Ultimate Comics: X-Men #11 review by Wolverine12

**DoctorOak** · 05-12-2012, 10:57 AM

This issue was kind of a waste of money, to be honest. Nothing happened in this that couldn't have featured in a single page of exposition, instead of an entire issue. There wasn't even any character development outside of John Walker doing his best Captain America impersonation - although I'm guessing that the President we (don't really) see is the new one following the latest Ultimates?

Just never at any point really feel like I was paying £3 for anything more than a few nice drawings of Nimrod.

This entire run on X-Men has been really disappointing over all. Having a big plan, and setting things in place to make an epic story is all well and good, but Spencer's played such a long, long game that we've had nearly a dozen issues and still haven't gotten to the point where we actually have an X-Men team - and almost all of the stuff he's set up won't even be touched on for over another year anyway. Might have been better if the Stryker stuff was a stronger story - but, honestly, it's really not.

**sage6paths** · 05-12-2012, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by KPhilipsen

Killing is not murder. Soldiers are not murderers. Your logic breaks down there.

I'm a pacifist so your logic is ridiculous. Killing is never justified. IMO. Why is anyone allowed to take anyone's life and call yourself civilized? Soldiers kill people of course but they live with that action for the rest of their lives even if it was self-defense or other people who have killed for self-defense. It doesn't make them evil but they still killed someone. Ok Soldiers are not murderers but I never said they were. All I said was soldiers like the Ultimates have different standard of heroism.

**Hostile_17** · 05-12-2012, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by KPhilipsen

Killing is not murder. Soldiers are not murderers. Your logic breaks down there.

Depends who they kill

Seriously though, the moraility of killing in the line of duty is a hot topic with no clear resolve as it's very subjective. Not a debate I really want to get into!

Plawsky:

Yes, I take onboard some of your counter argument there and can see where your coming from.

Rather than saying "I'm looking forward to them being more heroic", "I'm looking forward to them being more pro-active" would be more acurate. (and that go's double for the X-Men!!)

Originally Posted by DoctorOak

This issue was kind of a waste of money, to be honest. Nothing happened in this that couldn't have featured in a single page of exposition, instead of an entire issue. There wasn't even any character development outside of John Walker doing his best Captain America impersonation - although I'm guessing that the President we (don't really) see is the new one following the latest Ultimates?

Just never at any point really feel like I was paying £3 for anything more than a few nice drawings of Nimrod.

This entire run on X-Men has been really disappointing over all. Having a big plan, and setting things in place to make an epic story is all well and good, but Spencer's played such a long, long game that we've had nearly a dozen issues and still haven't gotten to the point where we actually have an X-Men team - and almost all of the stuff he's set up won't even be touched on for over another year anyway. Might have been better if the Stryker stuff was a stronger story - but, honestly, it's really not.

Yay, were back on topic!! Although I comepletely disagree

Regardless though, just wanted to point out the president we see here isn't the new one sworn in, it's the one who died in last weeks Ultimates.

These events take place slightly before that and the president in Ultimates #9 actually references this event when he says "the country is already divided" in his speech.

I agree not much happens in this issue as it was complete set-up for Divided We Fall, but I kind of wanted that instead of a load more teases about this God mystery.

Cant wait for Brain Wood to take over though and get things focused. I love Spencer's writing but I'm ready for some real momentum now!!

**wc662** · 05-12-2012, 02:27 PM

giant goofy looking sentinel is goofy looking

**Agemoi** · 05-12-2012, 03:07 PM

Im enjoying these issues as much as i possibly can, but, my god, they are far too decompressed. If I had to rank the ultimate books, xmen is easily the weakest one.

We shouldnt have to wait months upon months to purchase a trade that makes us feel like we're NOT getting somewhat cheated as customers and fans. These monthly issues are constantly underwhelming. I like where this story is ultimately heading but its moving far too slow. So slow, in fact, that I hardly ever feel theres something to talk about on these boards! >.<

Anyway, i look forward to the story coming to a head, but its getting tough to really care when we're no closer to a resolution than we were 5 months ago.

**robcastor729** · 05-12-2012, 05:36 PM

This felt like it was a set up issue for Brian Wood's run.
I guess that's ok, but I was really looking forward to what Spencer had planed.
But I do prefer Brian Wood over Nick Spencer's writing style

**KPhilipsen** · 05-12-2012, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by sage6paths

I'm a pacifist so your logic is ridiculous. Killing is never justified. IMO. Why is anyone allowed to take anyone's life and call yourself civilized? Soldiers kill people of course but they live with that action for the rest of their lives even if it was self-defense or other people who have killed for self-defense. It doesn't make them evil but they still killed someone. Ok Soldiers are not murderers but I never said they were. All I said was soldiers like the Ultimates have different standard of heroism.

It's not logical reasoning. Murder is very specifically defined as an illegal killing with malice and forethought. Soldiers are legally allowed to kill when deployed to a war zone hence a soldier killing is not murder. Pacifist or not murder means one thing and you're using the term wrong. Especially in relation to soldiers.

**sage6paths** · 05-12-2012, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by KPhilipsen

It's not logical reasoning. Murder is very specifically defined as an illegal killing with malice and forethought. Soldiers are legally allowed to kill when deployed to a war zone hence a soldier killing is not murder. Pacifist or not murder means one thing and you're using the term wrong. Especially in relation to soldiers.

You do understand I never said soldiers were murderers. Right. And you do understand I never said killing is murder. Your're putting words in my mouth. My personal opinion is that killing is never justified. You can go ahead a disagree because we all have different opinions if it makes you any happier. I said if heroes in the 616 start killing like the Punisher then they are murderers because they are not enlisted to kill legally. Except maybe for Cap but what I have been getting at is that the Ultimates are soldiers because they are a part of SHIELD. And all I am saying is that the Ultimates have a have a different brand of heroics.

**Robbie_Jee** · 05-12-2012, 08:02 PM

I agree with sag6paths that it is very difficult to justify killing another human being. And titles/words/labels such as 'murder', 'homicide' or 'acts of war' do..not..change..that. Putting it bluntly, there isn't a difference. If a soldier kills another soldier, it's no different than a gang member gunning down a rival gang member.

EDIT: Hostile_17 said it best. I quote 'Depends on who you kill.' Or rather it all depends on who your government want you to kill. Seriously, it's that simple.

And using political terminologies and/or bias human agenda to determine the value of someone's life is just bad logic. Soldiers kill people. Then they go home and get rewarded a medal or two, just because they've gunned down a few dozen of their nation's enemies. It doesn't matter what their government policies are. Soldiers kill and so do criminals. It all depends on who your government want you to kill, and that is all. A bias opinion determining the value of another life.

**KPhilipsen** · 05-12-2012, 09:03 PM

Originally Posted by Robbie_Jee

I agree with sag6paths that it is very difficult to justify killing another human being. And titles/words/labels such as 'murder', 'homicide' or 'acts of war' do..not..change..that. Putting it bluntly, there isn't a difference. If a soldier kills another soldier, it's no different than a gang member gunning down a rival gang member.

And using political terminologies and/or bias human agenda to determine the value of someone's life is just bad logic. Soldiers kill people. Then they go home and get rewarded a medal or two, just because they've gunned down a few dozen of their nation's enemies. It doesn't matter what their government policies are. Soldiers kill and so do criminals. It all depends on who your government want you to kill, and that is all. A bias opinion determining the value of another life.

I could really care less to argue morality on a comic book message board. The fact is that all murder is killing but not all killing is murder. You can't simply redefine the dictionary definition of a thing. Believe what you like as far as morality and heroics goes but soldiers are most definitely not murderers.

**Plawsky** · 05-12-2012, 11:27 PM

Originally Posted by sage6paths

A soldier's heroism is different though. Usually heroism in the comic world involves not killing a person but taking them down when they could at any point kill them. That's heroism by superheros. But if a super has the intent to kill what makes him any different from the Punisher? The Punisher can do all sorts of heroics but he is still a murderer. What about the Thunderbolts. Or Hulk. soldier's heroism is different but that doesn't make it any less heroic. They are just not superheros. like in the dark knight. "So we'll hunt him, because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight.”

Not all superheroes live by a "no-kill" code. Rarely have the Ultimates been seen actively seeking out someone and killing them; it's either for defense or retaliation. I think we can all agree that the Avengers in the recent film were heroic, but they killed people. They were also, much like the Ultimates, formed and lead by the government. So what's the difference?

Originally Posted by wyokid

A hero is someone who does what they believe is right because they believe in standing up for it, so far they are doing what they have been told to do and it just happens to be the right thing to do.

Like I said, they don't have to do anything. Captain America quit the team, and Thor has in the past been very clear about the fact that he doesn't answer to anyone. They are on the team because they believe it is the right thing to do. Fury is their leader, so they tend to follow him, but that doesn't mean they don't have any input in the situation.

As far as "someone who does what they believe is right because they believe in standing up for it," how does Thor not fit that description? Despite being asked by Tony not to go in alone, Thor goes ahead, because it's what he feels is right. He also, along with the EUSS, stayed and defended Asgard, saving his son in the process. Again, these were no one's orders.

Originally Posted by Hostile_17

Rather than saying "I'm looking forward to them being more heroic", "I'm looking forward to them being more pro-active" would be more acurate. (and that go's double for the X-Men!!)

Now that, I can understand. Though that's not what the Ultimates have ever been about really. They are primarily a defense team. They don't tend to seek out bad guys, but instead wait for them to come around. That could be an interesting change, though.

**wyokid** · 05-12-2012, 11:30 PM

Vengeance is in no way heroic. Peter went for vengeance and learned that he could have stopped his Uncle from dying. He helps people because it's the right thing to do.