Ultimate Marvel

[Blader5489]

But that only works if you actually plan to end the stories. It's now actually less new reader friendly than 616.

Yes, I agree that the Ultimate universe now is largely pointless. Ultimate X-Men has become the convoluted franchise it was designed to escape from; Loeb has turned the Ultimates into Avengers Lite; and Ultimate Fantastic Four has been redundant since the beginning.

Ultimatum is supposed to inject new life into those books (but with Loeb writing, don't count it). But as of now, the only Ultimate book that still works is Ultimate Spider-Man.

My ideas work fine.

Do I need to take it from the top?

Your ideas were that: a) USM could be told as a 616 story; and b) the Ultimates could be "recast" as new characters.

Idea A makes about as much sense as using Smallville as the origin for comic book Superman; in other words, it doesn't make sense. And hell, you even admitted that your idea doesn't work, so you did all the hard work for me.

Idea B could work, but it misses the whole point that the Ultimates are supposed to be a new take on iconic characters. That's like saying Frank Miller could have written The Dark Knight Returns with completely new characters rather than as a Batman story--it could work but it isn't nearly as effective, interesting, or appealing without Batman. The same applies to the Ultimates.

 

[Spade]

I agree with the general opinion that Marvel Adventures is superior to the Ultimate Universe. To me, the Ultimate Universe represents a whole line of comics that touts realism but doesn't deliver. The core issue will forever be that most of the characters have very unrealistic origins.

The attempt at realism is only one issue, though. Many of the Ultimate Universe heroes and villains' characterizations are completely turned on their heads. Ultimate Cap is an extreme example, but a prominent one nonetheless. Then there's the fact that the line allows itself to be so dictated by what's popular in Marvel movies; look at Ultimate X-Men and try to tell me with a straight face that it was made with little regard to Singer's X-films.

All in all, it's one repetitious attempt to draw in new readers with something shiny and new when, in fact, this is the same old hat trick Marvel's put out before only with more backup and some "hot" writers attached. I understand that some people are really into "starting from stage 1," but re-tellings and short stories do that more efficiently than deconstructions which- more often than not- are half-baked or just generally bad (Gah Lak Tus...ugh).

 

[The Overlord]

Yes, I agree that the Ultimate universe now is largely pointless. Ultimate X-Men has become the convoluted franchise it was designed to escape from; Loeb has turned the Ultimates into Avengers Lite; and Ultimate Fantastic Four has been redundant since the beginning.

But then the ultimate Universe was doomed from the start, there was no real plan to end it and eventually the new continuity wasn't so new.

If all the UU had offer was a new continuity, with a "greatest hits" version of the 616 universe, then after a while, its just natural that well would have dried up and the whole redundant, because after you have gone through the greatest hits, then you have nothing left.

 

[Spade]

It might be interesting if they had some good ideas to run on after they're done re-doing classic storyline arcs.

Anyone remember Geldoff? Yeah...there's a reason why you don't.

 

[venom892]

Ultimate Spidey starting sucking a long time ago.Alot of the villains are shells of their 616 counterparts.The only one that was done great was Doc Ock.The rest really sucked.{Kraven=Vermin,Scorpion a clone of spidey?!}

 

[Blader5489]

To me, the Ultimate Universe represents a whole line of comics that touts realism but doesn't deliver. The core issue will forever be that most of the characters have very unrealistic origins.

Compared to the 616 line, the Ultimate universe is considerably more realistic. They may be unrealistic in the sense of real world (obviously), but it's easier to imagine them as movies, something that's harder to expect from the cheesier 616 books (pre-Civil War).

 

[The Overlord]

Compared to the 616 line, the Ultimate universe is considerably more realistic. They may be unrealistic in the sense of real world (obviously), but it's easier to imagine them as movies, something that's harder to expect from the cheesier 616 books (pre-Civil War).

The problem is a movie ends after 2 hours, this has gone for 8 years.

At this point if they can't come with good twists to characters, then the whole thing has served its purpose.

In regards to new ideas, DCUA created Harley Quinn and the UU created....Geldoff. What's better?

 

[Spade]

Compared to the 616 line, the Ultimate universe is considerably more realistic. They may be unrealistic in the sense of real world (obviously), but it's easier to imagine them as movies, something that's harder to expect from the cheesier 616 books (pre-Civil War).

But why is realism so important in comics? The appeal to Marvel Comics in particular is how they center it around real places in a contemporary time. There's always been an attempt to ground these fantastical characters in the reader's world. Even if the mainstream titles were cheesy (which isn't to say all of them were), there was nothing stopping them from pulling a full-fledged Heroes Reborn and changing some conflicting issues. They've gone down that route with Spider-Man, and general consensus says the fans are fine with it so long as the talent attached can deal with the issue with grace.

