Talk:Ultimate Marvel/Archive 1

Ultimate Marvel Universe
Ultimate Marvel Universe as article. With a continuity timeline and backstory of the Universe !--Brown Shoes22 23:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No! Cease! Do Not Create! Unnecessary! --Jamdav86 16:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Unnecessary!? It is ! Timelines help !--Brown Shoes22 04:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Tell you what, then; you create it and the rest of us will speedy-delete it (If you think this judgement is harsh, Brown Shoes22 has a whole section on him @ WikiProject Comics that should be read) --Jamdav86 09:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I want a freakin timeline and continuity guide, because the Ultimate Universe does not make sense.

Doom reversion
I removed the edit about Doom's origin being linked to the Four's, since this page is about the imprint and universe as a whole, and that specific section is about the common plot threads that link the titles together. Since the edit about Doom is only related to UFF, it should go on the UFF page. It's an interesting fact, and maybe this wiki could use a section about the efforts in the Ultimate books to make things like this connected rather than giving everything an unrelated origin. Until then, though, it doesn't belong in the pre-existing structure. Pitr 07:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Marvel Ultimate Universe Guide 2
I know that the 2st of the Ulimate Universe guides already came out some time ago (Spiderman/FF), but when did the Ult X-Men/Ultimates guide come out? I've been looking for it for ages! Taniwha 00:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's coming out in December. --DrBat 00:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Ultimate Marvel Universe Continuity
Timeline ! What came first. FF, X-Men, Spider-man, The Ultimates.

Even though it's unimportant, for our information it was: Spider-Man 1st, then X-Men, then Ultimates, then the F4, with othe series slotted in between. And please sign your comments in future like --Jamdav86 18:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hope no-one minds - I rearranged all the ongoings and miniseries into order of first publication (or thereabouts), plus made some minor revisions rst20xx 18:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Ultimate Adventures
On One adding info to this Article !?--Brown Shoes22 00:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "Ultimate Adventures (was part of a poll where readers decided which of three miniseries became an ongoing, which it lost)" This is wrong, The poll was about which current ongoing should be saved despite low sales.  The winner was Capain Marvel, This series was a cancelled ongoing.


 * I thought I remembered it being specifically created, more or less, to be a competitor with Captain Marvel in the poll contest to see which comic got continued.

New upcoming titles and minis
I was wondering, could sombody provide links or such to where it stated that Ult Knights, Magneto, Thor and Daredevil was confirmed as upcoming series? (Whipsandchains 06:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC))

The fifth ongoing series?

 * One Speculation is a new X-men team ex. Ultimate New Mutants or spin-off like The Ultimate Reserves, a Ultimate Unlimed series --Brown Shoes22 09:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is a popular forerunner (two other names I've heard for the group is Ultimate Academy of Tomorrow and Ultimate Helions). Also Daredevil, Hulk and Nick Fury, but nothing out of the ordinary. I myself hope it's Emma Frost's team getting an ongoing, that'd make a lot of sense IMO. But I also want a Daredevil ongoing at some point rst20xx 10:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * One more forerunner is a Ultimate What if..--Brown Shoes22 21:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess it's a possibility, but I don't think they would, at least as an ongoing. Many of the What If stories recently told in 616 could have just as well been told in 1610 - in fact I believe the newset bacth even got its own Universe number :p ... But ultimately we'll just have to wait and see rst20xx 12:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I more forerunner is a Ultimate Unlinted--Brown Shoes22 04:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The new series could also be for people who have already been been introduced, like:

or for someone(s) who haven't been introduced yet (like Alpha Flight). Just felt I had to list all the possibilities. There is also the possibility that the Ultimate Blade Mini-series will lead to a full series, but I doubt it. Personally, I'd like to see Ultimate Cloak and Dagger, but that would probably either be a mini-series, or in USpider-Man. But a series for the Academy of Tomorrow is the most likly, as it would probably start off with Angel arriving and being shown around and the like. Ultimate Unlimited would be interesting though... JQF 02:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Doctor Strange, (possible)
 * Punisher, (possible)
 * Shang-Chi (Master of Kung Fu), (possible)
 * Iron Fist, (possible, maybe team-up with Shang-Chi like they did in USpider-Man)
 * Man-Thing, (unlikely, but it would be interesting)
 * Hawk-Owl, (unlikely)
 * She-Hulk (see Ultimate Wolverine Vs. Hulk), (that would something worth checking out, but unlikly)


 * I would love to see an Ultimate Cloak and Dagger series. --205.146.140.242 20:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There will not be a 5th book. Check IGN's coverage of Comic-Con and the upcoming Ultimate Origins event for confirmation.

