Spider-Men

[Revolutionary_Jack]

SHIELD was only in a small quarter of the book.

A pretty big chunk of a Four Issue Miniseries.

[Frontier]

A pretty big chunk of a Four Issue Miniseries.

In the long run? I don't think so. At best they were just there to introduce the dimension travel and facilitate the Spiders from one area to another, but they didn't take over the book just from their presence in my opinion.

[WebLurker]

In the long-run I think MCU Fury is more like 616!Fury then the Ultimate version ended up being, at least by the end.

Johnson feels more like a kid pretending to be Jackson from all I've read of him.

My experience with 616 Johnson Fury is admittedly limited.

I get teh feeling that Bendis and Mark Millar didn't see eye to eye on how exactly they wanted Ultimate Fury to be. I'd say MCU is closer to Bendis' interpretation he'd write in Ultimate Spider-Man since he was way more personable. Milar made damn near everyone an unlikable jackass in Ultimates lol

I only know Ultimate Fury from Bendis's Spidey stuff, and while with his depths, I found him to be a generally unlikeable jack**** there. Make of that what you will.

[Ultimate Captain America]

The big role of SHIELD is one of the things I liked best about Ultimate Marvel. The problem of the mainstream comics is that it's everything about superhumans: there's a new threat in town, either a superhuman robbing a bank or a cosmic monster, and the only hope is the mysterious vigilante that saves the world with his superhuman power and then disappears in the night. Regular humans are either depicted as incompetent bufoons who must fail so the hero looks good in comparison, or if they want to impose some order they are some irredeemable fascists. Read that basic story too many times, and which is the subtext we get? That if you don't have superhuman powers or almost-superhuman abilities in a Batman level, then you are worthless, unworthy to have a say in the way things are, helpless without the paternalist help of the good superhumans. Get used to their antics, and smile happy if they destroy your car during a brawl, because they are the only ones who can protect you from Galactus or some other universal threat. An uncomfortable subtext, to say the least. I don't have superhuman powers, so I have a hard time relating to characters whose most significant trait is a superhuman power.

Ultimate Marvel was a big advance in this regard, and that was because of SHIELD. In this universe, humans, not superhumans, have the final authority. There are superhumans around, yes, they do play the superhero game, yes, but we always have the subtext that SHIELD and national governments are above, overseeing and patrolling it all. Spider-man may try to stop the Rhino but the world does not count with him to do it, and both of them will be stopped if they get too out of the line. There are superhuman teams, but those organizations either give them orders directly or coordinate things with them from a position of strength; and even the local version of Galactus was defeated by forced organized and arranged by SHIELD.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The big role of SHIELD is one of the things I liked best about Ultimate Marvel. The problem of the mainstream comics is that it's everything about superhumans: there's a new threat in town, either a superhuman robbing a bank or a cosmic monster, and the only hope is the mysterious vigilante that saves the world with his superhuman power and then disappears in the night.

That's basically the superhero genre on the whole. If you have a problem with it, then maybe not read superhero comics? Superhero stories are about people with powers or abilities who put on costume to fight crime. Usually others with powers. It's kind of baked into the genre. It's like having problem watching gangster movies because it shows stuff from the perspective of criminals. It's valid to have issues with the superhero genre, as Alan Moore did, but here's the thing, Moore moved on and did other stuff, comics of other kind. He was specifically against sticking around and removing the superhero genre of any appeal it does have. Superhero comics should be pushed back when they have a monopoly on comics genre as a whole, just as they now have on movies. But even Moore would never say that the entire genre should be extinguished. Preferably they should "stick to your lane" and not get in the way of other genres.

Regular humans are either depicted as incompetent bufoons who must fail so the hero looks good in comparison, or if they want to impose some order they are some irredeemable fascists. Read that basic story too many times, and which is the subtext we get?

That if you do ever have supervillains it's probably a good idea to have superheroes to face problems cops and others can't?

