Talk:Ultimate Spider-Man

Request?

Hello. I don't know if I am allowed to request things to be added but could someone add isbn numbers to the hardcover section please? Or maybe could add a link to a good database of comicbook hardcover isbn #s? You can see what i mean at the ultimate xmen page Previous comment left by anonymous IP

Sure; I for one fully intend to do this, but I would like other researchers to help. The best idea I have to find them out is to search on Amazon. Does anyone have any other ideas?

(Note to anon IP: Please create an account on Wikipedia. Even though we welcome anyone who wants to edit Wikipedia, creating an account would enhance trust between parties, as anon IPs have a notorious reputation for vandalism)

Jamdav86 17:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah just use [1] rst20xx 16:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Possible Future Characters

Certainly there must be dozens of characters from the original Spider-Man continuity that haven't appeared in Ultimate S-M. What's the purpose of this short list? Are there any sources that suggest that these characters are going to appear? If not, this list provides no real information and should be removed. Pitr 09:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Madame Web and Morlun are possible future characters.

Videogame section

What a mess. In many places it's wrong, and a lot of it is speculation, some of which seems to also be wrong. It also is a bit rambly, and jumps about a lot. Should also probably be on the game's page. Might redo it some time. Great game tho. rst20xx 15:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I rewrote the section, although since I haven't played the game, my edit is purely stylistic. Someone should still check the facts, but I think the grammar and organization is fine now. Pitr 05:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, although I've already started a more comprehensive rewrite that I planned to put on the videogame's page, with this article linking there. But I'll definitiely leave a (maybe edited) version of your rewrite up, it's good. I've completed the game, and recommend it to you rst20xx 21:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, by all means, I'd love to see a write-up from someone who actually knows the facts. Glad to be a help. Pitr 07:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Spidey-Shadowcat romance: yes or no?

OK, it seems that some users keep adding the Spidey-Shadowcat romance from the Ultimate Spider-Man Annual, and some keep deleting them. I say, insert it, because it is a legit storyline and canonical. I also really do not see the argument that MJ as a girlfriend is "status quo", and bound to be set into stone. But feel free to discuss. Onomatopoeia 02:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

It's fairly simple, really, it's a question of practicality. The Peter/Kitty "relationship", as much as it is one, won't stick, because it would need USM and UXM to become intertwined titles, which, of course, by current storytelling methods, will not happen. They aren't being set-up as a permanent item, and Mary Jane will return to her position as "girlfriend to the main hero" by the end of this or next arc - this is not the first time they break up. The only chance "Mary Jane as girlfriend" stops being status quo for USM, is to either increase the Black Cat's exposure in the strip, or to introduce Ultimate versions of former girlfriend's of "original" Peter, such as Marcy Kane or Debby Whitman. So "Kitty Pryde is his girlfriend now" will be turned "Peter and Kitty went out once" in three or four months, i.e., it's a minor piece of trivia. Ultimate Spider-Man isn't trying to create a new continuity for Spider-Man, it's merely retelling old and familiar stories in a more modern setting. --Pc13 08:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Point taken, though I do not entirely agree with the argument "relationship won't stick because it would need USM and UXM to become intertwined titles, which, of course, by current storytelling methods, will not happen". Writing a crossover romance is HARD, I know, but possible. Let us see what the next "real" arcs of USM and UXM bring us. Either way, even if this is a one-shot after all, then I think we could move it into the "Trivia" section rather than entirely delete it. Onomatopoeia 12:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a relevant place to make this argument, but I think it's pretty clear that the Ultimate books are not "merely" retelling old stories in a modern context. In the titles that have been running for some time, such as UXM and The Ultimates, they've told plenty of stories that bear no similarity to Earth-616 plots. I mean, obviously, there are countless parallels, but the imprint seems to be intended to use similar origins to tell new stories. This seems important from an encyclopedian standpoint, since things like "MJ will clearly always be Peter's most important girlfriend" may not hold as true in this continuity. Pitr 04:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that this following shred of info answers this question with "yes", once and for all. In this interview [2], Brian Michael Bendis says, I quote, "Warriors" [i.e. the current arc] was so much fun to do, and Bagley is having such a great time on it too. Right after that arc, that’s when Kitty Pryde, Peter’s new girlfriend for those who didn’t pick up the Annual comes into the book as a supporting player. This is news I am very happy to hear, even if I will only believe it if I see it with my own eyes. Onomatopoeia 03:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and for those who still do not believe, check out the latest issue of USM. It's there. Apparently in another of Bendis interviews, he spoke about talking with the new writer of the Ultimate X-men, and basically came to the conclusion he was going to flesh the relationship out a bit in his own series before they would take any significant shift in writing to acknowledge the connection between the two. He also spoke about issue 100, and it somehow involved MJ and Shadowcat working together, so even if she is kicked off the immediate position as girlfriend (which is doubtful, given how popular the annual was) this still holds importantant worth as information and should stay.

