Why are the villains in the Ultimate Universe so boring?

[LouFerignoDemon]

Cap calling out the French like that in the middle of a fight? Makes no sense. It's even insulting.

Sure, it's fun to poke fun at the French in a joking manner like that, even I do it. (ie.: Why were the French the first to invent running robot legs? The answer should be obvious.)

But in the middle of a fight? Not to mention this Cap is more like Captain No-Humor, and he's definitely not going to crack a joke when he's just pissed off and in the middle of a warzone. That, dear friends, is prejudice.

Also, with the UIM untrusting? I recommend the genius who wrote that go back and READ the comic. He says in it he can't have so many girlfriends without being careful. Which means he doesn't trust people. EDIT: Found out it was Random.

I like the face.

P.S. NAZIS!!!!

 

[Blader5489]

I don't know why people are so up-in-arms over the French line. It was a joke! The fact that it was politically incorrect is what makes it funny.

Still makes me go ugh over how they turned a one time incident for Hank Pym into something overblown.

Wasn't it a one time incident in the Ultimates too?

The real Black Widow would have never betrayed the Avengers (or the Ultimates in this case). She is a respected member in the hero community.

616 Black Widow may not have done that, but Ultimate Black Widow is a different character. The whole point of the Ultimates was to reinterpret the Avengers; if they had kept the characters the same, it wouldn't nearly be as interesting as it was.

Sounds like you would prefer Jeph Loeb's Ultimates, where everyone is just a caricature of their 616 counterpart.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I don't know why people are so up-in-arms over the French line. It was a joke! The fact that it was politically incorrect is what makes it funny.

Cap has more respect than that with the men and women he fought with.

Wasn't it a one time incident in the Ultimates too?

No.

616 Black Widow may not have done that, but Ultimate Black Widow is a different character. The whole point of the Ultimates was to reinterpret the Avengers; if they had kept the characters the same, it wouldn't nearly be as interesting as it was.

Sounds like you would prefer Jeph Loeb's Ultimates, where everyone is just a caricature of their 616 counterpart.

I'm not saying that. Take Ultimate Spider-Man for example. He's his own character, a reinterpretation, and yet it was still the same Spider-Man that we all know and love. That is what made the book so great when it first started.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

I don't know why people are so up-in-arms over the French line. It was a joke! The fact that it was politically incorrect is what makes it funny.

Did you not just read what I posted before you?

Politically incorrect jokes? Sure, I enjoy the life outta them.

People attributing a joking personality to a character which has none? That's offensive.

UCap has no sense of humor, and DEFINITELY didn't have one out on the battlefield.

That'd be like me glory stomping some Canadian, spouting Canadian bashing insults at the top of my lungs, obviously filled with rage, and then coming back later only to say I was joking the entire time I was beating the hell out of this guy.

EDIT: Whoa, did I make it look like I can't make up my mind or what? x.x In one post, I look like I'm offended by Cap's statement, in another, I'm offended by the fact Ultimate Cap is thought to have a sense of humor. XD! Setting the record straight: I'm not offended by Cap's comment (despite the obvious :l ), buuuut I'll agree with others, and say the guy might have some deep seated prejudice issues.

 

[The Question]

Besides shouldn't there be a balance, if every villain is rotten to core, what comes them different from each other in terms of personality? Not much, personality wise how are Ultimate Electro, Vulture and Sandman different from each?

I kind of disagree with this statement. It's basically saying that morality and personality are the same thing. And their not. Morals are a part of your personality, but so are about a million different other things. Let's say there are two people with the exact same morals and ethics. You know what? They still like different things, react to different sensory and emotional stimuli in different ways, have different habits and character tics, have different senses of humor and styles or dress, and are different in a thousand ways besides morality. From what I've seen of Ultimate Electro and Ultimate Sandman, they seem like pretty different characters. Electro seems egotistical, obnoxious, opportunistic, and very much with the snarky sarcasm. Sandman seems quiet, socially awkward, fairly vengeful, and prone to violent outbursts. They're both amoral jackasses, but they're two different flavors of amoral jackass.

 

[The Overlord]

I kind of disagree with this statement. It's basically saying that morality and personality are the same thing. And their not. Morals are a part of your personality, but so are about a million different other things. Let's say there are two people with the exact same morals and ethics. You know what? They still like different things, react to different sensory and emotional stimuli in different ways, have different habits and character tics, have different senses of humor and styles or dress, and are different in a thousand ways besides morality. From what I've seen of Ultimate Electro and Ultimate Sandman, they seem like pretty different characters. Electro seems egotistical, obnoxious, opportunistic, and very much with the snarky sarcasm. Sandman seems quiet, socially awkward, fairly vengeful, and prone to violent outbursts. They're both amoral jackasses, but they're two different flavors of amoral jackass.

