Ultimate X-men #81 discussion (spoilers)

I love having two teams in UXM.

You have Scott leading up what he does in 616 now, he's the headmaster of a school of mutants. Being Scott, he will fight tooth and nail if a threat happens to the school, but he won't go out looking for trouble.

Then there's Bishop, which is what UXM started out as! I LOVE IT!

There's a lot of potential in these stories.

Plus Storm is 1/3 owner of the Xavier legacy. Shadow King's just rose in power a lot, and if she joins Bishop's X-Men....well...she can tear a lot of things down when it's time for Shadow King to make his move.

Magneto's on the move. Stryker's about to strike. The Hellfire Club is EVERYWHERE. Apocalypse is out there somewhere planning...something. Friends of Humanity, Morlocks, possible mutant riots!

There's a sense of DOOM in an Ultimate book again! Things are about to get bad for the X-Men and mutants in the Ultimate Universe in general.

GET A REGULAR ARTIST ON THIS DAMN BOOK NOW! SO PEOPLE WILL STOP SAYING USM IS THE ONLY GOOD ULTIMATE BOOK!

EDIT:

Also, I agree. I was waiting since for years for an Ultimate Bishop, and since he came here...we haven't even seen if his power is the same as it is in 616. He's been sort of one-noteish. "I should have saved Xavier" and that decent scene with himself in prison. THAT'S IT!
 
Last edited:
But, beast was never really dead, so technically there was no retcon. he bascally survived the same accident twice. why would it kill him the second time if he's stronger the second time around.
 
I'm wondering, in light of Cable having no powers in the future if Bishop from the future doesn't either. That would stink.

Ultimate Decimation? In the far future, of course.
 
Hibiki said:
But, beast was never really dead, so technically there was no retcon. he bascally survived the same accident twice. why would it kill him the second time if he's stronger the second time around.
Click to expand...

Yes. He. Was!

Even if you don't count Bendis killing him (Which showed a funeral, for God's sake where they BURIED a body that looked like Beast!), Kirkman says in the issue he was dead, but was resuscitated at the hospital!

If Kirkman hadn't brought him back, Beast would have been dead. Therefore, it was a retcon. It was a well though out and executed retcon, but it was still a retcon.

Foolsfolly said:
Frankly?

Out of Thunderbolt Ross, Hammerhead, Xavier, Psylocke, Cornilus, and especially Gwen Stacy....Beast's resurrection was by far the best resurrection the Ultimate Universe has seen.
Click to expand...

I don't really count Xavier, because Kirkman obviously had that planned. Gwen Stacy doesn't count either because she's a clone. Cornilius. . .hmmmm. That could go either way. It could be said that "No body, no death", but, then again, it might have been Vaughan's intention to kill him in the crash, I dunno.

I forgot about Psylocke, though. But, seeing as it was done almost exactly how it was done in 616, it might have been planned, especially since her death and "resurrection" was written by Millar within 15 issues of each other. Also, Psylocke is probably the best resurrection next to Beast in an Ultimate book.
 
I just think it's retarded to expect a character to stay dead when it's better for everybody if he's alive and you could, like, actally tell stories about him. It's ridiculous to just not use such a great character with actual deapth because of some perceived notion that comics should be "realistic."

It was stupid to kill him in the first place, and there's nothing wrong with correcting your mistakes.
 
Joe Kalicki said:
I just think it's retarded to expect a character to stay dead when it's better for everybody if he's alive and you could, like, actally tell stories about him. It's ridiculous to just not use such a great character with actual deapth because of some perceived notion that comics should be "realistic."

It was stupid to kill him in the first place, and there's nothing wrong with correcting your mistakes.
Click to expand...

But it opens up a precedent for ****ty writers to do it. "Well, you didn't complain when Kirkman did it!" Plus, it violates the central rules of the Ultimate Universe. Don't get me wrong, I love the way he did it, I just think there's an equal amount of bad to go with the good.
 
TwilightEL said:
But it opens up a precedent for ****ty writers to do it. "Well, you didn't complain when Kirkman did it!" Plus, it violates the central rules of the Ultimate Universe. Don't get me wrong, I love the way he did it, I just think there's an equal amount of bad to go with the good.
Click to expand...

The Ultimate Universe doesn't have any central rules and never did. I don't know where this thinking comes from.

And if crappy writers have crappy resurrection stories to tell it's perfectly okay for an editor to say "no way."

I just can't believe there are people who would throw out a perfectly valid storytelling tool.
 
Joe Kalicki said:
The Ultimate Universe doesn't have any central rules and never did. I don't know where this thinking comes from.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on what you think the purpose of the Ultimate Universe is. If it's to keep from getting too complicated, then this fails. If it's to retell old stories, or just to tell good stories, then it doesn't. I, personally, think it's a combination of the first and last ones.

Joe Kalicki said:
And if crappy writers have crappy resurrection stories to tell it's perfectly okay for an editor to say "no way."
Click to expand...

