Ultimates V2 #9 discussion (SPOILERS!!)

Random said:
The thing is there are hints, little hints, but their still hints. The biggest hint hes' red. But really didnt someone say Red skull was going to appear in Ultimates 2?
Click to expand...

Yes, he was confirmed as appearing in Ultimates 2, E is merely saying he's not sure that the Colonel character is meant to be Red Skull, who could be appearing later on.

Also I recall that 616 Red Skull was meant to be a clone of cap, so why not ultimize him as his double. And we already saw the red guardian in Ultimate Nightmare. Im just saying their is enough to reffer to be able him as the Red Skull.
Click to expand...

Again, it was never said if that was Red Guardian or not. Ellis never confirmed or denied it, so everyone is just assuming it was him.

John Q. Public said:
I read the 616 Red Guardian issues. No hints were necessary. It was utterly obvious (unless I'm wrong).
Click to expand...

You're wrong.



Alright, in response to Bass's rambling, I started thinking. What if Black Widow isn't the traitor. What if all the stuff from this issue were even more red herrings? What if she pulled the gun on Tony because he was the traitor? This might be a stretch to account for the anti-climactic reveal of her being the traitor. But go with it for a second. Say Tony was the traitor all along. Somehow Widow figured it out, so pulls the gun on him. Instead of killing him outright like she did Jarvis, she wants to keep him alive so he can be questioned by SHIELD to find out who he's working with, etc. Maybe she killed Jarvis because he was either an accomplice (unlikely, but possibly) or he just might've tried to help Tony so she had to take him out of the equation. Whatever. But it just seems too easy for Widow to be the traitor. And wouldn't it be just like Millar to do something like that? Hype up the issue as the big traitor reveal, then make it look like someone most people expected was the traitor, only to find out next issue it was Tony all along? There's still a lot of reasoning for Tony to be the traitor, yet just as much for Black Widow...but like I said it was just too obvious it was Widow, so it just seems it can't be her. Again, I still haven't read the issue (only seen all the penciled pages courtesy of the link GMaster and Compound provided) so I'm basically throwing things out there without much basis, but just wondering. What, if any, are the clues to show it is indeed Widow, besides her pulling the gun on Tony and looking at her watch? Both can be easily explained away, the gun especially if Tony were the traitor. So what evidence do we have showing she is the traitor, and what evidence do we have showing she isn't? Or should I just let it go?
 
DIrishB said:
Alright, in response to Bass's rambling, I started thinking. What if Black Widow isn't the traitor. What if all the stuff from this issue were even more red herrings? What if she pulled the gun on Tony because he was the traitor? This might be a stretch to account for the anti-climactic reveal of her being the traitor. But go with it for a second. Say Tony was the traitor all along. Somehow Widow figured it out, so pulls the gun on him. Instead of killing him outright like she did Jarvis, she wants to keep him alive so he can be questioned by SHIELD to find out who he's working with, etc. Maybe she killed Jarvis because he was either an accomplice (unlikely, but possibly) or he just might've tried to help Tony so she had to take him out of the equation. Whatever. But it just seems too easy for Widow to be the traitor. And wouldn't it be just like Millar to do something like that? Hype up the issue as the big traitor reveal, then make it look like someone most people expected was the traitor, only to find out next issue it was Tony all along? There's still a lot of reasoning for Tony to be the traitor, yet just as much for Black Widow...but like I said it was just too obvious it was Widow, so it just seems it can't be her. Again, I still haven't read the issue (only seen all the penciled pages courtesy of the link GMaster and Compound provided) so I'm basically throwing things out there without much basis, but just wondering. What, if any, are the clues to show it is indeed Widow, besides her pulling the gun on Tony and looking at her watch? Both can be easily explained away, the gun especially if Tony were the traitor. So what evidence do we have showing she is the traitor, and what evidence do we have showing she isn't? Or should I just let it go?
Click to expand...

"Widow even did it for free"
 
DIrishB said:
Alright, in response to Bass's rambling, I started thinking. What if Black Widow isn't the traitor. What if all the stuff from this issue were even more red herrings? What if she pulled the gun on Tony because he was the traitor? This might be a stretch to account for the anti-climactic reveal of her being the traitor. But go with it for a second. Say Tony was the traitor all along. Somehow Widow figured it out, so pulls the gun on him. Instead of killing him outright like she did Jarvis, she wants to keep him alive so he can be questioned by SHIELD to find out who he's working with, etc. Maybe she killed Jarvis because he was either an accomplice (unlikely, but possibly) or he just might've tried to help Tony so she had to take him out of the equation. Whatever. But it just seems too easy for Widow to be the traitor. And wouldn't it be just like Millar to do something like that? Hype up the issue as the big traitor reveal, then make it look like someone most people expected was the traitor, only to find out next issue it was Tony all along? There's still a lot of reasoning for Tony to be the traitor, yet just as much for Black Widow...but like I said it was just too obvious it was Widow, so it just seems it can't be her. Again, I still haven't read the issue (only seen all the penciled pages courtesy of the link GMaster and Compound provided) so I'm basically throwing things out there without much basis, but just wondering. What, if any, are the clues to show it is indeed Widow, besides her pulling the gun on Tony and looking at her watch? Both can be easily explained away, the gun especially if Tony were the traitor. So what evidence do we have showing she is the traitor, and what evidence do we have showing she isn't? Or should I just let it go?
Click to expand...

"Thanks for the laughs, comrade." See i don't think this is a very patriotic expression...
 
Dr.Strangefate said:
Anyone consider that the abomination might -not- be a human?

I mean, do you really think they'd test an altered version of the Hulk Serum on a human first?

