Search This Site

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Wolverine #80 X-23 Connection Debunked!


There really shouldn't be any question or further debate about this one. No semantics twisting, no hiding behind fan interpretation when it comes to the X-23 connection in Wolverine #80.

Because there is zero connection. Actually, this debunk isn't even my opinion. It's straight from the creator Craig Kyle.

First off and once again, I have no idea where the source of this claim originated nor do I care. Don't give a good shit. I only care that there are still some out there who are currently running with this.

The fact is that Craig Kyle debunked this claim around the time X-23 was reported to be in Logan, and he continues to debunk it with some pretty strong words. The first time around, Wolverine #80 had the pretty ridiculous of claim of being X-23's 1st appearance.

Then shortly after, some comic speculators still tried to twist it around to make a dollah off it and began noting it as an "X-23 connection". Regardless, both claims are wrong, and Craig Kyle has come out and debunked both.

Here's his quote about Wolverine #80 being a first appearance of X-23 in a CBR interview:

"Unfortunately, over the last 13 years many opportunistic comic resellers have tried to pass that issue off as the first appearance of X-23, but I’ve never even read that comic."

Pretty negative, but Craig Kyle put it out there point blank and called this out exactly for what it is. Still, Kyle ain't done and goes even further after the comic was changed from a 1st appearance to an X-23 connection.

Here's what he had to say about that on his own Facebook:



In the comments of that facebook post, he says:

"Yep. Total B.S. Thanks for fighting the good fight." 

And then, "True but I don't like to see X-23 fans lied too. You deserve better." 

Hell, if you care to be informed instead of misinformed on that, here's the man's Facebook page if ya don't believe me. He clearly criticizes this practice and the portion of the comic speculation market that continues to push these bunk claims and hide behind the "market decides" mantra. 

Don't even know about the "market deciding" claim either, but why else would Craig Kyle use the words "lied" and "total bullshit"?

They are pretty strong words. Is it "cleared up" though? Are there still sellers selling Wolverine #80 volume 2 as an "X-23 connection".

Yep, this Wolverine comic is ridiculously still being pimped in the market as being connected to X-23 in some shape or form. Maybe the sellers are aware of the debunk. Maybe they're not. Who knows?

The important thing is that there is information out there for comic collectors, honest speculators, and comic investors about this claim, and claims like these, being 100% false. I've got zero invested in Wolverine #80 either way and hardly ever speculate or invest in Moderns to begin with.


My opinion on the matter? Well, let's look at this panel where the X-23 connection was construed. 

I dunno, but the tube says "Logan X" and then "#23" at the bottom. Still, I can see where that can be misconstrued or a connection formed from to be honest. However, saying that a character's 1st appearance are tissue samples from a test tube is a pretty far stretch.

As Chris Kyle pointed out, "opportunistic comic resellers" using chicken or the egg? arguments for 1st appearance claims. The last bit of that sentence was my personal view on all this and in my own words.

In the origin of Laura Kinney in the very first X-23 limited comic series, it's explained that there were 22 failed attempts to create a female Wolverine clone before Dr. Sarah Kinney finally created a successful one with the 23rd sample. Sorry, but the 23 number is from attempts made and not from the number on that test tube.




If ya can't see that last panel at the lower bottom right, I'll blow it up a bit for ya. It says "Sample 23 - viable". 

Also, Dr. Sarah Kinney had to change the sample to produce a female version in order for the process to work (using an X chromosome), but do we really need to get into all that when the creator of X-23 has pretty much come forth and called "bullshit" on the matter? It might just be me, but I don't see any further room for debate on this one but this secondary market is crazy for sure.

So, 1st appearance of X-23 in comics is still in NYX #3. Furthermore, Wolverine #80 and the test tube of tissue samples of our favorite mutie runt has no connection to X-23. Zero, zip, none, nada!

If stuff like this remotely concerns you or you're bothered about the deliberate spread of misinformation or other collectors being mislead or "lied" to as Kyle plainly puts it, take a stance and share this post so the truth can spread out there as well. If it doesn't bother you that's cool as well.

Either way, see ya back here shortly for more comic goodness. Happy and safe huntin' out there.