Get used to their antics, and smile happy if they destroy your car during a brawl, because they are the only ones who can protect you from Galactus or some other universal threat.

Would you rather that they let Galactus eat everything then?

Ultimate Marvel was a big advance in this regard, and that was because of SHIELD. In this universe, humans, not superhumans, have the final authority.

SHIELD is led by Nick Fury who has a Power Serum extending his life-span unnaturally, giving him unusal abilities.

There are superhumans around, yes, they do play the superhero game, yes, but we always have the subtext that SHIELD and national governments are above, overseeing and patrolling it all.

So you have a NSA/Patriot Act/DHS with all-powerful surveillance, operating without due process, only the thinnest congressional oversight, and allowed to basically overreach and operate across all nations with impunity? That's your solution to the "Just Us League" nature of the superhero genre? Ultimate SHIELD is far more elite than the regular superhero story is any day of the week.

There are superhuman teams, but those organizations either give them orders directly or coordinate things with them from a position of strength; and even the local version of Galactus was defeated by forced organized and arranged by SHIELD.

Yes, and that story wasn't as good as the one Lee-Kirby knocked out in three issues.

And if you compare both, it's telling that in the original Lee-Kirby, the crucial move that turns things for the Fantastic Four isn't anything they do by themselves, but when Silver Surfer turns against Galactus. And what drives Surfer to do it? The compassion of Alicia Masters, a regular human. In many superhero stories, crucial moments and events motivating the characters, and the emotional logic of the stories, are given to regular civilians.

Whereas in the Ultimate version, there's no emotion at all, it's just a bunch of superhumans all over the place. And there's no value for simple humanity anywhere.

[Ultimate Captain America]

That's basically the superhero genre on the whole. If you have a problem with it, then maybe not read superhero comics? Superhero stories are about people with powers or abilities who put on costume to fight crime. Usually others with powers. It's kind of baked into the genre. It's like having problem watching gangster movies because it shows stuff from the perspective of criminals. It's valid to have issues with the superhero genre, as Alan Moore did, but here's the thing, Moore moved on and did other stuff, comics of other kind. He was specifically against sticking around and removing the superhero genre of any appeal it does have. Superhero comics should be pushed back when they have a monopoly on comics genre as a whole, just as they now have on movies. But even Moore would never say that the entire genre should be extinguished. Preferably they should "stick to your lane" and not get in the way of other genres.

Oh, I do like the superhero genre. But it's not the only genre I like. I think that it can easily overcome its flaws and grow... but the problem is the fanbase, who usually reject everything new and always want to push things back to the 1960s and 1970s. I'm not part of that fanbase, and I do enjoy the work of those who take the genre into new directions, such as Bendis and Millar.

So you have a NSA/Patriot Act/DHS with all-powerful surveillance, operating without due process, only the thinnest congressional oversight, and allowed to basically overreach and operate across all nations with impunity? That's your solution to the "Just Us League" nature of the superhero genre? Ultimate SHIELD is far more elite than the regular superhero story is any day of the week.

Are you really trying to use real-world legality as a moral justification? Let me remind you that the standard superhero work may be fun to read about, but involves a whole world of criminal activities: assault, battery, destruction of evidence, resistance to authority, false arrest, break into private property, unregistered vehicles with illegal modifications, traffic violations, unregistered weapons, collateral damage... do I continue? Yes, we can ignore it all for the sake of enjoying a good story, or think that there are in-universe laws that allow all this, but then we would have to do the same with SHIELD.

Yes, and that story wasn't as good as the one Lee-Kirby knocked out in three issues.

And if you compare both, it's telling that in the original Lee-Kirby, the crucial move that turns things for the Fantastic Four isn't anything they do by themselves, but when Silver Surfer turns against Galactus. And what drives Surfer to do it? The compassion of Alicia Masters, a regular human. In many superhero stories, crucial moments and events motivating the characters, and the emotional logic of the stories, are given to regular civilians.

