Page 6 of 18 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 268
  1. #76
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    23,788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dboi2001 View Post
    yeah because it’s not PC anymore. If a woman has sex with multiple guys she’s a strong sexually liberated woman but a man has sex with multiple women he’s a woman hater. So i guess you think James Bond is outdated?
    If you think women expressing their sexuality doesn't come with pushback these days, I suggest looking at the discourse regarding Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion's recent video.

    And of course someone would use this as an excuse for a petty shot at the DCEU.
    Last edited by Agent Z; 08-13-2020 at 12:14 AM.

  2. #77
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    584

    Default

    I liked a lot of the Ultimate Universe. The X-Men or Fantastic Four Version was great in the first years to say nothing about Spider-Man.

    Somethings not so much. But that happens with everything.

    Problems arose later and after Loeb got his fingers on it this was more or less dead. The dark and gritty got out of control with Ultimatum.

  3. #78

    Default

    Actually, it's not a case of "it was acceptable back in the day, but now it isn't". The Ultimates were politically incorrect when those stories were published... and Marvel had the balls to publish politically incorrect material, something they sorely lack nowadays. It was not a flaw, it was precisely the charm of the Ultimates.

    Just like when Stan Lee and Jack Kirby created the Fantastic Four: The Thing was a disgusting monster to look at, a complete and insufferable jerkass... and the comic, in a time when every superhero was an infinitely good, pure and attractive boy scout, was a huge hit exactly because of Ben being that way.

  4. #79
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    1,283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ultimate Captain America View Post
    Actually, it's not a case of "it was acceptable back in the day, but now it isn't". The Ultimates were politically incorrect when those stories were published... and Marvel had the balls to publish politically incorrect material, something they sorely lack nowadays. It was not a flaw, it was precisely the charm of the Ultimates.

    Just like when Stan Lee and Jack Kirby created the Fantastic Four: The Thing was a disgusting monster to look at, a complete and insufferable jerkass... and the comic, in a time when every superhero was an infinitely good, pure and attractive boy scout, was a huge hit exactly because of Ben being that way.
    You have a point. Most Marvel heroes were conceived as deconstructions or subversions of (at the time) usual superhero tropes. It’s where the notion that Marvel characters are more “realistic” came from.

  5. #80
    Fantastic Member Alpha to Omega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    346

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ultimate Captain America View Post
    The difference is that "Thanos" is a new word, with no meaning before it named a character.
    Thanos is a real name, it's Greek and usually used as a shortened form of the name Athanasius (meaning immortal).

  6. #81
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ultimate Captain America View Post
    Why do people hate Ultimate Marvel? For a simple reason: some people hate the things that are new, and prefer to read the same comic book story a thousand times, either literally or in "new" stories ("new" between quotation marks) that simply retread the same story once again. The original stuff is treated as the epitome of perfection, and anything that deviates from it is an abomination, simply because it deviated from it. People like this are the majority of comic book readers, including many ones who got to actually work in Marvel and run things. That's why the industry still revolves around characters older than many of us, and no change made after the 1980s (not even death) ever sticks. Some readers do like innovation, but are a minority, and always lose in the end. Ultimate Marvel, the Initiative, married Peter Parker, life-bringer Galactus, time-displaced X-Men, Infamous Iron Man, Old Man Logan, Laura as Wolverine, Jane Foster as Thor, Sam Wilson as Cap, Flash Thompson as Venom, Punisher with War Machine armor, even "I am Groot", etc; all paid the price of deviating from the sacred texts. There are even guys waiting for Krakoa to fall apart...
    Although I agree with a lot of this post, I don't think that's what people disliked about Ultimate Marvel tbh. I think already there's a difference in that it was an alternate universe, so people could just ignore it if they wanted to. But the fact is, at the time, people loved the newness of it. I think most fans don't like how it's aged and that it most definitely feels like an early 2000s comic (particularly Ultimates and UXM). Also, with Millar's writing being as on the nose as it is, I never feel like there's much to go back for. Having said that, the art on those series' is so good that I sometimes go back just for that.

    Also, in regards to people talking about Doom's name... Most names in comics/MCU are pretty cheesy. Captain America, Iron Man, Nick Fury, Captain Marvel, Ant Man, Star Lord. On the villain's side you have Iron Monger, Whiplash, Mandarin, Baron Zemo, Yellow Jacket etc etc. Doctor Doom fits fine.

