Why are the Fantastic Four called "dated"?

[Carabas]

Ultimate Doom's goat legs and specific look went away for a while because "artist" Greg Land could neither draw them on his own, nor find "reference material" to trace them from.

[Carabas]

Missed your update. Waid I think is liked by many but I found elements of his run too retro. He's probably where your take on Ben and Johnny was the big brother/little brother with Sue and Reed parenting them. One retcon I didn't like was how he had Johnny confess that he was behind most of the Yancy Street Gang pranks. We saw some of the Yancy Streeters on panel so there that. But he regressed Johnny to the point of being more like a teen-ager than a young adult. Good grief , he was actually married for while even though it turned out to be a Skrull. His Doom was thoroughly evil with none of the shades of gray the character had acquired over the years, some of which even happened shortly before Waid's run.

See, I like my villains properly villainous, and I never bought into Doom's claims of being noble and honourable. He's a deluded maniac who lies to himself to feel better about what he does.

I found Ultimate Fantastic Four eventually a disappointment and at the end it came to an ignominious end. Once again, Hickman saves it a bit with the Maker. I was particularly disappointed Ellis's Ultimate Doom esp after his 2099 Doom . Evidently so was Marvel since eventually he became almost exactly like the MU Doom. The goat legs and ragged cloak went away. Making Sue a fellow scientist was a welcome change.

I got off while it was still good, when Mike Carey ended his big Kirby homage run.
The entire UU was going down the drain after Ultimatum, and I cashed in my chips early while the going was good.

JMS got too frustrated with dealing with CW and pretty much gave up. Marvel gave him Thor as a consolation. I've read parts of it but at that time there were some personal things I was dealing with (laid off, etc) so I never really finished.

See, several of my favourite writers have been given a go at the FF, and the Ultimate version excepted, I have disliked them all.
It's the characters and the way they interact in the main universe that turns me off.

Surprised that you didn't like Byrne.

This was ages ago, before I paid attention to the names in the credits. I have since learned that I don't like anything that Byrne does, X-Men co-plotting with Claremont excepted.

[Marvel Forever]

I still say that the FF need a shake-up. Other than Hickman's run, the title has not done that well for a long time. Either add a 5th or even 6th permanent member or dump one of the original team members and replace with a more popular Marvel character. If a founding member is to go, it would have to be either Reed or Sue, as they always seem to be the least popular with the fans. I still vote to end the Reed Richards-Sue Storm marriage. What a storyline to use to bring back the Fantastic Four. Sales would shoot through the roof to see if a second separation ends in divorce, when it is revealed that Reed Richards fathered a child during the 1970's separation.

[ian0delond]

In the current market, just shouting REBIRTH and a put AAA artist should do the trick.

[jackolover]

The original X-Men? Their power-gaining experiences were different, but same uniform.

But came later. Yes the X-Men had the same uniforms, but a completely different experience. The FF was the identical experience.

[WebLurker]

Yes, I should have mentioned that goat legs Doom did come back in the final volume of the Ultimate Fantastic Four. Fans had written how they were confused that Doom gets killed in Ultimatum when the last we saw of him, he was entering the Zombieverse in place of Reed. Also, when Ben killed him, there was some gushing of blood, etc. Ultimate Doom had a strange body chemistry were his inner organs were rotting as he was turned more into organic metal or something along those lines. We later find out that it was Dr. Mary Storm in Doom's classic armor that was killed.

Victor van Damme did tell the tale of how he escaped from the Zombieverse later on in UFF 2 (2014). BTW, the Ultimate comics really came down in quality. The art on the last handful of issues was pretty mediocre.

Okay. Never read UFF, but that art looks really ugly.

[CaptCleghorn]

Ultimate Doom's goat legs and specific look went away for a while because "artist" Greg Land could neither draw them on his own, nor find "reference material" to trace them from.

This is an example of two wrongs actually making a right.

[CaptCleghorn]

In the current market, just shouting REBIRTH and a put AAA artist should do the trick.

What this does is to bring a lot of initial attention and big numbers for the first few issues But unless there is quality and a team that gets what makes the FF different than other teams, the number will quickly drop.

[Iron Maiden]

See, I like my villains properly villainous, and I never bought into Doom's claims of being noble and honourable. He's a deluded maniac who lies to himself to feel better about what he does.

Again, there is that inconsistency from numerous writers over the years. But I don't know how long you've been reading but I recall reading a lot of the runs as they were published. There is a definite shift with Doom that starts with Lee/Kirby's FF 84-87 continues with MSH #20 and Astonishing Tales #7 and esp #8, then FF #116. Another chapter in this deepening of the character occurs in Sub-Mariner #47-49, which features the same Gerry Conway/Gene Colan team from Astonishing Tales #8. All this takes place in the 1970s, long before Magneto has his epiphany. But with Doom it's never as a 180 degree sudden shift in one issue. There's even some inconsistency by writers. When Gerry Conway has his brief run on the Fantastic Four, Doom is back to his blackhearted villainous mode. In his forward to a recent Sub-Mariner Masterworks that has the Sub-Mariner/Doom teamup, he calls Doom an antihero along with Namor.

I got off while it was still good, when Mike Carey ended his big Kirby homage run.
The entire UU was going down the drain after Ultimatum, and I cashed in my chips early while the going was good.

It sure went down like a house of cards. Ultimate Spider Man soldiered on by its own...I wonder if it was because the team of Bendis/Bagley stayed with it.

See, several of my favourite writers have been given a go at the FF, and the Ultimate version excepted, I have disliked them all.
It's the characters and the way they interact in the main universe that turns me off.

This was ages ago, before I paid attention to the names in the credits. I have since learned that I don't like anything that Byrne does, X-Men co-plotting with Claremont excepted.

I am a fan of 1980s Byrne but IMO he's not someone I would follow today. Everyone remembers his Claremont collaboration on X-men but IIRC their Iron Fist and Marvel Team up work was pretty good too. His FF run is one of the best. I used to like Alpha Flight and read his Namor. I think he likes to fix things too much. I've always been amazed by his work ethic....at times on the Fantastic Four he was writing, drawing, inking and a couple of times even lettering. Many times, he did the letters pages also.

[ian0delond]

What this does is to bring a lot of initial attention and big numbers for the first few issues But unless there is quality and a team that gets what makes the FF different than other teams, the number will quickly drop.

Oh you know quality has nothing to do with sales.
You just need the right gimmick.

[CaptCleghorn]

Oh you know quality has nothing to do with sales.
You just need the right gimmick.

Gimmicks sell issues. Quality sells series. Neither is a guarantee, of course, but the difference affects thinking short-term or long term. I have no doubt a relaunched fantastic Four is going to have a plethora of variant covers, but selling more the first few issues usually takes more than gimmicks.

[ian0delond]

I lost faith in the idea that quality can do such things. I saw too much sales charts.

[Marvel Forever]

I suppose that my plan to restart the FF by announcing that Reed Richards fathered a child back during the 1970's separation would be considered a gimmick? Anyway, your point is well taken. Gimmicks may work for a few issues, but quality is needed in the long run.

[Jaddor]

I suppose that my plan to restart the FF by announcing that Reed Richards fathered a child back during the 1970's separation would be considered a gimmick? Anyway, your point is well taken. Gimmicks may work for a few issues, but quality is needed in the long run.

Truly believably true. also me been against the whole...everything is now connected and the biggest problems that faces modern marvel that I already dislike for real authentic reasons.

Gimmicks are things like ''uncanny avengers'' and ''uncanny inhumans''. sure I know the word was first used with the inhumans but it was x-men that truly owned that word. putting the term uncanny in front of avengers or inhumans is not going to make the book all of a sudden that having smart, very deep and highly thoughtful chris claremont level story arc like uncanny x-men did. that is a gimmick.

making captain america a nazi is a gimmick

The entire MCU is a gimmick itself because it has done a good job hiding how retarded and thin plotted most of the mcu movies are.

trying to act as if movies and tv can connect properly is a gimmick.

stiring comics to fit the movie narrative is a gimmick.

using other characters in marvel to help other characters in the marvel owned movie IP is a gimmick.

pretending f4 is dated and has low sales so deserving cancellation is a gimmick, comic books IP that are highly syndicated such as the F4 are never cancelled unless there is something behind the scenes as we know there was. movie rights.

Everything with modern marvel is a gimmick. there is no true artistic integrity with modern marvel compared to the marvel of the old.

In a way I rather have F4 stayed gone in the comics than for f4 to wake up to the modern marvel gimmick strategy especially if noah hawley is going to be making an F4 movie in the soon furture

[Papa Moai]

See, I like my villains properly villainous, and I never bought into Doom's claims of being noble and honourable. He's a deluded maniac who lies to himself to feel better about what he does.

I agree. Not that I necessarily dislike morally gray anti-villains. But I sometimes feel like they're the modern equivalent of the 90's anti-heroes. Much Iike the heroes in the 90's had to be dark, violent and preferably carry big guns, villains these days have to have some noble intention that makes them do questionable things. I find that boring.

That sort of thing obviously works for some characters. Magneto is a great character because he was turned into a well-intentioned extremist by Claremont. However, I like Doom when he's the perfect example of a theatrical, larger-than-life old school villain. Noble intentions and moral ambiquity add nothing to the character, IMO. If anything, they actually make him less entertaining.