The Failure of Marvel's Ultimate Line
Well, now so much the failure of the Ultimate line as its gradual change to everything else.
I got into comics late. When I decided I wanted to start reading comics, I did some research, and I talked to the owner of a shop near me. One of the lines he suggested was Ultimate, which was as he put it, an updating of some Marvel concepts. I picked up a rerelease of the first Ultimate Spider-Man (Bendis), and the Ultimate X-Men (Millar) and enjoyed them immensely. I have fairly steadily kept on with all the Ultimate line (save the shitty Ultimate Adventures) for the most part. But what I started to notice is that the Ultimate line is not doing what it should be doing.
As I said, I did some research. Now, for the life of me, I cannot find the quote, but someone from Marvel (possibly Jemas) described the Ultimate line as a retelling of Marvel's core concepts stripped to the bare essentials without all the ponderous history of the last 30 years or so. The Ultimate line was to tell the core concept for the modern age. Note the word concept, rather than story.
In my mind, the Ultimate line shouldn't concern itself with retelling the stories of Marvel comics past. It shouldn't retell the Phoenix saga, the Clone Saga, the Twelve, the Kree/Skrull War, no matter how seminal or high selling these stories were. If Marvel really wants to do that, they already have their Essential reprints, and the Marvel Age line. But instead, they should tell the concepts.
But what are the concepts? Well, let's look at Spider-Man. To me, the core concept is that Spider-Man is about a nerd and a loser, who gains superpowers that end up making his life more difficult than before. He realizes that with these powers, he gains a responsibility to use them for good ("with great power comes great responsibility"). Note that nowhere did I mention that these were Spider powers, though with a name like Spider-Man, that is implied. Hell, I don't mention that the powers come from a radioactive spider. That right there is about as bare bones as you can get. And it is pretty bloody timeless. Now, if you want to have go a little wider on the essentials, you should realize that superpowers is a metaphor for puberty and growing up. You should realize that the radioactive spider of the 60's encapsulates the nuclear fear of that time. These concepts, especially nuclear fear, are not quite so timeless. So, how does one update these? Well, in Bendis's case, he substituted "nuclear" with "genetically engineered," and threw in a dose of government-industrial conspiracy. Indeed, I feel that is a pretty acurate update of those concepts.
But these concepts could be used to describe almost any character that starts as a dweeb and gets powers. What makes Spider-Man Spider-Man? Well, the great power/great responsibility side is part of it. As is the fact that Peter Parker's beloved father figure dies due to his inaction, causing Peter to feel great guilt.
But still, I mentioned nothing really of characters. As seminal as he is, Green Goblin is not central to the Spider-Man concept. Not as Norman Osborn, father of Peter's best friend and somewhat father figure, not as Green Goblin, the cackling demon of Peter's nightmares. Nor is characters such as Doc Ock, or the rest central. Sure, they are great characters (some of them at least), sure they can be interesting, but they have nothing to do with the idea of a dweeb with powers. And for the Ultimate line, not only are they unnecessary, maybe they shouldn't be included at all.
As I see it, there are certain levels of essentials (I know, that sort of goes against the definition). They are, as follows:
1. The bare bones of the character. For Spider-Man, this would be that "Spider-Man is about a nerd and a loser, who gains superpowers that end up making his life more difficult than before."
2. The character motivations and details. This would include all the great power/responsibility arguments, the spider-powers themselves, and the loss of a father figure due to inaction. I would also include in this the superpowers as puberty comparison.
3. Surrounding characters and relations. This would include your Aunt May's, Gwen Stacy's, MJ's, and major villains. But that does not mean some minor characters that an author pulls up for those who can spot it.
4. The Seminal Stories. This would include things like the Death of Gwen Stacy. I would disclude the way Peter gets his powers, or the death of Uncle Ben, as these go towards number two, character motivation and details.
That's it, really. Now let's look at X-Men for a moment, using the same system.
1. A group are feared and hated, but despite this they try to gain acceptance and protect themselves and the world at large.
2. This group is made up of mutants, homo superior, possibly the next step in evolution. Usually at the time of puberty, powers manifest, marking the children as mutants, and not human. They seek to protect the world and the mutants.
2A. Now, I also want to add that the group is a school, led by a teacher figure (Xavier). I didn't include this directly in two, because I feel that it is not the same level of concept, but it does not fit in the other characters.
3. The mutant hating public. Magneto and the Brotherhood, an anti-organization that also seeks to protect mutants, but at the expense of humans.
4. Phoenix Saga, Inferno, basically anything Chris Claremont wrote (though I personally find most of it dull and poorly done, save God Saves, Man Kills).