New "all in one" article for the Ultimate Daredevil and Elektra trilogy
Ultimate Daredevil and Elektra trilogy would be better as one article and not two or three articles !--Brown Shoes22 04:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Marvel Zombies
How is MZ part of the Ultimate series? I know Ult.Reed crossed over into that universe, but it bears far more resemblance to the 616 universe. Furthermore, Marvel has it under their "Marvel Horror" section, not their "Ultimate" section. --DrBat 17:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * True, but IMO it's worth a mention as it ties into the Ultimate Universe. Maybe something like:


 * Marvel Zombies (whilst not strictly an Ultimate series, and not set in the Ultimate Universe but its' own Universe, this mini-series is a spin-off of an Ultimate Fantastic Four arc)

Anyone else wanna give their opinions? rst20xx 18:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think there should be some mention of it, because it spawned from the Ultimate F4, and will be tying back into it. JQF 01:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Given that the current arc of Ult F4 involves the possible (thus far) breakout of the zombie versions of the F4, I think it at least deserves some mention. The one listed above, with a possible refrence to the current storyline (as it is now) would do. Darquis 04:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Which article to link to?
IMO, if we're discussing the Ultimate versions of the characters like Green Goblin and Hobgoblin, we should link to the respective articles, rather than the original versions thereof. Darquis 04:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ultimate X-Men Character articles
Why does someone keep moving them to their 616 character pages?--Dil 01:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it was consensus at WP:COMIC --Newt ΨΦ 02:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Mage in to one article ?
And
 * Ultimate Galactus trilogy
 * Ultimate Nightmare (first part of Ultimate Galactus trilogy)
 * Ultimate Secret (second part of Ultimate Galactus trilogy)
 * Ultimate Extinction (final part of Ultimate Galactus trilogy)
 * Ultimate Daredevil and Elektra
 * Ultimate Daredevil and Elektra (first part of Ultimate Daredevil and Elektra trilogy)
 * Ultimate Elektra (second part of Ultimate Daredevil and Elektra trilogy)
 * Ultimate Daredevil (final part of Ultimate Daredevil and Elektra trilogy)

Why not Mage three article's into one of it is a trilogy?--Brown Shoes22 01:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Sounds good to me, as long as there's more there than just summary. However, if I were you, I would bring this up at the WP:COMIC talk page, instead of this semi-related article. --Newt ΨΦ 01:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Universe/reimagining
Some articles on characters and comics in the Ultimate Marvel continuity title the continuity as a separate universe (Earth-1610), while others call it a reimagining of the long running Marvel universe.

While both are technically correct, I would like to see some consistency in description of the Ultimate Marvel continuity. Perhaps both descriptions should be provided in each case. A template might even be a good idea. Would anyone like to contribute their thoughts on the matter? FrostyBytes 18:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I mean, in the fictional realities of the Marvel multiverse, it is a separate universe. Creatively speaking, in the real world, it is a reimagining of Earth-616.  Both are accurate, it's just that one addresses the distinction in terms of fictional "reality" and the other addresses it in terms of real life reality.  I think both descriptions can (and probably should, as you suggest) co-exist side by side. I'm not sure a template is necessary, but what kind of template were you thinking of? Pitr 21:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding any possible template: I'm thinking of something along the lines of "This comic/character/object is part of this-or-that comic/continuity/etc...." and so on and so forth. I might be suggesting something that goes outside some existing Wikipedia policy or another, official or unofficial, I'm not sure. I'm a bit new at all of this, so I hope you'll tolerate my eccentricities. I should probably read a bit more on general policies so that I don't accidentally go ahead and fix something that doesn't actually need fixing.


 * It just seems to me that a part of the initial blurbs in the articles about the various characters and comics in the larger continuities may be either a bit too repetative, or too inconsistent, not to have basic templates explaining and/or pointing to articles regarding some of the most vital facts about the creative direction of the continuities, and how they relate to others. --FrostyBytes 23:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't dispute that the Ultimate line is set in a 'seperate universe', but does anyone else get bugged that it has to exist within the same 'multiverse' with a load of other Earths? Its one of the things that bugs me most about comics... especially DC. Why can't they ever just say, "Within it's fictional reality, it is the *only* universe there is"... I mean, it's akin to saying that every work of fiction is just an 'alternate universe' in someone elses work of fiction, "Well, the reality in which James Bond is real is Earth-132, whereas the reality where Indiana Jones exists is Earth-442302"... it bugs me. Mainly because it inevitably leads into crossovers between universes and othersuch rubbish. Gah (195.92.168.175 23:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC))


 * I've looked through this handbook and where are you guys getting this Earth-1610 from? I don't see it mentioned anywhere in the book including the appendix.


