Why do people hate Ultimate Marvel?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

It's always strange to me what some people consider a protagonist.

In the sense that Darth Vader was the protagonist and connecting thread of the PT and the OT aka George Lucas' Star Wars. That RDJ's Tony Stark is the Protagonist of the MCU (at least until Endgame). In Ultimate Marvel, everything was centered around Nick Fury. It was always about him, his secret plans, him being connected in some way and some form, to everything in that world.

616 Marvel can't really be said to have a protagonist anymore owing to how big and wide it has grown over the years. Obviously in the classic Marvel era of the '60s, the Fantastic Four were the clear protagonists since the new timeline started with their rocket flight and a lot of the aspects of the worldbuilding were tied to them or introduced through them, and new titles and characters somehow became adjacent to them (like Spider-Man). But that ended when they stopped being the top title and when the X-Men became the top team. You can also make a case that Captain America is also the protagonist, the biggest character in the classic Timely era and him being sent into ice and retrieved is another major watershed moment in the continuity but even then that can be argued and it's not entirely definite.

That's just your opinion, and it's besides the point. You claim that Ultimatum is the logical consequence of Millar's Ultimates, but Millar himself (via his character Nick Fury, in a metafictional way) says the opposite thing.

Nobody just takes the author at their word, you know. Just because Millar makes a self-aggrandizing preening comment in the pages of his own comic, that does not mean anyone has to validate that.

Pietro has ALWAYS been, since Stan Lee and Jack Kirby created him, an overprotective zealot in everything related to his sister.

Lee-Kirby introduced Pietro in a title (Uncanny X-Men) that was failing in sales and fan appeal. So obviously their conception of Quicksilver never quite caught on or take for very long. Quicksilver changed significantly after that under Roy Thomas and later writers, he got married to an Inhuman and everything, and became a father.

Hulk has always been supposed to be a monster

1) He was never intended to be a serial killing mass murdering cannibal. To the extent Hulk was intended to be a monster, it was in the small-m sense, in the Romantic sense, where you are supposed to be sympathetic and also root for the guy, like with Boris Karloff's Frankenstein. In the '60s Hulk was a counter-culture icon for campus kids because obviously a story of a green giant fighting and tearing up US Military was quite cathartic in the anti-Vietnam War protest era.

2) The original conception of Hulk failed because the miniseries got cancelled after a few issues. So obviously they had to change and redo the character to make him work as a serial successful character.

Saying stuff like "always supposed to be" and citing some factoid about the Lee-Kirby while ignoring the context...and all for the sake of defending Ultimate Marvel is bad faith. Lee and Kirby intended first of all for all their characters and ideas to do well and prosper and both of them understood that if any title they did didn't work, it was up to later writers to come in and do what they figure is right (even if it means overturning their stuff) to make that work.

As for Magneto, the Xavier / Magneto dichotomy really only works if Magneto is the VILLAIN, not if the Brotherhood is just a secondary X-Men team.

The Xavier-Magneto dichotomy was created by Chris Claremont and never part of Lee-Kirby's concept, and for it to work, Magneto has to have some kind of legitimacy, some compelling meaningful background and legitimate virtues and strength of character that makes people flock to him and makes him a rival ideology to Xavier. Ultimate Magneto has none of those things and is not a very good villain. As far as characterization goes, even Ultimate Norman Osborn is better than him.

[Steel Inquisitor]

The Xavier-Magneto dichotomy was created by Chris Claremont and never part of Lee-Kirby's concept, and for it to work, Magneto has to have some kind of legitimacy, some compelling meaningful background and legitimate virtues and strength of character that makes people flock to him and makes him a rival ideology to Xavier. Ultimate Magneto has none of those things and is not a very good villain. As far as characterization goes, even Ultimate Norman Osborn is better than him.

All Magneto had to be was charismatic and have a tiny piece of truth meshed in with his teachings - that's more then enough for people to flock to him in droves. He's not about legitimacy he's about fear, power and terror. Ultimate Magneto is just Kirby/Lee Magneto in a modern context.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

All Magneto had to be was charismatic and have a tiny piece of truth meshed in with his teachings - that's more then enough for people to flock to him in droves.

