The Ultimates were released in 2002, and the world back then was a completely different one, in all levels. Marvel had just escaped from bankruptcy, but the risk was still near. Marvel was still clinging to characters and a style that were an innovation in the 1960s and 1970s, but were terribly dated by then. There was a fiercely loyal fandom that still followed them no matter what, but that fandom could only diminish: fans eventually retire (by moving to other hobbies, by work and family leaving them with less time and money to invest in hobbies, or simply by dying of old age), and the genre was basically unassailable for new readers. Out of comic books, DC blown the superhero genre to pieces with "Batman & Robin". "X-Men" and "Spider-Man" were promising new takes, but they yet had to live up to their potential; they could very well fail and the genre fall into obscurity once more. And out in the real world, the 9/11 shaked the American and international arena, the fear to terrorism and the War on Terror dominated everything.

None of that is the same now in 2020. The superhero genre is definitely a staple of modern pop culture, the Marvel Cinematic Universe is the highest franchise of all time, and Marvel Comics has no need to ever fear for its future again. The superhero comic books have been updated: designs and scenes are far less campy, dialogues are far less grandiloquent, there's more diversity and you don't require an encyclopedic knowledge of the full history of Marvel Comics simply to understand what's going on. And the presidency of Dubya Bush and the War on Terror are long gone. Can the Ultimates still be a relevant comic in 2020?

Yes. Of course. Now more than ever.

The Ultimates are an alternate universe version of the Avengers, but unlike Ultimate Spider-Man that does not mean a streamlined new version of the original characters and mythos (or, more correctly, it means that, but not just that). The Ultimates take the readers out of the comfort zone, defy their preconceptions about those characters and about superheroism in general. Captain America is usually seen as the paragon of every virtue known to man, it can be shocking to see him humbly deferring to a war-loving crusader like Bush. But then again, isn't Captain America a bit of a war-loving crusader himself? Isn't he troubled, both in comics and the MCU, by his inability to stop fighting and embrace peace? Why shouldn't he support Bush and the War on Terror? Ultimate Hulk is a cannibal, something that is truly terrible and that nobody could support, and his rampage through New York is a 9/11 type of disaster. But then again... isn't Hulk supposed to be a monster? Isn't the people, in-universe, afraid of him? Why shouldn't we see him as a monster, too? Why should he get absurd excuses like "Banner makes subconscious calculations to ensure that nobody ever dies" to allow him to get away with his usual massive destructions? Ultimate Henry Pym performs probably the most graphic and explicit case of domestic abuse ever seen in mainstream superhero comics, but then again, wasn't Pym already known mainly for that specific incident? So why should it be just a slap? Why not show the audience a bit of what domestic abuse can really look like? (and note that not even the Ultimates take it as far as it can really be). Black Widow is a a defected spy from the Soviet Union, who turns to be a traitor and kills children, but then again, why shouldn't she? Is it so weird for a trained agent to put her country above a military operation of another one? Wasn't she trained for killing and for infiltration, after all? Thor says that he's the reincarnation of a Norse god, and everybody thinks he's nuts, but why wouldn't they? How else would people realistically react to anyone saying such a thing? And then there's the more provocative scene: during the climax, fighting against an alien that also survived from the times of WWII, Captain America boasts that America, unlike France, did not surrender to the Nazis. But, although the phrase may be politically incorrect, it is not incorrect: Nazi Germany invaded France, the French authorities surrendered, and no amount of glorification of the French Resistance can change that. It's not a fact that people may like, but that's the thing about facts: that it is irrelevant if people like them or not, and a good provocative work puts such facts on people's face.

But more than that, the Ultimates defy the very notion of superheroism. All superheroes are defined by the "Superman" ideal, the idea of a hero that willingly dedicates his whole life to fight against evil only because it's the right thing to do. We have seen heroes of all types everywhere in the sliding scale between villainy and the Superman ideal, defined by the place they have in that scale. And we also have the protagonist-centered morality, the premise that the protagonist of the story has to be in the right and have the moral high ground. Between both, superheroism as a norm, the idea that the Superman ideal is a desirable ideal (or that it can even exist to begin with) has hardly ever been defied. But it should. Dedicate your life to fight against evil... just because it's right? How can that be a motivation, the single motivation? And more, what isevil, what is the right thing to do? Comics usually make it easy for us: the one who is right is the protagonist. The antagonist may have a point, but he's ultimately wrong because of some reason, or because he's evil all along. Well, The Ultimates 2 does not make things easy for us. It is a story about the Ultimates, but it is also a story about the Liberators. It is a story about Thor being misunderstood, but also a story of everyone else reaction to an unlikely claim with very little to be backed on. Both sides have fair points, both sides do what from their perspective is the right thing to do. And the story does not tell us who is right and who is wrong: we have to figure it out ourselves.

Nowadays, there are very little stories like that, if any. Superhero fiction is usually sweeter than diabetes. Provocation is mostly absent: stories sound as if writers had marketing bosses in their back, overseeing their work to make sure that nobody can ever get offended in the slightest. Even a minor and harmless joke like that "I'll reinstate prima-nocta" leads to an uproar between SJW, and the political correctness is reinforced even further. We seldomly have to question if the heroes are in the right or the wrong, either. "The Avengers" adapted the Ultimates, but removed all the offensive stuff and all the morally challenging issues. "The Winter Soldier" started that way, but soon degenerated into a fight against a nazi subgroup (and thus invalidated the whole idea they standed for). "Civil War" also had a promising start, but then degenerated into a conflict over personal issues (the fate of Bucky and Stark's parents). The original Civil War from comics had conflicting premises between writers, and soon replaced Iron Man, leader of one of the sides, with the villain Norman Osbourne (thus turning it into a dictatorship, followed by the inevitable superhero victory). Even the later comics of the Ultimates themselves have their highs and lows, but never lived up to the original series.

Marvel would never publish a comic like the Ultimates nowadays. So let us treasure and value it.