Yes there are different ways to have different characterization besides morality, but different levels of morality is one of the key ways you can contrast characters. Example during AoV you had some interesting contrasts between Red Skull, Magneto, Kingpin , Dr. Doom, etc. Its the character's morality that created these clashes. Look over in DC where Captain Cold has different moral standards then other villains and will challenge villains if he thinks their actions are going to far. That's far interesting then the evil for evil fest we get in the UU.

Ultimate Electro and Ultimate Sandman are still pretty flat characters in my opinion, because they both don't express much in the way of emotions beyond: anger, greed and stupidity. They also lack any sort of compelling motive or back story. See at least in the 616 universe Sandman is somewhat sympathetic and Electro has an inferioity complex that allows him to show character aspects beyond greed, anger and stupidity. I mean are there any stories in the UU where Sandman could definately play a different role then Electro?

 

[The Question]

Yes there are different ways to have different characterization besides morality, but different levels of morality is one of the key ways you can contrast characters. Example during AoV you had some interesting contrasts between Red Skull, Magneto, Kingpin , Dr. Doom, etc. Its the character's morality that created these clashes. Look over in DC where Captain Cold has different moral standards then other villains and will challenge villains if he thinks their actions are going to far. That's far interesting then the evil for evil fest we get in the UU.

Ultimate Electro and Ultimate Sandman are still pretty flat characters in my opinion, because they both don't express much in the way of emotions beyond: anger, greed and stupidity. They also lack any sort of compelling motive or back story. See at least in the 616 universe Sandman is somewhat sympathetic and Electro has an inferioity complex that allows him to show character aspects beyond greed, anger and stupidity. I mean are there any stories in the UU where Sandman could definately paly a different role then Electro?

First of all, stupidity isn't an emotion. Just sayin'.

Second, yes, morality is a way to create contrast between characters. There are, however, other ways. Fears, emotional attachments, methods, those are all ways that can be used to create contrast. And hell, even when you're using morality to create contrast, you can still have both characters be completely awful people with just small differences.

Thirdly, in regards to Sandman and Electro. I think they're kind of flat characters because they haven't gotten much screen time. I mean, they've both been in a handful of issues. They weren't the main villains in either of them, simply henchmen/distractions. And also, even though Electro hasn't had much screen time, that inferiority complex you mentioned, it's kinda' obvious. I mean, the bravado, the arrogance, the constant making with the snide comments, those are all pretty big signs of someone who's not very secure in himself.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

First of all, stupidity isn't an emotion. Just sayin'.

Second, yes, morality is a way to create contrast between characters. There are, however, other ways. Fears, emotional attachments, methods, those are all ways that can be used to create contrast. And hell, even when you're using morality to create contrast, you can still have both characters be completely awful people with just small differences.

Thirdly, in regards to Sandman and Electro. I think they're kind of flat characters because they haven't gotten much screen time. I mean, they've both been in a handful of issues. They weren't the main villains in either of them, simply henchmen/distractions. And also, even though Electro hasn't had much screen time, that inferiority complex you mentioned, it's kinda' obvious. I mean, the bravado, the arrogance, the constant making with the snide comments, those are all pretty big signs of someone who's not very secure in himself.

What are you? Some middle aged woman from CNN trying to appeal to the youths?

 

[The Overlord]

First of all, stupidity isn't an emotion. Just sayin'..

Its a character aspect, let's not get side tracked by semantics here.

Second, yes, morality is a way to create contrast between characters. There are, however, other ways. Fears, emotional attachments, methods, those are all ways that can be used to create contrast. And hell, even when you're using morality to create contrast, you can still have both characters be completely awful people with just small differences. ..

Excpet morality makes for the most interesting contrasts between villains, it really establishs the difference between the vilalins, where noble or sympathetic vilalins seem more noble and sympathetic and the evil villains seem more evil, when you put them next to each other. That's more interesting then one character being somewhat more flashy then someone else.

