Comparing the Ultimates: Millar, Loeb, Hickman, Humphries

[Plawsky]

For starters Captain America's crazy Conservative stance, Thor's crazy Liberal "do whatever the hell I want" stance, the one-liners, and the over-the-top violence.

Okay, Cap and Thor I can almost understand. I suppose, by parodying their characters he points out the flaws that were already present (that's not to say their were flaws, I'm just trying to follow the logic). However, the method is inconsistent. With Cap, he made him even more of a dick, taking him further to the same extreme; but with Thor, he just made the character the opposite of what he had been before. One is a dumbed down version of Millar's, while the other is a complete 180-degree shift. Why wouldn't he keep things consistent to cement the idea? Even if that's what he was going for, it's hardly done "masterfully." Not only is that technique inherently flawed, but nobody seemed to have gotten it.

Really, his recognition of Thor's change (which waited over halfway through the series) seemed to validate Millar's version as a better one. The Hippie-Thor robot made fun of Thor's Old English speech. If anything, Loeb's Thor became a self-parody.

But other than Thor and Cap, I'm really not seeing anything. I guess you could throw the Pietro/Wanda relationship and Tony's alcoholism in there as well. And if you stretched, Jan and Hank's relationship, too. But it really just comes across as face-value interpretations of Millar's characters.

If the point was to deconstruct Millar's Ultimates, why was there so much new stuff thrown in that had nothing to do with that purpose? What was the point of adding Valkyrie's powers or Cap as Black Panther? And what do the one-liners and over-the-top violence have to do with anything?

In regards to your first post, I can tell you, without a shadow of a doubt, that Ultimates 3 is not disliked because it points out flaws in Millar's work. I've read all three volumes several times, and I still don't see these apparent flaws. I can see things that would stop some people from liking the books, but I see that in every comic I've ever read; that's not a flaw. If Loeb's aim was to point out Millar's flaws, he did a terrible job at it.

[wyokid]

Okay, Cap and Thor I can almost understand. I suppose, by parodying their characters he points out the flaws that were already present (that's not to say their were flaws, I'm just trying to follow the logic). However, the method is inconsistent. With Cap, he made him even more of a dick, taking him further to the same extreme; but with Thor, he just made the character the opposite of what he had been before. One is a dumbed down version of Millar's, while the other is a complete 180-degree shift. Why wouldn't he keep things consistent to cement the idea? Even if that's what he was going for, it's hardly done "masterfully." Not only is that technique inherently flawed, but nobody seemed to have gotten it.

Really, his recognition of Thor's change (which waited over halfway through the series) seemed to validate Millar's version as a better one. The Hippie-Thor robot made fun of Thor's Old English speech. If anything, Loeb's Thor became a self-parody.

But other than Thor and Cap, I'm really not seeing anything. I guess you could throw the Pietro/Wanda relationship and Tony's alcoholism in there as well. And if you stretched, Jan and Hank's relationship, too. But it really just comes across as face-value interpretations of Millar's characters.

If the point was to deconstruct Millar's Ultimates, why was there so much new stuff thrown in that had nothing to do with that purpose? What was the point of adding Valkyrie's powers or Cap as Black Panther? And what do the one-liners and over-the-top violence have to do with anything?

In regards to your first post, I can tell you, without a shadow of a doubt, that Ultimates 3 is not disliked because it points out flaws in Millar's work. I've read all three volumes several times, and I still don't see these apparent flaws. I can see things that would stop some people from liking the books, but I see that in every comic I've ever read; that's not a flaw. If Loeb's aim was to point out Millar's flaws, he did a terrible job at it.

I agree that masterfully was the wrong word.

Yep! The incest, the alcoholism, Jan and Hank. As for Thor, ignore the speech pattern Bendis gave him, Thor does whatever he wants to do because he can much like Liberals.

One-liners and over-the-top violence are part of modern comics. "That makes me the motherf-cker" is on par with "This letter stand for France".

[wyokid]

The biggest flaw Millar has is that he doesn't write heroes. Heroes are people you look up to and aspire to be like, Millar's Ultimate work has none of that.

[Samorai_black]

The biggest flaw Millar has is that he doesn't write heroes. Heroes are people you look up to and aspire to be like, Millar's Ultimate work has none of that.

But there also people too. Look at all the crap famous people do in real life and we are went to look up tomany of them, thats life.

[Robbie_Jee]

Thor a liberal? What do you mean by that? I'm pretty sure he had NO political stance. What does political agenda have to do with Thor's beliefs in equality and fairness? You're individualising people/characters into different social groups AGAIN, Wyo. C'mon man. Why do you act this way? Thor had no political agenda, he didn't see the point in siding with capitalism nor communism, he stopped police from attacking peaceful protesters, something police do ALL the time in Europe and most of the world. I expect you see that 'rebellious' don't you, for someone to try and stop such acts of violence.


