

 

Got 2 17's and 3 ANMN's and am just still scrounging for deals.

 

 

[Vger7]

To truly research and debate a matter, the author must find and provide evidence which supports their theory. There's plenty out there...

When does the character "Kamala Khan" first appear?

 

Provide evidence that it is in any book OTHER than ANMNPO#1.

The writer explicitly stated that she was intentionally placed in issue 14.

 

http://1979semifinalist.podomatic.com/entry/2013-11-18T01_13_14-08_00

 

Start listening at 1:37:30

I get it - the first cameo. Not a problem.

 

I don't get the 1st unnamed non-speaking background cameo > 1st named/costumed/full appearance thing.

 

But like I said, the market is fickle and irrational. If the writer has to after-the-fact explain who the person in the background is, then it's not much of a significant appearance at all, IMO. 2

 

TOTALLY AGREE. Logically speaking, what purpose does the very first appearance in #14 serve? Being "deliberate" suggests some sort of grand plan but to what extent... especially if Khan looks so different and the audience can't make the connection. If it's simply a case of bad inconsistent art, then the meaning behind Khan's one panel appearance should be revealed in the story... no?

 

Stan Lee said he created Spider-Man, the Fantastic Four, the Hulk... etc. But a creator making a claim does not always make it true. People tend to say all sorts of thing when put on the spot.

 

This is just my personal perspective but if viewed logically, it makes no sense. I suspect that this is a case of jumping on the band wagon.

[Lonzilla]

If Duggan & Lolli said they were told to put Spider-Gwen and Lady Thor in Hawkeye Vs Deadpool #0, which is what I'd heard, then isn't that on the same scale as CM 14 for a teaser cameo?

[Jimmy Linguini]

If Duggan & Lolli said they were told to put Spider-Gwen and Lady Thor in Hawkeye Vs Deadpool #0, which is what I'd heard, then isn't that on the same scale as CM 14 for a teaser cameo?

 

Hepburn was told to add her into the book for CM 14! I will keep saying it over and over again!

[Citizenvain]

Canadian actress, Melinda Shankar, tweeted Marvel a while back with her face against a copy of Ms. Marvel 1.

 

Three days ago she tweeted enjoying her visit to Marvel accompanied with a tongue in cheek emoji indicating she has a secret.

 

Just thought I'd share.

[Vger7]

People have a way convincing themselves that something is true if they really want it to be true:

 

 

Only the people at the meeting will know for sure... My point is that KK's one panel appearance in #14 makes no sense because it serves no purpose. To me, it contradicts what was stated. "Deliberate"... in what way? But, like I said, it's all moot at this point. People will believe what they believe and make their purchase accordingly.

[paul747]

Whoa !

 

If they go with that Babe we might have to get some J Scott Cambell covers going.. A little worried about the cross image but they will dress her down, hopefully. No doubt she is coming to media. Kinda wish it was a cartoon or kids show first.

[jcjames]

 

Only the people at the meeting will know for sure... My point is that KK's one panel appearance in #14 makes no sense because it serves no purpose. To me, it contradicts what was stated. "Deliberate"... in what way? But, like I said, it's all moot at this point. People will believe what they believe and make their purchase accordingly.

Apparently, that panel was supposed to represent a "turning point" in the young, never-before-seen and still yet-unnamed Kamala's life where she will, supposedly, refer back to in the future that moment when she was inspired to become Ms. Marvel.

 

Or something like that.

 

[krighton]

problem is she looked old, not young...just like Silk looks young but isn't.