PREVIEW - Ultimate Comics: The Ultimates #22

[Plawsky]

Never has there been a run of Ultimates more obviously constrained by working in coordination across the line with Ultimate X-Men and for a time Ultimate Spider-Man. Humphries has also continued the part of Hickman's storyline showing the catastrophe that would result from the country's leadership being killed in one strike on Washington D.C. and brought back Thor and Hela's son Modi. And now in Humphries run we are seeing the influence of the Infinity Gems which appears to be some sort of company-wide directive considering how they are appearing in Hickman's Avengers run.

The notion that Humphries is destroying anything is rather far-fetched considering the obvious constraints he is dealing with in what he can write. It appears far more likely to me he is a transitional writer who is doing his best to follow these constraints.

That may have been the case for his first few issues, but he has been the sole writer on the book for ten issues now, which is longer than Hickman was on the book. Humphries is no longer dealing with Hickman's plots, these are his own. Sure, it's using some of the ideas that Hickman planted, but the transition cannot be an excuse anymore.

[Wolverine12]

If one thinks the Ultimates storyline, it's perfectly consistent that there was one mission in Pakistan near the Afghanistan border 9 years ago as long as it ended badly. And that's what the preview to me is communicating, that even if this mission did exist in the Ultimates real world, something went terribly wrong at the end which required the members to be put back into tubes for total reconditioning.

I believe what the Ultimates timeline is trying to communicate is not that there was nothing before 3 years ago, it's that what was not working until 3 years ago was the ability to form an effective team. The original goal was and has always been to create super soldiers in quantity, not one-offs. Weapons created in quantity can be analyzed, recalibrated, controlled. That's where the creation of mutants failed. Mutants by nature were all one-offs, and when they bred, their offspring were also unpredictable one-offs.

At this point the Ultimate Universe appears to have one type of mass production enhanced soldier, the giants, with their obvious weakness as shown in Millar's attack of the Liberators. I would be perfectly fine with a (failed) experiment far more than 3 years ago with the West Coast Ultimates who had to be put back in tubes for reconditioning.

The EU is able to produce multiple super powered beings as well as the Ultimate Reserves. Not to mention Iron Man tech could easily be replicated if Tony so desired.

Never has there been a run of Ultimates more obviously constrained by working in coordination across the line with Ultimate X-Men and for a time Ultimate Spider-Man. Humphries has also continued the part of Hickman's storyline showing the catastrophe that would result from the country's leadership being killed in one strike on Washington D.C. and brought back Thor and Hela's son Modi. And now in Humphries run we are seeing the influence of the Infinity Gems which appears to be some sort of company-wide directive considering how they are appearing in Hickman's Avengers run.

The notion that Humphries is destroying anything is rather far-fetched considering the obvious constraints he is dealing with in what he can write. It appears far more likely to me he is a transitional writer who is doing his best to follow these constraints.

DWF/UWS ended 3/4 issues ago and Humphries dialogue and story telling has not improved so we can easily dismiss that restraint and place the blame on him for poor execution. Ultimates as a book has not crossed over with either X-Men or Spiderman since then so it is clearly all on Humphries.

Your assumption that he has an "obvious" editorial mandate that has constrained him is the same thing you criticize others for, we have no definite proof that there will be some crossover based on the infinity gems. It could simply be a coincidence that both 616 and UU are using the gems at around the same time.

Even assuming you are 100% correct in that his hands have been tied in regards to story direction, that is still no excuse for the horrendous dialogue that has been in these books since the day he took over.

[SpeedofLife]

A good writer would be able to make something good story despite any restrictions placed upon them.

[jphamlore]

The EU is able to produce multiple super powered beings as well as the Ultimate Reserves. Not to mention Iron Man tech could easily be replicated if Tony so desired.



DWF/UWS ended 3/4 issues ago and Humphries dialogue and story telling has not improved so we can easily dismiss that restraint and place the blame on him for poor execution. Ultimates as a book has not crossed over with either X-Men or Spiderman since then so it is clearly all on Humphries.

Your assumption that he has an "obvious" editorial mandate that has constrained him is the same thing you criticize others for, we have no definite proof that there will be some crossover based on the infinity gems. It could simply be a coincidence that both 616 and UU are using the gems at around the same time.

Even assuming you are 100% correct in that his hands have been tied in regards to story direction, that is still no excuse for the horrendous dialogue that has been in these books since the day he took over.

Actually what I would argue is the so-called objective arguments against Humphries run have pretty much been refuted. The leaping to assumptions that some sort of continuity is being broken by the West Coast Ultimates is conclusive proof of that, when the actual issue has not been released to the general public.

Now if people would just be honest and say they they don't like what Humphries is doing for subjective emotional reasons, who could argue with that? People like what they like.

[wyokid]

It actually really upsets me that people aren't liking this because it's a blast and I feel very lonely here being the only one who is digging this :(

[jphamlore]

Story looks interesting enough, but the dialogue is still super bland. I was fine with it until Wonder Man showed up. We get it, it's the Ultimates and they're from the USA. I'm all for a patriotic book, like Millar's was, but this is getting silly.

I supposed it depends on one's definition of patriotic, but I highly doubt that since Millar is a Scot and according to his Wikipedia bio at the moment still lives there. I also doubt it because in Ultimates 2 #9 I believe Millar clearly lays out in the Liberators speech that the United States brought upon itself the attack due to the United States imperialistic use abroad of its attempted monopoly on Ultimates-like powers. And this imperialistic use was explicitly shown in the book when the United States sent the Ultimates to forcibly remove weapons of mass destruction from another country.

[jphamlore]

Well that's just the biggest load of crap I've ever had the displeasure of reading. So it turns out the West Coast Ultimates were the Ultimates 7 years before the current Ultimates started being the Ultimates?

(Never thought I'd say Ultimates so many times in one sentence)

The recap page which actually appears to advance the plot explicitly states that the West Coast Ultimates are a new set of superheroes. It did not state they were a heretofore unknown group of Ultimates who existed before the Millar Ultimates. So have no fear, nothing in the precious continuity appears to be being torn up in the preview.

[Bugs]

Maybe it's just bogus like that Ultimates #18 preview. (That dream sequence where Cap though they won against Modi and Hydra) And I really, really hope it's bogus.

[Robbie_Jee]

Actually what I would argue is the so-called objective arguments against Humphries run have pretty much been refuted. The leaping to assumptions that some sort of continuity is being broken by the West Coast Ultimates is conclusive proof of that, when the actual issue has not been released to the general public.

Now if people would just be honest and say they they don't like what Humphries is doing for subjective emotional reasons, who could argue with that? People like what they like.

You're ignoring the fact that his dialogue is atrocious and how bad his characterisation is. He doesn't get what The Ultimates is about, it feels like a Saturday morning cartoon. His writing feels incredibly unprofessional and immature. His #18.1 is one of the most dreadful comics I've ever read. I found that issue rather insulting to me as an Ultimates fan. It really makes me wonder why Marvel are hiring these sort of writers. It's a similar sort of writing style to what I used to enjoy when I was a lot younger and watched Cartoon Network on television. I could sit here all day typing out the biggest post anyone's ever seen detailing how bad each page of his writing has been on this book. The plotting, the character motivations, the character behaviours, the dialogue, everything about it is sub-par comicbook writing. His characterisation of HIS characters have NOTHING to do with the current cohesive nature of the Ultimate line. He can't even write ONE of his characters correctly. He doesn't understand the characters at all and there are numerous plot points in which he doesn't even seem to have a clue what to do with. I can see him introducing Hulk to his run during the West Coast battle and making another continuity error that contradicts the original character incentive. Suffice to say, I'm terribly worried about what he's writing with every page I turn. He's turning The Ultimates into the Power Rangers!!

[Plawsky]

Actually what I would argue is the so-called objective arguments against Humphries run have pretty much been refuted. The leaping to assumptions that some sort of continuity is being broken by the West Coast Ultimates is conclusive proof of that, when the actual issue has not been released to the general public.

Now if people would just be honest and say they they don't like what Humphries is doing for subjective emotional reasons, who could argue with that? People like what they like.

Ok, at this point it's abudantly clear that you're either not reading posts or you're just ignoring them. The continuity errors are only one aspect of complaint. The bigger issues have also been mentioned. In my case, it's dialogue. If not liking the dialogue is somehow not an honest complaint, then I'd like to know what is.

[Balfro]

The recap page which actually appears to advance the plot explicitly states that the West Coast Ultimates are a new set of superheroes. It did not state they were a heretofore unknown group of Ultimates who existed before the Millar Ultimates. So have no fear, nothing in the precious continuity appears to be being torn up in the preview.

On the contrary, we already know that Humphries has set in stone that the Ultimates have been around for 10+ years through Cassie Langs dialogue in an earlier, but equaly disappointing, issue where she states that she had an Ultimates poster on her wall in her room while growing up. So it's nothing but fair to assume that we are to take the "9 Years Ago" at face value. So even if you're correct about the preview Humphries has already succeeded in aging the team to an unrealistic age not only when compared to the other books' continuity but, more importantly, it's own.

And for the record, I was joking when I said that this was the original team of Ultimates. I was poking fun at the fact that this couldn't possibly be 9 years ago because at most it's been 4 years since the Ultimates were formed, as well as the fact that they are calling themselves the Ultimates. A new reader would take all of this at face value and assume that this were the original team which was active 7 to 5 years before the events of the first Ultimates series. So either way, be it through bad dialogue, shitty writing or confusing information, Humphries is simply unfit for his duties on this book. It's been proven for 12 consecutive issues now, and the proof lies in the fans' comments and concerns and questions.

[Morentez]

It actually really upsets me that people aren't liking this because it's a blast and I feel very lonely here being the only one who is digging this :(

I don't mean to offend here Wyo, but by my observations you always seem to like the Ultimates that the majority don't. You dislike Millar and Hickman, but adore Loeb and Humphries. That's nothing bad on you or us, just that you have completely different tastes and ideas to what Ultimates should be. Sad but not everyone can like the same thing.

[jphamlore]

Ok, at this point it's abudantly clear that you're either not reading posts or you're just ignoring them. The continuity errors are only one aspect of complaint. The bigger issues have also been mentioned. In my case, it's dialogue. If not liking the dialogue is somehow not an honest complaint, then I'd like to know what is.

Uh no, actually, I would be perfectly fine with saying in my emotional opinion, a lot of Humphries dialogue does not resonate as much as say dialogue of Bendis' would. There's a reason why Marvel assigns Bendis at the moment to crucial books such as New X-Men and now Uncanny X-Men. But I would be being honest and be saying that is my OPINION about Humphries, something which people on this board seem incapable of understanding.

[jphamlore]

Ok, at this point it's abudantly clear that you're either not reading posts or you're just ignoring them. The continuity errors are only one aspect of complaint. The bigger issues have also been mentioned. In my case, it's dialogue. If not liking the dialogue is somehow not an honest complaint, then I'd like to know what is.

And you apparently are not reading what I am writing. I just said that saying one didn't like what a writer is writing because one doesn't like how it feels emotionally, subjectively, are perfectly honest complaints.

[jphamlore]

Here's a test to see if it's possible to objectively discuss the issues of Ultimates, or whether even certain people are only pretending to be reading these issues.

How often in Humphries run was it appropriate for someone who was not working for the government to brandish or shoot a gun? How much did it help the crisis for people to run out and start acting like vigilantes even if it was supposedly in protection of their families and homes?

As far as I can tell, the biggest attempt to land an emotional punch to the reader was telling the story of the poor technical person whose family was slaughtered by looters, who for all he knows could have been his neighbors, and how that turned him into a terrorist.

As far as I can tell from what was written in the story, there were very few if any situations depicted where the possession of firearms by civilians did any good at all. The threats for the most part, whether Nimrod Sentinels or Modi using the Mind Gem, were immune from ordinary firearms. I can fairly confidently argue that from what was written in the actual story, having no guns or other offensively-weaponizable technology among the civilian population would only have helped matters.

For a contrast to how even recent Marvel can write a different story, consider the ending of Fear Itself from the next to last issue to the last where Captain America Steve Rogers tells the vigilantes to either be prepared to stand and die with him, or go home to their families but leave their guns for others to use. And Steve Rogers stands with those who remain with a gun.