Lee-Romita Magneto didn't even have that. He was an a--hole and a purple jackass that's all. There was absolutely no reason for why any mutant should believe in him. He was just not a good character. Kirby did have a great design and costume for him but he was basically Snidely Whiplash with even less interest.

Ultimate Magneto is just Kirby/Lee Magneto...

It demonstrates exactly why Lee/Kirby Magneto had to be changed and altered. Left to that, he would never have become a major and effective villain. He owes that entirely to Claremont.

To the extent people try and justify Ultimate X-Men and Ultimates as somehow being reflections of aspects of the character when originally introduced unfiltered by later developments, they serve as an object lesson for why those characters needed to be changed and why returning characters to "how they were first introduced" doesn't make a lot of sense in practice.

More than that they serve to demonstrate Mark Millar's fundamental and essential misreading of these characters and the heart of their appeal. I am not saying that Millar didn't have a right to change/alter these characters. In fact, I actually wished he did more of that...for one thing his run on X-Men ends up being far less diverse than the mainstream X-Men

...in a modern context.

It's 2020...Ultimate Marvel isn't modern anymore. I mean 2020 is in fact the Ultimate Marvel line's 20th Anniversary. In fact I remember wondering if Marvel would put together some nostalgia miniseries revisiting Ultimate Marvel but nothing has been announced. Maybe there were plans but the Pandemic scuttled it.

[Castle]

This is like asking a question of why do you love this person and not that person

Ultimate Universe was a nice concept but it was never going to hang around for long. Comic fans had fallen too deeply inlove with 616 and were never going to let go.

Ultimate Marvel was a good short lived concept like Marvel 2009 or Age of Apocalypse.

[PCN24454]

This is like asking a question of why do you love this person and not that person

Ultimate Universe was a nice concept but it was never going to hang around for long. Comic fans had fallen too deeply inlove with 616 and were never going to let go.

Ultimate Marvel was a good short lived concept like Marvel 2009 or Age of Apocalypse.

I feel like that's kind of the problem. The reason why they were able to get away with Ultimatum is because the universe was worth less than 616. Go ahead and try to propose that a 616 version of it.

Readers aren't going to invest if they don't believe the writers will.

[Ultimate Captain America]

In the sense that Darth Vader was the protagonist and connecting thread of the PT and the OT aka George Lucas' Star Wars. That RDJ's Tony Stark is the Protagonist of the MCU (at least until Endgame). In Ultimate Marvel, everything was centered around Nick Fury. It was always about him, his secret plans, him being connected in some way and some form, to everything in that world.

616 Marvel can't really be said to have a protagonist anymore owing to how big and wide it has grown over the years. Obviously in the classic Marvel era of the '60s, the Fantastic Four were the clear protagonists since the new timeline started with their rocket flight and a lot of the aspects of the worldbuilding were tied to them or introduced through them, and new titles and characters somehow became adjacent to them (like Spider-Man). But that ended when they stopped being the top title and when the X-Men became the top team. You can also make a case that Captain America is also the protagonist, the biggest character in the classic Timely era and him being sent into ice and retrieved is another major watershed moment in the continuity but even then that can be argued and it's not entirely definite.

So... Star Wars and the MCU, as well as Ultimate Marvel, have an important character that acts as the link between all others. Why is that supposed to be a bad thing, then? Are Star Wars and the MCU bad franchises as well under your view, because of using this narrative trick?

Nobody just takes the author at their word, you know. Just because Millar makes a self-aggrandizing preening comment in the pages of his own comic, that does not mean anyone has to validate that.

Yes they do when it's the author itself the subject of discussion. Does Mark Millar approve the Ultimatum comic? To answer this question (not the quality of Ultimatum, but Millar's opinion of it), the opinion of Mark Millar himself is definitive and final.

Lee-Kirby introduced Pietro in a title (Uncanny X-Men) that was failing in sales and fan appeal. So obviously their conception of Quicksilver never quite caught on or take for very long. Quicksilver changed significantly after that under Roy Thomas and later writers, he got married to an Inhuman and everything, and became a father.