<< DETECTIVE COMICS #850


25 comments:

  1. The first time I saw this claim was in a WIZARD MAG buy it cheap article about 10 years ago. I never thought this book was the 1st app. of X-23. There is no human character, just a tube with the number on it. Pretty simple. Have never seen the disclaimer from the creator though. Easily clears it up on the possible X-23 connection. I did buy the comic back then for a dollar or two just in case there was a connection.

    ReplyDelete
  2. When they named her x-23, they did so coincidentally? They picked the number 23 at random and there just happened to be a blood sample 23 out there floating around the marvel universe (and apparently it's still out there). I would be interested to know if x-23 was the first choice for names for her or if any other numbers were floated as ideas and maybe an editor or someone else maybe suggested #23 instead possibly knowing while maybe Craig didn't know at all. Just trying to find a reasonable explanation for this statistically improbable coincidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even the character's creator debunks it and still argument left. X-23 was first an animated character for the X-Men: Evolution cartoon series before she ever made it into comics, so comic editors suggesting what to Craig?? All the sudden now the connection comes down to the name coincidence and how "statistically improbable" it is.

      Delete
    2. I'd like to see the math on how statistically improbable it is.

      Delete
    3. I hear you, Gern. On the surface it does seem like an odd coincidence. What are the chances that the writer of Wolvie #80 would use the number 23 on the test tube then Kyle would use 23 in his origin for Laura? But since Kyle said it is a coincidence we must accept it as truth. Otherwise we'd be calling him a liar.

      Delete
    4. what i wonder is if everyone is so curious about all this then why didn't they bother asking the creator in the first place before pushing assumptions and big fat maybes to fatten their own wallets? just answered my own question

      Delete
    5. "X-23 was first an animated character for the X-Men: Evolution cartoon series before she ever made it into comics, so comic editors suggesting what to Craig??" - So, Craig did not make up the name, he got the name from the cartoon series? I did not know this. Where did the creators of the cartoon series get the name from? Did they make up that number randomly?

      "I'd like to see the math on how statistically improbable it is." To figure out the chances, we need to know the number of possibilities. If there are an infinite amount of numbers, then there are an infinite number of possibilities and 2 people picking the same number at random would be infinitely improbable. But if the set of possibilities is limited - conservatively this set should be limited to double digit numbers (x-99, x-87, x-13, etc), although x-1000 and several more sound very cool, most higher numbers are less probable because they don't flow in a comicbook way. So, if we limit the possibilities to about 100, then the chances are 1 in 100 that two people will pick the same number at random.

      "But since Kyle said it is a coincidence we must accept it as truth. Otherwise we'd be calling him a liar." I don't believe this is true, I laid out a perfectly reasonable path to question his explanation of coincidental naming in my original comment "maybe Craig didn't know at all." Maybe there are other explanations, and maybe (just maybe) - he is lying - I'm not saying he is, but is it really that far out of the realm of possibilities (contractual naming rights, residuals, etc)?

      "what i wonder is if everyone is so curious about all this then why didn't they bother asking the creator in the first place before pushing assumptions and big fat maybes to fatten their own wallets?" They did ask him and his answer statistically improbable, and I don't own any of these comics, so I can't fatten my wallet with either answer. I'm a comic fan who likes comic related mysteries like this.

      Delete
    6. "So, Craig did not make up the name, he got the name from the cartoon series? I did not know this. Where did the creators of the cartoon series get the name from? Did they make up that number randomly?"

      Craig Kyle and Christopher Yost wrote the episode AND created X-23 for it.

      Delete
  3. The argument about the 23rd attempt being the reason for the name and that it does not mean the 23rd test tube does not take away from the possibility of being X-23 but rather strengthens the argument for not against. A scientist is meticulous, surely one who is cloning mutants. It is very plausible that the 23rd attempt was labeled on the test tube.

    However, when you have the creator of the character say no dice, how can you possibly argue against that? That is an exercise in failure, it's defeatist.

    Great job per usual and thanks for the insights!

    BTW, kinda reminds me of X-Men #201 back in the 90s and baby Cable. Did Liefeld confirm that ever?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Liefeld did not dispute it either. Plus Cable #7 and #8 clearly states that Cable is the son of Scott Summers and Madelyne pryor so there is an X-Men #201 connection. The difference is neither Wolverine #80 nor any of the X-23 origins state a connection to each other.

      Delete
    2. X-men 201 is a retcon. I think someone needs to go back and read the Wizard stuff. I remember the editor commenting and he left the door open on this.

