Spider-Men

[Agent Z]

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.

It's a story about a Spider-Man from another universe coming to the one Ultimate Fury inhabits. Investigating that sort of thing is his job whether you like him or not.

I've seen people complain about Captain America and the Avengers not showing up in Netflix's Daredevil for what was ultimately a pointless cameo that had no bearing on the story so I don't see why Ultimate Fury doing something that falls under his jurisdiction as a law enforcer gets criticized.

[Alan2099]

It's a story about a Spider-Man from another universe coming to the one Ultimate Fury inhabits. Investigating that sort of thing is his job whether you like him or not.

This is one of the things that Stan was great with and Bendis is terrible with.

Stan would have had a few panels with Fury at the best. Here's here, we acknowledge him, he's not important to the story, let's move on.

Bendis loves to drag out every little thing he can to as long as he can make it.

[Agent Z]

This is one of the things that Stan was great with and Bendis is terrible with.

Stan would have had a few panels with Fury at the best. Here's here, we acknowledge him, he's not important to the story, let's move on.

Bendis loves to drag out every little thing he can to as long as he can make it.

"This isn't how Stan Lee would do it" is not a valid criticism. The only reason we're discussing Ultimate Fury's role in this is because some people don't like him.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

"This isn't how Stan Lee would do it" is not a valid criticism. The only reason we're discussing Ultimate Fury's role in this is because some people don't like him.

Exactly what is there to like about a version of Fury that spits on the Constitution, that openly commits numerous human rights violations, that openly lies/murders/cheats/betrays his allies and regular people, and who is also in his personal life a sleazebag?

Aside from looking like Samuel Jackson and being cool. But those aren't virtues, they are aesthetics. Samuel Jackson was cool and charismatic but he also portrayed human beings and being a great actor has a wide range of emotions across the spectrum. The more humane Nick Fury of the MCU is more suited to him.

And I do think "this isn't how Stan Lee/Kirby/Ditko would do it" is a valid criticism. One, Bendis always claimed that USM was being true to what he saw as Stan Lee's original vision, as did Mark Millar and others. Hence why Ultimate Magneto backslides to the character he was in Lee-Kirby's run.

[Agent Z]

Exactly what is there to like about a version of Fury that spits on the Constitution, that openly commits numerous human rights violations, that openly lies/murders/cheats/betrays his allies and regular people, and who is also in his personal life a sleazebag?

Neither the Ultimate nor 616 version of Fury is a choir boy.

Aside from looking like Samuel Jackson and being cool. But those aren't virtues, they are aesthetics. Samuel Jackson was cool and charismatic but he also portrayed human beings and being a great actor has a wide range of emotions across the spectrum. The more humane Nick Fury of the MCU is more suited to him.

As has been pointed out, Ultimate Fury acted pretty decently in Spider-Men and gave Peter a lot of leeway.

And I do think "this isn't how Stan Lee/Kirby/Ditko would do it" is a valid criticism. One, Bendis always claimed that USM was being true to what he saw as Stan Lee's original vision, as did Mark Millar and others. Hence why Ultimate Magneto backslides to the character he was in Lee-Kirby's run.

You don't have to do a copy paste of Lee's writing style and stories to be true to his vision.

[your_name_here]

I liked Ultimate Fury. I always thought he came across as pretty caring towards Peter.

How did Bendis (drag it out?) I don’t recall much happening aside from him asking a few questions and then we went back to Peter heading to see Aunt May

[Alan2099]

"This isn't how Stan Lee would do it" is not a valid criticism. The only reason we're discussing Ultimate Fury's role in this is because some people don't like him.

How is it NOT a valid criticism to point out another writer was able to do it better?

Aside from looking like Samuel Jackson and being cool. But those aren't virtues, they are aesthetics. Samuel Jackson was cool and charismatic but he also portrayed human beings and being a great actor has a wide range of emotions across the spectrum. The more humane Nick Fury of the MCU is more suited to him.

Did anybody ever really like Ultimate Nick Fury as a character? I think they mostly just liked Samuel L. Jackson.

Which is also funny because the first time Ultimate Fury appeared he looked nothing like Mr. Jackson.

[Ultimate Captain America]

Rather than imagine what other important people would have said about the Ultimates, why don't we discuss what did they actually said?

We will never know what Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko would have thought about the Ultimate comics, because Kirby died many years before the line was started, and Ditko hardly ever spoke to the press (and if someone managed to make him talk, they would surely talk about his career, not about other people's work). However, if he did say something about Ultimate Spider-Man at some point, please point it. Otherwise, trying to make an opinion sound more important by claiming that someone would have surely shared it is fallacious.