Whereas in the Ultimate version, there's no emotion at all, it's just a bunch of superhumans all over the place. And there's no value for simple humanity anywhere.

Being good or bad is subjective, and I think that if the same story was published today it wouldn't be perceived in a similar way. People who say "A space giant with a helmet with horns and a big 'G'? Really?"

As for Silver Surfer, his rebellion only served to make the story a bit longer and keep him back on Earth as a new superhero, but not to achieve victory. He was as useless against Galactus as the FF. They only got saved because of the Ultimate Nullifier.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Oh, I do like the superhero genre. But it's not the only genre I like. I think that it can easily overcome its flaws and grow... but the problem is the fanbase, who usually reject everything new and always want to push things back to the 1960s and 1970s. I'm not part of that fanbase, and I do enjoy the work of those who take the genre into new directions, such as Bendis and Millar.

It's arguable, to say the least, that "The Adventures of the Military-Industry-Complex" (which is what Ultimate Marvel, and Ultimate SHIELD amounts to) represents an evolution or an overcoming of said flaws within the genre. One can state that it represents "throwing the baby out with the bath water", an overcorrection that addresses certain problems at the expense of the virtues that the genre once had.

Are you really trying to use real-world legality as a moral justification?

Yeah. Between reading stories where ordinary civilians fight crime in weird adventure stories that are meant to be entertaining and melodramatic (i.e. a genre story told straight) and stories where I read the Mil.Ind.Complex fight crime while spitting on due process and insult the naivete of the usual genre conventiosn (i.e. trying to be deconstructive), the latter is the one that's gonna be held to a higher standard. It's how it works. If you set out addressing problems but still have a story celebrating certain characters as heroic in spite of all the horrible stuff they do and are somehow superheroic for doing those horrible things, then I think that you are a bigger hypocrite. It's like the LOTR/HP movies versus GOT TV Show. The former is a fantasy story done straight while the latter is trying to be serious. When the former story celebrates "the return of the king" because said fellow is a good guy, and the latter story spends all its time attacking royalty only to end the story by saying that royalty is fine as long as its the good guys, then I think the deconstructive take is the one that failed to tell its story.

Deconstruction is a form of storytelling. If you take apart a genre by attacking its problems and aren't able to produce something original or say something new and different (i.e. Watchmen), then it's a waste of time. You don't get anything for merely pointing out issues within the genre.

Being good or bad is subjective, and I think that if the same story was published today it wouldn't be perceived in a similar way.

The fact is that "today" i.e. the superhero comics landscaped was transformed and enlarged by Kirby-Lee's Galactus Trilogy. Watchmen for instance would be a different story if published today but to say that you need to factor the last thirty decades shaped by the influence of that work and put yourself in a kind of alternate universe (much like Watchmen did where a world of actual superheroes existing ended the superhero genre in the comics medium in-universe).

People who say "A space giant with a helmet with horns and a big 'G'? Really?"

Let's see you improve on Kirby's visual design.

As for Silver Surfer, his rebellion only served to make the story a bit longer and keep him back on Earth as a new superhero, but not to achieve victory. He was as useless against Galactus as the FF. They only got saved because of the Ultimate Nullifier.

The Surfer's actions bought the FF time they needed to get the Nullifier.

[Ultimate Captain America]

Yes, of course that people will have higher expectations from works with more complex premises. That doesn't mean that the simpler ones are superior, quite the contrary: people do not have big expectations from those, simply because they don't really expect anything worthwhile from them. That was the problem of comic books before the Ultimate comics: that most people found their basic premise so uninteresting that it was a completely niche genre. I liked it anyway because I saw potential in it, but that was it. With Ultimate Marvel and the Bendis-Millar era in Marvel I finally saw this potential taking form... but, as always, most of it was rolled back to return to the dull 1960s simplicity. The result? Even with the awesome publicity that the MCU films should be giving them, comics are still a niche market that only a handful of dedicated fans even know about. It's clear that comics are doing something wrong. And the thing they did wrong, is refusing to evolve. Just look at all the major entertainment industries in the market, beyond the comic book one. Which one is still using the style of their initial works from decades ago?