Yes, that is correct. How could I forget that? Let's see Wanda's reaction to the news of the "significantly changed" Quicksilver.



And then there are the later chapters where Crystal left him because he was a jerkass, and even his daughter denied him because he was a jerkass.

1) He was never intended to be a serial killing mass murdering cannibal. To the extent Hulk was intended to be a monster, it was in the small-m sense, in the Romantic sense, where you are supposed to be sympathetic and also root for the guy, like with Boris Karloff's Frankenstein. In the '60s Hulk was a counter-culture icon for campus kids because obviously a story of a green giant fighting and tearing up US Military was quite cathartic in the anti-Vietnam War protest era.

2) The original conception of Hulk failed because the miniseries got cancelled after a few issues. So obviously they had to change and redo the character to make him work as a serial successful character.

Saying stuff like "always supposed to be" and citing some factoid about the Lee-Kirby while ignoring the context...and all for the sake of defending Ultimate Marvel is bad faith. Lee and Kirby intended first of all for all their characters and ideas to do well and prosper and both of them understood that if any title they did didn't work, it was up to later writers to come in and do what they figure is right (even if it means overturning their stuff) to make that work.



The Xavier-Magneto dichotomy was created by Chris Claremont and never part of Lee-Kirby's concept, and for it to work, Magneto has to have some kind of legitimacy, some compelling meaningful background and legitimate virtues and strength of character that makes people flock to him and makes him a rival ideology to Xavier. Ultimate Magneto has none of those things and is not a very good villain. As far as characterization goes, even Ultimate Norman Osborn is better than him.

And that lead us back to my opening opinion in here: "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." Does being an open killer help to deliver the idea that Hulk is a dangerous and uncontrollable monster that everyone fears? Yes Does being an Al-Qaeda style terrorist leader help to deliver the idea that Magneto is a mutant leader who may be followed by some mutants and who is completely at odds with the X-Men and their doctrine? Yes Does it differ from the way things were done during the Vietnam War era? Probably... but why should that be a problem, as long as it works?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

So... Star Wars and the MCU, as well as Ultimate Marvel, have an important character that acts as the link between all others. Why is that supposed to be a bad thing, then?

It's a bad thing because Nick Fury, or the ultimate version of Fury, should not have been a protagonist. It's a poor choice that weakened Ultimate Marvel as a shared universe. In Star Wars, Yoda wasn't the protagonist, in MCU, Fury's Sam Jackson isn't the protagonist. Casting a mentor in the role of a protagonist is simply not very dynamic in a genre story of this kind.

It takes focus and attention away from the superheroes, and it also raises issues that if Nick Fury and SHIELD are so capable and powerful as to why they would need all these superheroes. Likewise, the uber-version of SHIELD in Ultimate Marvel has a vaguely authoritarian tinge, but leaving aside that, obviously the narrative and story and conflict repeatedly depends on SHIELD failing or being subverted multiple times because action stories thrive on conflict and having a capable black ops HQ doesn't allow for good storytelling in that genre...(which is why the MCU jettisoned SHIELD in The Winter Soldier). The premise of Ultimate Marvel was that Nick Fury was somehow an omniscient omnipotent being who knew everything and had ridiculously contrived backup schemes. So that means any failure and setback that happened on page had to somehow be Fury's plan...which made him come off as evil, an unrepentant war criminal for whom the Constitution and Bill of Rights does not exist. So that just added to the pit of Ultimate Marvel as a noxious toxic story.

Yes they do when it's the author itself the subject of discussion. Does Mark Millar approve the Ultimatum comic? To answer this question (not the quality of Ultimatum, but Millar's opinion of it), the opinion of Mark Millar himself is definitive and final.

Mr. Millar's feelings towards Ultimatum are irrelevant to any discussion about the extent to which Ultimatum is a logical extension of elements introduced in his run.

Yes, that is correct. How could I forget that? Let's see Wanda's reaction to the news of the "significantly changed" Quicksilver.

That scene is Quicksilver being weirded out about Wanda marrying an Android, which you can argue stems from a mix of anti-robot or anti-AI prejudice or concern of an elder brother who essentially served as his sister's main protector throughout childhood, hoping that Wanda finds a good home. It's not quasi-incestuous in the least.

