Jeph Loeb talks Ultimates 3

14rdb said:
Also, Loeb wanted to remind people that MM built in a year-long gap between U1 and U2. U3 will also start up following a year-long gap, but he knows people will claim it's a DC guy coming over and doing the 'year later' DC thing.

The gap will be helpful -- he knows people are concerned about whether The Ultimates will be different with him and Joe Mad than it is now and he says indeed it will be. He will always be in awe of Millar/Hitch and there is nothing at all wrong with the book now. But Millar/Hitch are not just leaving the kingdom, they're looting it on the way out. It's not really an option to continue on with the status quo.
Click to expand...

Thats interesting. So Ultimates 3 will be taking place in 2005. Huh...so looks like the other titles will be playing catch up again for awhile. Especially USM.
 
icemastertron said:
I think Loeb is going to do good. I like his ideas and where he wants to head these guys.
Click to expand...


Seriously, how bad could he do? Millar hasn't been perfect on this title and the delays, undefined plot diversions, etc. have really killed the worth of the Ultimates in my opinion. If anything, Loeb will correct the Ultimates... Bring it back to where it was in the beginning.
 
Goodwill said:
Seriously, how bad could he do? Millar hasn't been perfect on this title and the delays, undefined plot diversions, etc. have really killed the worth of the Ultimates in my opinion. If anything, Loeb will correct the Ultimates... Bring it back to where it was in the beginning.
Click to expand...

At least it should ship on time. I hope.
 
Goodwill said:
Seriously, how bad could he do? Millar hasn't been perfect on this title and the delays, undefined plot diversions, etc. have really killed the worth of the Ultimates in my opinion. If anything, Loeb will correct the Ultimates... Bring it back to where it was in the beginning.
Click to expand...

Back to being just another knock-off 616 superhero title where the good guys fight the evil supervillains? I like Millar's V2 Ultimates run, the combination of mystery and political themes over more standard comics themes. The delays have been a bit wearing, but thus far I vastly prefer Volume 2 to Volume 1 because of the change in theme.
 
Goodwill said:
Seriously, how bad could he do? Millar hasn't been perfect on this title and the delays, undefined plot diversions, etc. have really killed the worth of the Ultimates in my opinion. If anything, Loeb will correct the Ultimates... Bring it back to where it was in the beginning.
Click to expand...
Undefined plot diversion? And Loeb's plans are to make it into a normal superhero title, where's the joy in that? And is that where they started, as superheroes? No they started as a media stunt and deterrent, Giant man was an action figure. The actual military applications for them didn't come for a good while after they were created, underworked and overpaid remember.
The Avengers were superheroes, the Ultimates never were.
 
Guijllons said:
The Avengers were superheroes, the Ultimates never were.
Click to expand...

In the public eye, the Ultimates were The Superheroes. Remember Spider-Man sulking about no one likeing him in Times Square?

I don't know what everyone's in a huff about. Is there such thing as a "Superhero" book anymore? The only difference is focusing on the interior of the team dynamics or focusing on the bad guys. After The Ultimates regroup in Vol. 3 don't you think they'll be more ready to "Avenge" then just sit around and try to adapt to each other? Same difference. I think you guys are just worried it's gonna be a campy straight up good guy vs. bad guy and that's not what it will be at all.
 
TheManWithoutFear said:
In the public eye, the Ultimates were The Superheroes. Remember Spider-Man sulking about no one likeing him in Times Square?
Click to expand...
I, hmm, I'm not too sure. yes they were, but at the same time I see it more as a reporter will write a story on a 'hero cop'. Not the traditional superheroes.

I don't know what everyone's in a huff about. Is there such thing as a "Superhero" book anymore? The only difference is focusing on the interior of the team dynamics or focusing on the bad guys. After The Ultimates regroup in Vol. 3 don't you think they'll be more ready to "Avenge" then just sit around and try to adapt to each other? Same difference. I think you guys are just worried it's gonna be a campy straight up good guy vs. bad guy and that's not what it will be at all.
Click to expand...
I hope you're right, I am worried that a good vs evil simplicity will creep back into the comics though. From what I can figure, that's what Loeb does, right?
 
TheManWithoutFear said:
That's what everyone does. Millar will do it with Ultron and Red Skull just like he did with Loki.
Click to expand...
I think simple evil can never be justified. I think the actions of Ultron and Red Skull will be totally rational. Loki, well, he's no more evil than a dog that bites a postman. He's just carrying out his nature, and so were the Ultimates when they took Thor down. Are they evil for taking Thor down? Did Loki really manipulate reality or just the perception of reality? It doesn't qualify as simple evil for me.
We don't need to feel pity for the villain for them to have ambiguous intentions, as is what most writers do to jump out of the simple evil trap.
 
Have to respectfully disagree, as far as Loki goes...

On another Thread, there is a discussion about whether the Ultimate Hulk is evil... and most folks seem to be leaning towards the answer being "no", with some qualifications. And most justify that by noting that the Ultimate Hulk does seem pretty simple-minded. It isn't clear if the Hulk's brain-wiring allows him to contemplate good and evil, right and wrong, to weigh questions of morality... but he does give the impression (to many) of NOT really being able to make those kinds of judgments.