Look the thing about the Ultimate universe is that they differs from the Earth-616 like Havok is older than Cyclops, Collosuss is homosexuel, Nick Fury is black, the Venom symbiote is not alien, Green Goblin dosen't wear a costume and so on. Peter dosen't nessasarily have to be with Mary Jane and personally i think Kitty Pryde is the best girlfriend for Spidey because the Ultimate MJ bores me to bits.

Better Girlfriend

Kitty Pryde, aka Shadowcat or Mary Jane Watson--Brown Shoes22 02:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Kitty is a superhero herself and Peter willn't always put her in danger, Like MJ who he fears for all the time.--Brown Shoes22 02:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. Hang your head in shame. --Jamdav86 18:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikiquote

I just inserted a Wikiquote into the USM article. I am not sure if a comic book merits this, but there are so many snappy dialogues that are IMHO too good to be withheld. If somebody objects, feel free to discuss. -- Onomatopoeia 16:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Just saw that there already Wikiquotes from Asterix, Watchmen and many other comics. I say, fire away! :D Onomatopoeia 16:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Bruce Campbell joke

Even though Spider-Man and Bruce Campbell have a lot of in-jokes these days, they show the "Bruce" playing Mysterio several times, and he's young, blond, and doesn't have a prominent chin. He's pretty clearly not Bruce Campbell, so let's just leave this bit off the page. Pitr 05:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree... so it's staying in. No harm to keep it. brandeks

I don't want to sound like I'm trying to start an argument or anything, but what makes you think it's Bruce Campbell? I can understand given his cameos in the movies, but the comic gives us a few good looks at him and he doesn't look anything like him, whereas the Tobey Maguire character is clearly drawn to look like Tobey Maguire. I'm honestly not trying to be a jerk, I'm just curious why you're so sure. Pitr 17:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

What about saying "probably Bruce Campbell", or "possibly Bruce Campbell"? I'd say leave it in, but is Bruce Campbell certain enough to be the reason the character's called Bruce to merit a "most likely Bruce Campbell"? rst20xx 12:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

EDIT: See this is done now. Case closed :)

I am satisfied with the edit by Pitr, though I had just compromised with that "possibly" in there... ah well. brandeks

Seperate Villains Page?

I'm proposing a seperate villains page for the Ultimate Spider-Man villains. With all the villains that have appeared in this series, it seems they deserve their own Enemies of Ultimate Spider-Man Page. Does anyone agree? 12.37.71.164 02:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested merge

Ultimate Spider-Man (character) → Ultimate Spider-Man – {The character "Ultimate" Spider-Man is derivative, based on Spider-Man, which already has its own entry. Additionally, the currently existing Ultimate Spider-Man entry not only covers the comic book series of the same name but also focuses a great deal on the character, even detailing his adventures in other "Ultimate" series. The "(character)" entry, on the other hand, is largely an abridgment of the Ultimate Spider-Man series, a type of entry the Comics Wikiproject is currently trying to reduce in accordance with fair use prwctices. --Chris Griswold 17:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)}