[Alan2099]

Bendis and Miller didn't do anything new to the genre except make it more bitter and cynical and have characters sit around talking more often. Nothing they did is more complex than what came before it. In fact, most of what Miller has done comes across as less complex to me. There's no real though involved, just tons of generic characters coming in saying "I'm dickhead government man. Do what I say," to which the heroes always have to say "No government man. We can't do government things. We have to be heroes."

Don't mistake "dark" for "mature," and of you don't want to read about superheroes saving the day, don't read superhero comics.

I also find it funny that you're talking about the huge boost the movies gave when they far more closely follow the classic Marvel Universe than the Ultimate one. One of the points of one of the movies was even "Having a big government agency watching over everything is bad," so they got rid of it and went for quite a few more movies without it or anybody mentioning it.

Really though, this type of discussion needs it's own topic.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Bendis and Miller didn't do anything new to the genre except make it more bitter and cynical and have characters sit around talking more often. Nothing they did is more complex than what came before it. In fact, most of what Miller has done comes across as less complex to me. There's no real though involved, just tons of generic characters coming in saying "I'm dickhead government man. Do what I say," to which the heroes always have to say "No government man. We can't do government things. We have to be heroes."

It's Millar with an "A".
Aside from that I agree with what you said here.

Yes, of course that people will have higher expectations from works with more complex premises. That doesn't mean that the simpler ones are superior, quite the contrary: people do not have big expectations from those, simply because they don't really expect anything worthwhile from them.

Execution > Intent, always. Alan Moore never once said that he was better than Kirby simply because he was dealing with questions that Kirby never addressed (which in some senses Kirby did address anyhow).

That was the problem of comic books before the Ultimate comics: that most people found their basic premise so uninteresting that it was a completely niche genre.

Ultimate Marvel was a success yes but it wasn't a success on the scale that you imply here. It didn't significantly enlarge the comics readership to a greater extent than it was in the 90s with the Direct Market. What it did was provide growth for Marvel which had fallen into a slump, but in terms of the wider comics industry, not so much.

With Ultimate Marvel and the Bendis-Millar era in Marvel I finally saw this potential taking form... but, as always, most of it was rolled back to return to the dull 1960s simplicity.

The 60s was the era of actual real-time continuity, whereas Ultimate Marvel was a flat static continuity intended to freeze the characters from the start. So again most people will contest calling the "1960s" simplistic.

To bring this home, my issue with Ultimate Marvel and also Spider-Men is that every story inevitably becomes a SHIELD story of some kind. There's not much room for simple everyday humanity in that continuity. You haven't addressed my point that in the Lee-Kirby Galactus Trilogy, Alicia Masters, an ordinary blind sculptor plays a crucial part in turning the tide. There's no such character in the Ultimate Galactus Trilogy, which is basically a banal event crossover, with super-geniuses working with other super-geniuses. The point of the original Galactus trilogy is that the Fantastic Four by themselves could not overcome Galactus. Reed Richards by himself couldn't. Reed doesn't invent the Nulliflier in that story, it's there in another part of the galaxy and all he does is locate it so that Johnny could get it...which he is able to to because Surfer bought them time, which happened because Alicia Masters convinced him that humanity had value. The story of the Galactus Trilogy is the best values of humanity versus an impersonal, cold, godlike figure....in that sense it's closer to Watchmen (where again ordinary complex messy humanity convinces Dr. Manhattan that humanity is the thermodynamic miracle) then Ultimate Marvel ever will be.

In the case of Spider-Men...the story is at its best when it's about 616 Peter interacting with the regular people of Ultimate Marvel and dealing with the fact that he is in a world where their Peter Parker has died and become a martyr. It's at its weakest whenever SHIELD shows up, because, Ultimate SHIELD sucks big time.

