Check out this unused Bryan Hitch cover...

I've already asked and this particular site considers UTU as Ultimate continuity. But I'm still behind you on this buddy!
Click to expand...

Bendis himself said that #9 is not part of continuity, but all other UMTU issues are, so that's how we'll deal with it.
 
In Ultimate Marvel Team-Up # 14, Golog mentioned his "holiness Victor Von Doom "

On a side note: Do you think they should have made the marvel team-up's into a differant title. Personally, I think Bendis could have been safer making it something like "Ultimate Marvel Premiere" and introduce new characters without the added baggage of spidey. out of all of them I think only four have had any lasting inpact on Spidey [issue # 1, 10, 11, and 14], I beleive those especially # 10 whuld have been better of in Spidey's mainstream title.
 
UTU was worth it just for that hillarious moment in The Blockbuster arc of UXM when Spidey demands a refund from Natasha for the webshooters she stole.

However as I've said the one continuity problem (and its a very real one) is that in Ultimates #2 Tony mentions the Fantastic Four to Fury making them predate the Ultimates, but in UFF #5 we have Doctor Storm telling Johnny to leave the monster to the Ultimates. One team has to comefirst but here we have both teams at their origins referencing the other as already being in existence. Big problem. And Millar wrote (or- cowrote) both issues, so either he was being very sloppy or needlessly complicating matters (as his secret project claims to sort out all continuity problems - which is stupid as there didn't need to be any).
 
And Millar wrote (or- cowrote) both issues
Click to expand...

Although I agree completely, there is some debate as to the extent of Millar's involvement in UFF.
 
Well, could you tell me what Tony said exactly and why he even brought them up?
Click to expand...

It's from Ultimates #2 I think - Tony and Fury are talking possible team members and Tony asks about the Fantastic 4. Fury says no because of problems they're having with their neighbors or something.
 
That is such I cool cover. Why the hell didnt they use it.
 
René said:
That is such I cool cover. Why the hell didnt they use it.
Click to expand...

Prob because of the comic code. Even though marvel moved away from it they still dont want to draw attention to that fact by putting thier family superteam in some sort of controversy.

Originally the comic code cracked down on horror comics that had people being stabbed in the eyes and stuff like that. Does this compare to that? No. But if it was the first thing i thought of when i saw the cover i am sure someone at marvel thought the same thing. I believe that they have no problem putting a scene like this in a book but wouldnt put it on a cover.

Just a thought, i could be completely off.....
 
I don't think it's that as much as it's just kind of gross. Some people would just look at it and say, "Ewww." But it's not the kind of gross that makes parents try to ban comics, it's the kind of gross that draws attention, so in that regard I agree that it would have been great to use.
 
I dont even think its that gross.. its hardly graphic.. I wish they would have used it.. its an awesome cover...
 
ThatOneGuy said:
reed could stretch his actual eyeball - why bother stretching the optic nerve? if he has no internal organs does he even need optic nerves? don't tell me we've got ultimate ff continuity problems already! :wink:
Click to expand...

I don't think that counts as a "continuity" problem so much as it counts as a "scientific/superhero physics" one. In any case, if this cover was created before Ellis took over, it means it was conceptualized before Ellis ever came up with his wacky reinventions of Reed's anatomy.

Either way, there's nothing inherently wrong with Reed stretching his optic nerves to get a closer look at something. It serves a completely different function from adjusting his eyeballs to receive more light and other dimensions of visual perception and information. It's the difference between moving your face closer to your computer monitor and switching from 256 color to 32-bit color, if you get the analogy.
 
ourchair said:
I don't think that counts as a "continuity" problem so much as it counts as a "scientific/superhero physics" one. In any case, if this cover was created before Ellis took over, it means it was conceptualized before Ellis ever came up with his wacky reinventions of Reed's anatomy.

Either way, there's nothing inherently wrong with Reed stretching his optic nerves to get a closer look at something. It serves a completely different function from adjusting his eyeballs to receive more light and other dimensions of visual perception and information. It's the difference between moving your face closer to your computer monitor and switching from 256 color to 32-bit color, if you get the analogy.
Click to expand...

Good one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top