 

[Blader5489]

The problem is a movie ends after 2 hours, this has gone for 8 years.

That wasn't my point at all.

Let me use a different example, to get away from the movie analogy you're so stuck on. Compare Claremont's run on X-Men to Morrison's X-Men. Now, both are inherently unrealistic, but which is less unrealistic? Morrison's run, obviously. Likewise, both 616 Marvel and Ultimate Marvel are inherently unrealistic, but the Ultimate universe is less so--just like Morrison's X-Men was less unrealistic than Claremont's.

 

[KingOfMars]

I dont like the way a few of the characters look, but its refreshing to have more updated and fleshed out stories that arent convoluted, though eventually this will happen.

 

[The Overlord]

That wasn't my point at all.

Let me use a different example, to get away from the movie analogy you're so stuck on. Compare Claremont's run on X-Men to Morrison's X-Men. Now, both are inherently unrealistic, but which is less unrealistic? Morrison's run, obviously. Likewise, both 616 Marvel and Ultimate Marvel are inherently unrealistic, but the Ultimate universe is less so--just like Morrison's X-Men was less unrealistic than Claremont's.

You are one who made the movie comparison in the first place.

There's nothing wrong with unrealistic per say, Lord of the rings or star wars aren't realistic at all and they are good films.

All Star Superman isn't very realistic, but that is a good comic.

If you want realism, you should read Russian novels, not comics. The cheesiness is part of the charm.

In fiction, being entertaining is more important than being realistic.

 

[Blader5489]

You are one who made the movie comparison in the first place.

Yeah, in regards to realism, not to longevity or originality.

There's nothing wrong with unrealistic per say, Lord of the rings or star wars aren't realistic at all and they are good films.

All Star Superman isn't very realistic, but that is a good comic.

If you want realism, you should read Russian novels, not comics. The cheesiness is part of the charm.

In fiction, being entertaining is more important than being realistic.

Okay, and that's your opinion. Realism in comics is just my personal preference, and it's only to a certain degree. Obviously there's some kind of suspension of disbelief required for superheroes and comic books, but I can only accept so much implausibility before I can no longer take the book seriously.

I don't think it applies to all comics. Books like Spider-Man, Blue Beetle, and Booster Gold work better as light-hearted characters. But I enjoy others, like Iron Man and Batman, when they're more down-to-earth.

 

[The Overlord]

Yeah, in regards to realism, not to longevity or originality.

But there are tons of movies that aren't realistic in the slightest

Okay, and that's your opinion. Realism in comics is just my personal preference, and it's only to a certain degree. Obviously there's some kind of suspension of disbelief required for superheroes and comic books, but I can only accept so much implausibility before I can no longer take the book seriously.

I don't think it applies to all comics. Books like Spider-Man, Blue Beetle, and Booster Gold work better as light-hearted characters. But I enjoy others, like Iron Man and Batman, when they're more down-to-earth.

Realism should not be a limit on creative expression though. How realistic a comic is depends on the character.

Something like the FF shouldn't be realistic in slightest, their whole thing is going on very off the wall adventures. Spidey should be somewhat down earth, i don't want to see him in space or anything.

The Infinity Saga wasn't very realistic, but was fun.

Really now, if comic is well written and not realistic, does that change the fact that it is a good story?

 

[Blader5489]

But there are tons of movies that aren't realistic in the slightest

Superhero movies! I'm talking about superhero movies. Like comparing Tim Burton's Batman to Nolan's Batman--both are unrealistic, but the latter is a little more believable and (for me) more enjoyable.

Realism should not be a limit on creative expression though. How realistic a comic is depends on the character.

Why are you arguing? I just said that I don't think realism has to apply to all comic book characters. And, as I just said, I think some characters (Batman, Iron Man) work better with more serious storytelling and some (Booster Gold, Spider-Man) work better without it.

And the more I use the word "realistic," the more I find it inappropriate. I think a better word would be "mature."

Actually, I'm not too sure the word "mature" works either. Eh, whatever. You guys know what I mean. =P

 

[The Overlord]

Superhero movies! Jesus, do I need to spell it out for you?

Those aren't very realisitc either.

Why are you arguing? I just said that I don't think realism has to apply to all comic book characters. And, as I just said, I think some characters (Batman, Iron Man) work better with more serious storytelling and some (Booster Gold, Spider-Man) work better without it.

And the more I use the word "realistic," the more I find it inappropriate. I think a better word would be "mature."

Yes, mature. Now see Todd Macfarlane thought he was being mature when he created Spawn, but the opposite occurred.


Mature is one of those terms you have to careful, it can be used in the wrong context.