[Ultimate Captain America]

Bendis and Miller didn't do anything new to the genre except make it more bitter and cynical and have characters sit around talking more often. Nothing they did is more complex than what came before it. In fact, most of what Miller has done comes across as less complex to me. There's no real though involved, just tons of generic characters coming in saying "I'm dickhead government man. Do what I say," to which the heroes always have to say "No government man. We can't do government things. We have to be heroes."

Well, that's a textbook strawman argument, if I have ever seen any.

I also find it funny that you're talking about the huge boost the movies gave when they far more closely follow the classic Marvel Universe than the Ultimate one. One of the points of one of the movies was even "Having a big government agency watching over everything is bad," so they got rid of it and went for quite a few more movies without it or anybody mentioning it.

Actually, the fall of SHIELD took place because of the backstage conflict between the film and TV divisions in Marvel. SHIELD got a TV series, "Agents of SHIELD", and if Marvel kept using SHIELD in films they would have to acknowledge the events of the TV series (including the resurrection of Coulson), and they did not want to do that. That's why SHIELD was taken out of the scene in the immediate next film appearance after the launch of the TV series; the in-story reasons are just a convenient excuse. And yet, note that SHIELD still appeared in the next two films: in Age of Ultron it was Fury and some random agents, and in Ant-Man it was in a flashback. In both cases, narrative tricks that allowed them to ignore whatever was going on with Coulson and company.

Execution > Intent, always. Alan Moore never once said that he was better than Kirby simply because he was dealing with questions that Kirby never addressed (which in some senses Kirby did address anyhow).

The problem is not if Moore, Miller, Bendis or Millar are better than Kirby or not. The problem is the question itself. Take for example the music industry. The Beatles made a huge and complete revolution in the 1960s, they were a point of before and after, like Kirby for the comic book industry. But what about the day after? Is the music industry composed by clones of the Beatles? Is each new band judged against the standard left by the Beatles? Does the industry try to go back to the golden age of the Beatlemania? No. The Beatles are a product of their time, they can still be heard and enjoyed by those who want to check, but the industry has moved on. For better? For worse? YMMV, but the thing is, the industry is always moving on. Have they stayed in a battle against time to recapture glory days of the big four, the music industry would have turned into a niche market. This is why comic books are niche, and the music industry is not.

Ultimate Marvel was a success yes but it wasn't a success on the scale that you imply here. It didn't significantly enlarge the comics readership to a greater extent than it was in the 90s with the Direct Market. What it did was provide growth for Marvel which had fallen into a slump, but in terms of the wider comics industry, not so much.

It was the beginning of a success. If Marvel had fully committed to it, embraced changes, and kept moving on, things nowadays would be much better for comics. Alas, they did what they did, and comics are still niche.

You haven't addressed my point that in the Lee-Kirby Galactus Trilogy, Alicia Masters, an ordinary blind sculptor plays a crucial part in turning the tide. There's no such character in the Ultimate Galactus Trilogy, which is basically a banal event crossover, with super-geniuses working with other super-geniuses. The point of the original Galactus trilogy is that the Fantastic Four by themselves could not overcome Galactus. Reed Richards by himself couldn't. Reed doesn't invent the Nulliflier in that story, it's there in another part of the galaxy and all he does is locate it so that Johnny could get it...which he is able to to because Surfer bought them time, which happened because Alicia Masters convinced him that humanity had value. The story of the Galactus Trilogy is the best values of humanity versus an impersonal, cold, godlike figure....in that sense it's closer to Watchmen (where again ordinary complex messy humanity convinces Dr. Manhattan that humanity is the thermodynamic miracle) then Ultimate Marvel ever will be.

I may point that the Silver Surfer did not fare against Galactus any better than the FF, and that Galactus may have killed him just as easily if at some point he decided that the kid gloves are off. The victory was achieved thanks to the Watcher. But there's no point to that. Note, by the way, that Captain Mahr-Vell also saw that humanity is special and turned against his masters in the Ultimate Galactus Trilogy.

