memorax wrote:
Personally I think Marvel having two seperate universe the regular MU and the Ultimates to me was actually a smart move.
I really do think that the Ultimates universe came around for two reasons;
1) To reconceptualize the characters so that they could be made more 'cinematic' for eventual movie adaptations. Hence we have an Iron Man design that looks more like Ultimate Iron Man, Sam Jackson as Nick Fury instead of David Hasslehoff (shudder), Captain America wearing his strappy Ultimate uniform instead of the 'chainmail' (that was always drawn as scalemail anyway), Hawkeye and Black Widow as founding Avengers, etc.
2) To allow writers who are current fan-favorites, big fans of deconstructing heroes (and never remembering to build them back up afterwards, since their only real talent is petulantly destroying decades-old properties that better writers have created), and hate, hate, hate the idea of 'good-guys' or 'superheroes' to write their beloved dystopian jackbooted thugs and violent jerks and sociopathic freaks, without actually getting their hands on the 'real' Captain America, Hawkeye, etc.
.
And yeah, I think DC would have benefitted from doing the same thing. Instead of turning Wonder Woman into a head-cutting-off hardcore pragmatist (she who came to 'man's world' as an ambassador of peace, to show us a better way), they could have taken the uglier storylines of the last decade or so, and put them into an 'Ultimate DC' line, where Superman is a disaffected emo alien, who is more terrifyingly in his very real sense of alienation than inspiring, and Wonder Woman comes from a sword-happy martial culture and Batman likes to break legs by way of teaching someone a lesson and Dr. Rape (sorry, Dr. Light) likes to sexually assault and / or murder supporting characters and teenaged heroes.
There's been a number of writers in the last decade who seem to virulently loathe the entire concept of the superhero, and have taken every opportunity they've been given to tear down, deconstruct and 'dirty up' every character they've gotten their hands on.
Deconstruction is a valid storytelling tool, when it's used to build someone up, after tearing them down. But these deconstructionists seem to always forget to fix what they've broken, leaving me with the impression that they are just upset that creators decades ago have crafted lasting characters, and all they can do is smash other people's toys in frustration, as they lack the ability to create anything so lasting, so inspiring or so iconic.