Ultimate Characters that need their backstories or motive expanded

[The Overlord]

Why not? Why can't these "villains" just be thugs? That's what they are, aren't they? Do they need a big dramatic exposure? Besides anyone who does need fleshing out will be fleshed out eventually.

The reason tragic backgrounds aren't as abundant in the UU is because they're overdone.

This reminds me of my Juvenile Justice class and the arguments I get into there. Every kid has to have been abused or raped to do bad things? **** it. No, they have not. People are good and evil. If you give into basic human temptation you're going to make bad decisions.

Electro? What needs to be said? His life was crime. Someone came along and offered him a way to capitalize and he took it. Good enough for me.

Unfortunately Omega Red was ultimized badly. If he had been an experiment then we could get a backstory. But he wasn't he was a mutant from Russia. He was born as a mutant and used his abilities selfishly. Then he was hired to sabotage Roxxon.

Ultimate Vulture will be expanded upon later. I thought it was very clever how he was brought in but we don't need an explanation immediately following his first appearance. When they decided to bring him back they'll have a story to tell then.

Forge and Multiple Man. Still waiting for someone to come along and to just say. "Mutant adolescents didn't have a choice. Stay at home and be ridiculed by their families and communities or go with other mutants." Charles Xavier did a piss poor job recruiting mutants. He hand picked them while Magneto gave the option to belong.

Thor's been explained if you ask me. He's a God. What else do you want? An Ultimate Thor series?

What about Deathlok?

What about the promised Bishop connection from New Mutants we were supposed to get? I'm sure that will be coming up soon. Or the infamous Silver Sable blindspot in her story.

I'm not concerned with backstories. Most of them will be revealed in time.

But seriously, how can you be concerned with Electro and other two-bit thugs when there are much more obvious characters with holes in their history that need to be explained (Elektra, Sinister, Lizard, what happened to Geldoff and like Overlord said; Vulture)

Electro was just an random example, but seriously if Electro is just a stupid thug how is his character that much different from his 616 counterpart, which is kinda. Why was he born into a life of crime he did he recieve a poor education, was his father a drunk? Thugs make for very shallow characters, personality wise, every thug is interchangible, nothing makes one more interesting than another. That's kinda boring.

You say that tragic backgrounds are overdone, but if you look at the 616 universe and the UU, villains being just thugs or psychos is even more over done. Almost every type of mastermind villain in the UU is an evil psychopath, there is no variety in personality types, their personalities are interchangible. That's very boring as well.

The problem with the throw away appearances of various villains in USM is that Bendis seemed to introduce with no regard as to how their personality should work in the UU, which leaves them looking like very shallow characters. Why not introduce a villain and give them their backstory in the same story arc, that make them more interesting then just being another throwway villain.

 

[Bass]

Why not? Why can't these "villains" just be thugs? That's what they are, aren't they? Do they need a big dramatic exposure? Besides anyone who does need fleshing out will be fleshed out eventually.

The reason tragic backgrounds aren't as abundant in the UU is because they're overdone.

This reminds me of my Juvenile Justice class and the arguments I get into there. Every kid has to have been abused or raped to do bad things? **** it. No, they have not. People are good and evil. If you give into basic human temptation you're going to make bad decisions.

Electro? What needs to be said? His life was crime. Someone came along and offered him a way to capitalize and he took it. Good enough for me.

Completely agree with you.

 

[ourchair]

Are you talking about Origin?

I thought Origin was OK because it didn't get too specific. It left out a lot of things that should have been left out but still told an engaging story. And it had one of the best twists I've read in a comic.

Now, if you're talking about the newer Origins & Endings and whatnot - I agree.

I didn't like Origin. And boneclaws. But my personal preferences not withstanding, I find that most of the people I know just didn't really like Origin. It wasn't a bad story, so much as it was generally not too interesting and that for those people it lessened their interest in the character.

But I agree, I liked the twist. But what I actually liked a lot more than Origin, was Wolverine recovering his memories in House of M.

Why not? Why can't these "villains" just be thugs? That's what they are, aren't they? Do they need a big dramatic exposure? Besides anyone who does need fleshing out will be fleshed out eventually.

The reason tragic backgrounds aren't as abundant in the UU is because they're overdone.

This reminds me of my Juvenile Justice class and the arguments I get into there. Every kid has to have been abused or raped to do bad things? **** it. No, they have not. People are good and evil. If you give into basic human temptation you're going to make bad decisions.

I agree with this.

The superhero took his great wisdom and intellect to develop a better world, his might to fight the battles that the underprivileged cannot, and his powers to reach crime where the system cannot... A supervillain that is unconscionably and unforgivably evil is no less interesting than one is conflited with nobility and pathos. In fact, I believe the jerk-villain serves a greater writing purpose than the 'tragic' villain.

