Ask The Tropers

Well, first of all, he readded a section of the Lighter and Softer example, but reworded it and changed the trope to Broken Base. That could very well be an Edit War already.

I'll need a mod to see whether or not this is a dodge.

Edit: Yeah, the Broken Base example looks like a rewrite of the original entry, and that IS considered an Edit War.

There is an ongoing discussion about that edit, and I have cited several pages that prove that Julian Lapostat's claims about Ultimate Marvel are wrong. Even a direct cite from Joss Whedon himself. As for the original edit, it is right that I placed it in YMMV by mistake, so I moved it to the franchise namespace.

By the way, if you want to confirm if Lighter and Softer actually applies to the MCU, don't take the word from me or Julian about it: you can read about that here.

"Even The Ultimates got defanged when it, in modified form, went to the box office. Joss Whedon has long been a megafan of Millar and Hitch’s epic, even going so far as to pen a glowing introduction to one of its collected editions in 2004. When he wrote and directed 2012’s The Avengers, he very obviously used The Ultimates as his visual and narrative template, and perfectly captured the aesthetic excitement and modernized characterization that made the comic work. He also deleted all the big questions. We have no doubt that the film’s titular team — an unaccountable government strike force assembled to fight barbaric outsiders — are all great people. As is true in its predecessors and successors in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, any mistakes the protagonists make are either the result of temporary deception or are absolvable moral stumbles on the path toward a better future."

I can cite many other examples to prove that Avengers 2012 drew from 616, starting from the evidence on screen, well-attested production information all of which I shared in the Discussion page. Tom Hiddleston mentions in this interview for instance that Joss Whedon and Kevin Feige drew inspiration from the very first Avengers where Loki was the Big Bad that brought the team together. So fundamentally there isn't anything in common with Ultimate Marvel unless you squint and find selective promotional trivia in comic book media or poorly researched articles to cite.

Loki is the main recurring and most popular villain in the MCU and he has nothing in comparison to the Ultimate version, nor does Thor, nor does Hulk, nor does Captain America. Their characterization and world is entirely different than the Ultimate Marvel where Thor is some kind of hippie and initially seen as a fool, Hulk is a cannibal and Ultimate Cap is this dated joke. As is clear in the ymmv page for Marvel Cinematic Universe, the aesthetic of MCU changed and altered Movie Superheroes Wear Black and Doing In the Wizard which is what Ultimate Marvel did...

Ultimately all of this is dodging the fundamental point...you are shoehorning Ultimate Marvel into pages where it does not belong, where it contributes nothing, and said information is redundant...

It was never said that the MCU was a complete and absolute "true to the text" adaptation of the material from Ultimate Marvel, as the Sin City films. They adapt a lot of stuff from the Ultimates, same as they adapt a lot of stuff from the mainstream Marvel titles, but without completely being a full adaptation of either one. For example, you mentioned the Hulk. Yes, he's not quite the monster of the Ultimates, but he isn't the mainstream Hulk either: his signature origin, dropping Rick Jones into a trench and failing to jump himself before being caught by the blash of a gamma bomb is nowhere to be seen either.

The point is: it's not 100% related, right, but it isn't completely unrelated as you claim either. It is a source material for a lot of stuff from the Phase 1, and I cited several independent pages that confirm so. So far, you have not provided a single source that backs your rejection of the Ultimate marvel for comparison.

I said repeatedly that some stuff came from Ultimate Marvel but it was entirely superficial borrowings. Yes Fury and SHIELD formed the Avengers but the dynamic of the first Avengers film is that the Avengers distrust Fury and are kind of Rebellious Rebel, whereas Ultimate Fury is the Boss of the Avengers and orders them around and bullies them when they disobey, and then in Winter Soldier, SHIELD gets Demoted to Extra and made into Adaptational Wimp...

The core of MCU is 616 and not Ultimate Marvel...that is irrefutable and plainly so for anyone who actually watches the films. The Avengers (2012) and Marvel as a whole were praised for being Lighter and Softer and being and feeling like comic-books...if you want Ultimate Universe, Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Trilogy has more in common with Ultimate Marvel in its aesthetics (i.e. removing supernatural stuff like Lazarus Pits, less pulp science, more military-industrial complex), as does Zack Snyder's Superman films, than MCU does.

Yes, you said it. And I say: "superficial borrowings" according to whom? You?

^Dude, tone. That comes across as very rude.

Shoehorning isn't allowed here, period, and at least some of those edits are definitely shoe horning.

If you have a Word of God direct source, please link it.

See the discussion for the YMMV entry. I have added several sources there. Including references about Whedom admiring the Ultimate comics, and the main artists of such comics hired for the Iron Man film as story consultants. Julian mocks the influence of Ultimate Marvel in the MCU, but so far has not provided a single source to back it, just his own analysis. I have already asked for such sources, and no, nothing. That's why I said that: without such sources, how can I know if his explanation about the mere "superficial borrowings" and the "malign influence" are widely held opinions, opinions of a significant but not absolute portion of the fanbase, or just his own ones?

The sources cited by Grigor II are highly misleading and don't actually prove his point.

1) In one case they are testimonials or post-mortems of the Ultimate Marvel which obviously are going to be sympathetic and hagiographic, or appreciative of the things that it did. So Joss Whedon giving compliments to The Ultimates or writing an introduction to it, doesn't actually prove anything.

2) The other source he cites is a Cinemablend article that is covering the end of Ultimate Marvel and seeing what it means from a brand perspective and it's not very well informed because it's a movie site looking from the outside.