And then there are the later chapters where Crystal left him because he was a jerkass, and even his daughter denied him because he was a jerkass.

Quicksilver being a jerk doesn't mean he's incestuous. There's no logical connection. Neither Lee nor Kirby, nor Roy Thomas, intended the Maximoff twins to be incestuous. That much is obvious and clear.

And that lead us back to my opening opinion in here: "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."

This is a weird conclusion for you to draw. I pointed out specifically that Magneto had to change under Claremont and be reinterpreted because the original version of Magneto wasn't working very well. The same is true of the original conception of Hulk. Don't know how you get from this that "the original stuff is treated as the epitome of perfection". Because if anything Millar in trying to return to some unfiltered early version of characters is the one that's being overly literal in his misreading.

Does being an open killer help to deliver the idea that Hulk is a dangerous and uncontrollable monster that everyone fears? Yes

Does it also deliver the idea that Hulk is supposed to be a monster one empathizes with and relates to on some level? No Because this second part is more crucial.

Does being an Al-Qaeda style terrorist leader...

Let me stop you right there. Ultimate X-Men #1 was published on February 2001, seven months before the 9/11 attacks. The entire opening arc which frames Magneto as a psycho murderer happened well before Al Qaeda and Bin Laden became part of the global consciousness in the wake of the attacks. As such Ultimate X-Men #1 wasn't intended by any means to reflect on contemporary fears of terrorism. In fact, The Ultimates #1 published in March 2002 was the first major post-9/11 title in Ultimate Marvel.

Does it differ from the way things were done during the Vietnam War era? Probably... but why should that be a problem, as long as it works?

Hmm...Chris Claremont wasn't part of the Vietnam war era. Don't know what you are talking about, but my post was about how much the X-Men had to change from Lee-Kirby orthodoxy to truly take off.

[Ultimate Captain America]

The basic problem with your reviews is that you fail to understand that just because something worked once when done a certain way, does not invalidate it from working when doing it some other way. For example, you say that Ultimate Hulk does not work because "Hulk is supposed to be a monster one empathizes with and relates to on some level". But who says that? Yes, tragic villains, villains who have a point or that you may relate to are some level can be interesting. However, that doesn't mean that 100% evil villains with no noble goal, redeeming qualities or audience empathy, who only want to watch the world burn, can't be cool or part of great stories. Take for example Sauron from Lord of the Rings, T-1000 from Terminator II, the Borg from Star Trek, the Joker from The Dark Knight, Palpatine from Star Wars, etc. Hulk and Magneto working as the first type of villains, does not mean that using them as the second type is wrong. It can work as well, and it worked.

[Alan2099]

The basic problem with your reviews is that you fail to understand that just because something worked once when done a certain way, does not invalidate it from working when doing it some other way. For example, you say that Ultimate Hulk does not work because "Hulk is supposed to be a monster one empathizes with and relates to on some level". But who says that? Yes, tragic villains, villains who have a point or that you may relate to are some level can be interesting. However, that doesn't mean that 100% evil villains with no noble goal, redeeming qualities or audience empathy, who only want to watch the world burn, can't be cool or part of great stories. Take for example Sauron from Lord of the Rings, T-1000 from Terminator II, the Borg from Star Trek, the Joker from The Dark Knight, Palpatine from Star Wars, etc. Hulk and Magneto working as the first type of villains, does not mean that using them as the second type is wrong. It can work as well, and it worked.

If you pick up a comic with the Hulk, you want the Hulk to look and act like the Hulk. That was one of the big problems with the Ultimate Universe. Nobody minds the occasional character update, or modernizing a few things here and there, but there's a certain core aspect of the character that needs to remain. Otherwise you're basically slapping a old name on a new character and trying to pass it off as the real thing.

A lot of the Ultimate characters simply weren't enough (or in some cases anything) like the characters people expected them to be. If somebody picks up a book because it's supposed to be a modern take on the Avengers, and none of the characters act or feel like the Avengers, why should the reader come back?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

For example, you say that Ultimate Hulk does not work because "Hulk is supposed to be a monster one empathizes with and relates to on some level". But who says that?

