But is it REALLY Ultimate...

[daglob]

An offhand statement I made in the readme file I made for the pulp hero The Spider got me to thinking. It was to the effect that, over several issues, The Spider changed from a rather prim Shadow clone into what might today be considered the "Ultimate" version of The Shadow.

But what does that mean?

In most cases, it seems to mean that the character is changed so that they are grimmer, more cynical, darker of tone and personlaity, and somehow more "realistic". I know that there is an Ultimate Superman skin out there (and a beautiful C6 skin it is), and the look is darker. But, if you take what Superman is, and mde him the Ultimate version of himself, would you really make him a dark, girtty, and cynical? Or would he be even MORE the great big boy scout with a ready grin, humorous demeanor and... hmmm... I seem to be describing Captain Marvel...

Anyway, what would other characters be if you took what they were and pushed them to their ultimate status?

[tommyboy]

Interesting.
As it stands, "Ultimate" in superhero comics has come to mean "wretched, denuded knock-off, masquerading as edgy and adult".
So basically take an existing character, for this instance we'll use Tarzan. Then have someone far less talented than the creator or even regular producer of Tarzan material redesign his look and story and personality. In this case, that will be me.
Ultimate Tarzan wears a leather trenchcoat and sports lots of pouches. He uses guns, lots of guns. He kills people and animals. And insects. And then eats them, whilst kicking other people and animals and insects in the groin. He says "Oy" and "Kvetch" a lot. He is 17. He was raised by animals, or something....I don't want to get bogged down in all that continuity and detail. I just want to re-use a recognizable name to sell my shockingly inferior product, because I could never, in a million years, create anything original worth a demn.
And I will be taking every Tarzan story ever and using those as the basis of my "own" Ultimate Tarzan stories. But mine will be six times as long, and rubbish.

[cmdrkoenig67]

LMAO! 

[thanoson]

No, you forgot the cool part. Tarzan was raised by animals, "in the future." He took a time machine back to present day to save us from a grave threat. Ooh, they can be space possums that followed him through time.

Street thug- "Dude, who are you?"
Tarzan- after striking a match to light his cigar, "I'm Tarzan, thrall! And you're dead." Blam Blam Blam

[tommyboy]

No, you forgot the cool part. Tarzan was raised by animals, "in the future." He took a time machine back to present day to save us from a grave threat. Ooh, they can be space possums that followed him through time.

Street thug- "Dude, who are you?"
Tarzan- after striking a match to light his cigar, "I'm Tarzan, thrall! And you're dead." Blam Blam Blam

This, I like.
So it's now part of the Legend of Ultimate Tarzan!

[lugaru]

I see "ultimate" as "taken to it's ultimate conclussion". For me this means strip away all the steps we have taken to get to where we want to be, and just re-boot him there. The best example of an "ultimate" dc character is Batman from the two most recent movies... forget about decades of continuity and DKR and all that... this is starting again from scratch with the character defined as how we like him in today.

Then again ultimate also means alternative, the chance to go in and sway things in another direction. Take for example Captain America... he is revived in the here and now and his attitude reflects that of a current soldier instead of somebody who was around for the last two decades. I really love ultimate captain america and I think he really complements 616 cap, I get both sides nicely. Now the punisher has had an ultimate treatment as well... in mainstream marvel (not MAX) they have said "forget vietnam... Frank Castle is a soldier who did dark things and now fights criminals, the history does not matter, it is the character".

Ultimate Superman would be All Star Superman... we know that we love him as a puzzle solver, as an assimilated alien, as an icon who is still very much alive... so roll up decades of deconstructing the character and bam, you instantly have an almost rebooted supes that gets to the core of the character without worrying about how many times he has battled Lex Luthor or how many times he has saved the planet. But if you are of the mentality that ultimate = dark then check out Hyperion in supreme power, easily the most believable and scary superman I've seen.

The problem with ultimates? You can start again from scratch a dozen times but every decade our collective definition of a character will change and that reboot will have painted itself into a corner by generating 10 years worth of toxic continuity. You know, ultimate spidey should be getting married and ultimate x-men should have completed their dream and so on... it adds up quickly given whow comics are done these days.

[murs47]

I thought "Ultimate" was just a more attractive way of saying "Re-Imagined." With kids being the #1 consumer (or the main cause for it) do you honestly believe a book with title "Re-Imagined Avengers" would appeal to them? I sure don't. I think we're all under the impression that Ultimate means dark, gritty, excessively violent, sexual, cynical thanks to Millar's Ultimate run. But, if you look at Bendis' Ultimate Spidey, you'll see it's a whole different animal compared to Millar's Ultimates.

