Talk:Ultimatum (comics)/Archive 1

Reading Order

This clearly needs a reading order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dracoster (talk • contribs) 01:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

why did you get rid of it?

Every other big event in comics or any other fictional thing there is a segment dedicated to the response from critics/fans as well as the sales. Ultimatum used to have this section. Why was it taken away? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.219.110 (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Helmets

Re the snapping of Xavier's neck in Ultimatum #2: Charles wasn't wearing a helmet, but Magneto certainly was. He pulls it off to do a full-page final panel on the next page, though. I'm not clear if the article is just pointing out that Charles wasn't using Cerebro or something; if so, it's phrased ambiguously. Otherwise iit's just plain wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asat (talk • contribs) 01:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

- Magneto used the helmet to protect himself and his thoughts from Charles. So preceeding Magneto snapping Charles neck, Charles would not be able to invade his thoughts, see that Magneto was going to kill him, and try to deffend his self.

Sabretooth's death?

Where was it stated Hawkeye's arrows were poisonous, or that they actually killed him? --DrBat (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

He's alive after Ultimatum, and seen leaving the base, so he didn't die from Hawkeye's arrows. Besides, since he's shown as able to heal from pretty much anything, from getting hit by lighting to decapitation, it's safe to say that a poison-tipped arrow wouldn't do it.Friginator (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Links

I started fixing links to go straight to the "Ultimate" version of each character, and then realized that might not be acceptable. Is there a policy or opinion on this? dstumme (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Christ on a pogo stick

I just tried to read the plot summary here, and my eyes are bleeding in pain.

Can someone please edit this to actually be useful to humans? Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned it up, removed info from the tie-ins. It's much shorter now, but still a bit long.Friginator (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Summary

The summary is clearly too long, and I was considering taking out the parts that were only in the tie-ins. This is an article about the limited series, after all.

Spider-Man addition to MIA/Presumed Dead list

Just stating reasons why I added him:
1: He was presumed dead by his family and close friends after they found his mask
2: JJJ even writes an article about Spider-Man believing he died
3: Newsreports show a snippet of his believed death during Ultimatum
Even though he turned out to be alive at the end of Requiem 2, he was still considered 'dead' for a period of time, which fits the critera for "MIA/Presumed Dead" list. Sera404 (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems there's an edit war going on at the moment. Spider-Man's been taken off the "Presumed Dead" list. Again, I know he's alive, but rather than join in the edit war, can I at least receive an explanation why he's not on this list despite the reasons given above? Sera404 (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Not an edit war, 76.95.226.208 just removed it. I assume because he's confirmed to be alive. I personally don't think Spider-Man should be on there. Friginator (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if Spider-Man's two requiem issues about people dealing with his temporary death isn't enough, maybe the 'Presumed Dead' tag should be removed from the title? Sera404 (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a disagreement about the meaning of "Presumed Dead." Is it a list of characters that the readers "presume dead?" Or one that the characters "presume dead." Another thing to clarify, does this list contain characters who "were presumed dead at the end of the story," or who "continue to be presumed dead because there has been no evidence to the contrary published since the event." Come to a satisfactory definition, and your dispute will be resolved.

My recommendation is to make it a list of "those characters whom the readers presume to be dead at the end of the story." This avoids having to reedit the list every time Marvel brings a character back, or shows that other charactes knew they were alive all along. 76.204.93.168 (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a list of people who's death or disappearence has been implied, but not confirmed in the pages of the comics. Friginator (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Valkyrie

I'm adding Valkyrie back to the "MIA/Presumed Dead" list (again). Her throat was slashed, the cieling collapsed on her, and she's the only character not seen leaving Magneto's base, She has not appeared in any Ultimate titles since. Because there's nothing confirming that she died or that she survived, she is possibly dead or at least MIA. Friginator (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

Regarding the criticism:

1. Before getting the more substantial point of conflict, it should be pointed out that I converted the bare references cited in that section, adn indicated as much in my Edit Summary. When Friginator reverted that, he also reverted those converted refs. It's one thing to revert content to what one feels is a better version on the basis of policy; it's another to blindly revert the entire edit, including the valid portions of it, rather than just the part one disputes. Doing this can be construed as disruptive or tendentious editing, so if we're going to disagree on this, fine, but don't revert valid edits not in dispute (unless you want to argue for bare references).