      Delete
  4. Despite what the creator says they did use the whole test tube of blood collected from Wolverine at the end of Age of Apocalypse to then create X-23 in the film Logan. So the film origin of X-23 matches this test tube theory even though the comic origin doesn't. Is that just another coincidence!!! If I were Craig Kyle I wouldn't be refuting it I would be suing Marvel for them not paying me royalties.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. jeez ^ please read the comics before commenting like you know what you're talking about

      Delete
    2. I have read the comics and own both Wolverine #80 and NYX #3 in Wolverine #80 has a scientist Dr. Munoz that has a DNA sample from the weapon x program. Dr Munoz deals with bonding Adamantium to wolvie because he broke his claws in a battle with cyber. It is strange that In the film age of apocalypse post credits scenes it shows people collecting wolverines DNA off bullets in the weapon x facility this end credit scene does this to specifically to hint at X-23 in the next Fox film released Logan. Coincidence or did Hollywood also buy into this bs info. Also I would never call a test tube of blood to be anyone's first appearance

      Delete
  5. Another great read Mayhem thanks! Here we go all the people that have long boxes full of Wolverine #80 claiming it’s the 1st appearance will be crawling out of the wood work to reject this article.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think it originated with Bleeding Cool and then snowballed from there.

    Also, a correction: X-23 isn't so-named because she's the 23rd attempt to clone Wolverine. It's specifically because she's the 23rd attempt at a FEMALE clone. Thus X-23 (the X stands for "X chromosome"). There were numerous attempts at the male clone even before she started on the females. This one is also confirmed by Kyle himself.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is also a good point of where the "23" may have originated from in creating X-23 as well.

      Delete
  8. It will be interesting to see how many comments we have on this subject compared to the last debunked article. I agree. How can a test tube sample qualify as a 1st appearance. When reading Wolverine 80 I can kinda see where the argument started as possibly being a connection since they talk about how special that test sample is in the story and the labeling of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whats interesting are the comments that clearly show that they dont know much about the character yet still try talk about a subject they know little about

      Delete
    2. It's still a stretch, because that's not even the same sample the Facility used (that went right from Dale Rice's corpse and into the hands of Martin Sutter).

      Delete
    3. I am enjoying the answers. Highly entertaining. I think Ambaryerno is spot on. To be clear, X-23 was created by Craig Kyle for the X-Men Evolution cartoon series. The episode X-23 aired August 2nd of 2003. Although the origin of who created X-23 is a Dr. Deborah Risman employed by HYDRA in the cartoon, the episode reveals that they tried to make a Weapon X program themselves but failed 22 times.

      The cartoon episode also reveals that the 23rd attempt was successful as they decided to use Wolverine's DNA and healing factor. There was a fault in the process though and they did not actually clone him as the subject turned out to be a female.

      The X in the cartoon comes from Weapon X. 23 is still the amount of attempts.

      The origin in X-23 Innocence Lost came out in 2006, and while the origin was different and added Sarah Kinney and the Facility, 23 still had to do with attempts at making a genetic twin, not a clone anymore, and by using an X chromosome as shown in the comic origin.

      The DNA sample is clearly shown at the very beginning to be linked to Dale Rice who worked for the Weapon X program in the past and was killed by Wolverine when he escaped. It was not linked to Dr. Jamie Munoz in Wolverine #80.

      Wolverine #80 happens before X-23 #1, and X-23 #1 clearly shows Martin Sutter retrieving Wolverine's DNA in the suit case after Dr. Dale Rice is killed by Wolverine. The DNA sample used to create X-23 was in the possession of Martin Sutter and the Facility since.

      In the comic, the X comes from the chromosome that Dr. Sarah Kinney defiantly used as shown clearly in the comic to create a female version. The 23 attempts to make a viable genetic twin, since X-23 is no longer a 100% duplicate, is still used in the comic much like it was used in the cartoon.

      Delete
  9. I just have to say that I don' t like baby first appearances, like first baby Cable, first baby son of Mr. Reed and his wife and so on. Just doesn' t count with me. I want the character pure and in front. A baby is a baby. Not gonna treat this as an investment issue.

    Max Rebo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Speaking of first baby appearances, Logan's Savage Land baby shows up at the end of the Jungle Adventure one-shot. I still hold out hope someone will develop that character in the future. LOL!

      Delete
  10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete