Ultimate Comics Avengers (Discussion & Spoilers)

[14rdb]

Re: Ultimate Avengers (Discussion & Spoilers)

It's a funny medium because terrible ideas like Ultimatum not only mess up future stories, they threaten to taint old, formerly good ones too if you let them. For example, I really don't like OSC's altered UIM origin, nor do I like Bendis' new origin for Fury as introduced in Ultimate Origins.

If I were to let it, these crap retcons can bother me when I re-read something I really like such as Ultimates I & II. Now I'm supposed to believe that Fury is actually a supersoldier pretending not to be rather than just a regular human who can hold his own with anyone due to his pragmatism, will, instincts, and intelligence, and Tony has some crazy superpowers unassociated with his suit and his fun loving drunken ways are considerably less endearing.

As I've mentioned here before, I've kind of had to decide to just accept what Millar writes as the true Ultimates continuity, at least in my own mind, while just accepting the broadest of strokes that come elsewhere, picking and choosing what I like and what I'd rather dismiss.

As for New Ultimates, yeah -- it's gonna suck. Too bad. I think it could have been a cool concept if they created an entirely new team of govt. sponsored heavy hitters (and had a different author) to become the New Ultimates while the old gang were off in the Ultimate Avengers. They could have kept Hyperion around, made decent use of Deadpool, promoted some of the Reserves, etc.

 

[E]

Re: Ultimate Avengers (Discussion & Spoilers)

You're saying Tony's romantic feelings and his feelings of friendship, comraderie, and/or respect are the same? I say thee NAY!!

Tony would NEVER spend more than a few minutes mourning a romantic interest, I agree, but I could see him being depressed over the death of a friend/acquaintance/teammate. Tony's weird like that. Were it Thor or someone he was close with (Happy, Jim Rhodes), I'm sure it would've hit him VERY hard, because it would be unexpected. I'm sure he realized there was at least a 75% chance Natasha would betray him in the end, hence the fail-safe nano-bots he used to paralyze her at the end of Ultimates 2. Its different.

If anything, it could also be explained that it brought his own mortality (due to the apparently never-ending brain tumor) to the forefront of his thoughts, and thats what he's really depressed about. Killing the most unkillable man/mutant alive could believably have that effect on someone, even someone as cynical and laid-back as Tony.

You are absolutely right. I wonder what I was on when I posted that.

 

[DIrishB]

Re: Ultimate Avengers (Discussion & Spoilers)

Let's watch what we call people. Even with Loeb.

*pouts*

Ummm, they are still alive?

So what? Again, why would Ka-Zar or Shanna have any interest in leaving the Savage Land? And seriously, we both know they really don't offer much in the way of specialized skills, and we both certainly know even if they did, Loeb wouldn't successfully utilize them in his story anyway. So I once again pose the question:

"Why, Loeb? Why?"

You are absolutely right. I wonder what I was on when I posted that.

Loeb-juice is my guess. Its a killer, be careful.

 

[thekendon]

Re: Ultimate Avengers (Discussion & Spoilers)

First, to go back to Hawkeye's look: I think that he looks pretty cool on the cover of issue three.

Second, I think Millar is making the most of Ultimatum by exploiting an aspect that is pretty unique to the UU: just about every character can be replaced with the line "SHIELD was able to replicate/create the technology." And we have a reasonable explanation for a new Giant Man, Thor, Wasp, Iron Man, or just about any other character short of Captain America.

Third, did anybody else take the first five pages as Millar (as Fury) just asking WTF happened to the UU while he was gone?

 

[Langsta]

Re: Ultimate Avengers (Discussion & Spoilers)

First, to go back to Hawkeye's look: I think that he looks pretty cool on the cover of issue three.

Second, I think Millar is making the most of Ultimatum by exploiting an aspect that is pretty unique to the UU: just about every character can be replaced with the line "SHIELD was able to replicate/create the technology." And we have a reasonable explanation for a new Giant Man, Thor, Wasp, Iron Man, or just about any other character short of Captain America.

Third, did anybody else take the first five pages as Millar (as Fury) just asking WTF happened to the UU while he was gone?

There aren't reasonable explanations for the new characters. It's just a gimmick.

 

[14rdb]

Re: Ultimate Avengers (Discussion & Spoilers)

First, to go back to Hawkeye's look: I think that he looks pretty cool on the cover of issue three.

Second, I think Millar is making the most of Ultimatum by exploiting an aspect that is pretty unique to the UU: just about every character can be replaced with the line "SHIELD was able to replicate/create the technology." And we have a reasonable explanation for a new Giant Man, Thor, Wasp, Iron Man, or just about any other character short of Captain America.

Third, did anybody else take the first five pages as Millar (as Fury) just asking WTF happened to the UU while he was gone?