Common sense, and empirical reality.

Yes, tragic villains, villains who have a point or that you may relate to are some level can be interesting. However, that doesn't mean that 100% evil villains with no noble goal, redeeming qualities or audience empathy, who only want to watch the world burn, can't be cool or part of great stories.

Ultimate Hulk wasn't treated that way. He was basically presented to us as Banner's even worse alter-ego who is kill happy and murderous in the high four digits and that his rampage is motivated by actively seeking victims to harm...yet at the same time the comic wants us to feel Banner is somewhat sympathetic, and at the same time when Hulk is unleashed against the Chitauri, audiences are enticed to root for him against beings who are no worse than him.

There was a total mishmash of tone. Hulk's rampage and violence was treated at times as black comedy and exploitation...like I think in Ultimate War, some SHIELD personnel were being jerks at Hulk and when he was unleashed when Magneto attacked the Shield Helicarrier, there's an offhand mention of him cannibalizing the personnel who insulted him. It's done in a way that's dark comedy. Again the story doesn't consistently frame or present Hulk's violence in any proper way, and it makes no sense either way.

It can work as well, and it worked.

Except it didn't. Ultimate Magneto was a character done and dusted with Ultimatum and wasn't brought back unlike others and certainly not influential on the slightest in any sense on the versions of Magneto by Cullen Bunn and more recently Jonathan Hickman. The biggest and most influential comics that happened with the Hulk in the last two decades was stuff like Greg Pak's Planet Hulk and World War Hulk, and Al Ewing's Immortal Hulk, both are 616 stories.

[TheCape]

Didn't Magneto turned out to be alive for some weird reason after Ultimatum?, granted i agreed that he wasn't important and no one really see any value on that take (not even 90s Magneto was that disgusting), but i do remember hearing that he survived.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Didn't Magneto turned out to be alive for some weird reason after Ultimatum?, granted i agreed that he wasn't important and no one really see any value on that take (not even 90s Magneto was that disgusting), but i do remember hearing that he survived.

Don't remember this. I read the Ultimate X and The Ultimates runs after Ultimatum and Magneto wasn't there.

Ultimate Doctor Doom was revived Post-Ultimatum.

[Destro777]

Millar's Ultimates Vol 1 and 2 is easily one of the best comic runs of all time.
The same can be said for Bendis' Ultimate Spiderman.

Ultimate Fantastic Four and Hickman's Ultimates/Thor/Hawkeye are worthwhile too.

The rest is forgettable - but the good stuff is REALLY good.

[kingaliencracker]

Well...I think initially the premise of the Ultimate line (and specifically Spider-Man) was to present a modern interpretation of Marvel characters that wasn't tied to or bogged down by the main 616 continuity. And for Spider-Man as written by Bendis, this worked perfectly.

I think the issue became when the universe started getting expanded and there was a need to radically alter certain characters for the Ultimate line (such as Hulk) so that, rather than present modern interpretations, it became "we can do anything we want here!". And then they started retroactively building up the Ultimate history, so that by 2006 or 2007 it was just as confusing and incoherent to new readers as the main lines were. Which of course came the series of events to try and clean things up but instead only served to frustrate long-time Ultimate fans.

[Option38]

When Ultimate Spidey came out in 1999 (right?), I took a pass because it seemed like "same ol', same ol'" to me. I had been reading Spidey for years and I didn't have the patience to be strung along while the same dynamics were re-done...albeit with different ("modern") costumes and on nicer paper. I used to be big on continuity and even little things being ignored or changed bothered me.

I joked, at the time, that you wouldn't go up to someone and say: "hey, did you watch (the local NFL team) this weekend?" I wouldn't expect them to answer: "which NFL? NFL Classic or NFL Ultimate?"

"Ultimates" did a great revamping of the Avengers concept, I thought. Great makeover for Thor, too. From the first issue, it felt like a big budget movie adaptation of "Avengers". Without it, I don't think we would've gotten the "MCU".

Yet what bothered me about "Ultimates" was how it really wanted to amplify the character's flaws. Hank, Cap, etc.