Thirdly, in regards to Sandman and Electro. I think they're kind of flat characters because they haven't gotten much screen time. I mean, they've both been in a handful of issues. They weren't the main villains in either of them, simply henchmen/distractions. And also, even though Electro hasn't had much screen time, that inferiority complex you mentioned, it's kinda' obvious. I mean, the bravado, the arrogance, the constant making with the snide comments, those are all pretty big signs of someone who's not very secure in himself.

That's the problem, the UU says its updates and retools characters, but it hasn't done that with a lot of the villains like Electro and Sandman. Don't tell its because they don't have enough time, I have seen cartoon shows aimed kids about comics that give characterization to almost all villains who appear, so I'm damn sure they can do it in a comic aimed at adults.

Seriously they could dropped one of the garabage USM arcs, like Deadpool and focused on Ultimate Electro, sandman or Vulture.

 

[The Question]

Excpet morality makes for the most interesting contrasts between villains, it really establishs the difference between the vilalins, where noble or sympathetic vilalins seem more noble and sympathetic and the evil villains seem more evil, when you put them next to each other. That's more interesting then one character being somewhat more flashy then someone else.

That's entirely a matter of opinion and taste. Yes, morality can make for a very interesting contrast between characters. But so can what their afraid of, or what methods they use, or what kind of emotional attachments they have. For example: The major villains in Buff The Vampire Slayer are pretty much across the board unrepentantly bad people. Yes, some are worse than others (it's pretty much universally accepted that Angelus is simply the worst), but the nicer ones never seemed that bothered by the actions of the worse ones. It wasn't that they found it morally reprehensible, it just wasn't their thing. With a few exceptions, the main sources of contrast were fears, goals, methods, and attachments. And they were all fairly distinct and interesting characters.

That's the problem, the UU says its updates and retools characters, but it hasn't done that with a lot of the villains like Electro and Sandman. Don't tell its because they don't have enough time, I have seen cartoon shows aimed kids about comics that give characterization to almost all villains who appear, so I'm damn sure they can do it in a comic aimed at adults.

Seriously they could dropped one of the garabage USM arcs, like Deadpool and focused on Ultimate Electro, sandman or Vulture.

Of course it's not because they didn't have enough time. They had plenty. All I'm saying is that the reason they're kind of flat isn't because they're all really bad people, but because they haven't gotten a lot of play. That is the problem.

 

[The Overlord]

That's entirely a matter of opinion and taste. Yes, morality can make for a very interesting contrast between characters. But so can what their afraid of, or what methods they use, or what kind of emotional attachments they have. For example: The major villains in Buff The Vampire Slayer are pretty much across the board unrepentantly bad people. Yes, some are worse than others (it's pretty much universally accepted that Angelus is simply the worst), but the nicer ones never seemed that bothered by the actions of the worse ones. It wasn't that they found it morally reprehensible, it just wasn't their thing. With a few exceptions, the main sources of contrast were fears, goals, methods, and attachments. And they were all fairly distinct and interesting characters. .

I never saw that show, so I can't comment on it. but really how often do any of these villain contrasts show up in the UU at all?

Of course it's not because they didn't have enough time. They had plenty. All I'm saying is that the reason they're kind of flat isn't because they're all really bad people, but because they haven't gotten a lot of play. That is the problem.

I'm not saying there can't interesting evil villains, I'm saying that I prefer a balance between sympathetic and evil villains and the UU lacks that balance.

Now one of the best Ultiamte villains in my mind is Ultimate Mr. Sinsiter, because they made him less convoluted, more down to earth and off beat, but also made him creepy as Hell. He's not sympathetic, but at least its an interesting twist on the character and he's compelling which is more then what I can say about Ultimate Electro and Ultimate Sandman, who are pretty flat. He's at least defined as a character.

Making a villain sympathetic is one twist then can do, but there are others, however it rarely seems like we get a really twist when it comes to villains in the UU.

 

[The Question]

I never saw that show, so I can't comment on it. but really how often do any of these villain contrasts show up in the UU at all?

I don't really know. Haven't read an Ultimate comic in ages. But I'm not trying to defend the Ultimate Universe. I'm not saying they have the greatest villains ever. What I'm saying is that any lack or more morally grey, sympathetic villains isn't the problem, and that a character can be well rounded, three dimensional, and an overall layered human being and lack any moral justification for their actions.

I'm not saying there can't interesting evil villains, I'm saying that I prefer a balance between sympathetic and evil villains and the UU lacks that balance.

Well, yeah. Having all types is always a good thing. Makes a universe feel more organic.