Both Ellis and Bendis have made it a point in their Ultimate Marvel works to show that just because a villain is patently evil with no real explanation, no saving grace, no sense of nobility, it doesn't mean it's dumb writing. People like Norman Osborn and Victor Van Damme already believed that they 'deserved' things. By possessing great intellect and a superior sense of self, they believed that any good things that come their way, were SUPPOSED to.

So when they become transformed into superhumans, they believe it's an entitlement... with their new 'fourth-dimensional' consciousness and veer off into their crazy world of selfish jerk-ness.

Electro was just an random example, but seriously if Electro is just a stupid thug how is his character that much different from his 616 counterpart, which is kinda. Why was he born into a life of crime he did he recieve a poor education, was his father a drunk? Thugs make for very shallow characters, personality wise, every thug is interchangible, nothing makes one more interesting than another. That's kinda boring.

You say that tragic backgrounds are overdone, but if you look at the 616 universe and the UU, villains being just thugs or psychos is even more over done. Almost every type of mastermind villain in the UU is an evil psychopath, there is no variety in personality types, their personalities are interchangible. That's very boring as well.

Now that points to a completely different problem altogether, which is that however clever the Bendis-generation of writers in conceiving of evil in the Ultimate Universe, in practice it is Bendis who just happens to re-use his notions of thuggery, and evil over and over across multiple arcs with no nuance, not just in Ultimate Spider-Man, but in Powers as well.

In any case, I find that the tragic villain (i.e. 'i was a lowlife dishwasher but now i'm gonna kick everyone's cat) and the noble villain (i.e. 'beneath my evil exterior lies the heart of a gentlemen and a father figure') simply because they are difficult to reconcile with long-term storytelling value.

The tragic villain is a lot like Spider-Man. He decides that with his new powers he's gonna make quick bucks, score with the girls and SHOW EVERYBODY. It's when he gets his comeuppance (in the form of Uncle Ben being shot) that he decides that he's been a jerk after all. The tragic villain has to come around eventually.

The noble villain on the other hand, best exemplified by Doctor Doom, a character who has seldom made sense to me in his 616 incarnation. Stan Lee likes to talk about how he is a 'man of his word', 'bound by honor' and all that --- he once insisted on declaring a truce with the F4 because he didn't want a fight to damage his priceless art collection :roll: --- but this sense of honor makes absolutely no sense in relation to what his character is about.

This is a man who is obsessed with a rivalry with his former roommate --- a rivalry that exists only in his head --- that he nurtures a petty jealousy over his accomplishments, but instead of trying to give something to the world that would prove he is the better man, he hatches scheme after scheme of pettiness. And this is a man who still maintains a sense of honor?

Anyway, I think you're all asleep now.

 

[Joe Kalicki]

The last part about Electro needing to be fleshed out... I think it would be great if he was fleshed out. I really do. But I think that something everyone is missing here is that these character backgrounds don't need to be expanded on. People seem to forget that for some of these characters the adventure is just beginning. They got their powers so the stories can be told from that point on. I mean what would happen if we were calling for Peter Parker to be "fleshed out". I don't want to read pre-SpiderMan stories. Anything that's thrown in to his past will come off as cheap to me. Same thing goes for these villains they left the normal dull life behind and are now potentials for interesting characters.

Yeah, we got enough of those in the first four issues of the series.

 

[TwilightEL]

I think there's a difference between "fleshed out" and "given a hokey tragic childhood".

Yes, Electro is a mindless thug, to use the example everyone else is. We don't need to know that his daddy beat him up or that he has a sick sister. But there are other things we can know about him.

What does he want most in life? What does he hate more than anything? How smart is he? What's his skill set? Why did he look for powers? Does he make pop culture references or corny jokes or does he fight in silence? Does he hold grudges? Is he sadistic or just entirely out for himself? Is he a leader or a follower? Some of these questions have been answered, others haven't.

Being "fleshed out" means that a character's personality is developed. They're given character traits that distinguish them from the mindless horde of boring thugs out there. Ultimate Electro and Ultimate Vulture are practically clones. They're even both bald.

 

[The Overlord]

I agree with this.

The superhero took his great wisdom and intellect to develop a better world, his might to fight the battles that the underprivileged cannot, and his powers to reach crime where the system cannot... A supervillain that is unconscionably and unforgivably evil is no less interesting than one is conflited with nobility and pathos. In fact, I believe the jerk-villain serves a greater writing purpose than the 'tragic' villain.

Both Ellis and Bendis have made it a point in their Ultimate Marvel works to show that just because a villain is patently evil with no real explanation, no saving grace, no sense of nobility, it doesn't mean it's dumb writing. People like Norman Osborn and Victor Van Damme already believed that they 'deserved' things. By possessing great intellect and a superior sense of self, they believed that any good things that come their way, were SUPPOSED to.