[BlueBard]

The only reason "reboots" are seen as "evil" is because they've been done so badly so often.  Do them right and do them sparingly and nobody but the most rabid fanboys would really mind. 

A lot of the more extreme reboots should have been done as limited "What-If?" storylines and again, nobody would mind ... Nothing says you -must- tie alternate continuities together and attempts to do that have contributed to the whole bad reboot mess.

As far as the whole dark and edgy trend goes... Somebody did a good job of a reboot/alternate storyline, it sold like gangbusters, and everyone jumped on the bandwagon.  Add in the same trend that occurred in the movie industry, and it became self-perpetuating.  I leave it to the experts to speculate on what really kicked it off.

I think that Ultimate characters should capture the basic essence of the characters, retell the best storylines in a fresh way, and set up new storylines while dropping off a lot of the nonsense that got written over time.  I'd be a Spidey fan all over again if they'd simply lose some of the worst history and -really- start over.  No clones, no symbiotes, no mystic tie-ins, no unmasking, no Iron-Spidey, and especially no BND.

[Previsionary]

I think that Ultimate characters should capture the basic essence of the characters, retell the best storylines in a fresh way, and set up new storylines while dropping off a lot of the nonsense that got written over time.  I'd be a Spidey fan all over again if they'd simply lose some of the worst history and -really- start over.  No clones, no symbiotes, no mystic tie-ins, no unmasking, no Iron-Spidey, and especially no BND.

Sounds a lot like Ultimate Spider-man minus the bold parts which both came later in the run and weren't all that bad. Perhaps someone needs to go browse the USM: Ultimate Collection volume 1 and read the first 12 issues.

[Podmark]

To me the essence of the Ultimates line was modern retellings of Marvel's characters.
I usually liked to use the sentence "what would it be like if super heroes started popping up in today's world?" and then go from there. But that's not really how all the titles did it, and unfortunately Miller's Ultimates seems to have become more the rule than just one of the titles.

[tommyboy]

To me the essence of the Ultimates line was modern retellings of Marvel's characters.
I usually liked to use the sentence "what would it be like if super heroes started popping up in today's world?" and then go from there. But that's not really how all the titles did it, and unfortunately Miller's Ultimates seems to have become more the rule than just one of the titles.

Given the 616's "rolling continuity" (ie, Tony Stark got shrapnelled in Afghanistan now, not Vietnam, and all origins are always 5-7 years ago, no matter what the date), even yet still more "modern" retellings are redundant. Effectively, they are always doing "what if superheroes popped up in the modern world already. 
And the Ulti-verse now has almost as much continuital (TM tommyboy 2009) baggage as 616 did when they decided new readers couldn't handle it anymore.
Personally, I wish they had finished the Ulti-verse off, and then started afresh with a new Uber-verse, with Uber-Spider-man etc.

[Podmark]

To me the essence of the Ultimates line was modern retellings of Marvel's characters.
I usually liked to use the sentence "what would it be like if super heroes started popping up in today's world?" and then go from there. But that's not really how all the titles did it, and unfortunately Miller's Ultimates seems to have become more the rule than just one of the titles.

Given the 616's "rolling continuity" (ie, Tony Stark got shrapnelled in Afghanistan now, not Vietnam, and all origins are always 5-7 years ago, no matter what the date), even yet still more "modern" retellings are redundant. Effectively, they are always doing "what if superheroes popped up in the modern world already. 
And the Ulti-verse now has almost as much continuital (TM tommyboy 2009) baggage as 616 did when they decided new readers couldn't handle it anymore.
Personally, I wish they had finished the Ulti-verse off, and then started afresh with a new Uber-verse, with Uber-Spider-man etc.

The rolling continuity doesn't really count as the key element to the idea was that the stories were starting fresh. But the continuity baggage is a serious issue. Still I'm of the opinion that as long as the books sell and you have writers with worthwhile ideas that fit the books style/mandate then they should continue (I'm of the opinion that Loeb's work did not fit Ultimates style/mandate). But the Ultimate Comics should be kept small and only have stories that are truly worth it (the Daredevil and Electra minis, Ultimate Marvel Team-Up and Iron Man series all weren't worth doing to me).