Now one of the best Ultiamte villains in my mind is Ultimate Mr. Sinsiter, because they made him less convoluted, more down to earth and off beat, but also made him creepy as Hell. He's not sympathetic, but at least its an interesting twist on the character and he's compelling which is more then what I can say about Ultimate Electro and Ultimate Sandman, who are pretty flat. He's at least defined as a character.

Making a villain sympathetic is one twist then can do, but there are others, however it rarely seems like we get a really twist when it comes to villains in the UU.

I disagree about Sinister. I think he's a very flat character. Just a crazy religious serial killer stock character. He doesn't have layers or depth or anything. Just one character trait that defines him. They made him less convoluted, but you need some to make a character more three dimensional. What makes 616 Sinister a really good character is the fact that he has a complex backstory and layers of conflicting motivations and desires. You know, like a real life human being. Ultimate Sinister is just "Scientist who got the wrong kind of religion, gave himself super powers and started killing people."

Now, I don't remember his appearances too well, but the impression I got from Ultimate Sandman was actually a lot less flat than Ultimate SInister. There were hints of a real backstory and personality there, even though it was a pretty evil one.

 

[The Overlord]

I don't really know. Haven't read an Ultimate comic in ages. But I'm not trying to defend the Ultimate Universe. I'm not saying they have the greatest villains ever. What I'm saying is that any lack or more morally grey, sympathetic villains isn't the problem, and that a character can be well rounded, three dimensional, and an overall layered human being and lack any moral justification for their actions.


Well, yeah. Having all types is always a good thing. Makes a universe feel more organic.

So you would agree with me on some level. Again I'm not saying you can't have an interesting evil villain, I just like some variety in my villain types.

Plus there are lots of pure evil villains I don't find compelling, frankly I think Ultimate Magneto is a very dull character for example.

I disagree about Sinister. I think he's a very flat character. Just a crazy religious serial killer stock character. He doesn't have layers or depth or anything. Just one character trait that defines him. They made him less convoluted, but you need some to make a character more three dimensional. What makes 616 Sinister a really good character is the fact that he has a complex backstory and layers of conflicting motivations and desires. You know, like a real life human being. Ultimate Sinister is just "Scientist who got the wrong kind of religion, gave himself super powers and started killing people.".

The problem with 616 Sinister is the backstory is long and convoluted that its chore to keep up with, not mention his powers and motives seem to change with story, one time back in 94, Sinister goes through the trouble to get Rachel Summers DNA and then does nothing with it. 616 Sinister has his moments but they are few and far in between, but of the times he is so mysterious he's annoying.

Ever seen a horror flim? Sometimes a villain who is just scary and creepy can be compelling in of himself. Ultimate Sinister remains me of Buffalo Bill from Slience of the Lambs and I thought Bill was compelling in his own way. Ultimate Sinister at least plays a different role then any other villain in UXM, I find him more believable then Ultimate Magneto who seems to try and destroy the world every Tuesday. I still think he is more defined then Ultimate sandman.

Now, I don't remember his appearances too well, but the impression I got from Ultimate Sandman was actually a lot less flat than Ultimate SInister. There were hints of a real backstory and personality there, even though it was a pretty evil one.

Well I need more then hints of a back story to find him compelling in this case.

 

[Blader5489]

Cap has more respect than that with the men and women he fought with.

You keep comparing Ultimate Cap to the 616 version. They're two completely different characters written in completely different ways.

And again, it was just a joke! Unless you fought in the French resistance, I don't see why anyone would be so offended by it.

No.

I just remembered that Betty had said there was a history of abuse between them. Still, like random_havoc said, women who are abused unfortunately will often return to their abuser.

I'm not saying that. Take Ultimate Spider-Man for example. He's his own character, a reinterpretation, and yet it was still the same Spider-Man that we all know and love. That is what made the book so great when it first started.

That may work for Spider-Man, but I can't see 616 Cap or 616 Thor fitting into the tone that Millar established with the Ultimates. That kind of hardcore, big, over-the-top acton book requires a different kind of approach to characterization.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

You keep comparing Ultimate Cap to the 616 version. They're two completely different characters written in completely different ways.

And again, it was just a joke! Unless you fought in the French resistance, I don't see why anyone would be so offended by it.

Again. Wow.

 

[The Question]

So you would agree with me on some level. Again I'm not saying you can't have an interesting evil villain, I just like some variety in my villain types.

Plus there are lots of pure evil villains I don't find compelling, frankly I think Ultimate Magneto is a very dull character for example.

