At first I planned to write a "serious" post about Islam and how it's being distorted by the sickos who got killed trying to bust out of jail, but given the possible geo-political implications of the content of such a post, I'd rather hold off on a topic like that until I've arranged my thoughts a little better. Some of my posts may have betrayed the fact that I tend to write on the fly.
I've decided to stick to an old favorite: comic books. To anyone currently following mainstream comics, the title of the post should explain itself. To those not so informed, I can summarize the Ultimate universe briefly enough:
In 1999, Sony Pictures Entertainment finally broke the Macedonian Knot of legal problems that had kept Spider-Man off the big screen for close to 20 years.
In 2000, the powers-that-be at Marvel decided that to help usher in the web-slinger's long-awaited movie, it would be necessary to launch a new Spider-Man series unfettered by 40 years of continuity and all that this implied (like the fact that Spider-Man was married).
And thus, the Ultimate Universe was born. Only Marvel decided to adopt the same policy with the X-Men, the Fantastic Four and the Avengers.
Saleswise, the Ultimate line of books appears to have been one of Marvel's better ideas. With a few exceptions these books find themselves consistent top-sellers. Self-styled comic-book critics like them, and so do the folks at Wizard, so everybody's happy, right?
Well, not everybody.
A friend of mine once said that I loathe the Ultimate Universe due to my being a Marvel purist. Well, for one thing I still buy Ultimates, which, aside from brilliantly scripted and drawn, is like reading an editorial on Bush's America with pretty pictures, but for another thing I don't necessarily think it's that simple.
By rebooting the Marvel Universe, "Ultimate" style, the executives at Marvel appear to believe that there is no way to tell fresh, compelling stories with the Marvel characters as they are. Ironically enough, Marvel disproved this when they hired "Babylon 5" creator J. Michael Straczynski to write the Amazing Spider-Man less than a year later. The guy stirred up phenomenal interest in the book and churned out almost three years of solid storytelling... WITHOUT rebooting Spider-Man's origin.
As a matter of fact, I rather HATE how deliberately Ultimate Spider-Man writer Brian Michael Bendis tries so damned hard to make Peter Parker and his supporting cast sound "hip." I also hated Mark Bagley's redesign, which at first glance seems like a deliberate effort to make Peter Parker look like Harry Potter.
I think it's worth noting that Alvin Sargent, the 73-year-old writer of both Spider-Man movies did not saddle Peter Parker with such pretension. His Peter Parker has more in common with Stan Lee's scripts than those of any Spider-writer of the last twenty years or so, and yet people empathized with him utterly.
For me, Ultimate Spider-Man exemplifies what is wrong with the whole "Ultimate" concept. It feels like a total cop-out. Rather than worry about creating new characters or telling new stories, the editorial directive over at the Ultimate books seems to be "okay, which mainstream Marvel character can we ultimatize now?" USM is, with few exceptions, a virtual parade of "reimagined" characters, and Bendis' one attempt to create a new character in that series (some hippie-looking guy named Geldhoff) has left a bad taste in the mouths of fans and Marvel EIC Joe Quesada alike.
Depressingly enough, DC comics, whose books I don't really care for but who I respected nonetheless for attempting a different approach to selling their product (like getting top-grade creators to do their books), finally capitulated just recently and will soon offer "Ultimate" versions of flagship characters like Batman and Superman. One would think that the phenomenal success of "Identity Crisis" which did not involve reboots or Jim Lee but instead a compelling, if slightly controversial story, would have taught them that they still have what it takes to sell books without resorting to gimmickry. To justify this, they're attempting to clothe their books with the pretension that "this is not Ultimate DC, we're just telling stories in their purest form." The idea is the same: CONTINUITY FREE STORYTELLING.
I think the worst implication of the success of the "Ultimate approach" is that it seems to rather strongly imply that comic book writers and artists are at the end of their creative ropes. Have we really run out of powers, or characters, or situations to depict? God, I hope not.
Original continuity CAN rule, contrary to what some comic company executives seem to believe. One need only look at the aforementioned Identity Crisis, Astonishing X-Men, Brian Bendis' New Avengers, and Mark Millar's Spider-Man and Wolverine books. These work within the context of established continuity but still manage to capture the fans' imagination.
By the way, if anyone can tell me how the original Marvel continuity came to be referred to as "616" I'd be much obliged.
6 comments:
Harlan Ellison once ranted about how the current cultural climate is wrongfully obsessed with newness. It's all about what's the latest upgrade, what's the buzz, what's the fad of the nanosecond? When, really, anything you haven't read or seen or heard before, whether it's a Marvel comic from the 70s or a Beatles record or a Hitchcock film, is potentially new.
The Ultimate line is a symptom of that , I think. At the risk of oversimplifying things, I think it's just marketing to drum up mostly crossover interest for titles that already exist by putting old wine in new bottles.
I really don't know if it serves its purpose and I personally don't care for most of the titles but one can only hope that the folly will yield a good comic here and there, and I think it does - - -Ultimates, Ultimate Nightmare & upcoming Secret - - -and will - - - , All Stars Batman and Superman.
Of course, what merits these books possess have little to do with what hip new line they umbrella under but with those old, obsolete criterion of good comics from time it began - - - who's writing and who's drawing.
Excuse the long comment.
Cheers. :)
A good thing about USM and Ultimate X-Men was that it helped Bendis and Millar, respectively , earn the "street cred" that eventually got them gigs on mainstream Marvel books. And I will concede that "Ultimates" could not have been done in mainstream Marvel continuity.
Aye. That's a kickass title.
I'm with you on most of the rest of the Ultimate line, though, in that I tend to skip it. Just not that interested, I guess.
Here's a question for you guys: does CONTINUITY rank so high indeed?
I ask this intellectual question as I don't really collect comics. I do admit I've always liked the DC's Elseworld comics.
After all, imagination is supposedly unlimited so why give it limits to begin with? It's not as if the continuity-faithful comic books themselves have been cancelled. (I presume they haven't been?)
I still remember the number of re-starts of Superman, including this gigantic ish I read wherein all of Superman's friends and foes got together for a big smackdown at the Fortress of Solitude.
I had a much longer answer to your question written down, but I didn't want to meander. The general consensus among the creative community seems to be that continuity is good for so long as it helps tell good stories. If not, it can be bent every now and again.
After all, if one is too fastidious about continuity, even the most putrid stories become part of the mythos.
Post a Comment