Now, I personally believe that the Ultimate line should focus almost solely on numbers one and two. That is the core that Ultimate should seek to preserve, update, and retell. Number four is right out, unnecessary to the core. But number three is problematic. Is Aunt May core to Spider-Man (I say yes). Is Gwen Stacy (no, and certainly not the way she was used previously, in which Mary Jane took Gwen Stacy's position, and Gwen Mary's)? Is Charles Xavier core (yes)? Is the fact that he has psychic powers important (not necessarily)? And the same goes for Magneto. What about Norman Osborn, Doc Ock, JJJ, Toad, Blob, Scarlet Witch, Cyclops, Logan, Jean Grey, etc. None of these characters are important. They are great characters when used well, to be sure, but they are not necessary. Any of the original mutants could just as easily be different mutants (and Ultimate X-Men did have a different starting line up than the book that inspired it). It is not important that Cyclops exists, any other mutant could fill the uptight leader position, or even a different charismatic leader position. Peter Parker could work in a law office, a bank, or as a stevedore rather than as a photographer (or in Ultimate, web designer). This is why I do not feel that these characters go to the core of the story.
More troubling, and for the entire Ultimate line, is that these characters, however new, bring a certain history. If Ultimate Wolverine was written as a happy-go-lucky guy who had to stop his career as a circus clown because his claws kept popping his balloon animals, people would wonder what the hell was going on. And from the first time Gwen Stacy, who didn't wonder when and how she was going to get killed off (spoiler, sorry). Because Wolverine exists as the mysterious loner, and Gwen Stacy is immortalized as the one that Spider-Man could not save. Never mind that Gwen Stacy's death was so huge in the 616 Universe because she was Peter Parker's love, and readers had gotten close to her over many years, rather than just a bit of time as the sister-figure she became in the Ultimate Universe. Her Ultimate death meant nothing to me, because she did not hold the same high position that she did before.
Other writers are noticing this too. Brian K Vaughn's run so far on Ultimate X-Men has worked more on the idea that readers have knowledge of these characters from their 616 origins (which is the exact opposite of what should be happenin). The Mr. Sinister as a stuttering gangster and Apocalypse as a doll made up of household items is only funny (as it is intended to be) if you know what these characters are like in 616. This nullifies the point of the Ultimate Universe.
While I liked Millar's handling of the Phoenix saga (something I have never been fond of), or Bendis's Kraven (as a hilarious Stever Irwin reality TV character), none of these are important in Ultimate.
That is not to say that writer's cannot use these stories, I just wish they didn't. Ultimate storylines should be new, and not be related to old storylines from 616. Try new characters that have never been seen before (not Geldoff though, that was a poor attempt), rather than just reusing old characters.
More on this later.
I got into comics late. When I decided I wanted to start reading comics, I did some research, and I talked to the owner of a shop near me. One of the lines he suggested was Ultimate, which was as he put it, an updating of some Marvel concepts. I picked up a rerelease of the first Ultimate Spider-Man (Bendis), and the Ultimate X-Men (Millar) and enjoyed them immensely. I have fairly steadily kept on with all the Ultimate line (save the shitty Ultimate Adventures) for the most part. But what I started to notice is that the Ultimate line is not doing what it should be doing.
As I said, I did some research. Now, for the life of me, I cannot find the quote, but someone from Marvel (possibly Jemas) described the Ultimate line as a retelling of Marvel's core concepts stripped to the bare essentials without all the ponderous history of the last 30 years or so. The Ultimate line was to tell the core concept for the modern age. Note the word concept, rather than story.
In my mind, the Ultimate line shouldn't concern itself with retelling the stories of Marvel comics past. It shouldn't retell the Phoenix saga, the Clone Saga, the Twelve, the Kree/Skrull War, no matter how seminal or high selling these stories were. If Marvel really wants to do that, they already have their Essential reprints, and the Marvel Age line. But instead, they should tell the concepts.
But what are the concepts? Well, let's look at Spider-Man. To me, the core concept is that Spider-Man is about a nerd and a loser, who gains superpowers that end up making his life more difficult than before. He realizes that with these powers, he gains a responsibility to use them for good ("with great power comes great responsibility"). Note that nowhere did I mention that these were Spider powers, though with a name like Spider-Man, that is implied. Hell, I don't mention that the powers come from a radioactive spider. That right there is about as bare bones as you can get. And it is pretty bloody timeless. Now, if you want to have go a little wider on the essentials, you should realize that superpowers is a metaphor for puberty and growing up. You should realize that the radioactive spider of the 60's encapsulates the nuclear fear of that time. These concepts, especially nuclear fear, are not quite so timeless. So, how does one update these? Well, in Bendis's case, he substituted "nuclear" with "genetically engineered," and threw in a dose of government-industrial conspiracy. Indeed, I feel that is a pretty acurate update of those concepts.
But these concepts could be used to describe almost any character that starts as a dweeb and gets powers. What makes Spider-Man Spider-Man? Well, the great power/great responsibility side is part of it. As is the fact that Peter Parker's beloved father figure dies due to his inaction, causing Peter to feel great guilt.