 * Ok Ive done further checking and finally came across a single refrence to 1610 in a handbook, and nowhere does it says it is ultimate, Just that another Captain Britain named Brian Braddock lives on that world, Can anyone give any reasoning why that has to be Ultimate, if not the number should be deleted.


 * I'd also like to know where the number comes from, as it's not in Alternate Universes 2005, and I'm not aware of a later edition. Kelvingreen 00:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ultimates 4
Why does this page state "The Ultimates 4 (Written by Jeph Loeb and penciled by Ed McGuinness) Note: According to Rich Johnston over at Comic Book Resource, this volume will not happen."? Ultimatemarvel 02:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Origins, Ultimatum, Hulk and Iron Man
Pages should be made for these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.101.22 (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I stated articles for all of these except Ultimate iron man vs hulk and added ultimate saga. Please improve them Captaincanuck65 13:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Annuals
I was thinking that the Annuals should be listed separately since they are more like one-shots and possess their own numbering system. This is particularly relevent now that we have the upcoming "Ultimate Captain America Annual #1" and "Ultimate Hulk Annual #1", which (as of yet) do not have any direct parent series. Bowie1979 28 July 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ultimates
Why is Ultimates 1 and 2 listed as Finished Ongoing Titles, when they are miniseries'? Dracoster (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"commercial success" mess
is this "commercial success" part, full of un-interesting data, really needed? --89.24.108.71 (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required
This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. As should be obvious from the tag at the top of the article it is lacking in much needed references and there are an awful lot of statements made that are unsourced (the bulk of the background to the series borders on original research). (Emperor (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC))

Violence
Should there be some mention of the violence level which is blown off by Marvel as "realism." Just a thought.Skulduggery3 (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There's really no reason to bring it up. First, it's not a sourced fact, and secondly, there's just as much violence in other comics, though that's not a noteable fact either. Friginator (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Post-Ultimatum: Ultimate Blah vs Ultimate Comics Blah
Okay this one came up at the start of the Ultimate Comics rebranding and has recently come up again with regards to Enemy and Mystery, which one are we going to use? Because it's ridiculous to have some of post-Ultimatum titles with one naming scheme and others with another.

Here are all the arguments I can think of:
 * The first few comics certainly said Ultimate Comics Blah in the legal section e.g. Ultimate Comics: Spider-Man #1. However, this seemed to get dropped at some stage and became Ultimate Blah in that section at least e.g. Ultimate Comics: Spider-Man #3.
 * The cover banner on all these branded comics certainly says ULTIMATE. It's the same on the tradepaperbacks however it certainly says Ultimate Comics Blah on the spine.  On the back it also says: Collecting Ultimate Comics Spider-Man #1-6 written by Brian Michael Bendis etc.  Afraid I can't find a photo for that one.
 * In the listing on the Marvel website it says Ultimate Comics Blah e.g., the listing for Ultimate Comics Avengers 3 #1 |here. The same is true for previews e.g., Ultimate Comics X |here