Seriously, what if that's a monkey? or an iguana? or a Dog?

Dog would probably be the best choice. it would take orders.
Click to expand...

:shock: That would be awesome if true.

But if you look, besides the tail, and the dragon-like feet, Abomination has human musculature. I would assume that they spliced it will Chitauri DNA or something like that. I mean, where did all that **** with Herr Kleiser's body end up anyway?
 
Bass said:
But if you look, besides the tail, and the dragon-like feet, Abomination has human musculature. I would assume that they spliced it will Chitauri DNA or something like that. I mean, where did all that **** with Herr Kleiser's body end up anyway?
Click to expand...

Ultimates Vol. 1 - Issue Eight

NICK FURY: You ever see one of these things in the flesh, Natasha?

BLACK WIDOW: No, but I heard Captain America killed some in Poland during the war. Back when I was KGB they said they had three of them pickled in the black museum.

(and remember, Emil Blonsky is Russian)
 
Dr.Strangefate said:
Ultimates Vol. 1 - Issue Eight

NICK FURY: You ever see one of these things in the flesh, Natasha?

BLACK WIDOW: No, but I heard Captain America killed some in Poland during the war. Back when I was KGB they said they had three of them pickled in the black museum.

(and remember, Emil Blonsky is Russian)
Click to expand...

Hmmmm...interesting.
 
TheManWithoutFear said:
So can you.
Click to expand...

Jeeez, *****, *****, *****...

Ultimates V2 #9 (Millar/Hitch; Marvel). I often ponder why I like this book so much. It's not subtle, characters are defined more by the agenda in their dialog than the tone and "voice" they speak with, any time an action is required it's usually the most over-the-top action possible (killing Hawkeye's entire family to get him and his codes, instead of just ambushing Hawkeye somewhere, as the traitor could have easily done). Not subtle at all, but it's certainly compelling anyway. Bryan Hitch's art brings in both subtlety and nuance and often manages to round out the harder edges of plot and tone - even while bringing a cinematic-level impact to the violence and destruction. So it's the overall combination that works for me, with a lesser artist I'm not sure I'd still be reading such a violent fantasy. In issue #9 we get the long-awaited traitor ID and yet, as other point out, the very thing we've been agonizing over forever becomes one of the smaller events in the issue. I find that deeply amusing, though as a general nonviolent person, I find it disturbing that I can't wait for Hawkeye to get loose and be the one who takes the Widow down.
 
Rhyo said:
Jeeez, *****, *****, *****...

Ultimates V2 #9 (Millar/Hitch; Marvel). I often ponder why I like this book so much. It's not subtle, characters are defined more by the agenda in their dialog than the tone and "voice" they speak with, any time an action is required it's usually the most over-the-top action possible (killing Hawkeye's entire family to get him and his codes, instead of just ambushing Hawkeye somewhere, as the traitor could have easily done). Not subtle at all, but it's certainly compelling anyway. Bryan Hitch's art brings in both subtlety and nuance and often manages to round out the harder edges of plot and tone - even while bringing a cinematic-level impact to the violence and destruction. So it's the overall combination that works for me, with a lesser artist I'm not sure I'd still be reading such a violent fantasy. In issue #9 we get the long-awaited traitor ID and yet, as other point out, the very thing we've been agonizing over forever becomes one of the smaller events in the issue. I find that deeply amusing, though as a general nonviolent person, I find it disturbing that I can't wait for Hawkeye to get loose and be the one who takes the Widow down.
Click to expand...
There, that's better. Good point but that's just entertainment for you.
 
TheManWithoutFear said:
There, that's better. Good point but that's just entertainment for you.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that all comics were entertainment...

And Hawkeye SO gets to be the one to break the Widow's neck. Just sayin'...
 
Rhyo said:
And Hawkeye SO gets to be the one to break the Widow's neck. Just sayin'...
Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind a scene where they're holding Widow captive in handcuffs being taken away. And Hawkeye is there and they Black Widow looks at him and Hitch pulls off the best expression any artist has ever drawn. Some mixture between anger, betrayal, disgust.
 
I hope Widow survives actually, even though it's likely she gets killed.

She screwed the whole team royally. If she hangs around for other stories, she'd be a villain that emotionnally engage everyone she hurt.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it's out of the left field for The Ultimates, Millar or given the circumstances.

But it's out of the left field for the characters involved. If Hawkeye was as much as a sadist as Midnighter, we'd need more clues to that before now.
 
Last edited:
E.Vi.L. said:
But it's out of the left field for the characters involved. If Hawkeye was as much as a sadist as Midnighter, we'd need more clues to that before now.
Click to expand...

That's what I mean. And The Ultimates is being read by kids. It's marvel and not a MAX title. Maybe this little twist might happen in a title where he has unlimited freedom but not here.

Hawkeye's been portrayed as a hard as nails tough guy. I think it will be more effective if we see him vulnerable now not sadistic.
 
Sorry, the rape discussion had to go. It probably had potential to be a viable topic, but it crossed the line. Maybe it would be OK for a separate, philosophical kind of thread, but in an issue discussion thread it is inappropriate.
 
UltimateE said:
Sorry, the rape discussion had to go. It probably had potential to be a viable topic, but it crossed the line. Maybe it would be OK for a separate, philosophical kind of thread, but in an issue discussion thread it is inappropriate.
Click to expand...
WHAT? But we avoided graphic descriptions, placed all the references to other rape-related comic scenes behind appropriate spoiler tags, and generally engaged in mature speculation.

Was it tangential and off-topic? Yeah, arguably.

But why couldn't it have been placed into a separate thread, instead?

I'm really not sure at what point it "crossed the line". I honestly want to know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top