Discussion YMMV / MarvelCinematicUniverse

If No Way Home had a direct effect on his character's perception, we need to wait until 6 months after it came out to talk about it.

ok

Sure. Large franchise and all.

Agreed, although I don't know about spoiler tagging for it.

I'd say put a warning that spoilers will be unmarked so that the characters can be freely added without having to worry about them. I think it should be organized by sub-series for the different movies and shows like the And The Fandom Rejoiced page.

1) None of those articles refutes my point that "Ultimate Marvel was unpopular at that time".

2) The majority of people who saw the Marvel Cinematic Universe are not comics readers. To them, MCU is compared to DC's Movies, or Nolan's movies and if there is a broken base it's about how light and funny it is and so on, not about Ultimate Marvel.

3) What exactly is there a base to break between those who were happy with the very little Ultimate Marvel influence in the movies and those who preferred there to be none? I mean it's a moot point. Either way, both those perspectives agree that Ultimate Marvel is a malign influence, and that little of it should be there in the MCU...it's just shoehorning.

Well, if you want me to refute point 1, there's Cinema Blend (a site focused on cinema, not comics).

• "The Ultimate Universe was originally launched in 2000, and over the ensuing years the likes of Ultimate Spider-Man, Ultimate X-Men, and Ultimate Fantastic Four were all published. Each of these editions are widely regarded to have brought Marvel Comics into the modern age, which is why they were mined by Marvel head-honcho Kevin Feige and a variety of filmmakers hired by the studio for movie adaptations."
• "Even Joss Whedon has previously admitted to Vulture: 'It's my feeling that Ultimates brought Marvel into the modern age in a way no other book did'."
• "Robert Downey Jr.’s casting as Iron Man was only possible because of the Ultimates, as the actor’s notorious past fit in perfectly with the alcoholic, arrogant, and slightly detestable version of Tony Stark who you still couldn’t help but be charmed by and root for. Ultimate writers Mark Millar and Brian Michael Bendis were even brought on board to consult Marvel’s burgeoning cinematic universe as consultants, and Hawkeye and Captain America’s costume designs were pretty much taken directly from these comics."
• "More than anything, The Avengers that assembled on the big-screen were taken almost verbatim from the Ultimate comics. Where previously the Avengers had been a private club that met in a mansion, the Ultimate Avengers were assembled by Nick Fury and were firmly a military posse who gathered together to tackle attacks that threatened to wipe out humanity."
• "All in all, the Ultimate universe has had a meteoric impact on pop culture. And while it’s unlikely that the impending Marvel comic reboot will come anywhere near to matching that, it will hopefully still take the comics, and ultimately the cinematic adaptations, into new and exciting territory. As long as they tell good stories that is."

Of course, the problem for a Broken Base is that the article does not acknowledge any backlash against the Ultimate marvel. It was great, period. That's why I cited those others instead. In any case, it completely refutes your notion of a "malign influence".

We are arguing in circles...your point overall is Ultimate Marvel propaganda and apologia, not about informing or discussing the MCU. The bits about the Ultimate Marvel influence are already there in the main page. Adding additional stuff and information is just pointless, and doing so in the tropes you cite is shoehorning stuff.

That article discusses the end of Ultimate Marvel, because it's a cinema website, is not written by someone who follows comics and as such most of what it says is misinformed, and it's perspective is about what the end of Ultimate Marvel means for the MCU. What you are doing is cherrypicking and not addressing the actual issues.

And that article is filled with inaccuracies: 1) "Robert Downey Jr.’s casting as Iron Man was only possible because of the Ultimates,

No. The casting was entirely down to Jon Favreau who had to fight other producers and others to defend it. And most of Iron Man was improvised (early drafts and ideas had Tony Stark's dad as the Big Bad and so on), and Tony Stark's MCU characterization doesn't have a lot to do with Ultimate Iron Man, mostly because Ultimate Iron Man especially in the earlier issues was a Flat Character, and he didn't develop traits until later (and even then was never more than a uni-dimensional character). The constant pop-culture references dropping take of Iron Man, the guy who starts as a womanizer and engages in a monogamous relationship with Pepper Potts (who became a bigger character in the MCU than she was in the comics) owes nothing to Ultimate Marvel.

2) The Avengers that assembled on the big-screen were taken almost verbatim from the Ultimate comics.

No. There's no Hank Pym and the Wasp who were big parts of Ultimate Marvel. And in Ultimate Marvel they were a terrible couple with Hank abusing Jan. Likewise, the Ultimates first public mission was to fight the rampaging cannibalistic Hulk because he got dumped by Betty Ross. There's nothing "verbatim" there to what we see in the MCU, where MCU's Hulk, and Mark Ruffallo's Hulk is a highly beloved character. And yes the Avengers were assembled by Shield, but unlike Ultimate Marvel, where all of them are Fury's stooges, here they are Rebellious Rebel types and ultimately SHIELD gets Demoted to Extra.