O RLY?

Yes, something really, really bad wouldn't get through. But it would have to be really, really bad and even then a big name author might be able to get it through.

Joe Kalicki said:
I just can't believe there are people who would throw out a perfectly valid storytelling tool.
Click to expand...

I don't want to get rid of good resurrections, I want to get rid of bad resurrections, but the comic book industry has shown itself time and again to have absolutely no self control on this subject and it's not going to stop with Beast and clones.
 
TwilightEL said:
I guess it depends on what you think the purpose of the Ultimate Universe is. If it's to keep from getting too complicated, then this fails. If it's to retell old stories, or just to tell good stories, then it doesn't. I, personally, think it's a combination of the first and last ones.
Click to expand...

The purpose is to restart the characters from scratch to make them viable properties for today's new readers. It was never about making things more realistic. And they really blew the original concept almost out of the gate anyway. I don't want the UU to end, I have a lot invested in it and I care about it, but it's nothing like the original intent of the universe was supposed to be.

I don't want to get rid of good resurrections, I want to get rid of bad resurrections, but the comic book industry has shown itself time and again to have absolutely no self control on this subject and it's not going to stop with Beast and clones.
Click to expand...

Just because crappy stories get published doesn't mean you should take common themes of such stories (resurrections, for example) and ban them completely. Yes, there needs to be more self control over such things.

On the other hand, everyone at Marvel probably thinks bringing Captain Marvel back was brilliant. It's a matter of perspective. I don't think they're trying to make bad comics, bad comics just happen because different people have differnet snesibilities. How many people have LOVED USM the last 40 issues? Probably more than have hated it.

Overall the quality of comics writing is leaps and bounds over when I started reading them (1991). I can't say it's better than the 80s or 70s since I don't think it's really fair to judge more than one generation removed. But bad stories will still slip through and they're especially glaring in the trade-writing era where you only get two stories a year from most comics.
 
Joe Kalicki said:
I just can't believe there are people who would throw out a perfectly valid storytelling tool.
Click to expand...

Different strokes, I guess. I think resurrections are a complete cop-out and a terrible storytelling tool. To me, it says "Well, I don't like that writer so-and-so killed this character, so I'm just going to write him back in". Rather than work with what you're previous writers have established (Which is what serial storytelling should be), they decide to pretend it didn't happen.

Seems incredibly selfish to me.
 
I really like UXM. It's the only UU book I'm reading now.
 
Lynx said:
Different strokes, I guess. I think resurrections are a complete cop-out and a terrible storytelling tool. To me, it says "Well, I don't like that writer so-and-so killed this character, so I'm just going to write him back in". Rather than work with what you're previous writers have established (Which is what serial storytelling should be), they decide to pretend it didn't happen.

Seems incredibly selfish to me.
Click to expand...

Well I think it's incredible selfish to kill a perfectly viable and useful character. There was no reason for Beast to die in the first place. It served no purpose at all, particularly in the last issue of a writer's run. It doesn't set anything up for him to work with it's just like "Oh, I'm leaving the book, I better leave my mark on it."
 
What are you complaining about, Lynx? Beast wasn't resurrected , he was retconned. I, personally hated how it was done.

"What? You thought Beast was dead for all these issues? Nay! But we fooled you, DIDN'T WE?? Just goes to show you that death is meaningless in comics. I bet you also thought Xavier was dead, huh? HUH??"
 
Frankly, you can't handle characters coming back from the dead, don't read mainstream comics.

Everyone comes back from the dead, because they're characters and writers have stories with those characters they want to tell. Bringing back characters doesn't, in any way, lessen the story where they died.

Also, it doesn't "open the door" for lesser writers to bring back characters, not even in the UU since, as many have said, Beast is not the first one to come back.
 
Wade_Wilson said:
What are you complaining about, Lynx? Beast wasn't resurrected , he was retconned. I, personally hated how it was done.

"What? You thought Beast was dead for all these issues? Nay! But we fooled you, DIDN'T WE?? Just goes to show you that death is meaningless in comics. I bet you also thought Xavier was dead, huh? HUH??"
Click to expand...

maybe there is still hope for Ultimate Gambit after all
 
You could make the best ressurrection in comics, there would be a small part of the readers that wouldn't like it. Simple as that. I personally loved Beast coming back, with SHIELD helping out, it explains how everyone thought he was dead.
I just think that instead of ressurected in hospital they should use "stabilized" I mean, if he didn't have his heart beating for that long time he couldn't possibly come back.
 
I read this last night - great story, maybe too much crammed into it, but at the very least it can serve as notice the the regular X-writers. This book is better with better stories than all of the other X-books combined (I say this having only read the first issue of Brubaker's Uncanny, waiting for trade there).

Because I have not read through this, avoiding spoilers, I don't know if anyone pointed out the awesome-tastic appearance of Ultimate Ugly John! This issue is a 4.9 just for that. Plus he gets fried b a Sentinel - very cool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top