It's funny you say that about Captain America because it reminded me of an interview I recently came across that's about a year old. Millar says of the next arc, "Then we switch gears completely with the second storyline, titled Ultimates Black, as we focus on the black ops team introduced in Ultimates Vol 1. This is where we see the nasty **** that Fury and SHIELD get up to off-camera and not only features the origin of Hawkeye, but also SHIELD's replacement Captain America, the reinvention of the Punisher, War Machine and the African American Hulk."

 

[Bass]

Re: Ultimate Avengers (Discussion & Spoilers)

I completely agree. Usually I'm pretty much against retcons and reboots. My feeling is almost anything can be recovered. You can work around a few bad stories, make things work out if you put enough thought in, or just ignore long enough and the wounds would heal. But for the reasons Bass mentioned there's just no real way to get past that.

In fact earlier I was thinking that a retcon story would be pretty interesting (and obviously better). Like if Fury found away to travel back in time to a point that's convenient for undoing some other missteps before it all went to ****. Have him and Jean Grey infiltrate the Brotherhood's based. Then have Jean take off Magneto's helmet and psychically paralyze while Fury does the whole reveal the truth of mutant to Mags while saying "This plan to reveal the nation darkest secret was originally meant to convince you to stop your attacks. But I've seen what you can do and I just can't risk that. I just wanted you to know, all the lives you have taken, all the **** you have done means absolutely nothing, you were just and experiment that became a desease. I want that to be the last thing that runs through your mind, besides this bullet" and Bam, **** is undone, you have the major death, everyone stays in character, a bad *** climax, a shashank redemption reference, and one more chance to do the stories right. Which I'm certain they'll just **** up again anyway.

They don't need to, really because of...

First, to go back to Hawkeye's look: I think that he looks pretty cool on the cover of issue three.

Second, I think Millar is making the most of Ultimatum by exploiting an aspect that is pretty unique to the UU: just about every character can be replaced with the line "SHIELD was able to replicate/create the technology." And we have a reasonable explanation for a new Giant Man, Thor, Wasp, Iron Man, or just about any other character short of Captain America.

Third, did anybody else take the first five pages as Millar (as Fury) just asking WTF happened to the UU while he was gone?

There aren't reasonable explanations for the new characters. It's just a gimmick.

That's a big problem I have with the 'legacy' thing: you can kill characters and make it 'stick' but also keep them around forever. I find it self-defeating. If a character's death should matter in a long-running arc, then it should matter in terms of their absence, you don't just replace them with the same character. And in the Ultimate Universe, it's even more apparent.

But then, is it really any more different than Boromir dying and then Faramir showing up?

*shakes Magic 8-ball*

Answer fuzzy. Ask again later.

It's a funny medium because terrible ideas like Ultimatum not only mess up future stories, they threaten to taint old, formerly good ones too if you let them. For example, I really don't like OSC's altered UIM origin, nor do I like Bendis' new origin for Fury as introduced in Ultimate Origins.

If I were to let it, these crap retcons can bother me when I re-read something I really like such as Ultimates I & II. Now I'm supposed to believe that Fury is actually a supersoldier pretending not to be rather than just a regular human who can hold his own with anyone due to his pragmatism, will, instincts, and intelligence, and Tony has some crazy superpowers unassociated with his suit and his fun loving drunken ways are considerably less endearing.

As I've mentioned here before, I've kind of had to decide to just accept what Millar writes as the true Ultimates continuity, at least in my own mind, while just accepting the broadest of strokes that come elsewhere, picking and choosing what I like and what I'd rather dismiss.

As for New Ultimates, yeah -- it's gonna suck. Too bad. I think it could have been a cool concept if they created an entirely new team of govt. sponsored heavy hitters (and had a different author) to become the New Ultimates while the old gang were off in the Ultimate Avengers. They could have kept Hyperion around, made decent use of Deadpool, promoted some of the Reserves, etc.

It's weird because a govt. sponsored team of heavy hitters is (was) THE MIGHTY AVENGERS. They did this with the Initiative, which was done by Millar.

Marvel is recycling stories from 616 to the Ultimate universe back to 616 back to the Ultimate universe. Which is why the UU lost its appeal.

Marvel, instead of getting Bendis and Millar to revamp 616, should've found other writers to revamp 616 so they could've had two major brands instead of two rather indistinct ones.

Or something.

 

[Willverine]

Re: Ultimate Avengers (Discussion & Spoilers)

Let's watch what we call people. Even with Loeb.

That's fine by me. I'll watch my language, but is it still acceptable to call him a no-talent hack? I think that gets the point across without being too inflammatory.

Moving right along... I liked the first issue, but that probably won't surprise anyone. The story hasn't blown me away yet like the first 2 volumes of Ultimates, but it is definitely promising. Millar didn't waste any time jumping right into the meat of this story and I think that's going to make for a good run overall. The introduction of the Red Skull was done quickly, but that's not a problem. Following up Loeb's heavy-handed rape of the UU calls for it.

I was surprised to see Skull beat the crap out of Captain America so easily. Was it just his superior skill and strength or was it's Cap's shock that led to this? It seemed he whispered the secret into Cap's ear towards the end of the fight after he'd already left a few bruises on Steve, but at any rate, it should make for some interesting stories to follow.

Am I worried about all of these family connections mucking up the story? Not so much. Fury's ex-wife/new Widow and Red Skull being Cap's son don't bother me as much as Stark having a brother. Being that Millar is writing this, though, I'm pretty confident it's not going to suck.

 

[Iceshadow]

Re: Ultimate Avengers (Discussion & Spoilers)

They did this with the Initiative, which was done by Millar.

I thought Dan Slott wrote the Initiative (then later it was Christos Gauge)?

 

[DIrishB]

Re: Ultimate Avengers (Discussion & Spoilers)

Third, did anybody else take the first five pages as Millar (as Fury) just asking WTF happened to the UU while he was gone?

Yes.

There aren't reasonable explanations for the new characters. It's just a gimmick.

Eh, yes and no. I agree in the sense I hate the "legacy" or "mantle" aspect of certain characters, but the Ultimates set up this storyline from the get-go. The whole point of the re-vamped super soldier program was to replicate Captain America. It stands to reason they'd want to replicate the powers of the other Ultimates since its been proven those powers/abilities tend to do well in battle (they've worked against the Chitauri, X-Men, Ultimate Six, the various enemies of Ultimates 2, etc). Hell, the first Ultimates Annual focused on this very plot-line. It makes perfect sense, though I don't like it. So a new Thor, Hulk, etc seems lame on the surface, but there is logic behind it and precendent in previous stories, and I'm sure under Millar's pen it'll be anything but groan-inducing.

 

[mike3717]

Re: Ultimate Avengers (Discussion & Spoilers)

Hell, the first Ultimates Annual focused on this very plot-line. It makes perfect sense, though I don't like it. So a new Thor, Hulk, etc seems lame on the surface, but there is logic behind it and precendent in previous stories, and I'm sure under Millar's pen it'll be anything but groan-inducing.

That all works for anyone but Thor. Thor wasn't "created" by a super soldier program so he shouldn't really be able to be replicated.

 

[14rdb]

Re: Ultimate Avengers (Discussion & Spoilers)

That all works for anyone but Thor. Thor wasn't "created" by a super soldier program so he shouldn't really be able to be replicated.

Loki twisted reality so that Thor was created by technology in a way, and without his belt and hammer he was powerless.

Actually, I much preferred Thor when it was unclear whether or not he was a mental patient who only believed he was a god and derived all of his powers from the stolen weaponry or an actual Norse god.

And if we had to discover the truth, I would have rather him be delusional than a god.

I might have more haters than Loeb, but if I were writing Thor now, I'd retcon him. I'd explain that he was actually an extremely powerful mutant who can warp reality like Scarlet Witch, only his powers are subconscious and he doesn't even know he has them. And because he's freaking crazy and believes he's actually Thor, the God of Thunder, his mutant abilities essentially make it so. So ironically, while he wouldn't be a god, he'd essentially be Thor outwardly but actually powered by abilities more similar to those of Loki.

And the only reason Loki would exist is because this powerful mutant believes he's Thor and believes there's this Loki out to get him, which makes it happen through the reality twisting, etc. Self-fulfilling prophecy powers.

 

[Mattimeo84]

Re: Ultimate Avengers (Discussion & Spoilers)

Loki twisted reality so that Thor was created by technology in a way, and without his belt and hammer he was powerless.

Actually, I much preferred Thor when it was unclear whether or not he was a mental patient who only believed he was a god and derived all of his powers from the stolen weaponry or an actual Norse god.

And if we had to discover the truth, I would have rather him be delusional than a god.

I might have more haters than Loeb, but if I were writing Thor now, I'd retcon him. I'd explain that he was actually an extremely powerful mutant who can warp reality like Scarlet Witch, only his powers are subconscious and he doesn't even know he has them. And because he's freaking crazy and believes he's actually Thor, the God of Thunder, his mutant abilities essentially make it so. So ironically, while he wouldn't be a god, he'd essentially be Thor outwardly but actually powered by abilities more similar to those of Loki.

And the only reason Loki would exist is because this powerful mutant believes he's Thor and believes there's this Loki out to get him, which makes it happen through the reality twisting, etc. Self-fulfilling prophesy powers.

I'd accept that story.

 

[mike3717]

Re: Ultimate Avengers (Discussion & Spoilers)

Loki twisted reality so that Thor was created by technology in a way, and without his belt and hammer he was powerless.

Actually, I much preferred Thor when it was unclear whether or not he was a mental patient who only believed he was a god and derived all of his powers from the stolen weaponry or an actual Norse god.

And if we had to discover the truth, I would have rather him be delusional than a god.

I might have more haters than Loeb, but if I were writing Thor now, I'd retcon him. I'd explain that he was actually an extremely powerful mutant who can warp reality like Scarlet Witch, only his powers are subconscious and he doesn't even know he has them. And because he's freaking crazy and believes he's actually Thor, the God of Thunder, his mutant abilities essentially make it so. So ironically, while he wouldn't be a god, he'd essentially be Thor outwardly but actually powered by abilities more similar to those of Loki.

And the only reason Loki would exist is because this powerful mutant believes he's Thor and believes there's this Loki out to get him, which makes it happen through the reality twisting, etc. Self-fulfilling prophecy powers.

That all could work but I prefer Thor as the real deal God of Thunder.

All that "reality warping powers" etc makes my head hurt.

 

[DIrishB]

Re: Ultimate Avengers (Discussion & Spoilers)

That all works for anyone but Thor. Thor wasn't "created" by a super soldier program so he shouldn't really be able to be replicated.

They can't be replicated, but they can come close. To put it simply, its just a super-soldier with altered powers/abilities. I doubt the new Thor will have the same power level or abilities as the original, since his powers stem from science and technology instead of god-hood.

Again, it still works in the sense that Thor's powers/abilities (even vastly reduced) are still enough of a heavy hitter for inclusion on the Ultimates.

Loki twisted reality so that Thor was created by technology in a way, and without his belt and hammer he was powerless.

Actually, I much preferred Thor when it was unclear whether or not he was a mental patient who only believed he was a god and derived all of his powers from the stolen weaponry or an actual Norse god.

And if we had to discover the truth, I would have rather him be delusional than a god.

I might have more haters than Loeb, but if I were writing Thor now, I'd retcon him. I'd explain that he was actually an extremely powerful mutant who can warp reality like Scarlet Witch, only his powers are subconscious and he doesn't even know he has them. And because he's freaking crazy and believes he's actually Thor, the God of Thunder, his mutant abilities essentially make it so. So ironically, while he wouldn't be a god, he'd essentially be Thor outwardly but actually powered by abilities more similar to those of Loki.

And the only reason Loki would exist is because this powerful mutant believes he's Thor and believes there's this Loki out to get him, which makes it happen through the reality twisting, etc. Self-fulfilling prophecy powers.

Yeah, but whats the point? Either way its a deus ex machina route of explaining the unexplainable. Mutant or God, neither stands up to the spectacle of before the reveal when we didn't know if he was crazy or a God.

 

[14rdb]

Re: Ultimate Avengers (Discussion & Spoilers)

Yeah, but whats the point? Either way its a deus ex machina route of explaining the unexplainable. Mutant or God, neither stands up to the spectacle of before the reveal when we didn't know if he was crazy or a God.

Yes, it was much better before we knew. But now we're left with what once was an original take on the character but is now just a lame and redundant facsimile of the 616 Thor.

 

[E]

Re: Ultimate Avengers (Discussion & Spoilers)

Loki twisted reality so that Thor was created by technology in a way, and without his belt and hammer he was powerless.

Really? That's not how I understood it. I understood it that he really is a Norse god, and so is Loki, albeit one that requires the belt for his power (I believe Seldes wrote in another thread that was the case with the traditional Norse god Thor). All of the laboratory stuff never happened - Loki just lied about it.

 

[McCheese]

Re: Ultimate Avengers (Discussion & Spoilers)

Really? That's not how I understood it. I understood it that he really is a Norse god, and so is Loki, albeit one that requires the belt for his power (I believe Seldes wrote in another thread that was the case with the traditional Norse god Thor). All of the laboratory stuff never happened - Loki just lied about it.

That was my understanding as well.

 

[14rdb]

Re: Ultimate Avengers (Discussion & Spoilers)

Really? That's not how I understood it. I understood it that he really is a Norse god, and so is Loki, albeit one that requires the belt for his power (I believe Seldes wrote in another thread that was the case with the traditional Norse god Thor). All of the laboratory stuff never happened - Loki just lied about it.

I understand that he and Loki really are Norse gods too, but the way I understand it, Loki doesn't just lie, he warps reality. That might have opened the door for someone to replicate what previously had been non-existent technology to grant someone Thor-like powers. Confusing, but you know what I'm trying to say?

 

[Bass]

Re: Ultimate Avengers (Discussion & Spoilers)

I thought Thor was a Norse God and that Loki had just OH IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE LOEB KILLED HIM TWICE.