2. Eight quotes in which critics excoriate the books is just overkill. Material in articles must summarize the material. One or two quotes is fine, but the rest of the material based on the sources should simply report what the critics say is wrong with the book. Friginator argued that it is better not to "interpret" the source. This is fallacious. All material from sources is properly edited when added to articles. It's called paraphrasing. By "interpret", Fringinator, you seem to be implying that the material is not being conveyed accurately according to the source. In fact, the specific points of criticism were accurately relayed: The story, the storytelling, the dialogue, the story's lack of originality, the graphic violence that included cannibalism, the assertion Bendis and Millar would've been better-suited to the book than Loeb, etc. These were explicitly detailed in the reviews. There is no "interpretation", unless you're somehow against the practice of paraphrasing. To argue that a section filled with only venomous quotes, without any elaboration on what the reviewers thought was wrong with the series, is just plain backwards. Sensationalist comments like "eye-rape" may be entertaining to read, but they do not tell the reader what the reviewer thought was wrong with the book. Nightscream (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the "eye-rape" comment shouldn't have been in there to begin with, mainly because it's not from a noteable source. There needs to be paraphrasing, but adding things like "Following Loeb's critically panned Ultimates 3... is besides the point. The reception should deal with both the critical and commercial response in general, but there need to be quotes that make up a section partly based on other people's personal opinions. Friginator (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, there do not "need" to be quotes. It's an option, one based on aesthetics. If you want to include quotes, that's cool, but they're not the be-all and end-all of such articles. One or two, even three, peppered here and there is okay, but eight is overkill. And if you're going to include such quotes, they should be selected on the basis of how they sum up or represent the reviewer's sentiment. If you're going to cite Brendan Kachel for example, quoting him as saying the book is "shamefully tawdry", and that it's "disgustingly violent in a way that makes the last seven years of the Ultimate line seem like the first ten minutes of a bad slasher film," tells the reader why he didn't like the book. By contrast, quoting him saying, "If you like this book, you should seek counseling" (which is the quote that was in the article when I came across it) does not. Similarly, Jason Kerouac quote, "Ultimatum #5 could quite possibly be the single worst piece of writing in recorded history" should be used, not "Jeph Loeb is a monster", which was in the article. Mere invective has no explanatory power.

As for the bit about Ultimates 3 being critically panned, if that's what you were referring to when talked about "interpretation", well, that wasn't mine. It was in the article before I got to it.

As for whether that source was notable, if by that you mean it wasn't reliable, if that's the case, then it shouldn't be in the article at all. Again, it was already there when I found the article. Nightscream (talk) 05:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't argue with steps being taken to convey just how AWFUL this story really was, but you definitley need to cherry pick the most cogent points from reviews. While it may indeed be "eye rape" and Loeb is in fact an embarassment these days, you need to back it up. That said, the 300 page plot summary should be enough to dissuade anyone from wasting their time with this pulp-literature abortion. 214.3.138.234 (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Steve

Death List

Okay, i added a trivia template to the death list and it got removed because it was the wrong one. Before i add the hopefully correct one i wanted to hear other peoples opinions. To me, this list is definitely trivia. Most of the deaths are mentioned in the plot synopsys. If you look at other articles covering crossovers (Civil War, Annihilation or Siege for example), there are no lists of casualties. Articles should never be too detailed, so what makes it necessary to mention not only every casualty but also how they died? IchiGhost (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Civil War, nor Annihilation, nor Siege had this many major onscreen deaths or injuries, even though Annihilation had a death count in the billions. The death list makes the article look a bit messy, I agree. But a list of casualties to go along with a series that was advertised and marketed entirely based on its own death count is a relevant addition to the article. A table might be a better format, so if there's any consensus on that I'd be fine with converting the info. Friginator (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course the casualties are mostly relevant. But the "major" deaths are already covered in the plot synopsis. And other characters like Syndicate, Detonator, Lorelei, Hard-Drive or even Ultimate Captain Britain can hardly be called major. So why cover the important information twice, rather than incorporate the missing deaths into to the synopsis? And considering the way it was marketed: Secret Invasion was marketed with the uncertainty of who is a Skrull infiltrator, but they aren't all listed in Secret Invasion's article here. Walking Dead is a series often marketed with the uncertainty of who will die next, yet you won't find a list of casualties in its article here.IchiGhost (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)