Comparing the Ultimates: Millar, Loeb, Hickman, Humphries

[wyokid]

@ Wyokid, you've said you like angry destroy everything Thor. In your review of Ultimates 2 you said you don't care for the story, but Thor is going apeshit on the Ultimates beating the crap out of them.

Why do u like Loeb apeshit Thor, but not Millar apeshit Thor??

I never said I didn't like the story, it was a great story, boring, but great. Millar's Thor confuses me, Hickman's seems a tad better.

[Robbie_Jee]

But explain the plot holes first. Please.

[Wolverine12]

I never said I didn't like the story, it was a great story, boring, but great. Millar's Thor confuses me, Hickman's seems a tad better.

Ok let me rephrase, why is apeshit Millar Thor boring, but apeshit Loeb Thor not boring?

[Plawsky]

I am a very fast reader and so it dragged so much (my ADHD doesn't help either) .

If you're a fast reader, the slow plot shouldn't affect you as much.

But basically, your review boils down to "I thought it was amazing, but it was really boring." That makes absolutely no sense. If you don't like it, own up to that opinion; you don't need to toss out compliments just to please those of us who do like it. If it bored you, then it obviously wasn't well written for you.

Ultimates 3 and Ultimatum

made them more human and relatable.

How so? What made them any more relatable than they already were? And how at all was Thor more human? If anything, Loeb's characterization was that he WASN'T human. That was Loeb's whole explanation for changing his characterization, that he was no longer ashamed to hide his godliness and no longer needed to pretend to be human.

For me Ultimates 1 and Ultimates 2 had just as many plot holes as Ultimates 3 and Ultimates 3 managed to fill some of them.

I really look forward to the explanation for this one.

Believe it or not Ultimatum is just as much Bendis' fault as it is Loeb, Loeb gets the curse of being the writer.

The idea of Ultimatum, maybe. But as for that five-issue mini, that's on Loeb. All the bad dialogue, lack of emotion, plot holes, dropped subplots and out of character writing was Loeb's doing.

New Ultimates

This book is amazing. the art is beautiful and the dialogue is a perfect mix of being humorous and serious at the same time. I love this book above them all.

When was there humor in New Ultimates? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't remember it. The only thing I could think of that was meant to have some sort of humor behind it was Thor calling Loki a goat's turd, and that was probably the worst line of dialogue in any Ultimate book to date.

[wyokid]

Now for my final thoughts. Please note that this is MY opinion and I have explained it out as much as I wanted.

That's all you all are getting. I'm done. I am moving on to what I believe is healthier for the thread...

I feel as though people need to be comparing Millar and Hickman more.

So the first thing I noticed is that Hickman's Thor is actually fun He was more god and less political statement which is exactly what Millar's Thor should have been. The second thing I noticed is that Jamie Braddock was 100x better than Brian. Brian always came off as incredibly smug to me and was just an all around asshole. "I believe this is what you call secret identities" *facepalm*. Jamie gets right down to business. Next we have Tony who reminds me on why I love him "redheads, old boy always redheads" ;)

[Johnny Stooge]

The Ultimate Thor mini took place before Ultimates 1 & 2, so when you see him receive his harness and Axe-Hammer, you are witnessing his initial receiving of them... He has since been given back his godhood and no longer needs those trinkets.

And he never had the harness in Ultimate Avengers... in fact I don't think Thor ever appeared in Ultimate Avengers...

Ah thank. I don't think I was paying much attention to Ultimate Thor when I read it so that's probably why I was confused. I think the thing that confused me the most was him receiving the harness and hammer when they said he had stolen it in Ultimates 2. But I'm guessing that was Loki dickery. My fault for not paying attention.

I'm sure he appeared in Ultimate Avengers vs. New Ultimates. Tony makes the comment that he'd donate to charity if he stopped putting on that stupid accent.

So the first thing I noticed is that Hickman's Thor is actually fun He was more god and less political statement which is exactly what Millar's Thor should have been.

That's silly. Millar created Ultimate Thor. You can't say that. As the only European character on the team, Millar obviously wanted Thor to be a bit of a "hippy". This was a relevant decision because of the strong anti-US sentiment in the midst of the Bush era. Thor is a pacifist and an activist.

Loeb completely mischaracterised him. It's not up to you to decide what Ultimate Thor "should have been".

[Drz]

How so? What made them any more relatable than they already were? And how at all was Thor more human? If anything, Loeb's characterization was that he WASN'T human. That was Loeb's whole explanation for changing his characterization, that he was no longer ashamed to hide his godliness and no longer needed to pretend to be human.

I just read Greg Rucka's blog post on Superhero films, and theres one part i really wanted to share because it adds up to this whole "Loeb characterizations"

Greg Rucka makes a blog on Superhero movies:

Here’s the thing: I am sick and tired of super-heroes who aren’t super and aren’t heroes, but more, I’m sick and tired of Hollywood blaming us for their failures. I am sick and tired of hearing various Hollywood studio execs who are as disconnected from the reality of middle-American taste as Rick Perry is from Christianity excusing the poor performance of their ill-executed product by tacitly blaming you, me, and everyone else of us who didn’t pay to see their garbage. Catwoman fails? Instead of, perhaps, just perhaps, acknowledging that the movie is a piece of excrement unworthy of use as fertilizer, they conclude instead that a female lead can’t open a movie unless her name is Jolie. So now we’re not only guilty of not being willing to pay for 90 minutes of intellectual abuse, we’re all apparently sexist jerks, as well. The problem with Green Lantern’s performance at the box office is that it’s not “gritty” enough? I don’t think so.

Art – and even if that art is commercial art, produced for entertainment – feeds and is fed by the society that consumes it. So I ask you, right now, looking around you, what flavor of escapism will go down best with you? In an era of terror alerts and bipartisan dysfunction, of rising hate and blossoming intolerance, of bank failure and wide-spread, global unemployment and recession, is gritty really what we need?

Look, I like gritty. I write gritty. There is a time and a place for gritty. I’ll take my Batman gritty, thank you, and I will acknowledge that such a portrayal means that my 11 year old has to wait before he sees The Dark Knight. But if Hollywood turns out a Superman movie that I can’t take him to? They’ve done something wrong. Superman is many, many things. Gritty he is not, something that Richard Donner certainly understood.

(Pet peeve time: for the contingent out there who sneer at heroes like Superman and Wonder Woman and Captain America, those icons who still, at their core, represent selfless sacrifice for the greater good, and who justify their contempt by saying, oh, it’s so unrealistic, no one would ever be so noble… grow up. Seriously. Cynicism is not maturity, do not mistake the one for the other. If you truly cannot accept a story where someone does the right thing because it’s the right thing to do, that says far more about who you are than these characters.)

This is not an argument of era or audience sophistication. Sophistication does not negate sincerity, nor does it even deny it, as the Captain America movie proves. Sophistication demands better storytelling, clearer motivation, purer intention. “Gritty” is an apologist word in this sense, used in the place of “realism.” We don’t go to the movies for “realism.” This is why documentaries aren’t the major product in the theaters. Sophistication does not demand realism; it demands smart.

The bolded part really made me think of this discussion, so i wanted to share it with you guys.

That's all you all are getting. I'm done. I am moving on to what I believe is healthier for the thread

So 1st you try to claim Ultimates 1 & 2 have plotholes that are on top of your head, but you don't wish to write them whatsoever, huh wonder why noone else has spotted these plotholes.

[Robbie_Jee]

Quote:

For me Ultimates 1 and Ultimates 2 had just as many plot holes as Ultimates 3 and Ultimates 3 managed to fill some of them.

For me? What do you mean for you? THAT is not an opinion. It's a statement. A statement you refuse to back up. C'mon Wyokid. We're almost at the conclusion of our debate.

[wyokid]

That's silly. Millar created Ultimate Thor. You can't say that. As the only European character on the team, Millar obviously wanted Thor to be a bit of a "hippy". This was a relevant decision because of the strong anti-US sentiment in the midst of the Bush era. Thor is a pacifist and an activist.

Well I just did.

[Balfro]

I assume that Thor did steal the harness. They wouldn't just give that weapon to someone they assumed was a mental case, but it just so happened that the harness was built to work with his DNA so they couldn't use another test subject. after he stole it Loki "joined" the EDI (with trickery) and lead the brigade to hunt Thor.

[striderhirryu2]

That's all you all are getting. I'm done. I am moving on to what I believe is healthier for the thread...



So the first thing I noticed is that Hickman's Thor is actually fun He was more god and less political statement which is exactly what Millar's Thor should have been. The second thing I noticed is that Jamie Braddock was 100x better than Brian. Brian always came off as incredibly smug to me and was just an all around asshole. "I believe this is what you call secret identities" *facepalm*. Jamie gets right down to business. Next we have Tony who reminds me on why I love him "redheads, old boy always redheads" ;)

Cool making an unquantifiable statement while providing no backup and then refusing to provide said backup for some pseudo-altruistic bullshit. You have the makings of a great politician/televangelist.

So how is Hickman's Tony different from Millar's Tony and, knowing you, the same as Loeb's Tony?

[Drz]

Cool making an unquantifiable statement while providing no backup and then refusing to provide said backup for some pseudo-altruistic bullshit. You have the makings of a great politician/televangelist.

So how is Hickman's Tony different from Millar's Tony and, knowing you, the same as Loeb's Tony?

[Robbie_Jee]

No guys. First we need him to tell us about the plot holes in The Ultimates 1 and 2.

[Drz]

Seriously i cannot guess a single plothole from those books.

[striderhirryu2]

Seriously i cannot guess a single plothole from those books.

Thor's supposed to be a hippy but he's swinging a hammer-axe instead of a hammer