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support --Chris Griswold 17:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I can't see separating articles on books named after characters from the characters themseles. Smerdis of Tlön 18:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support the merge; the article on the character is poorly written and could be condensed and successfully merged into this article. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 18:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support the merge; I didn't even know this article existed, and now that I do, I don't really see the need. --Newt ΨΦ 21:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Robje 12:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Synthetic 16:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Wilfredo Martinez 16:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom Markeer 14:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose --Brown Shoes22 18:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Over a week with no comments. I guess it's pretty obvious this is a MERGE consensus. CovenantD 04:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the merge, but shouldn't there be a Ultimate Spidey superhero box on either this page or the 616 Spider-Man's?--Twincast 21:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Blade

Shouldn't we add Morbius to the enemies section and Blade to the Relationsships secteion because of this new arc.

No, not really. They've only appeared in one 2-issue arc. If they were added, pretty much every super powered being Spidey meets should be there. ChrisDV 00:55 GMT, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Heavy lifting

Tonight, I halved this article. I got rid of a lot of unnecessary details, I condensed summaries, I removed minor characters (Yes, this includes some well-known characters who have small parts in the series). I merged and condensed the trivia facts and the cameo section. I have left only significant trivia, although some of it might still need to be removed. I also removed the section about Spider-Man's interactions with other heroes.

What's left to be done:

• The video game section needs condensing and copy editing.
• The trivia section needs to be made into paragraphs and copy edited.
• Issue numbers need to be added to relevent locations.
• A much smaller section about Spider-Man and the other heroes could be added, incorporating Ultimate Marvel Team-Up information.
• A section dedicated to the major differences between this series and the Marvel Universe series.

I'm scared to ask for plot summaries.--Chris Griswold 03:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• I am generally supportive, but I think that appearances like of Justin Hammer, Geldoff, Iron Fist, Shang Chi, Daredevil etc. really must be mentioned ("Irresponsible" without mentioning Geldoff, he was the main antagonist of that story line?!). The whole "relationship to other Ultimate chars" deserves a whole article imho, it is relevant enough. Onomatopoeia 17:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I barely remember Geldoff. What effect does this character have on the series? That story arc is mostly just a confusing, Loebian character clusterfug. The most important thing pertaining to Spider-Man in it is Black Cat puking on him. --Chris Griswold 22:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Geldoff is the main antagonist (yes, he is kinda lame, but he IS) of the "Irresponsible" story arc, where Spidey meets the X-Men. BC puking on Spidey is in "Warriors". BTW, without Justin Hammer you will not understand the "Double Trouble" arc, and without Hammerhead, "Warriors" misses one of its main antagonists. Do you actually read the comics? BTW, plot summaries are in Ultimate Spider-Man (story arcs). Onomatopoeia 13:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful link. Geldoff is a really minor character; another character could easily replace him in that story. We are not trying to address individual story arcs or their antagonists in this article; we are trying to list major elements of the series. Hammer and and Hammerhead so far are also footnotes in the series. If they were to appear again and become a major element of the series, we would certainly add the to the article. --Chris Griswold 13:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, point taken. The big picture is fair enough, the details will settle in time. Onomatopoeia 13:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

History of USM

I just finished inserting a section "History of USM" into this article. Article IMHO needed some out-of-universe, real-life background info. Any more info (e.g. from hardcover USM collections, artist or writer sites etc.) is welcomed. --Onomatopoeia 22:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Good work! --Chris Griswold 07:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Onomatopoeia 10:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Article Clean-Up

Okay, so the heading at the top of the article, states that the article needs cleaning up. To do this, wouldn't it be easier to bullet point the The not-so-secret identity and Marvel references and cameos sections? The section about the references & cameos would be especially in need of this, as it is a complete mess.