DC likely turned Dr. light into a rapist because they thought it was more mature, if it comes off as stupid, a guy dresses up like a light bulb and rapes people? The JLA fighting rapist, that just doesn't work.

There has been a lot immature things done in comics in name of maturity.

I would rather read fun silver age marvel comics then dark and "Mature" 90s Marvel comics any day.

 

[Blader5489]

Those aren't very realisitc either.

Like I put in my edited post, think of Burton's Batman vs. Nolan's Batman.

Yes, mature. Now see Todd Macfarlane thought he was being mature when he created Spawn, but the opposite occurred.


Mature is one of those terms you have to careful, it can be used in the wrong context.

DC likely turned Dr. light into a rapist because they thought it was more mature, if it comes off as stupid, a guy dresses up like a light bulb and rapes people? The JLA fighting rapist, that just doesn't work.

There has been a lot immature things done in comics in name of maturity.

I would rather read fun silver age marvel comics then dark and "Mature" 90s Marvel comics any day.

Okay...? And there's stuff like Iron Man: Director of SHIELD and Checkmate, which are "mature" or "realistic" (or whatever word you can think of) without being ridiculous like Spawn or Lobo.

Unless you're trying to say that comic books can/should never be realistic or mature, then I don't really see what or why you're arguing.

 

[The Overlord]

Like I put in my edited post, think of Burton's Batman vs. Nolan's Batman.



Okay...? And there's stuff like Iron Man: Director of SHIELD and Checkmate, which are "mature" or "realistic" (or whatever word you can think of) without being ridiculous like Spawn or Lobo.

Unless you're trying to say that comic books can/should never be realistic or mature, then I don't really see what or why you're arguing.

You seemed to suggest that the ultimate Universe is better because it was more realistic and mature, I'm saying those two things don't always make a comic better and there are tons of examples why.

whether something is well written or not is what matters, everything else is gravey. In early 2000, the UU had better writing than the 616 universe, now that trend is reverse.

 

[kguillou]

Even though this is all fictional reading, its always nice to have a certain degree of reality integrated into it, that way the reader feels like this stuff could really happen in real life. Thats why Marvel has been more successful than DC. I'm not trying to diss DC cause i love some of their characters, but their characters are a lot less relatable than Marvel's. Marvel's heroes are mostly ordinary people living in new york who got into some kind of accident that gave them powers. DC's heroes are mostly aliens from outer space who came to earth and are pretending to be normal people ( the obvious exceptions being Flash and Batman). I think people tend to want to read about normal people becoming superheroes more because it appears more realistic and makes them think that maybe if a radioactive spider bit them, they too could become a web-slinging hero. I dont recommend trying it though.

 

[webhead921]

I haven't been reading comics for too long (about a year and a half or so). I started with essential spider-man vol 1, ultimate spider-man vol 1, and went from there. At first, ultimate appealed to me because it seemed like it would be more accessible. However, once I expanded and began reading more comics, Ultimate marvel became less and less appealing. The ultimate universe has its own continuity now, and it isn't any easier for new readers to jump in. In fact, most new readers I know find it easier to jump in on 616 titles at the change of an arc or at a changing point in writer/artist. If anything, this approach has been more rewarding for me, since I get attached to characters by jumping in, and then go on to research their backgrounds by reading old trades or essentials. When I jump into an ultimate title, I pretty much read the trade and am like pfff I'm done.

If the Ultimate Universe's purpose was to draw in new readers and to give writers a chance to write without the tie ups of continuity, then it has become pointless. At this point I would rather have interesting takes on classic characters/concepts that aren't tied town to ANY continuity than have a whole new continuity.

that being said, there are many arcs of ultimate stuff that are worth reading. I will gladly pick up a trade of an ultimate series that is recommended to me (ultimate spider-man stuff, millar/hitch ultimates, some bkv ultimate x-men), but I still strongly prefer 616 (in most cases).

 

[Dew k. Mosi]

bump for the merge

 

[Dew k. Mosi]

bump for the merge

 

[Zombie_Comics]

I feel that the Ultimate X-Men are stuck in a rut. They don't really seem to be going anywhere. I think that they need to start doing some major story lines.

 

[fifthfiend]

EDIT: I posted something but it didn't turn out as funny as I thought it would be so it's deleted now.

 

[BrianWilly]

If only everyone had the sense to do that.

 

[kguillou]

If Marvel would give the Ultimate universe some of its better talents like Brubaker, fraction, mark millar, alex maleev, steve mcniven, greg land, or even Djurdjevic, then the Utlimate U would have that "Oomph" that it really needs. But i really dont think marvel considers the Ultimate U a priority anymore considering everything thats going on currently in the 616.