But still, I mentioned nothing really of characters. As seminal as he is, Green Goblin is not central to the Spider-Man concept. Not as Norman Osborn, father of Peter's best friend and somewhat father figure, not as Green Goblin, the cackling demon of Peter's nightmares. Nor is characters such as Doc Ock, or the rest central. Sure, they are great characters (some of them at least), sure they can be interesting, but they have nothing to do with the idea of a dweeb with powers. And for the Ultimate line, not only are they unnecessary, maybe they shouldn't be included at all.
As I see it, there are certain levels of essentials (I know, that sort of goes against the definition). They are, as follows:
1. The bare bones of the character. For Spider-Man, this would be that "Spider-Man is about a nerd and a loser, who gains superpowers that end up making his life more difficult than before."
2. The character motivations and details. This would include all the great power/responsibility arguments, the spider-powers themselves, and the loss of a father figure due to inaction. I would also include in this the superpowers as puberty comparison.
3. Surrounding characters and relations. This would include your Aunt May's, Gwen Stacy's, MJ's, and major villains. But that does not mean some minor characters that an author pulls up for those who can spot it.
4. The Seminal Stories. This would include things like the Death of Gwen Stacy. I would disclude the way Peter gets his powers, or the death of Uncle Ben, as these go towards number two, character motivation and details.
That's it, really. Now let's look at X-Men for a moment, using the same system.
1. A group are feared and hated, but despite this they try to gain acceptance and protect themselves and the world at large.
2. This group is made up of mutants, homo superior, possibly the next step in evolution. Usually at the time of puberty, powers manifest, marking the children as mutants, and not human. They seek to protect the world and the mutants.
2A. Now, I also want to add that the group is a school, led by a teacher figure (Xavier). I didn't include this directly in two, because I feel that it is not the same level of concept, but it does not fit in the other characters.
3. The mutant hating public. Magneto and the Brotherhood, an anti-organization that also seeks to protect mutants, but at the expense of humans.
4. Phoenix Saga, Inferno, basically anything Chris Claremont wrote (though I personally find most of it dull and poorly done, save God Saves, Man Kills).
Now, I personally believe that the Ultimate line should focus almost solely on numbers one and two. That is the core that Ultimate should seek to preserve, update, and retell. Number four is right out, unnecessary to the core. But number three is problematic. Is Aunt May core to Spider-Man (I say yes). Is Gwen Stacy (no, and certainly not the way she was used previously, in which Mary Jane took Gwen Stacy's position, and Gwen Mary's)? Is Charles Xavier core (yes)? Is the fact that he has psychic powers important (not necessarily)? And the same goes for Magneto. What about Norman Osborn, Doc Ock, JJJ, Toad, Blob, Scarlet Witch, Cyclops, Logan, Jean Grey, etc. None of these characters are important. They are great characters when used well, to be sure, but they are not necessary. Any of the original mutants could just as easily be different mutants (and Ultimate X-Men did have a different starting line up than the book that inspired it). It is not important that Cyclops exists, any other mutant could fill the uptight leader position, or even a different charismatic leader position. Peter Parker could work in a law office, a bank, or as a stevedore rather than as a photographer (or in Ultimate, web designer). This is why I do not feel that these characters go to the core of the story.
More troubling, and for the entire Ultimate line, is that these characters, however new, bring a certain history. If Ultimate Wolverine was written as a happy-go-lucky guy who had to stop his career as a circus clown because his claws kept popping his balloon animals, people would wonder what the hell was going on. And from the first time Gwen Stacy, who didn't wonder when and how she was going to get killed off (spoiler, sorry). Because Wolverine exists as the mysterious loner, and Gwen Stacy is immortalized as the one that Spider-Man could not save. Never mind that Gwen Stacy's death was so huge in the 616 Universe because she was Peter Parker's love, and readers had gotten close to her over many years, rather than just a bit of time as the sister-figure she became in the Ultimate Universe. Her Ultimate death meant nothing to me, because she did not hold the same high position that she did before.
Other writers are noticing this too. Brian K Vaughn's run so far on Ultimate X-Men has worked more on the idea that readers have knowledge of these characters from their 616 origins (which is the exact opposite of what should be happenin). The Mr. Sinister as a stuttering gangster and Apocalypse as a doll made up of household items is only funny (as it is intended to be) if you know what these characters are like in 616. This nullifies the point of the Ultimate Universe.
While I liked Millar's handling of the Phoenix saga (something I have never been fond of), or Bendis's Kraven (as a hilarious Stever Irwin reality TV character), none of these are important in Ultimate.
That is not to say that writer's cannot use these stories, I just wish they didn't. Ultimate storylines should be new, and not be related to old storylines from 616. Try new characters that have never been seen before (not Geldoff though, that was a poor attempt), rather than just reusing old characters.
posted by X-Himy at 5:21 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home