To go even further, I think it would be a good idea to split the Marvel references and cameos section into 2 sub-sections, one listing all the references to people & other things from the real world, and one listing all the references to things from other Marvel universes.

Good idea. Though I actually think a lot of it can be cut entirely. The cameos and references section is really out of control. IMHO it suffices to say that "throughout USM, Bendis uses the names of marvel employees and Marvel Universe characters." Why name every single instance? PS, you should make an account and sign your comments! IndyLawSteve 20:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Too much information of no use to non-fans. --Newt ΨΦ 20:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've tidied the references & identity sections into bullet points (And into 2 smaller sub-sections), and seperated the Midtown High & Bugle listings on the supporting cast section into individual characters. Think the history USM section could do with being shortened aswell, so it doesn't go needlessly over the story arcs. Thoughts? ChrisDV 00:49 GMT, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The references section does not need to be split into subsections because the pargraphs are self-explanatory. Again, the sections should not be turned into bullet points: [Wikipedia:Embedded list#Lists within articles|Pararagraphs are preferable to bulleted lists]]. It has been pointed out to me that the secret identity section need not be so enumerated, and I agree.--Chris Griswold 02:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I still think the section is too dense and unreadable and either 1) needs to be broken up into more manageable segments or 2) have most of the details removed entirely. Its fine to not use bullet points as long as the information is grouped into smaller, more readable paragraphs. Personally I think the entire marvel references and cameos section should be summed up in 2-3 sentences and not list every specific instance at all.IndyLawSteve 15:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am in total agreement with you on the last part. I think we both have the same goals and hamebered by trying to preserve information we don't think should be there. --Chris Griswold 20:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the reference, in the third paragraph, to Bendis and Bagley breaking the record for the longest collaboration on a title be changed to the longest collaboration on a Marvel title?

Cheers, S

Needs Clarification

Bagley leaving the book at 110? Can someone provide some sort of proof ie a link to a legitamate article?

Please sign your comments. Good call though. I found one, which I'll add to the article. [3] --Newt ΨΦ 21:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Near the bottom but before the graphics

NRAMA: Okay, to wrap up this week on a completely different note, this week Mark Bagley confirmed his exit from Ultimate Spider-Man with issue #110. Any thoughts on the matter?

JQ: Well, we’ve known for quite some time, we were just holding onto the information in order to make a large release but Mark had to go and leak it early. Darn you Mark Bagley!!!

-HKMARKS 21:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ultimate Spider-Woman

This character has appeared in one issue and has not even been named. I would merge it to Spider-Woman, but we don't even know that this is what the character will be called. --Chris Griswold (☏) 08:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

• Merge --Chris Griswold (☏) 08:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Definitely premature, to say the least. --Newt_ΨΦ 13:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Wait and see who it should be merged with. I'd rather it not be merged with the Spider-Woman disambiguation page, nor Ultimate Spider-Man if it turns out to be an established character or a clone of one or one of the various other possibilities. -HKMarks 13:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - if it's an established character, won't it be merged into that article? Currently, it's meaningless outside of Ultimate Spider-Man. --Chris Griswold (☏) 15:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Isn't there a precedent for inclusion in both of the articles if the character does turn out to be the Ultimate universe's Spider-Woman? The character is already listed in the "Villains" heading of this article. All of the villains listed have a main continuity counterpart with a dedicated article. --Newt_ΨΦ 16:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

True, but the name Spider-Woman hasn't been used, has it? --Chris Griswold (☏) 16:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. I guess my point was that the article itself was premature, and we could merge whatever contents into this article that were needed. After that, if Bendis names her Spider-Woman then we wouldn't have to remove anything from this article, just add it to Spider-Woman. Same thing goes for Scorpion though, IIRC, the clone of Peter was never called Scorpion, just looked like a version of Scorpion. --Newt_ΨΦ 17:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)