Ultimate Magneto is a fine enough villain in off himself. The only reason he seems lame is because compared to 616 Magneto, he is.

The problem with 616 Sinister is the backstory is long and convoluted that its chore to keep up with, not mention his powers and motives seem to change with story, one time back in 94, Sinister goes through the trouble to get Rachel Summers DNA and then does nothing with it. 616 Sinister has his moments but they are few and far in between, but of the times he is so mysterious he's annoying.

That complexity is what makes him such a well rounded character. And I thought that was what we were talking about. Ultimate Sinister is a lot easier to follow, but because of that he's a very flat character. One motivation, one defining character trait, incredibly generic backstory.

Ever seen a horror flim? Sometimes a villain who is just scary and creepy can be compelling in of himself. Ultimate Sinister remains me of Buffalo Bill from Slience of the Lambs and I thought Bill was compelling in his own way. Ultimate Sinister at least plays a different role then any other villain in UXM, I find him more believable then Ultimate Magneto who seems to try and destroy the world every Tuesday. I still think he is more defined then Ultimate sandman.

Are we talking about being compelling or not being flat? You're using the terms interchangeably and their not.

As for Silence of The Lambs, I thought Buffalo Bill was much more interesting than Ultimate Sinister. They didn't spell out his backstory, but there where hints of it. Maybe it was largely due to the performance of the actor, but his personality, while more or less completely bat**** crazy, had a logic and a three dimensional quality to it. Ultimate Sinister, on the other hand, is just an incredibly generic slasher villain. He was a normal scientist, for some reason that is never explained started worshiping big evil monster guy, gave himself super powers, and started killing in the name of his dear and fluffy lord. There have been millions of bad guys with that backstory or an almost identical one, and Ultimate Sinister didn't have anything that set him apart from the rest. I think, just like they gutted Magneto of everything that made him a complex and interesting character, they did the same for Mr. Sinister.

Well I need more then hints of a back story to find him compelling in this case.

Why? And what exactly is "this case?" What makes this case different?

And also, what's with the we? I don't have to do anything. I liked Ultimate Sandman. I thought, yeah, he was a little flat, but that was due to lack of screentime and focus. What we've gotten so far shows potential, I think.

 

[random_havoc]

616 Cap has killed. And considering that he fought with the French resistance in World War II his disrespect to the French is atrocious.

I've never seen Cap kill (so at best it's an extreme rarity) and he expressly was against Wolv being on the NA BECAUSE he is willing to kill. Also, other than the single crack about France surrendering, tell me what other ways he bashed the French, because the France crack was funny and based completely on fact that to him would've been recent news.

Still makes me go ugh over how they turned a one time incident for Hank Pym into something overblown.

They simply played up what Hank Pym is still most known for in the comics by many fans. Frankly I still found him a more interesting character than the 616 version

Taking down Black Widow the way he did, using nanites in her bloodstream. Who the hell would be so untrusting to do such a thing.

He was trusting her with one of the world's most powerful weapons, something he'd spent years designing and put billions into. So I think putting in a safety measure against a former soviet spy is pretty level headed thinking. After all, if she never betrayed him then he'd never have to use it and no harm done.

The real Black Widow would have never betrayed the Avengers (or the Ultimates in this case). She is a respected member in the hero community.

Your point? She's a former soviet spy dude. Taking her in that direction made perfect sense and is at least as plausible as the 616 version (and that's being generous)

My point is that Ultimates should have just been more like Ultimate Spider-Man in which was something new, yet the same character we all knew and loved.

I love Ultimate Spider-Man, own every issue. But The ultimates 1 and 2 were masterpieces.

 

[The Question]

I've never seen Cap kill (so at best it's an extreme rarity) and he expressly was against Wolv being on the NA BECAUSE he is willing to kill. Also, other than the single crack about France surrendering, tell me what other ways he bashed the French, because the France crack was funny and based completely on fact that to him would've been recent news.

Not just a willingness, but a tendency towards it. Cap has killed in the past, there's plenty of moments in the early comics and a few in the more recent ones. Difference is he doesn't like it and only does it when there's no other choice. Y'know, like a reasonable and morally grounded human being.

As for the France crack... even that one time strikes me as lame. Since he was frozen in 1945, it would have been four year old news to him, and in those four years he spent at least a few months doing missions in France and, I would assume, with the Maquis. That's just very... not Cap.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

The France crack was funny to us, and it was.

But saying Cap said it as a joke? =/