[BentonGrey]

To me, the "Ultimate" versions of the characters would look a lot more like Marvel Adventures than the Ultimates titles.  While not always written as well, or with as much depth as I might like, they are all about just telling stories about characters boiled down to their essence.  As far as DC goes, I'd say it would look like the DCUG....that was why I started the project in the first place.   To me, the idea of the "ultimate" version of a character is what others have said, the character brought down to their most essential elements.

[BlueBard]

I think that Ultimate characters should capture the basic essence of the characters, retell the best storylines in a fresh way, and set up new storylines while dropping off a lot of the nonsense that got written over time.  I'd be a Spidey fan all over again if they'd simply lose some of the worst history and -really- start over.  No clones, no symbiotes, no mystic tie-ins, no unmasking, no Iron-Spidey, and especially no BND.

Sounds a lot like Ultimate Spider-man minus the bold parts which both came later in the run and weren't all that bad. Perhaps someone needs to go browse the USM: Ultimate Collection volume 1 and read the first 12 issues.

I did read some of those and liked how it was handled up to a point.  But they always gotta mess something up.  For example, I hated the Ultimate Green Goblin because Gobby made no sense to me in that context.  (Serum mixed with spider venom turns Peter into Spider-Man... same serum turns Osborne into fire-projecting demonic mutant...) 

That was my real problem with the Ultimate line... they changed things that didn't need changing in ways that really didn't work well and left in some of the drek that did need changing.  And of course some of the stories in the Ultimate line were just plain sick, prime example being Hank Pym's abuse of Janet and the way it was portrayed.  Yes, we understand that Hank Pym has always been messed up in either continuity... but so-called Good Guys just don't do those kinds of things.

That's the kind of stuff that Ultimately turned me off on Marvel.

[daglob]

Some Ultimate titles make me think they were written by one of the "villains" from a Steve Ditko story.

[DrMike2000]

The Ultimates as written by Millar were never intended to be Good Guys with capital G's, BlueBard.

That's part of what "Ultimate" means in this context I guess, the characters are flawed in a rather grimy way. Stan Lee introduced the ideas of character flaws of a certain extent and nature into his characters - the bickering FF, Spidey beset by his day-to-day money and family worries. Somewhere along the line superheroes with even nastier messier problems got introduced, maybe with Watchmen, maybe 2000AD? Millar wasn't really doing anything new here, other than telling this kind of darker story with some Marvel properties we normally associate with a brighter simpler style.

In his defence (their defence because Hitch was involved too) I'd say the abusive relationship between Wasp and Giant Man was handled really well. Neither party was painted as blame free, there was nothing gratuitous or salacious about it, the whole thing was intentionally emotionally messy.

Personally, I'd rather read All-Star Superman any day. I find the idea of plumbing the darker recesses of the human experience with characters who dress up in bright costumes, do impossible things and have bold code names a little bit silly sometimes. But I have to admit that Millar identified his target audience, pitched his product to them and hit the mark here. And all the bits with Thor and Loki were awesome!

[Figure Fan]

Yeah, I really enjoyed Ultimates 1 and 2. Ultimate X-Men was kind of interesting. The rest..ehh.

[AfghanAnt]

Loeb's Ultimates (and his Marvel work in general) has always been convoluted, messy, and over-the-top (in a bad way). I hated what he did to the Ultimate universe and honestly I am going to dislike anything that Millar write on Ultimate Avengers. Hawkeye still looks silly, random characters are eaten or worse, and  over all it lacks the real-world appeal anymore.

[Podmark]

Loeb Ultimate (and his Marvel work in general) has always been convoluted, messy, and over-the-top (in a bad way). I hated what he did to the Ultimate universe and honestly I am going to dislike anything that Millar write on Ultimate Avengers. Hawkeye still looks silly, random characters are eaten or worse, and  over all it lacks the real-world appeal anymore.

I'm still hoping Miller can pull it together. I really liked Ultimates 1 and 2.

[AfghanAnt]

Loeb Ultimate (and his Marvel work in general) has always been convoluted, messy, and over-the-top (in a bad way). I hated what he did to the Ultimate universe and honestly I am going to dislike anything that Millar write on Ultimate Avengers. Hawkeye still looks silly, random characters are eaten or worse, and  over all it lacks the real-world appeal anymore.

I'm still hoping Miller can pull it together. I really liked Ultimates 1 and 2.

Me too. I actually have both of the number 1 issues hanging up in my office but I really what has been done. Characters and concepts were ticked on by Loeb and now it feels like the Awesome universe to me (before and after Moore).