My own opinion? Ultimate Comics is the way to go. The previews and listing are useful, but the legal section surprised me. However, for me the one that really sold it was the tradepaperbacks having Ultimate Comics written down the spine quite clearly. This suggests to me (though again my opinion) that the ULTIMATE written on the cover is the logo (perhaps they though writing ULTIMATE COMICS was too wordy, I don't know). Another note on the spine, it says Ultimate Comics Spider-Man: The World According to Peter Parker on the first trade. So if we keep Ultimate Comics Blah, which I hope we do, we should probably drop the colon as Marvel aren't using it i.e. Ultimate Comics Spider-Man not Ultimate Comics: Spider-Man (which is a shame because I think the latter looks nicer...). Planewalker Dave (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Some other debates on this are here and here. Planewalker Dave (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The long and the short of it: Marvel is using both Ultimate Comics  and  Ultimate  at this point. The indicia, that "official" title, in the books is sans "Comics". This is what should be used with regard to references, at the very least, and it is what appears to the standard for price guide/reference material. Marvel's solicit text seems to be a form a product demarcation, at best, or hype, at worst. And I'm tempted to lean to the latter since Marvel did not bother to follow through on the demarcation by clearly using "Ultimate Comics" in the trade dress or the indicia of the comics.
 * At this point, if we are going to be starting and/or maintaining articles on the individual comics, the "official" title should be used for the article title. What Marvel's PR department has referred to the comics as can, and really should, be within the first sentence or two of the lead. For example:
 * "Ultimate Enemy is a four issue limited series published by Marvel Comics, which solicited orders for it under Ultimate Comics Enemy."
 * Or:
 * "Ultimate Enemy, also referred to as Ultimate Comics Enemy in ordering material and reviews, is a four issue limited series published by Marvel Comics."
 * As for the colon... it has to be asked "Where is it comic from?" It isn't from Marvel's solicits, that is very evident. If it is from editorial choice here, it isn't even an option to use. If it is used in a few reviews or by a few reviewers, it may be worth noting depending on how widespread it is or notable the review/reviewer is. Beyond that, the only it would be definitely OK to use would be in a direct quote or in a ref citing a review with it in the review's title.
 * The trades and articles like Ultimate Comics: Enemy Trilogy are odd cases. Trades, by and large, don't get their own articles. They get mentioned/listed in articles on the story arc or comic book. At that point it would still be desirable to go with the "official" title - from the copyright notice on the title page - if possible. As for articles like Ultimate Comics: Enemy Trilogy, again it comes down to where the heck did we get the title from? It isn't from a published book or comic book issue, that's for sure. Neither of the secondary sources pointed to in the article use it. Using Google, it appears only Wikipedia and it's mirrors use ":". Searching at Marvel's site - - yields an odd thing, the use of "Ultimate Enemy trilogy" multiple times. Maybe we should move the article to that in lieu of a title for a published trad or trade set.
 * Lastly, yes, I would also advocate moving articles to Ultimate Armor Wars, Ultimate Avengers (comic book), Ultimate Spider-Man (vol. 2), Ultimate New Ultimates, and Ultimate X since these are the official titles by the indicia.
 * - J Greb (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the colon came from when the articles were originally made before the first issues were released and it just wasn't updated when they were released. I think the only places its used are here and on various websites e.g., Forbidden Planet and |Comixology. So yeah, that can almost certainly go.


 * I'm still not convinced by the copyright argument. While it's certainly a strong argument against it, pretty much everything else goes with Ultimate Comics e.g., the website, the listings (both from Marvel and externals websites), the trade paperbacks.  It may also be of note that series such as The New Avengers have gone with that as the title (including the definite article, as printed on the cover) however in every issue the copyright box says New Avengers.  A small point but I thought worth making.  Anyway, I'll wait for other people to give their opinions before saying more because I'm probably just repeating myself. Planewalker Dave (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In most cases I've seen, the external sites using "Comics" are either 1) re-printing Marvel's solicitation release, something that IIUC cannot be altered, and/or press releases, 2) quoting others, or 3) posting reviews. There are others that are not using it - GCD, Comic Book db (both index by the indicia), my comicshop (granted a merchant), and by Google -, , - it looks like the review sites also are ambiguous about using it.
 * New Avengers has it's own problems as pointed out here. And yes, I'd rather see that sitting at New Avengers (comics) to take everything into account. But that is there, not here
 * - J Greb (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Reaction of fans and critics
I am interested in the reaction of fans and critics to the Ulitimate Marvel books. Also this could be compared to earlier efforts such as Marvel's New Universe. ike9898 16:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Opinion: I think that the Ultimate Universe is not a good idea. I particulary don´t agree that it is "easier" for young readers to follow the new stories in Ultimate than in the normal continuity. In my opinion it is confusing because readers still read the main titles (after all, there lies the big crossovers like, for example, Civil War). It´s like a parallel retcon that does not makes much sense to me, and the "freedom" it gives is also the freedom to kill good continuity along the so-called bad things.

I think new writers should focus on developing or creating characters (creating ou evolving), instead of retconning, which the Ultimates line do today. I think writers should try to create something new and not "re-create" existing stories. They should have a lot of respect for the stories already written, and Ultimates does not do that - it simply says that everything can be changed, and that´s just a parallel universe trying to go against normal continuity.