To bring this home, my issue with Ultimate Marvel and also Spider-Men is that every story inevitably becomes a SHIELD story of some kind. There's not much room for simple everyday humanity in that continuity.

Is that so? Then if Nick Fury is just a flat unidimensional character that only cares about national security, why did he allow this other Peter Parker to go freely around the city, instead of keeping him in a prison under lock and key when he had the chance?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The problem is not if Moore, Miller, Bendis or Millar are better than Kirby or not. The problem is the question itself. Take for example the music industry. The Beatles made a huge and complete revolution in the 1960s, they were a point of before and after, like Kirby for the comic book industry. But what about the day after?

What about "the day after" Ultimate Marvel? On the day after the Beatles, there were many bands. On the day after that, most of those bands were forgotten but people remember the Beatles. It's 2020, exactly two decades since USM#1 and the launch of Ultimate Marvel. And Ultimate Marvel has come to seem pretty dated, stuck in the Bush Presidency lacking the timelessness of the Lee-Kirby era and other great runs of Marvel.

That's enough time to form perspective and make a judgment. On the whole, it cannot be said that Ultimate Marvel is as important to Marvel as Lee-Kirby was. If that's an unfair bar...okay, not as important as Chris Claremont, let's say. I mean if Spider-Men is about anything then it's about Miles Morales, the major lasting legacy of that entire continuity. And my feelings about Miles (and USM in general) and Ultimate Marvel is akin to The Great Gatsby, "They're a rotten crowd. You're better than the whole damn bunch of them put together."

I may point that the Silver Surfer did not fare against Galactus any better than the FF, and that Galactus may have killed him just as easily if at some point he decided that the kid gloves are off.

If all that interests you in storytelling is battle statistics and who made the right roll and got the XP points to take out the bad guy...that's fine. It's totally legitimate. It's just that I don't know if that gives you a foundation to hold forth on higher values of storytelling or deconstruction or realism or any such thing. Stories are about emotions, they're about making you feel something, it's about communicating themes and larger ideas meaningfully. Jack Kirby and Stan Lee understand that and "The Galactus Trilogy" is about that story and theme...about the Fantastic Four with all their intelligence, powers, and abilities unable to do anything against a godlike figure and what purpose or value humanity has in the face of that. It's entirely your right if that part doesn't move you, that's fair. I hope you appreciate however, that those who do, would value that more in Lee-Kirby than in Ultimate Galactus Trilogy.

Is that so? Then if Nick Fury is just a flat unidimensional character that only cares about national security, why did he allow this other Peter Parker to go freely around the city, instead of keeping him in a prison under lock and key when he had the chance?

The question is...why did Nick Fury even have to be there? Why does he, and other Ultimate Marvel have to but their heads in on every story? That was the big problem of Ultimate Marvel...it got to the point, that no Ultimate story was identified as Ultimate without these a--holes showing up. They became the continuity. And that made it feel small, clumsy, claustrophobic and annoying.

[Alan2099]

Well, that's a textbook strawman argument, if I have ever seen any.

As opposed to your argument which boils down to nothing more than "If Marvel would have done more of the thinks I liked everybody would have liked it and it would have all be super popular,"?

Actually, the fall of SHIELD took place because of the backstage conflict between the film and TV divisions in Marvel. SHIELD got a TV series, "Agents of SHIELD", and if Marvel kept using SHIELD in films they would have to acknowledge the events of the TV series (including the resurrection of Coulson), and they did not want to do that. That's why SHIELD was taken out of the scene in the immediate next film appearance after the launch of the TV series; the in-story reasons are just a convenient excuse. And yet, note that SHIELD still appeared in the next two films: in Age of Ultron it was Fury and some random agents, and in Ant-Man it was in a flashback. In both cases, narrative tricks that allowed them to ignore whatever was going on with Coulson and company.

I'm curious as to your source on this.