  7. #82
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dboi2001 View Post
    And you act like the 2000s were the 1940 s
    My argument is that the 2000s should be examined and scrutinized the same way we examine and scrutinize the "1940s". (Which incidentally is the point of Watchmen which literally compares heroes from the 40s with heroes from the 60s and by the end of the comic, both generations of superheroes tend to be f--ked up dinosaurs in their own way).The argument that the past has values that are no longer acceptable and worth revisiting and re-examining ultimately extends to the values and ideas of the present as well. The 2000s are certainly more progressive a place to live and be in than the 1940s but that doesn't mean that the works made in that era get a free pass or shouldn't be scrutinized. And in general Ultimate Marvel is pretty vaunting in most respects. To the extent it identifies a flaw in the classic Marvel era, it doesn't offer many improvements or alternatives.

    Fans of Ultimate Comics just don't like people making fun and calling them out the way Ultimate Marvel made a play at calling out the '60s and the '40s. That's what we call hypocrisy.

    Stark didn't date interns he dated celebrities and models and later engaged with Black Widow. At best he passed a wink and nod to them.
    Right after Black Widow turned evil, Stark gets over her by asking an assistant to bring women across the street to him and the next comic has him sleeping with interns. The former is a kind of "droit du seigneur" feudal fantasy (is it any surprise that Joss Whedon whose Age of Ultron has Tony casually mentioning that he'll bring primae noctis, is now effectively cancelled?) and the latter is the creepy behavior that led to #MeToo.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ultimate Captain America View Post
    Why do people hate Ultimate Marvel? For a simple reason: some people hate the things that are new, and prefer to read the same comic book story a thousand times, either literally or in "new" stories ("new" between quotation marks) that simply retread the same story once again.
    Ultimate Marvel is an initiative founded on literally retelling the classic Marvel characters again for a 21st Century audience rather than create an entirely new series of characters made for the audience of its age. It's not SAGA or THE WICKED + THE DIVINE by any means. Again Ultimate Marvel defenders always preen about as if the thing they like is flawless and all people who criticize it do so for wrong and illegitimate reasons. That is childish and offensive, both to fellow posters and to yourself.

    The original stuff is treated as the epitome of perfection, and anything that deviates from it is an abomination, simply because it deviated from it.
    Ultimate Spider-Man kept Spider-Man in high school for some 150 odd issues whereas the originals had Peter graduate in Issue #28. It was a pretty big deviation yet people do like Ultimate Spider-Man. So no, it's simply not true that people dislike Ultimate Marvel just for deviating slightly. Disliking the Hulk for being a Cannibal, and Steve Rogers for being a Neocon, is not at all equivalent to having an issue that the costume doesn't have the same pattern as the original.

    People like this are the majority of comic book readers, including many ones who got to actually work in Marvel and run things. That's why the industry still revolves around characters older than many of us, and no change made after the 1980s (not even death) ever sticks. Some readers do like innovation, but are a minority, and always lose in the end. Ultimate Marvel, the Initiative, married Peter Parker, life-bringer Galactus, time-displaced X-Men, Infamous Iron Man, Old Man Logan, Laura as Wolverine, Jane Foster as Thor, Sam Wilson as Cap, Flash Thompson as Venom, Punisher with War Machine armor, even "I am Groot", etc; all paid the price of deviating from the sacred texts. There are even guys waiting for Krakoa to fall apart...
    Ultimate Marvel is not at all equivalent to that. Pre-Ultimatum, Ultimate Marvel had a static timeline where no time elapsed and Peter Parker was forever stuck in high school and most of the other characters were also frozen in amber. There was no progression at all like you had in the classic era. Ultimate Marvel was founded with an intent of streamlining, flattening, and simplifying. As for "guys waiting for Krakoa to fall", Ultimate X-Men is an offender and not a co-defendant, because it went further and beyond in robbing any joy from the X-Men story, where characters are on the verge of extinction and brutalized far more than even in the Claremont era, and whose big turn was that mutants were a product of a government experiment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ultimate Captain America View Post
    Actually, it's not a case of "it was acceptable back in the day, but now it isn't". The Ultimates were politically incorrect when those stories were published... and Marvel had the balls to publish politically incorrect material, something they sorely lack nowadays.
    Since this was the height of SouthPark's esteem and fame, it's more accurate to say that Marvel felt safe in publishing The Ultimates in that time, and that publishing it would not invite controversy or ire. Ultimate Marvel was popular and mainstream at the time, not some subversive avant-garde thing you are making it out to be. To be critical of Ultimate Marvel back then was to be in a minority...just like to unironically and uncritically defend everything about Ultimate Marvel today would put you in a minority.

    Ultimate Marvel wanted to be cool, and edgy and in the 2000s that meant being politically incorrect and offensive. But nothing dates faster than coolness. What's cool is one era becomes uncool in the next. Sonic the Hedgehog is a good example of that. Created to be cool as the early 90s understood it, and has such never kept a mass audience outside that timeframe. Ultimate Marvel, or rather The Ultimates, is the Sonic the Hedgehog of comics and the attitude of its fans about their nostalgia not being validated anymore is pretty similar to the Sonic fandom.