If anything the idea that Ultimate Marvel inspired by the MCU in any significant level falls under Common Knowledge and should go to Trivia.

You say that my point is "Ultimate Marvel propaganda", and I may say the inverse thing about yours, as you say things like "malign influence", "flat character", "Fury's stooges" and such. That's why I cite other pages, so that the discussion is not about our own views, and I would like you to do the same if you want to counter a point.

You say that the article is "filled with inaccuracies", but that's simply not true. You say that Iron Man is not based on Ultimate Iron Man because that's a flat character; well, that's your opinion, I don't agree with it, and Cinema Blend does not agree with it. You say that the Ultimates are just Fury's agents and the MCU Avengers are rebels, but 1) Ultimate Thor is also a "rebel" who comes and goes as he pleases and is not a soldier of Fury, and 2) MCU Captain America, Hawkeye and Black Widow are agents of SHIELD under the orders of Fury ("stooges", as you would put it). In any case, an adaption is not meant to be a scene-by-scene adaption as Sin City.

And, as already pointed, if you want to say that the influence of Ultimate Marvel on the MCU is Common Knowledge (reading: a common misunderstanding), then you'll be discussing the opinion of Joss Whedon himself!

By the way, there's another article here. "The Ultimate line of comic books dispensed with years of convoluted history to tell old stories in new ways. They’ve had a large influence on the growing Marvel film universe, and Millar played a key role." "Pairing his storytelling with Bryan Hitch’s astonishing art, its legacy on Marvel films was immense. Among other direct references, Bryan Hitch re-envisaged SHIELD head Nick Fury as Samuel Jackson in the Ultimates... Six years later, Samuel Jackson was duly cast in the same role for The Avengers."

Alright let's get back on-topic...are we in agreement yes and no, that

1) Lighter and Softer entry is not-YMMV?

2) that your Broken Base is not a valid entry?

3) That Ultimate Marvel and stuff about its legacy doesn't belong here?

1) Already moved to Franchise namespace

2) No. I have cited pages that mention the broken base in the comic book fandom, and others who mention the Ultimates as both a clear and positive influence (without making reference to any rejection of the Ultimates). The entry is phrased in a way that it mentions both positions, and the arguments of each one. And your point 2 seems to ignore that a huge number of YMMV entries, both here and in most superhero films, make reference to the reception to the specifics of the adaptation.

3) Ultimate Marvel, in and of itself, is an unrelated topic, and has its own pages. The influence of Ultimate Marvel in the MCU, and the reception of it, does belong here, as well as the influence from other comic book works when appropiate.

I can confirm that Wanda is ABSOLUTELY a Base-Breaking Character, and Steve is as well, but yeah her entry seriously needs to be rewritten. Many of her defenses come from people who see her as a Jerkass Woobie or buy into her statements at face value and condemn Tony for killing her parents, believing she had no choice or was justified in seeking her revenge. There is definitely a Double Standard here coming from these people, but their viewpoints are worth being pointed out.

OK, will readd the Wanda one, but I might need some suggestions on the Steve one, as I'm one of those weird people who is familiar with the work itself, but less so with the fandom.

My perspective is biased since I follow a lot of Steve fans, but from what I can tell a lot of the dislike comes from people who are very fond of Tony, and therefore whose negative opinions of Steve may be influenced by character favoritism. Currently the entry is something that a lot of Steve fans would argue vociferously against as not actually being contradictory at all, and that Steve really couldn't have known for sure that Bucky killed Tony's parents, even if he might've suspected it. Can't really elaborate beyond that, but someone else might be able to help.

Thanks. I'll get around to fixing it later (assuming someone else doesn't beat me to it).

I'm more a fan of Steve than Tony, but there is some truth to the entry. The main issue, if I recall, is that Steve's stance in the film is more standoffish and violent than many people cared for. For example, HISHE parodied his reaction to Tony's rampage by having Steve profoundly apologize for deceiving him and betraying his trust, prompting Tony to calm down. Movie Steve just demands Tony stand down and punches him until he does so.

That being said, this portrayal is consistent with the previous ones in his other films. Steve has never been the kind of person to prostrate himself and talk things out. He leaps to action first and tries to work things out on the fly.

I'd say remove the ones that are limited to a specific single film or show, and leave the ones that refer to characters or things that happen across multiple works (e.g. Jane Foster and Loki can stay because they relate to both Thor 1 and 2, and Coulson has to do with both Avengers 2012 and AOS.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Or remove them so as long as they don't explain.