|
Post by Crimson Cowl on May 15, 2009 14:01:18 GMT -5
I have just finished reading the first two volumes of Ultimates. I thought it was fairly entertaining and pretty decent. The first volume was far better than the second IMHO. Obviously continuity with previous Avengers stuff is a null point with this sort of thing.
I liked some of the ideas, but not all. The second volume goes way overboard sadly. Some of the characterisations are really good. Thor in particular I thought was done brilliantly and if it hasn't already been done (I'm not exactly up to date!) then perhaps some elements of this characterisation/interpretation should be introduced to the regular MU Thor. The Hulk was well handled too, with the sexual elment in his 'condition' made much more overt to some humorous effect. How many of you actually wanted him to get ahold of Freddy Prinz? Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch received an interesting approach and one that at least elements of rang true.
The treatment of Hank Pym was disappointing. It seemed as if a more intelligent and less black and white approach was going to be adopted towards him, much like Shooter's and Stern's, and whilst this continually threatened to occur it also was consistently frustrated as the narrative proceeded to heap obloquoy and humiliation upon the character relentlessly. Making the Wasp a mutant bored me to tears as did hooking her up with Cap (though her complaints about his geriatric buddies and Bing Crosby records was quite funny).
Seeing Nick Fury in this after having seen the post-credits scene in the Iron Man flick was a bit of a revelation (especally considering some of the dialogue about actors in Ultimates).
A worthwhile read anyway. I do wonder about the point of this sort of thing if you're not going to have a proper reboot, and I thought that the 'Earth's Mightiest Heroes' series showed a far more ingenious and significant approach. Nonetheless it contained some good ideas and was certainly entertaining. I wouldn't mind seeing some of the better elements being utilised in the 'real' Avengers (if such a thing exists anymore).
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Jul 6, 2009 8:44:32 GMT -5
I loved every issue. I particularly loved when the Rainbow Bridge appeared across Washington DC. Stunning.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jul 24, 2011 10:26:14 GMT -5
(Clarification mod: This is posted in the ULTIMATES section. . . HB) I've just read through series 1 & 2 (except for issues 12 & 13 of series 2, which are apparently somewhere in my hefty backlog of unsorted comics. . . : . I've been a vocal & unforgiving critic of this series on these boards a couple of times-- and I HATED it even as I was receiving most of it via subscription. But I filled in a couple of holes that I had in the run (Thanks to Mile High's recent 60%-discount sale-!), and read it through as one piece-- and I am forced to somewhat revise my take on the series. I still don't love it (sorry bobc, ol' pal!), but it absolutely works better for me this way than it did as a monthly (or bi-monthly. . . or tri-monthly. . . depending upon how far behind schedule they were running) series. The beauty of the artwork was never an issue, of course, although I think the storytelling or story-boarding aspect was unclear a little too frequently. The never-ending, unresolvable feet-of-clay exhibited by all of the main characters still probably remains the biggest drag for me throughout. There seems to be an inability to learn or change or grow as a person across the board. Steve probably fairs the best upon the re-read, though. The impression he was leaving on a month-to-month basis was far more akin to a John Walker than a Steve Rogers--- a tough, bullying, stubborn, stiff-necked, by-the-book, jerk. Within a more connected narrative, though, you absolutely see a man who is LOST out of his time, and trying to find whatever small rocks he can to anchor his overwhelmed mental state too. He's still not particularly sympathetic--- but much more understandable and ultimately heroic. That's my quick thought for the moment on the series. HB
|
|
|
Post by pulpcitizen on Aug 1, 2011 11:36:29 GMT -5
I have to admit to being both an Avengers fan and an Ultimates fan and being able to view each is discreet and distinct, and so have no issues about enjoying both.
I think Ultimates on the whole (U3 excepted) represents a sensiblity that is too often lacking in comics as they have become so preoccupied with line-wide events and continuity navel-gazing: telling big stories on a big canvas where these beings of tremedous power have a real and appreciable effect on their world. things don't just 'reset' after each 'adventure'.
With that I am certainly looking forwrds to the next era under Hickman.
|
|
|
Post by Marvel Boy on Jul 9, 2013 11:47:57 GMT -5
A friend of mine has lent me a copy of Ultimates Vol. 1 so I will finally see what this is all about. In general, I tend to stay away from the Ultimate universe even though I believe it to be an excellent idea. Unlike DC who relaunched their entire line, Marvel chose to launch a separate line to give a fresh take on classic characters. Thanks to my local library, I have read a good portion of Bendis' Ult. Spider-Man, which was rather good, probably the best Bendis book I've read so far. He seems to do better with individual characters versus group affairs. While reading ASSEMBLED Vol. 1, the essays on the Ultimates would contend that part of it's success is Millar's usage of classic relationship problems, such as Hank and Jan's, that were stretched out over time in the regular book, but here, were all thrown in together at once, thus increasing the drama and characterization. Well, guess I'm going to find out now for myself.
|
|
|
Post by tomspasic on Jul 9, 2013 11:59:11 GMT -5
Thanks to my local library, I have read a good portion of Bendis' Ult. Spider-Man, which was rather good, probably the best Bendis book I've read so far. He seems to do better with individual characters versus group affairs. Bendis' Ultimate Spider-Man is in parts original and good. Unfortunately the parts which are good are not original, and the parts which are original are not good.
|
|
|
Post by Marvel Boy on Jul 10, 2013 9:34:40 GMT -5
The fact that Bendis had more leeway in terms of constructing a brand-new continuity instead of changing/wrecking the existing one helped him. Bendis will never be one of my favorite writers, but if I had to choose one of his works to re-read, Ult. Spidey would be it.
Finished reading Vol. 1, rather quickly. Hitch's art is beyond, just amazing. I thought Millar did well in ratcheting up the tension and drama amongst the members, changing the focus between Bruce and Hank and Hank and Janet.
As HB mentioned, I really liked how Steve came off in this volume. Part of the my irk with the Lee/Kirby Cap issues is the continued moaning Steve does about being a man out of time. Here, Millar handles it deftly and quickly and more honestly. The scenes where he first meets Bucky and Gail were very good.
But as someone else mentioned before, the name-dropping become irritating. Cameron Diaz, Shannon Elizabeth, Bush, Larry King, and Manhattan gets wrecked because of Freddie Prinze Jr???
It became distracting and frankly, drew me out of the story some. (Although Fury's jab at Downey Jr, in hindsight, is hilarious)
But the argument/fight scene between Hank and Jan was very disturbing. Still, found it interesting, so mayhaps I'll track down Vol. 2.
|
|
|
Post by tomspasic on Jul 10, 2013 10:17:28 GMT -5
My take on it is that Bendis, Millar et al created nothing new. They simply cherry-picked Lee/Kirby/Ditko/Heck/etc ideas and stories and with the luxury of hindsight ran with those which worked best, or were most popular. Frankly, any idiot can turn gold into gold. That said, Ultimates is a decent read, well crafted, well drawn and so on. But it's a cynical reworking of somebody else's imagination played for lurid, easy thrills.