Ultimate Loki on the other hand... well, it is hard for me to see how he has this "excuse". He is clearly intelligent. And he clearly ENJOYS making others squirm - there is a cruel streak there (witness his "torture" of Thor after Thor is imprisoned, his apparent glee at the thought of public execution of the Ultimates and their allies, etc). Recall Falstaff's warning to Thor - didn't he suggest that Loki was coming after Thor with malice aplenty, in a very premeditated way? In short, Loki knows what he is doing, and he enjoys it...

I guess one area of ambiguity has to do with the nature of the Ultimates version of Norse gods. That is... do you get to BE the god of mischief and "evil" because you ARE mischevious and evil...or is it the other way around? COULD Loki CHOOSE to do good? We don't have nearly enough to go on.

That being said, I see the Ultimate Loki as an evil character, for sure. He knows what he is about, unlike (arguably) someone like the Ultimate Hulk...

Shadow
 
I'm honestly a little worried. I've a substantial amount of Loeb's work with DC and his style makes me worry about where he'll go with the Ultimates. With Batman, he had a strong tendency to turn his issues into a creature feature. Every issue would have at least one villain packed in, not really exploring the characters, but instead just using them as throwaway devices. He loves to "guest spot" characters without actually using them well dramatically. That's not to say he's not a good writer. He worked pretty well with the basic mythology of Superman and Batman and built interesting mysteries behind his storylines.

But, I have a few problems with the formula I've seen in Loeb's work. For one, I don't want to see characters ultimized just to be cast away. He has a penanche for using a lot of characters but only really developing one or two on the side (usually more mundane, "human" characters) and throwing the rest away. Give Loeb the reins to a reinvention of the Marvel Universe and he may just go through them like a wood chipper. Second, this style makes me wonder whether he can juggle the complications of a team book. All my experience with him (and I believe this rings through for his Marvel work too) has focused on one hero. And the nature of the Ultimates requires a writer who can juggle motivations and conspiracies from a number of different characters and groups. Can he do it? Maybe. But I've never seen him work with a comic book property that requires that kind of work. Finally, his assertion that his arcs are going to be close-ended kind of worries me.

Granted, I haven't read his work with Marvel, but I believe it's all been fairly similar in style to Long Halloween, where he goes back and looks at the genesis of solo Marvel heroes.
 
Last edited:
Guijllons said:
I think simple evil can never be justified. I think the actions of Ultron and Red Skull will be totally rational. Loki, well, he's no more evil than a dog that bites a postman. He's just carrying out his nature, and so were the Ultimates when they took Thor down. Are they evil for taking Thor down? Did Loki really manipulate reality or just the perception of reality? It doesn't qualify as simple evil for me.
We don't need to feel pity for the villain for them to have ambiguous intentions, as is what most writers do to jump out of the simple evil trap.
Click to expand...

You cannot simply justify that one person is not evil simply because "it's his nature". Unlike the Hulk which is virtually an animal driven by instinct, Loki is obviously capable of rational thought.
 
cmdrjanjalani said:
You cannot simply justify that one person is not evil simply because "it's his nature". Unlike the Hulk which is virtually an animal driven by instinct, Loki is obviously capable of rational thought.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between the capacity for rational thought and the capacity for morality. Can you blame a sociopath for being incapable of feeling? What defines evil? Does it actually stem from this incapacity or does it stem from a person being capable of god and willfully doing otherwise?

I think there's a tough line to draw. Naturally, a being who's not capable of rational thought doesn't have the mental capacity for evil, but by the same token, I think you can still be rational and potentially still be too unstable to be deemed "evil".
 
I think the one year gap, this time, won't work very well.

Unless I am mistaken, thinking continuity, the rest of the ultimate universe is still playing catchup to the ultimates (not sure about FF...), and I am kind of wondering, will it mean that the events in Ultimates 3 will be reflected in ultimate spiderman #200?

Well, if they bring all the titles along with them, that's great, I just like continuity.

Ignoring that issue, I think it'll be very good - but if it's going to be as good as v1 and v2... really hard to say :) I think they've been damn good :).
 
Aebriol said:
I think the one year gap, this time, won't work very well.

Unless I am mistaken, thinking continuity, the rest of the ultimate universe is still playing catchup to the ultimates (not sure about FF...), and I am kind of wondering, will it mean that the events in Ultimates 3 will be reflected in ultimate spiderman #200?

Well, if they bring all the titles along with them, that's great, I just like continuity.

Ignoring that issue, I think it'll be very good - but if it's going to be as good as v1 and v2... really hard to say :) I think they've been damn good :).
Click to expand...

I think most of the other titles are around the first arc of The Ultimates 2 now.
 
Aebriol said:
I think the one year gap, this time, won't work very well.

Unless I am mistaken, thinking continuity, the rest of the ultimate universe is still playing catchup to the ultimates (not sure about FF...), and I am kind of wondering, will it mean that the events in Ultimates 3 will be reflected in ultimate spiderman #200?
Click to expand...

True. Good point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top