Is that so? Then if Nick Fury is just a flat unidimensional character that only cares about national security, why did he allow this other Peter Parker to go freely around the city, instead of keeping him in a prison under lock and key when he had the chance?

Because it's Spider-man's story. He has to let him go. If he doesn't, there's no story.

[Ultimate Captain America]

What about "the day after" Ultimate Marvel? On the day after the Beatles, there were many bands. On the day after that, most of those bands were forgotten but people remember the Beatles. It's 2020, exactly two decades since USM#1 and the launch of Ultimate Marvel. And Ultimate Marvel has come to seem pretty dated, stuck in the Bush Presidency lacking the timelessness of the Lee-Kirby era and other great runs of Marvel.

Is that a joke? The Lee-Kirby era of Marvel is many things, but one thing that it is not, is precisely "timeless". FF #1 is clearly written during the space race, Hulk was clearly written during the atomic years of the years after Hiroshima... and the references to the Soviet Union (communist villains, communist spies, communist dictators in faraway countries, etc) are constant. Let's not get started on the poor role for female characters. Johnny making fun of the deformed guy may have been a fun teenager prankster back in the day, but nowadays would be perceived as a cruel bully. Even the writing style has many details that are dated and jarring for a modern audience: corny names, everyone speaks in permanent exclamations, the omniscient narrator, characters halting everything to make a "previously on..." recaps, etc. Yes, it can still be read and enjoyed, once you adjust to the style. Yes, it was a revolution in its day, and introduced many ideas that sticked. But face it: it is dated.

I'm curious as to your source on this.

Marvel Studios Fails Fans by Fighting Marvel TV (& Not Hiding It Well). There you have, all the backstage conflicts, the reasons, details, names, moments when things happened & not happened, etc.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Is that a joke? The Lee-Kirby era of Marvel is many things, but one thing that it is not, is precisely "timeless".

It's timeless the way Beatles are timeless, the way Charlie Chaplin is timeless, the way Shakespeare and Dickens is timeless. Not saying it's on the same level, but the fact is that topical references in their works by no means erodes its appeal. The Great Dictator is a satirical film about Nazism made before the Holocaust went into effect but that has not by any means thinned its popularity or eroded its appeal given how often people bring up that movie especially in the last few years. Shakespeare's plays still have value even if it's a product of a non-democractic society which glorifies the divine right of kings. The Beatles convey the optimism of the '60s, and that music endures and has value, even after that optimism ended, even after the Beatles broke-up, and one of them got assassinated by a crazy fan. Fact is something can be a product of its time, and also be timeless. Ever heard the phrase, "all things to all people". Classic stuff speak to multiple generations and audiences.

The problem with your argument defending Ultimate Marvel against any criticism is that you don't seem to appreciate that the complaints you lodge against 616 apply equally to Ultimate Marvel. You know the phrase, "pot calling the kettle black" "if i point a finger, four point back at me". Ultimate Marvel is set in the early 2000s and features a cast of largely white characters, with only a few major exceptions, and even then Nick Fury is shown as more scheming, amoral, and nasty than 616 Nick ever was and has a past as a criminal to boot...which checks the typical boxes in terms of "black guy in action role" being a criminal (similar to complaints about the Falcon having a past as a pimp which was retconned away). It's entire concept of Captain America as a right-wing holdover from the '30s and '40s is based on a very dated historical interpretation by Mark Millar (a Scotsman who clearly didn't know enough about American history). Ultimate Marvel also likewise has a lot of jokes at the expense of LGBTQ community of the kind that was normal back then.

Ultimate Marvel is just as much a product of its time and place as 616. IF you accept that and can make a case for its timeless appeal, then maybe that has value. But defending Ultimate Marvel because it's more modern than 616, or attacking or denigrating Lee-Kirby makes no sense as a defense, because to readers today, it's as dated as 616 Marvel is. And as time goes on, it will become more and more dated, especially if it seems to lack the timeless appeal that Lee-Kirby's run does.