    Just like when Stan Lee and Jack Kirby created the Fantastic Four
    Not in the least bit.

    The Thing was a disgusting monster to look at, a complete and insufferable jerkass
    For some three-four issues. As they proceeded, Kirby and Lee both realized that take on a character wasn't working nor especially interesting. The fact is that if you read Superman and Batman comics of the 50s, you will find that they come across as jerkasses by today's standards, but the reason is that the kind of behavior considered normal or cool back in the 50s will come across as jerkish today. It wasn't that the publishers were intending for the characters to be jerks, they just wanted the character to be likable and charismatic to its readers and based it on what the 50s and early 60s considered likable and charismatic. That applies even to Marvel. The Thing wasn't intended to be a creep and a jerk by either Lee or Kirby. It's just that when they rolled the first few issues they hadn't entirely had a level of control on the character and that's why he came off as especially jerkish. Ultimate Marvel is a good example of a bunch of people so smart they outsmarted themselves, and based their ideas on total misreading. Ultimate Captain America somehow being a neoconservative is based on an incorrect understanding of the 30s and 40s (which were far less conservative than the 50s, and there's a reason why American right-winger focus on going back to the "50s" rather than the "40s") by a dude from Scotland whose idea of America is based on prejudices and old movies.
    Last edited by Revolutionary_Jack; 08-13-2020 at 07:19 AM.

  8. #83
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    621

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ultimate Captain America View Post
    The difference is that "Thanos" is a new word, with no meaning before it named a character.
    Thanos is also an alien whereas Dr Doom is an Eastern European (which adding the Von makes less sense since thatís a Central Europe thing not eastern)

  9. #84
    Latverian ambassador Iron Maiden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Latverian Embassy
    Posts
    15,730

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    I was referring to how most of Doom's stories about his Romani heritage are used to explain his magical powers. Even Kirby and Lee aren't perfect given they still refer to Romani by a racial slur.
    As pointed out earlier, the origin was written in 1963 and it was in common usage in literature and films in those times. It's specious call out Stan and Jack for something that for that time was commonly accepted. In Hugo's Hunchback of Notre Dame, which is set in the late 15th century, one of the characters mentions how they think La Esmeralda and her people must be from Egpyt. This misconception was common and did lead to them being called Gypsy

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    As for the image you posted, this type of grandstanding by the writer is less an exploration of gray morality and more a weak attempt to soothe fans' fears that Doom isn't a complete bastard. Catwoman and the Rogues are better examples of gray morality because they're nowhere near the monster Doom is even when they aren't heroic.
    Grandstanding eh? Sub-Mariner#47 was published in March of 1972 and writer Gerry Conway had yet to reach his 20th birthday. I think we can forgive for his lack of "seasoning" I suppose. So this particular story takes place decades before the current iteration of Catwoman and the Rogues. If anything those writers are simply continuing something that others had done many years ago. Would you say that Claremont was grandstanding with Magneto too?

  10. #85
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    621

    Default

    Also, in regards to people talking about Doom's name... Most names in comics/MCU are pretty cheesy. Captain America, Iron Man, Nick Fury, Captain Marvel, Ant Man, Star Lord. On the villain's side you have Iron Monger, Whiplash, Mandarin, Baron Zemo, Yellow Jacket etc etc. Doctor Doom fits fine.
    We aren’t talking about superhero names we are talking about his normal name. Outside of Nick Fury every one of those names were fake names (Zemo isn’t a Baron anymore). You really expect people to take a morally gray villain seriously with the name Victor Von Doom? Even the Fantastic four reboot was originally going to change his name to Domechev before the backlash changing his name to Victor Doom

  11. #86
    Latverian ambassador Iron Maiden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Latverian Embassy
    Posts
    15,730

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dboi2001 View Post
    We aren’t talking about superhero names we are talking about his normal name. Outside of Nick Fury every one of those names were fake names (Zemo isn’t a Baron anymore). You really expect people to take a morally gray villain seriously with the name Victor Von Doom? Even the Fantastic four reboot was originally going to change his name to Domechev before the backlash changing his name to Victor Doom
    Why not? Comic book readers have done so for decades.