So when they become transformed into superhumans, they believe it's an entitlement... with their new 'fourth-dimensional' consciousness and veer off into their crazy world of selfish jerk-ness.

Now that points to a completely different problem altogether, which is that however clever the Bendis-generation of writers in conceiving of evil in the Ultimate Universe, in practice it is Bendis who just happens to re-use his notions of thuggery, and evil over and over across multiple arcs with no nuance, not just in Ultimate Spider-Man, but in Powers as well.

In any case, I find that the tragic villain (i.e. 'i was a lowlife dishwasher but now i'm gonna kick everyone's cat) and the noble villain (i.e. 'beneath my evil exterior lies the heart of a gentlemen and a father figure') simply because they are difficult to reconcile with long-term storytelling value.

The tragic villain is a lot like Spider-Man. He decides that with his new powers he's gonna make quick bucks, score with the girls and SHOW EVERYBODY. It's when he gets his comeuppance (in the form of Uncle Ben being shot) that he decides that he's been a jerk after all. The tragic villain has to come around eventually.

The noble villain on the other hand, best exemplified by Doctor Doom, a character who has seldom made sense to me in his 616 incarnation. Stan Lee likes to talk about how he is a 'man of his word', 'bound by honor' and all that --- he once insisted on declaring a truce with the F4 because he didn't want a fight to damage his priceless art collection :roll: --- but this sense of honor makes absolutely no sense in relation to what his character is about.

This is a man who is obsessed with a rivalry with his former roommate --- a rivalry that exists only in his head --- that he nurtures a petty jealousy over his accomplishments, but instead of trying to give something to the world that would prove he is the better man, he hatches scheme after scheme of pettiness. And this is a man who still maintains a sense of honor?

Anyway, I think you're all asleep now.

The problem is the entitlement movtive is overdone and doesn't always work. Let's look at Electro, shall we. He can make billions legitimately in the engry sector, so why is he a criminal, where all he has to look forward to is getting his butt kicked by spidey and going to jail.

As for tragic villains being lame, let's look at DC shall we, can you honestly that comic book Mr. Freeze was a better character then DCUA Mr. Freeze (before comic Mr. Freeze's character was changed to match his animated counterpart, that is). Before DCUA Freeze came along, what made Mr. Freeze any different from the dosens of other DCU villains who ice powers? As for 616Doom, I think growing up in a dictatorship, his mother being burnt at the stake and his father being killed before his eyes had as much to do with Doom's personality as anything that happned with Reed.

The problem is the entitlement motive for every villain makes their personalities all the same, in terms of personality almost every villain in the UU is interchanible. That is boring. Personality wise what makes Electro, Vulture and Sandman any different from eachother?

Villains don't always need a tragic motive or background, but they should have a motive that makes sense. The entitlement motive is way overdone in the UU, that's the motive most villains had in silver age MU, I thought comics were supposed to evolve since 60s, not devolve. Look at the heroes in the UU: Spidey, Cap, Thor, Wolverine, Xavier, etc they have personalities that are different from eachother, why can't the villains have personalities that are unique, instead of almost every villain being a thug or a psycho?

 

[ourchair]

The problem is the entitlement movtive is overdone and doesn't always work.

I know, 'swhat I said.

I'm just phenomenologizing is all, which doesn't necessarily I mean I agree with its (over)use. Like I said, Bendis has a habit of overusing it in more than one book.

As for 616Doom, I think growing up in a dictatorship, his mother being burnt at the stake and his father being killed before his eyes had as much to do with Doom's personality as anything that happned with Reed.

I think when it comes to the self-entitled jerk-villains, Doom is probably more appropriate than any other to possess this personality, maybe even moreso than Norman Osborn. Which kind of makes him even more of an unconscionable jerk than Ultimate Electro or Ultimate Kraven.

Doom rationalizes the persecution of his people with the 'petty-minded ignorance' of the then-ruling class of Latveria. He deludes himself into thinking that benevolent dictatorship is a 'good' thing for his country. Stan and Jack always used to say that what made Doom 'cool' is that he was probably 'right' in thinking he deserved to rule the world --- because he was smart.

I disagree with them because as we all know that might does not make right, well neither does being bright. And I speak with the perspective of someone who was born shortly before a dictatorship ended in my country. Doom could easily have given back to society --- be it just Latveria, or the entire world --- with his scientific genius and adeptness with sorcery, but instead he chose being a bum on a throne using the resources of a nation to fuel personal vendettas and exerting only the barest minimum of effort to maintain the appearance of being a 'fatherly' leader to his countrymen.

****. That's the political situation in the Philippines right now, actually.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that at least Doom is an interesting exception to the notion that jerk-villains are generally lame on an aggregate level.

 

[TheManWithoutFear]

Ultimate Electro and Ultimate Vulture are practically clones. They're even both bald.

No, they're not.

 

[TwilightEL]

No, they're not.

I'll admit that there are distinct differences in their backstories, but not in their behavior. I bet if you showed someone who'd never read USM a summary of their appearances and actions and a transcript of their dialogue (cutting out references to their powers) they wouldn't be able to tell they were separate people.

If you actually do this and they can tell the difference, I'll admit I was wrong.

 

[TheManWithoutFear]

I'll admit that there are distinct differences in their backstories, but not in their behavior. I bet if you showed someone who'd never read USM a summary of their appearances and actions and a transcript of their dialogue (cutting out references to their powers) they wouldn't be able to tell they were separate people.

If you actually do this and they can tell the difference, I'll admit I was wrong.

So you're saying they're both bald. That's the artists fault. I, personally, though the renegade SHIELD agent angle was a nice twist and added a bit more mystery to the character. Completely separating Vulture and Electro.

 

[The Overlord]

So you're saying they're both bald. That's the artists fault. I, personally, though the renegade SHIELD agent angle was a nice twist and added a bit more mystery to the character. Completely separating Vulture and Electro.

That's makes their background different, what's being asked here is how are their personalities different? are there any personality traits that make them different from each other or are they both merely greedy thugs who happened to have different backgrounds, but ultimately have the same personality?

 

[TwilightEL]

So you're saying they're both bald. That's the artists fault. I, personally, though the renegade SHIELD agent angle was a nice twist and added a bit more mystery to the character. Completely separating Vulture and Electro.

I just meant that they acted exactly the same and that Electro and Vulture should have different personality traits, behavior and patterns of speech. I do like the renegade SHIELD agent thing, but so far it hasn't affected the Vulture in any way and might as well have not happened at all. When I said they were both bald, I was just kidding. I'm not writing the Vulture off as another bad ultimization just yet--he's only appeared once, after all. But if he shows up again, still acts like Electro, and the SHIELD agent thing still has no effect, then he will be.

See, Overlord knows what I mean. Thanks, Overlord.

 

[SSJmole]

That's makes their background different, what's being asked here is how are their personalities different? are there any personality traits that make them different from each other or are they both merely greedy thugs who happened to have different backgrounds, but ultimately have the same personality?

But that is the same in all comic series and games , tv , movie series ect.... there is at least 2 same personalities but it is the backgrounds and what they do that makes them diffrent

 

[Ultimate Yo Mamma]

Someone say Shocker? I mean, okay, being a robber is pretty much self explanitory but they could say how he got his weapons. Or does it already say that?

 

[darkspider]

What I'd like to know is where's Ultimate Adrian Toomes? I have no qualms with Drago taking the Vulture mantle instead of Toomes, but why not mention him? If the USM game is canon, is he dead? Because then he had nothing to do with the Vulture. And the Tinkerer is the one who invented the Vulture suit. So how would Toomes fit into this?

 

[SSJmole]

What I'd like to know is where's Ultimate Adrian Toomes? I have no qualms with Drago taking the Vulture mantle instead of Toomes, but why not mention him? If the USM game is canon, is he dead? Because then he had nothing to do with the Vulture. And the Tinkerer is the one who invented the Vulture suit. So how would Toomes fit into this?

Probably he doesn't. Like Cletus Kasady does not fit in with Carnage

 

[Joe Kalicki]

What I'd like to know is where's Ultimate Adrian Toomes? I have no qualms with Drago taking the Vulture mantle instead of Toomes, but why not mention him? If the USM game is canon, is he dead? Because then he had nothing to do with the Vulture. And the Tinkerer is the one who invented the Vulture suit. So how would Toomes fit into this?

Toomes was in the video game. He worked for Roxxon or something.

 

[Iceshadow]

Someone say Shocker? I mean, okay, being a robber is pretty much self explanitory but they could say how he got his weapons. Or does it already say that?

He built them in 616, its probably safe to assume that here. The Shocker was always one of my favorites, and I was a little mad about how he's just a joke in the UU.

 

[Ultimate Yo Mamma]

He built them in 616, its probably safe to assume that here. The Shocker was always one of my favorites, and I was a little mad about how he's just a joke in the UU.

After reading 616 Shocker, I started to like him. UU Shocker, no.:noway:

 

[darkspider]

Here are a few things, while not being characters that need backstories as more need to be expanded on:

Is Molten Man going to forever be a band, or is Mark gonna go Molten on Peter's *** for stealing the girl he likes?

What about Miles Warren? Is he just gonna be a throw in name only for the purpose of it being right before the Clone Saga?