None of these are actual primary sources for film production: such as interviews during pre-production, actor's notes, production information and so on, don't really discuss any real influence or in-take from Ultimate Marvel. Like the Cinemablend article says that the movie's take on Iron Man resembles the Ultimate take, and how casting Robert Downey Jr. was part of that. Except anyone who knows the production history knows that Jon Favreau had to fight to get RDJ into the film, for the basic fact that he was at that time an insurance risk. Favreau had to fight to get him in, and much of Iron Man was shot without a complete script and improvised as Jeff Bridges pointed out. The producers cited Christopher Nolan's Batman films as inspiration i.e. for a more grounded and gradual take on Iron Man, and Iron Man's personality as this constant pop-culture quipping guy and narcissist was the film's invention as was his love for Pepper Potts, and his Character Development from womanizer to committed monogamist. The greater prominence of Pepper Potts was original to the film.

The movies which actually borrowed from Ultimate Marvel and openly discussed as such are in-fact non-MCU movies The Amazing Spider-Man Series where Marc Webb only admitted to borrowing ideas from that run, including the greater focus on Richard Parker. The 2015 Fantastic Four film by Josh Trank was also inspired by Ultimate Fantastic Four (the whole Negative Zone as introduction, Reed Richards and Ben Grimm having Darker and Edgier childhoods, the Four being teenagers, and Doctor Doom being a kind of Eurotrash a—hole).

Joss Whedon in interviews during production openly said that the main influence was the first The Avengers comic where Loki machinated and manipulated a bunch of heroes and ended up forming the Avengers. The greater focus on Loki in the MCU has nothing in parallel with Ultimate Marvel, which took a Doing In the Wizard approach and Movie Superheroes Wear Black both tropes the MCU averted. The superficial borrowings from the Ultimate Universe include Sam Jackson's Nick Fury but his character and level of prominence in the MCU is nothing compared to the God-like figure he is in Ultimate Marvel, SHIELD did form the Avengers but unlike Ultimate Marvel where SHIELD is under the US Government, and the Avengers are an arm of Uncle Sam...The movie version of SHIELD is under the World Security Council and the Avengers are not identified as arms of the US Government and agents of foreign policy which is what they are in Mark Millar.

There are numerous examples I can go into. But suffice to say, Grigor II's points are highly selective, misleading and almost entirely incorrect and biased. And yes he is shoehorning, and his whole "cite sources otherwise" is a classic Shifting the Burden of Proof maneuver. He has not done his research, nor does he cite these competing and well attested production information to qualify his claims...I can go on.

Go on then... but please cite a source that backs the things you say. How many times do I need to ask it?

You are the one who is trying to argue for Ultimate Marvel having a super-relevance to the MCU when i have said that MCU borrowed a few elements from Ultimate Unvierse but largely stuck to 616 and/or its own inventions. I have never said that the MCU did not borrow from the Ultimate Marvel they did, but it's also clear that they didn't see the MCU as an adaptation of Ultimate Marvel nor did they agree entirely with the direction of Ultimate Marvel. The Burden of Proof is on you to demonstrate that, and you have to do it by looking at the actual production cycle of films, which if you are unfamiliar with involves "Pre-Production" (when the script is written, roles are cast and so on), "Production" (before editing), Post-Production (during editing, effects work, and in modern times, might include reshoots and additions such as the post-credits scenes). There isn't a lot of Ultimate Marvel there.

I have cited many elements from the films themselves. The movies are primary sources so saying that SHIELD in the movies is under the World Security Council and not the US Government as in the Ultimates is already me citing sources so please don't get sniffy with me again on that again.

As for me bringing the links. Since the burden of proof is on you and not me I am not going to do your job for you. I am not going to set out and go out of my way to prove that Ultimate Marvel had little or no influence on the MCU. Having said that let me cite some articles, that I did with a quickie google search on some MCU boilerplate. Do a Ctrl+F (if you have PC, if you have Mac, do whatever Mac-users do to find a word)...you will not find one mention of "Ultimate" anywhere in these articles:

https://www.bleedingcool.com/2016/06/06/feige-couldnt-shine-ikes-shoes-talking-to-marvel-board-members-about-marvel-studios/

(this one from your beloved cinemablend as it happens) https://www.cinemablend.com/new/Jon-Favreau-Details-His-Fight-With-Marvel-Studios-Cast-Robert-Downey-Jr-Iron-Man-43293.html

And this one by the way from the Wikipedia page which only has one context-relevant note on Ultimate Marvel (i.e.Sam Jackson's Fury). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Man_(2008_film) And has nothing to mention whatsoever on its influence on the story and characterization....

There's a difference here. I say that there is a Broken Base, and I cite a page that says precisely that. I say that Ultimate Marvel was very important for the MCU and provided a lot of things to it, and I cite a page that says precisely that. I say that those things were incorporated in a Lighter and Softer way, and I cite a page that says precisely that.

On the other hand, you say that all those pages are wrong, that you know better than all of them, that Ultimate Marvel did not factor at all... and your only proof are pages that simply did not mention it. What about a source that supports your claim directly, and not by inference? What about bringing a source that actually says what you are saying? Because, if all those pages I cited have fallen into some great misunderstanding, there has to be someone around there who calls that misunderstanding a misunderstanding.

@Grigoll and Julian Lapostat, please, both of you, stop.

Well, I have provided plenty of references to justify that my edit is not based merely on my own perspectives, but for the sake of civility, I propose to drop this discussion and leave things the way they are (meaning, with the Broken Base entry out, and the Lighter and Softer as modified by Julian), and propose this again in two or three months. Surely, things will be more calmed by then, and perhaps Julian will be more receptive. Best regards.