I was in Clarence Park once in Bristol with a few mates of mine. My mate Alfie had his acoustic guitar. We all started singing "We all live in a fascist regime, a fascist regime, a fascist regime" and suddenly four policemen from different sides of the park ran at us and attacked us. They beat the us, blood was pouring out my head from where I had been bludgeoned. I thought they were a group of thugs, man! And yet we got attacked by our governmental soldiers simply because we were preaching things the government didn't want us to preach. It really winds me up when people like us are called "liberals" or "anarchists". We were put into a cell over night, under no charge. Nothing was documented. They didn't even take our names. And this happens all the freaking time.

[Plawsky]

Yep! The incest, the alcoholism, Jan and Hank. As for Thor, ignore the speech pattern Bendis gave him, Thor does whatever he wants to do because he can much like Liberals.

Doing whatever you want has nothing to do with being liberal. There is nothing political about Thor written by Loeb whatsoever. If anything, he's a lot more war hungry, which would push him in the other direction.

One-liners and over-the-top violence are part of modern comics. "That makes me the motherf-cker" is on par with "This letter stand for France".

Yes, and this was a modern comic. There's nothing meta about it. He just used one-liners because he was writing a modern comic. Those lines aren't deconstructing anything. I know you can claim it's all up to interpretation, but there's nothing pointing to that. Even in interviews, Loeb never mentioned anything about that. He was just writing a superhero comic.

And let's say the point WAS to point out Millar's flaws. Why is that a good thing? One of your chief complaints about Ultimate Avengers was that Millar spent the whole time writing digs at other writers. Not only is that a gross exaggeration, but even so, how is that worse than writing a book with the point of pointing out the flaws in your predecessor's work?

The biggest flaw Millar has is that he doesn't write heroes. Heroes are people you look up to and aspire to be like, Millar's Ultimate work has none of that.

And Loeb's does? Who are the heroes, the upstanding citizens in Ultimates 3? I don't think it's the reckless, borderline suicidal Hawkeye. Or the alcoholic Iron Man. Or the incestuous Magneto Twins. Or the condescending, team-abandoning Captain America. Or the war and sex crazed Thor. Or the wife beating, drug taking Hank Pym. Among the bunch, maybe only Wasp could qualify, since she at least tries to lead.

You've said before that you liked Ultimates 3 because they finally started acting like a team and like heroes, but I don't see it.

[Robbie_Jee]

The biggest flaw Millar has is that he doesn't write heroes. Heroes are people you look up to and aspire to be like, Millar's Ultimate work has none of that.

Stating that someone is 'heroic' is an objective stand point. For example if I went to war and gunned down hundreds of Arabs, I'd be a national hero to my country.

Nowadays, 'heroic' is usually referred to as brave.

'Hero' by definition is someone who fights for a cause. Your perception of how 'heroic' that may be is irrelevant to Millar being a 'bad writer' or 'a problem'. So you see, your statement holds no weight towards any qualities Millar has a writer.

A hero is someone who fights for a cause, fights for his/her country, or is the protagonist within a story. So by definition, Millar's character were in fact 'heroes'.

[wyokid]

Yes, and this was a modern comic. There's nothing meta about it. He just used one-liners because he was writing a modern comic. Those lines aren't deconstructing anything. I know you can claim it's all up to interpretation, but there's nothing pointing to that. Even in interviews, Loeb never mentioned anything about that. He was just writing a superhero comic.

It doesn't matter what Loeb SAID he was doing. Art is different in everyone's eyes.

And let's say the point WAS to point out Millar's flaws. Why is that a good thing? One of your chief complaints about Ultimate Avengers was that Millar spent the whole time writing digs at other writers. Not only is that a gross exaggeration, but even so, how is that worse than writing a book with the point of pointing out the flaws in your predecessor's work?

That was before I noticed this. Loeb shouldn't have done it and neither should Millar.

And Loeb's does?

Loeb absolutely knows how to write heroes. Spider-Man: Blue and the rest of the Marvel colors book. Batman, Hulk, etc. Millar has Superior and Superman Adventures.

[Robbie_Jee]

Clearly you misunderstand the definition of 'Hero'.

Are you saying Millar and Loeb have been immoral in their actions? What have they done wrong?

[sage6paths]

I just noticed. Plawsky you need to change the thread name to include Humphries now.

[Fizicks]

And Loeb's does? Who are the heroes, the upstanding citizens in Ultimates 3? I don't think it's the reckless, borderline suicidal Hawkeye. Or the alcoholic Iron Man. Or the incestuous Magneto Twins. Or the condescending, team-abandoning Captain America. Or the war and sex crazed Thor. Or the wife beating, drug taking Hank Pym. Among the bunch, maybe only Wasp could qualify, since she at least tries to lead.

You've said before that you liked Ultimates 3 because they finally started acting like a team and like heroes, but I don't see it.

Loeb absolutely knows how to write heroes. Spider-Man: Blue and the rest of the Marvel colors book. Batman, Hulk, etc. Millar has Superior and Superman Adventures.

Excuse me for chipping in with your discussion here, but wyokid you are clearly not adressing Plawsky's point here. We're comparing the writer's Ultimate writing- you said the biggest problem with Millar's Ultimates was that they weren't acting like heroes. Well, regardless if this is true or not, Plawsky just showed, with ample evidence, that Loeb's Ultimates are anything but heroic, and you haven't addressed that yet. Whether Loeb can write "heros" in other comics is irrelevant here, and even if he can, so what? So can Millar, as you've mentioned, in Superior and Superman Adventures. Your respense doesn't justify at all how Loeb's Ultimates are anymore heroic than Millar's, if not less.

[wyokid]

Excuse me for chipping in with your discussion here, but wyokid you are clearly not adressing Plawsky's point here. We're comparing the writer's Ultimate writing- you said the biggest problem with Millar's Ultimates was that they weren't acting like heroes. Well, regardless if this is true or not, Plawsky just showed, with ample evidence, that Loeb's Ultimates are anything but heroic, and you haven't addressed that yet. Whether Loeb can write "heros" in other comics is irrelevant here, and even if he can, so what? So can Millar, as you've mentioned, in Superior and Superman Adventures. Your respense doesn't justify at all how Loeb's Ultimates are anymore heroic than Millar's, if not less.

I was inferring with that post that they aren't.

[Robbie_Jee]

I was inferring with that post that they aren't.

But they are. Millar's characters in The Ultimates are in fact heroes. But you disagree with that definition. I wouldn't call a soldier a hero but you may. You see, calling them heroes like you are is an objective and bias opinion, not a statement that signifies the quality of the writing or the ability of the writer.

It would be fine if you were just stating your personal opinion, but you're not. You're using this information to state how the writer(s) are wrong. They are not wrong. If so, how? Are you saying that Millar was morally wrong in how he wrote the characters? I'm struggling to understand how you came to this conclusion.

[taylor51]

The point of The Ultimates 3, at least how I read it, was a deconstruction of Millar's deconstruction of modern comics. Millar attempted to deconstruct modern comics and did a very poor job of it and created a modern comic. Loeb highlights all of the first two books problems masterfully. It honestly made me realize WHY everyone hated it because it showed why the first two were flawed.

I'm sorry wyokid, but this is probably the most convoluted, bombastic thing I've ever read. I truly mean no disrespect when I say that, but really. Loeb didn't set out to deconstruct the "big bad Millar machine." It highlighted none of Ultimates I+II's flaws. You can say that those elements of deconstruction were there, but Loeb never expressed that as his intent in any shape or form. At best you've got an... interesting? take on a largely insignificant work. The idea that Loeb set out to devalue Millar's work in the eyes of the comic reading public just isn't there. Loeb was fully aware that he was standing on the shoulders of giants.

Loeb wrote Ultimates 3 in his typical style with little regard for what came before thematically. People disliked it because his Michael Bay mentality was a complete u-turn from the cerebral, character driven plots that proceeded it. You've agreed to this elsewhere on many occasions.

One-liners and over-the-top violence are part of modern comics. "That makes me the motherf-cker" is on par with "This letter stand for France".

While "That makes me the motherf-cker" may be cut from the same cloth as "This letter stand for France," Cap's line was executed infinitely better. The former exploits frat-boy potty humor to make its effect while the latter glorifies the indomitable American spirit, as shown by their refusal to back down even in the face of insurmountable odds. Sure, the latter also punks on France, but as an isolated incident all it's doing is referencing the French surrendering in WWII, a decision Cap would have had every right to resent since he had been there as it happened (I will agree that Ultimate Avengers took this too far though).

The biggest flaw Millar has is that he doesn't write heroes. Heroes are people you look up to and aspire to be like, Millar's Ultimate work has none of that.

False. Captain America's epic "your country needs you" line? The scene where Iron Man breaks down after saving the town from the Chituari ship but realizes he's the only one who can do what needs to be done? Thor pleading for a chance to let his followers escape before the super hero brawl? Quicksilver encouraging Scarlet Witch to be strong even in the face of insurmountable odds? Betty and Fury saving George W. Bush (heck, Bush not wanting to leave until the VP was okay!! Lol)? Banner showing up to defend American even though they'd just tried to kill him? Hawkeye finding the strength to go on even though his whole family had just been killed ("no such luck" is probably one of Millar/Hitch's best panels!)? The European Union coming to America's aid even under threat of nuclear duress?

Seriously, compare any of those character snippets to what we saw in the entirety of Ultimates 3, Ultimatum and New Ultimates. If Millar didn't write heroic Ultimates, Loeb CERTAINLY didn't either.

Loeb absolutely knows how to write heroes. Spider-Man: Blue and the rest of the Marvel colors book. Batman, Hulk, etc. Millar has Superior and Superman Adventures.

Your sample size was incredibly biased in Loeb's favor. You're forgetting Classic/Ultimate FF, Marvel Knights Spider-Man, his work with Wolverine and any other number of Millar written books. Loeb has also been known to write degenerate anti-heroes from time to time. At least TRY to present a neutral comparison.

[wyokid]

That's the thing about art, it's meaning is all in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure you've seen this.



Which Millar then pasts himself on the back for pulling off such a stupid thing so well the next issue.

My definition of a hero: Someone who stands up for what they believe is right without someone telling them to. Heroes do not take lives, they save them. Heroes do what they do for unselfish reasons.

I've never read Millar's Spider-Man, Wolverine is no hero, and I drink to forget his UFF run (guess I need more booze now :\).