What is more depressing is that the source material (616 Marvel) has been consistently steered towards this ersatz version, despite the fact that the Ultiverse ran out of any creative steam a decade ago and now has not even the dubious distinction of high selling commercial success. So marvel bend over backwards to distort the original into the funhouse mirror reflection, even though the funhouse is practically closed down through lack of public interest.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jul 10, 2013 19:35:22 GMT -5
My take on it is that Bendis, Millar et al created nothing new. They simply cherry-picked Lee/Kirby/Ditko/Heck/etc ideas and stories and with the luxury of hindsight ran with those which worked best, or were most popular. Frankly, any idiot can turn gold into gold. That said, Ultimates is a decent read, well crafted, well drawn and so on. But it's a cynical reworking of somebody else's imagination played for lurid, easy thrills. What is more depressing is that the source material (616 Marvel) has been consistently steered towards this ersatz version, despite the fact that the Ultiverse ran out of any creative steam a decade ago and now has not even the dubious distinction of high selling commercial success. So marvel bend over backwards to distort the original into the funhouse mirror reflection, even though the funhouse is practically closed down through lack of public interest. Wow, this is an old thread, isn't it? Been hanging around for nearly 8 years with just a wraith-like existence at best. I'd completely forgotten about my own post on it (which seems to be the rule more than the exception, mind you). But what I wrote still stands as my take on the Ultimates at this point. If I understand the use of the word correctly, I think the biggest problem with the book (and the Ultimate universe on the whole) is that it's definitively derivative. I never had a sense of how accessible it was to brand new, un-initiated readers. So much of what makes them interesting is in the comparison/contrast to how their characters have been realized in the "real" universe, you know? And if the characters aren't particularly different (Ben Grimm, for example, or Doc Doom), then what's the point of having this different continuity? I know I've pounded this drum often, but the whole magilla was never able to fully clear the "alternate universe/imaginary story" hurdle, which meant I could never get myself to fully surrender to them, regardless of how good they might be. The only book that managed to achieve that (for me) was indeed the first three years-ish of Ultimate Spider-man--- truly an excellent book. . . although still derivative, I'm afraid. It lost my faithful interest when the Gwen-clone popped up, 'cause that showed that NO lessons were being learned from the horrendous mistakes (fully admitted mistakes!) of earlier creators. Ulty Universe is still going, then? Or is it phasing out at all? HB
|
|
|
Post by Marvel Boy on Jul 11, 2013 0:00:44 GMT -5
The Ultimate Universe consists of three titles now: Ultimate Spider-Man by Bendis, with Miles Morales as Spidey. Ultimate X-Men by Brian Woods and The Ultimates, which started off with Hickman but is now being written, I think, by Joshua Falkiov.
I can see where the biggest interest in these books would be seeing the contrast between the versions instead of focusing on original concepts, but that's an inherent weakness built into the core of the reboot. That's to be expected so I really can't fault such a reaction.
Being accessible to new readers meant they didn't need to know 60+ years of continuity to understand or enjoy the story. Cap is the Super-Soldier who got frozen and thawed out, Banner and Hank were trying to replicate the serum that created him. Nowhere in Vol. 1 did I read of Dr. Erksine or that he was assassinated by a Nazi spy or anything else related to the back-story of the serum. Millar just presented the facts in a straightforward manner which works.
What became derivative was that instead of creating truly original, fresh stories, they eventually degraded into telling modern updates of classic stories with a couple of new twists. Clone Saga, Venom, Phoenix, they all eventually made it into the Ult. Universe. Miles Morales, to my knowledge, may be the first truly original Ultimate character, which should have been the purpose all along.
|
|
|
Post by tomspasic on Jul 11, 2013 4:49:05 GMT -5
What became derivative was that instead of creating truly original, fresh stories, they eventually degraded into telling modern updates of classic stories with a couple of new twists. Clone Saga, Venom, Phoenix, they all eventually made it into the Ult. Universe. Miles Morales, to my knowledge, may be the first truly original Ultimate character, which should have been the purpose all along. Because I'm oppositional, I would still argue that a character called "Spider-Man", wearing a costume derivative of that designed by Steve Ditko, with powers that overlap with the character presented by Lee/Ditko, cannot ever be considered "original". Any more than "the Superior Spider-Man" is "original" because it's somebody else in Peter's body, rather than just somebody else in the mask. Oh, and neither are Ben Reilly nor Scarlet Spider. All are merely watered-down copies desperately trying to replicate the success of the original whilst failing to realise that the success of the original was in part due to it's originality. Lastly, the "mixed race skateboarding young teen spider-person" was originated in the form of Anya Corazon, AKA Arane, AKA Spider-Girl. Yet again, Bendis merely lifts the ideas of others and somehow gets credit. I'll make this my last oppositional derailment of the Ultimates thread, I promise..
|
|