  12. #87
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    621

    Default

    because the marvel comic universe does not take itself as seriously as you think. The MCU is much more grounded than Marvel comics and simply put Victor Von Doom is incredibly cheesy. I mean if Ant Man and Star Lord are too silly of names then why would they use Von Doom? I'm calling it now they will either call him Van Damne or something totally different. Especially since the Von prefix is german when Victor was born and raised in a gypsy tribe

    EDIT: Here is a break down as to what is wrong with the name Victor Von Doom

    So Dr Doom is Romani and from the fictional eastern european country of Latveria. His name derives from German and Old English. Victor is latin based and is really only popular in the USA. Now Romanian is Romance based similar to Spain and France however Romani language is Indo-Aryan based so it makes no sense why he'd be named Victor. The closest is that Viktor with a K is fairly used in Russia but that is it

    Now his surname is blatantly german. Von Doom is clearly meant to be german. The Von prefix to surnames is exclusive to Germany and Austria and was used for nobility simply meaning "of". Since Romanian is romance based you're more likely to find surnames with "de" rather than "von" as a prefix. Doom is based on the proto german word domaz which mean judgement or decree and when German evolved into English it changed to "doome" again meaning statute or decree. So Dr. Doom is a Romani man with a german name and as a bigger joker he isn't even a real doctor since he was expelled from college so he simply granted himself a PhD because I guess Dr. Doom sounds cooler than Mr. Doom

    In the Ultimate Fantastic Four Victor's ancestors moved from Romania to Belgium and married into the Van Damne family hence why he has a Belgian last name
    Last edited by Dboi2001; 08-13-2020 at 10:00 AM.

  13. #88
    Latverian ambassador Iron Maiden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Latverian Embassy
    Posts
    15,730

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dboi2001 View Post
    because the marvel comic universe does not take itself as seriously as you think. The MCU is much more grounded than Marvel comics and simply put Victor Von Doom is incredibly cheesy. I mean if Ant Man and Star Lord are too silly of names then why would they use Von Doom? I'm calling it now they will either call him Van Damne or something totally different. Especially since the Von prefix is german when Victor was born and raised in a gypsy tribe

    EDIT: Here is a break down as to what is wrong with the name Victor Von Doom

    So Dr Doom is Romani and from the fictional eastern european country of Latveria. His name derives from German and Old English. Victor is latin based and is really only popular in the USA. Now Romanian is Romance based similar to Spain and France however Romani language is Indo-Aryan based so it makes no sense why he'd be named Victor. The closest is that Viktor with a K is fairly used in Russia but that is it

    Now his surname is blatantly german. Von Doom is clearly meant to be german. The Von prefix to surnames is exclusive to Germany and Austria and was used for nobility simply meaning "of". Since Romanian is romance based you're more likely to find surnames with "de" rather than "von" as a prefix. Doom is based on the proto german word domaz which mean judgement or decree and when German evolved into English it changed to "doome" again meaning statute or decree. So Dr. Doom is a Romani man with a german name and as a bigger joker he isn't even a real doctor since he was expelled from college so he simply granted himself a PhD because I guess Dr. Doom sounds cooler than Mr. Doom

    Now granted Victor Van Damne makes still no sense for a Romanian since it is Belgian but at least Van Damne is a real name and sounds like damned than Von Doom which is incredibly on the nose and makes no sense for the character's heritage. Kinda surprised Bendis and Millar didn't change his name to something else considering Mole Man's name was changed
    Romania is a country so no, Doom is not a Romanian. He is a Roma or Romani. Roma means people in their language so it doesn't mean that they are from Romania. They have no homeland and spread out in Europe. There are over a million in the U.S.
    Using Van Damme would be even worse since it would only confuse movie fans since the actor is still making films.

  14. #89
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,677

    Default

    Millar's writing always had a sour feeling to me, and the Ultimateverse is heavily influenced by his style, making the universe as a whole feel sour to me.

  15. #90
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    23,788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Iron Maiden View Post
    As pointed out earlier, the origin was written in 1963 and it was in common usage in literature and films in those times. It's specious call out Stan and Jack for something that for that time was commonly accepted. In Hugo's Hunchback of Notre Dame, which is set in the late 15th century, one of the characters mentions how they think La Esmeralda and her people must be from Egpyt. This misconception was common and did lead to them being called Gypsy
    "It was different back then" doesn't really work as an excuse and as I said, my main umbrage is with later writers not Lee and Kirby.


    Grandstanding eh? Sub-Mariner#47 was published in March of 1972 and writer Gerry Conway had yet to reach his 20th birthday. I think we can forgive for his lack of "seasoning" I suppose. So this particular story takes place decades before the current iteration of Catwoman and the Rogues. If anything those writers are simply continuing something that others had done many years ago. Would you say that Claremont was grandstanding with Magneto too?
    I don't care about who did what first, I care about who did it better and in my view the Rogues and Catwoman did it better. Also, Catwoman was showing signs of wanting to leave the criminal life behind as early as the 1950s and even had a story where she spares Batman from being killed by her men even after going back to being a thief.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •