Ultimate Spider-Man #96 (Spoilers)

shhh....

I was too lazy to check.

So, apparently, was Bendis.

But that's another Story Altogether.

(Also, Warren Ellis is the Internet Jesus)
 
Prof. Toad said:
This will all probaly be cleared up in the Blade miniseries
Maybe he was just going for simplicity?
Click to expand...

Again this will all probably be explained unless Morbius isn't in the mini. And props to E.Vi.L. for doing his homework. I thought I was going to have to explain it.
 
E.Vi.L. said:
Hum, guys, if Morbius is the son of Dracul, you know who that would makes him? Dracula.

"Dracul" meant Dragon. Adding the "a" meant "son of". Dracula meant "Son of the Dragon". And I've read that Vlad Tepes father was indeed refered to as Dracul, so Tepes was Dracula.
Click to expand...

Very interesting. If Bendis actually intended that I have to give him credit...it'd be one of the more intelligent things he's done with this title in a long time.

TheManWithoutFear said:
Again, The Blade mini is not ULTIMATE Blade.
Click to expand...

You beat me to it.

Again, there is no Ultimate Blade mini planned at this time. This is all just incorrect info springing from fanboys and Wikipedia.



Anyway, I preferred this arc over Deadpool, but neither was what I'd call "ok". As has been mentioned, its been filler for awhile now, and I'm hoping the Clone Saga cures us of that.

I'll give it a 2/5.
 
E said:
Not a bad thing to be if the characters are (loosely) based off of historical characters.
Click to expand...

Not saying it's a bad thing... Just saying that Bendis and Millar (OR whoever) didn't dive as deep.
 
As I said, Dracula was Dracul's son but there was three other brothers. If Morbius was Dracul's son, he was one of the four.

From Wiki :

Dracula seems to have had three brothers. The oldest, probably named Mircea, born before 1430, briefly held his father's throne in 1442, was sent by Vlad Dracul in 1444 to fight in his place during the crusade against the Turks that ended with the Varna defeat and met his end along with his father in 1447, presumably being buried alive.
Click to expand...

So one of Dracul's son was a crusader who died a horrible death. In a UU and Vampire context, it's interesting, isn't it?

On another subject :

Goodwill said:
Not saying it's a bad thing... Just saying that Bendis and Millar (OR whoever) didn't dive as deep.
Click to expand...

It's not exactly deep. Linking Dracul to Dracula is a mere nod to history. Considering the kind of things Moore does and how every writer would like to be thought of as half as clever as Moore...

BTW, you are not making much sense. You said :

Goodwill said:
I'm willing to bet there is a difference between Dracul and Dracula in the Ultimate Universe.
Click to expand...

I pointed out that one os the father of the other. MWoF said :

MWoF said:
anyone who knows anything about Horror Mythology knows the difference between Dracul and Dracula. He's trying to say that he thinks that there's just two different lineages of Dracula in the UU.
Click to expand...

You agreed that's what you meant. Which makes me impressed by the mind reading abilities of MWOF because you'll admit that it's not the natural interpretation. In fact, the first statement as almost nothing to do with the other.

But now you say you don't think Bendis dig that deep. How deep? What'd deep? Do you think that Dracul has something to do with Dracula in UU or not?

Excuse me if I have no real idea of what you are saying here.
 
Last edited:
For me, the most interesting thing that came out of this issue was the indication that Ben Urich even has a family. Unless I'm having a senior moment, I think this is the first time the idea has been raised. I don't believe I've seen him wear a wedding ring in any of the issues, so at this point I can't tell if "family" means parents and siblings, or wife and kids, or live-in girlfriend and kids, or, um.... Dr. Strangefate, help me out here, please. If there are two men in a committed relationship, is it still called "an alternative lifestyle", or is there some other official name for it?

Isn't the character married in 616 Marvel? (MWoF? Does this qualify as a Daredevil-related question?)

Number one gripe: this was way too short for what the story was trying to accomplish. I doubt anyone is surprised by that fact. I would have preferred at least one, or better yet, two more issues. We get the barest hints of a background for Morbius, and it's confusing. (BTW, is it possible that the term "father" here means the vampire who "changed" or "turned" Morbius, rather than an actual biological parent? Oh, and kudos to Ultimate Houde for his alternative ideas of what "Drakul" could be. Count me among the impressed.)

Minor quibble that for me personally is a non-issue: the story synopsis said Morbius was supposedly fighting Blade. Now, unless Blade was either a) the wolf-thing, b) one of the three demonic critters duking it out with Spider-Man at the hospital, or 3) the recipient of a wildly successful gender-change that resulted in him becoming a white, blond librarian, I guess I missed this epic battle. No great loss, in my opinion, but still....

Dr.Strangefate said:
It was a good short story... I'm glad it didn't carry on any longer, Bendis would have to do some serious research were that the case.
Click to expand...
I would like to have seen Bendis do the research and tailor his vampires specifically for the UU. There have been some pretty creative takes on vampires in literature over the years, and I would have preferred there be something here that was unique. Perhaps in a later issue? We still have some of these characters running around.....

E said:
I *didn't* like Ben Urich as the victim - that was stupid. I'd rather have had it a somebody off the street. The story jumped the shark right there. Bad idea.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum on this one. (So what else is new, right?) I thought that given the subject matter and set-up, what happened to Ben Urich made sense here. One of the best features of reporters and private investigators in fiction is that they have an excuse to get involved in pretty much everything, given the nature of their work. I'm just glad Bendis didn't kill him. My guess is that since the vampiric attacks tend to be pretty secretive, giving Peter a greater-than-usual emotional involvement with the victim meant Peter was actively seeking the problem, instead of just stumbling upon it by chance.

TheManWithoutFear said:
What I completely agree with is Spider-Man w/ Vampires. Sorry guys and all of you who think the Ultimate Universe is just jim dandy with 4 titles but we need something else to contain these stories so that it doesn't look so coincidental that Peter keeps running into all of the crazy [politely edited] that happens in the world.
Click to expand...
Perhaps another series that would serve as an anthology would be useful for the UU. This would be a way to tell a story or two about those characters who really don't need a full-blown series of their own, but also have room for development.


E.Vi.L. said:
*sigh*

Why do I even bother[?]
Click to expand...
Um, because some of us actually read your posts? Thanks for the links, by the way. I've been using this arc as an excuse to do research on historic, literary, and modern day vampires, and the entries you posted will be extremely useful. There's no such thing as wasted research; Halloween is coming, after all.... :twisted:
 
Last edited:
Did Morbius say he was the son of Dracul or Dracula. If he was the son of Dracul then he could easily be the ultimate version of Dracula(but if so he would have called himself Dracula) or a brother of Dracula's.
 
This is what Doom's father told him on his tenth birthday: "He [Dracula] applied intelligence to the superstitions of Wallachia. [...] He allowed his subjects to believe he drank blood."

It's pretty much clear from that speech (the above was just a snippet) that neither Dracula nor his father (Dracul) were anything more than normal mortal men. In this issue Morbius says: "I made a promise on my mother's grave that my father's [Dracul] unholy curse will not take anyone else."

I'm having serious trouble reconciling these two pieces of information.
 
Last edited:
vintsukka said:
This is what Doom's father told him on his tenth birthday: "He [Dracula] applied intelligence to the superstitions of Wallachia. [...] He allowed his subjects to believe he drank blood."

It's pretty much clear from that speech (the above was just a snippet) that neither Dracula nor his father (Dracul) were anything more than normal mortal men. In this issue Morbius says: "I made a promise on my mother's grave that my father's [Dracul] unholy curse will not take anyone else."

I'm having serious trouble reconciling these two pieces of information.
Click to expand...

Unless legend grew about his father after he died. During life he allowed his subjects to drink blood - naturally after he is dead those legends are going to grow; one of those might be that he was cursed.
 
E said:
Unless legend grew about his father after he died. During life he allowed his subjects to drink blood - naturally after he is dead those legends are going to grow; one of those might be that he was cursed.
Click to expand...
But if Morbius is Dracul's son, he's not gonna talk about legends that have grown through the centuries, he's gonna talk about what he has witnessed.

And secondly, according to UFF it was Dracula who allowed people to think he drank blood, and in USM it was Dracul who originated the curse.

It just won't fit unless either Doom's father or Morbius is talking out of his ***.
 
In the Context of UU, Doom's father can easily be wrong. An honest mistake.

In the real world, to assume that every supernatural legend we hear about from the past is just the work of superstitious minds is the normal and most likely correct way to interpret them. If Doom's father hasn't encountered supernatural forces, it would be his natural assumption too.
 
Last edited:
Or, Bendis could never have read Ultimate Fantastic Four.
 
I thought this was a pretty good arc. It introduced Morbius, gave us some more information on Ultimate vampires, showed us that something was wrong with Peter's blood, and re-started the relationsip between MJ and Peter...Maybe.

It was pretty good :D
 
Titan said:
I thought this was a pretty good arc. It introduced Morbius, gave us some more information on Ultimate vampires, showed us that something was wrong with Peter's blood, and re-started the relationsip between MJ and Peter...Maybe.

It was pretty good :D
Click to expand...

....

Information on Ultimate Vampires? Like what? The same old? What really annoyed me was the #1 question that people asked Bendis about this arc when it was up and coming was what SHIELD had to do with Ultimate Vampires and his answer was "We called SHIELD and they thought we were joking." Cmon' SHIELD would be all over this.

We know something's "wrong" with Peter's blood. I think you're taking it out of context. The Vampires think it's "diseased" because it's not normal blood. You're looking at it from their perspective. We already know Peter's powers and his blood are a set up for the story.
 
I didnt like this arc, it was okay but I was hoping for something more original with the vampires, this just seems to use the same mythology we've seen before. And I hate Moribus's costume, too dracula. I would of liked more of Peter's and Ben's reaction to all this, soaking it in.
 
I enjoyed this arc. I was disappointed Blade didn't show, but oh well. The vampires and the wolf-thing were cool.

I want MJ to die. Or to leave for a very long time. I prefer Peter with Kitty, simple as that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top