But we do know Stan Lee's opinion. No, he did not complain "Cap would have never said that!", "Those are not the characters I created!", "You can't write like me!" or any similar thing. Quite the contrary: he praised Mark Millar's work, and encouraged him to do the thing he could not in his youth: create his own comics, keeps the rights, and then get all the adaptation revenue for himself (instead of a big corporation profiting from his creativity). Check here: This writer realized he could beat Marvel after talking to Stan Lee. And so Millar did exactly that, and Stan saw him doing it in his last years.

[Alan2099]

Rather than imagine what other important people would have said about the Ultimates, why don't we discuss what did they actually said?

I'm not discussing what they could have said. I'm discussing what they did.

Stan handled his cameos as exactly that. Cameos. They were in long enough to shows you that were in the same word, but they didn't take away from the story.

But we do know Stan Lee's opinion. No, he did not complain "Cap would have never said that!", "Those are not the characters I created!", "You can't write like me!" or any similar thing. Quite the contrary: he praised Mark Millar's work, and encouraged him to do the thing he could not in his youth: create his own comics, keeps the rights, and then get all the adaptation revenue for himself (instead of a big corporation profiting from his creativity). Check here: This writer realized he could beat Marvel after talking to Stan Lee. And so Millar did exactly that, and Stan saw him doing it in his last years.

How about we talk about things that are actually RELEVANT to the conversation?
Nobody said Stan would have said that and the what Millar did in Hollywood isn't anywhere close to what we were talking about.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

...

You keep dodging the main thrust of what's being discussed.

Do you accept the fact that Ultimate Marvel is now pretty dated for a lot of the public and audience? That it's no longer the hip, cool, trendy, and edgy thing. That it's time has passed, just like time passed for other things hip/cool/trendy/edgy for their moment things have passed.

You keep acting as if Ultimate Marvel is still the coolest thing there is. And yeah, it did seem that way in 2000-2002, but that's no longer the case. Now Ultimate Marvel is 20 years old, and it's become just another bunch of TPBs on the shelf, another bunch of back-issues on ComiXology or Marvel Unlimited.

That's how it happens.

[Ultimate Captain America]

It may be dated for you. Ultimate Marvel is the most influential thing Marvel has done in since the Lee-Kirby days, leaving its trademark in almost all adaptations of Marvel works to other media since then. Three unrelated Spider-Man film franchises, two unrelated Fantastic Four franchises, an animated series with the "Ultimate Spider-Man" very name, two Ultimate Avengers animated films, Cap's characterization and several scenes of The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes!, parts of "X-Men Evolution", "Wolverine and the X-Men", "Spectacular Spider-Man"; and of course the MCU itself (more clearly seen in the early days, but still taking things as of "Endgame" and "Far from home"). And let's not forget the story that motivated this thread: it was combined with the death of Spider-Man and "Spider-Verse" to make one of the best animated films ever (and some say one of the best Spider-Man films ever, animated or otherwise). A film, that, by the way, did not shy away from making it explicit on scene that it was set on "Earth-1610". Dated? Not at all. Ultimate Marvel is timeless, and your attacks can not hide its giant lasting legacy. Bendis and Millar are like the Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko of our time.

[WebLurker]

Exactly what is there to like about a version of Fury that spits on the Constitution, that openly commits numerous human rights violations, that openly lies/murders/cheats/betrays his allies and regular people, and who is also in his personal life a sleazebag?

I don't like Ultimate Fury, at least as a person. I find him an interesting character, along the lines of DC's Amanda Waller.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

It may be dated for you.

Count the votes, my dude, every single poster here has been critical of Ultimate Marvel to some extent or another. Everyone save you.

So it's not just me here. And around the wider fandom, it's even more widespread. You need to accept that your view, your singleminded defense of Ultimate Marvel without accepting any criticism, is far from consensual, and you need to try and make a case with that in mind.

two unrelated Fantastic Four franchises,

I think you mean two unrelated stillborn Fantastic Four franchises. And not sure why you want to boast of this?

parts of "X-Men Evolution",

Not even a little bit. The show itself went into production before UXM#1 and was an entirely original and unique adaptation of the X-Men mythos. X-Men Evolution was its own thing, separate from Ultimate X-Men. And it has had a far bigger influence. X-23/Laura was introduced in that cartoon first and she became the emotional center of the best superhero film in recent history - Logan.

Ultimate Marvel is timeless, and your attacks can not hide its giant lasting legacy.

You are conflating a bunch of unrelated stuff here.

-- There's the legacy of Ultimate Spider-Man by Bendis/Bagley/Pichelli and the Ultimate Versions of Peter and his supporting cast.
-- There's the wider Ultimate Marvel universe represented by A--hole Nick Fury and the A--hole versions of the X-Men and the Avengers.

The former indeed has had a great influence and ongoing legacy. The latter however, do not have that. You mentioned Into the Spider-Verse...well Ultimate Nick Fury and others don't show up there, thank god.

Bendis and Millar are like the Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko of our time.

You need to accept that Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko remain the Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko of our time.

I don't like Ultimate Fury, at least as a person. I find him an interesting character, along the lines of DC's Amanda Waller.

That's the thing. Amanda Waller was concieved as an antagonist. An antagonist who heroes could ally with occassionally but definitely not intended as a good guy or noble authority figure. Nick Fury in 616 is intended to be a hero and a good guy. He might have secrets and so on, but Fury 616 is a heroic figure who good guys have no problems allying with and hanging out with. Amanda Waller isn't that character.

And of course it's questionable, in terms of optics, why the minute you turn Fury African-American, a Scotsman like Mark Millar thinks he can make him edgy and authoritarian and morally scummy in the way 616 Fury never was. And, later they gave him a criminal past (which Waller doesn't have, since she was intended to be a conservative normal citizen who in the government becomes shady and ruthless).

[Ultimate Captain America]

Exactly what is there to like about a version of Fury that spits on the Constitution, that openly commits numerous human rights violations, that openly lies/murders/cheats/betrays his allies and regular people, and who is also in his personal life a sleazebag?

I dunno. What is there to like about Batman, a sociopath who lives in a giant mansion with just a butler, who dresses himself as a giant bat to attack people in the night, who spits on countless laws to carry on a pointless crusade against crime and who's clearly as crazy as the villains he fights?

Count the votes, my dude, every single poster here has been critical of Ultimate Marvel to some extent or another. Everyone save you.

So it's not just me here. And around the wider fandom, it's even more widespread. You need to accept that your view, your singleminded defense of Ultimate Marvel without accepting any criticism, is far from consensual, and you need to try and make a case with that in mind.

Why should I? Just a couple of users in an internet forum are not a decent sample to infer such conclusions. And yes, I have heard that claim, but some time ago I wrote the Wikipedia article about Ultimate Marvel... and could not find a reference for it anywhere. Widespread rejection of Ultimatum, or Ultimates 3, yes. But Ultimate Marvel as a whole? Nothing. In fact, every such source that talks about the line, invariably mentions its huge influence on the MCU.

Not even a little bit. The show itself went into production before UXM#1 and was an entirely original and unique adaptation of the X-Men mythos. X-Men Evolution was its own thing, separate from Ultimate X-Men. And it has had a far bigger influence. X-23/Laura was introduced in that cartoon first and she became the emotional center of the best superhero film in recent history - Logan.

Yes, the show started before, but was still on the air when Ultimate X-Men started. At that point they changed Wolverine's classic suit to a new one... yes, the Ultimate one. Check here

You are conflating a bunch of unrelated stuff here.

-- There's the legacy of Ultimate Spider-Man by Bendis/Bagley/Pichelli and the Ultimate Versions of Peter and his supporting cast.
-- There's the wider Ultimate Marvel universe represented by A--hole Nick Fury and the A--hole versions of the X-Men and the Avengers.

The former indeed has had a great influence and ongoing legacy. The latter however, do not have that. You mentioned Into the Spider-Verse...well Ultimate Nick Fury and others don't show up there, thank god.

Nick Fury and the Ultimates do not appear in Into the Spider Verse, and never will, for a very simple reason: Sony does not have the rights for those characters. Even you should be able to understand that. As for Nick Fury & the Ultimates... have you heard about an adaptation of them, called the MCU?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Why should I?

You are posting on this forum currently. So it's us you are talking to. So you need to keep us in consideration.

...some time ago I wrote the Wikipedia article about Ultimate Marvel

This explains everything.

... and could not find a reference for it anywhere.

Are you familiar with the phrase "cognitive bias"?

Yes, the show started before, but was still on the air when Ultimate X-Men started. At that point they changed Wolverine's classic suit to a new one... yes, the Ultimate one. Check here

So one costume? That's all you can find? If all that bothers are you, are costumes and looks, that's again good. I just don't know why you bring Millar and Bendis (who are writers and not artists) into this. Bryan Hitch who did the pencils for Millar's Ultimates had a far bigger and lasting influence than the writer did there.

To the extent that Ultimate Marvel is influential, Millar is not among the loudest voices behind that. Bryan Hitch, who redesigned Fury as Samuel Jackson, is behind that.

The problem is that the thing you seem to value about Ultimate Marvel is precisely its absurd characterizations, violence, and vaguely authoritarian-leaning impulses. That part of Ultimate Marvel has absolutely not been of any lasting influence or fundamental relevance.