The thing that really bothers me, though, is the argument for the line. I think young readers should have a chance to know the original stories of the characters, not new re-created ones that are - in Marvel´s opinion - more "modern" and "easy to follow". 201.22.141.176 20:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The modern part is a good thing because well time has ravaged some of these character's histories and origins. Take Iron Man for example. Who ever wrote the original stories thought that using the word transistor lots of times was a good idea. Adam Y 05:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This is sort of in reply to 201.22.141.176, as well as my opinion on the Ultimate line. Firstly, the only criticism I ever seem to come across is "it changes too much". I agree that it's not any easier to follow than the mainstream universe, other than certain story arcs occuring faster than they originally did, but I don't think this is a bad thing, either. There shouldn't be any confusion, either, as the mainstream and Ultimates are kept quite clearly apart. Ultimates is not a retcon, as the mainstream comics are still in print alongside the Ultimate series. The whole point of the Ultimate universe is to modernise and to change things, which it has done in a pretty entertaining way. All this said, I am a fan of the Ultimates line, but I also read the original comics, and enjoy both. Ninjoc 16:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I eliminated the line stating that longtime fans have embraced the Ultimate Universe. It's unverifiable and unnecessary. MarsBarsTru (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Interaction with Earth-616
In the "Publication History" section of this article, it states: "The characters in this line exist outside of the regular Earth-616 Marvel Universe and therefore do not interact with their original version counterparts."

However this is no longer the case, as Peter Parker (Spider-Man of Earth-616) met and interacted with Mile Morales (Spider-Man of Earth-1610) in last year's "Spider-Men" limited series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.15.52 (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Delays
Instead of having Ultimate Hulk vs Wolverine, Ultimate Dare Devil, and Ultimate Iron Man 2 in the same categories as miniseries that Italic textactuallyItalic text being published, maybe they should be under a delayed release section with explainations of what is happening (why they are delayed and if there is much hope of them being finished/done at all) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captaincanuck65 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Venom super-soldier?
Ultimate Venom was not created to try and resurrect the super-soldier. it was meant as a cure for cancer, but was cancelled because Trask merely saw it as that. I'm going to change that, but if you want to put it back, feel free, but i think you would need a pretty good reason! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewis the Ger (talk • contribs) 18:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Places
Cut because I don't really think this stuff has any place in the article. If these places are important, they'll have their own articles. -leigh (&#966;&#952;&#8057;&#947;&#947;&#959;&#962;) 19:16, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Olthar (talk • contribs) 21:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Savage Land - a fictional place with tropical climates and prehistoric animals located in the heart of Antartica and home to Brotherhood of Mutant Supremacy, followers of about 500 militant mutants.
 * Baxter Building - fictional building that is the home of the Ultimate Fantastic Four, government-sponsored program which helps finance research of exceptional children.
 * Daily Bugle newspaper - Peter works as a web designer to earn some money.
 * The Triskelion - The building has a three-pronged shape if viewed from above. Headquarters of The Ultimates.
 * Permanent Autonomous Zone - a smal monarchy in Europe (near Copenhagen, Denmark) named "Free State" or "The Freezone" including "The Keep". Run by Victor Van Damme aka Doctor Doom.
 * Weapon X was a concentration camp for mutants in Finland, trained to turn them into mindless killers. It was officially sanctioned project by SHIELD which went awry. The X-Men ended the program.

--- It was in the article. This places are in the Marvel Universe (Universe 616), but not the same. Yes they'll have their own articles, but named it list of differences between the Universe 616 and Ultimate Marvel User:Brown Shoes22
 * They will certainly not have their own articles. Any references to differences between 616 and Ultimate Marvel should go to pre-existing articles and not for new ones. And considering the mess you've already made of Permanent Autonomous Zone, you shouldn't be allowed to go anywhere near it. Savage Land already has its own page, write the differences in there. Same for Daily Bugle and Baxter Building. The Triskelion can be referenced in The Ultimates and the Weapon X facility in Ultimate X-Men. --Pc13 10:17, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

F4 age
I dont know where it states age differences, but Reed Richards is not the eldest, Ben Grimm is (as seen in first comic, Ben being in highschool with reed, and reed's being 11 at the time) Olthar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olthar (talk • contribs) 21:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And then Reed stated that he was 18 in Ultimate Power while in other series he's stated that he was 19 and then in UFF #1 it states 21 years ago. Age in the Ultimate Marvel Universe is really baffling... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultimatemarvel (talk • contribs) 20:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Marvel-Ultimate-Universe.jpg

Defunct Imprint
Should the tag for this when you search Ultimate Marvel be Defunct Imprint, because the imprint has been brought back and is going to be used further more in the foreseable future. SinisterRB2022 (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

On Notable Writers: Regarding Jonathan Hickman
At this point we should add Jonathan Hickman, right? Seeing as he has written for Ultimate Marvel before, as is now serving as the main creative force for the ultimate universe, I believe it is appropriate to add Hickman as a notable writer. Does anyone disagree? ArachnidEye (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)