Talk:Ultimate Comics: Spider-Man

Do not delete

This page should not be deleted as it serves as a sequel to the first volume and the two pages volumes should be seperate. More will be added as the comic is released. JFBeard (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Tidy Up

I am going to tidy up the page and create a new a page for storylines, much like the original Ultimate Spider-Man had. This is because the story line will get to big for the page and be a mess. i am proposing to do the same foe Ultimate Comics: Armor Wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.240.6 (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Already been tried and was undone pretty quickly. The reason the storyline page for Ultimate Spider-Man was created was because the content was far too large for the main page and had to be spun off into its own article. This isn't the case yet. Not by a long way. So, while the effort is appreciated, please don't do this yet. Thanks. Planewalker Dave (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I've nominated the article in question for deletion. It was nothing but unsourced speculation, which violates WP:CRYSTAL. The first storyline isn't even over, so it'll still be a while before such an article could be warranted. Friginator (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Mother-Daughter-Villain-team

What's the name of this mother-daughter villain team with the daughter always using so called four letter words?--Baruch ben Alexander - ☠☢☣ 00:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No name was given for them. They were minor characters, likely inserted for the purpose of furthering Spider-Woman's and Human Torch's relationship. 75.157.120.15 (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

They're called the Bombshells. 75.179.13.215 (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Creative Team, Issue Numbers

For 'Ultimate Spiderman', 'Ultimate X-Men' & 'Ultimate Fantastic Four', all the artists (& writers, though that doesn't apply for this) are listed in the 'creative team' of there respective Wikipedia articles, and all include the number of issues they all worked on. With the growing number of artists for ultimate comics spider-man (11 now), I think it's something that should be considered adding here. Also, we may want to discount artists who have done less than one issue (otherwise the list might grow to be ridiculous). The exact numbers are... Lafuente (#1-6, 9-14, 150, 152-154), Miyazawa (#7-8), Pichelli (#15, 150-154), Jones (#150), McKelvie (#150), Young (#150), Medina (#153), Ed Tadeo (#153), Elena Casagrande (#154), Chris Samnee (#155), Mark Bagley (#156-164+?)(we know Bagley's doing at least 8 issues, but because of Spiderman's upcoming supposed 'death', we don't know if he'll do more or not). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.100.195.88 (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What counts as Ultimate Spider-Man 134?

Of course we all know that the numbering got screwed up because of the Ultimate Comics rebranding, but when they went back to the original numbering at 150 it seems like they skipped an issue. Follow my logic... I know that the end of the first volume is with #133.

So if I convert the Ultimate Comics Spider-Man numbering into Ultimate Spider-Man numbers, working backwards from #150... UCSM #15 = USM #149, UCSM #14 = USM #148, UCSM #13 = USM #147, UCSM #12 = USM #146, UCSM #11 = USM #145, UCSM #10 = USM #144, UCSM #9 = USM #143, UCSM #8 = USM #142, UCSM #7 = USM #141, UCSM #6 = USM #140, UCSM #5 = USM #139, UCSM #4 = USM #138, UCSM #3 = USM #137, UCSM #2 = USM #136, UCSM #1 = USM #135

What, then, becomes Ultimate Spider-Man #134? Are they actually one issue off? Was it some of the annuals, or that special? The Ultimatum Requiems? Is it the Ultimatum series itself? That does seem like required reading. But no other miniseries, like the Sinister Six has affected numbering before. Dereako (talk) 11:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Merger

Now that two issues of "Ultimate Comics: Spider-Man" have been released I believe there are a number of reasons that this article should be merged back into Ultimate Spider-Man. For the first thing, despite Marvel's pre-release solicitations saying that this comic "reboot" is called "Ultimate Comics: Spider-Man" it is actually called Ultimate Spider-Man. And I'm not just referring to the fact that that is what is printed on the cover. If you have an copy of issue #1 or #2 on hand open to the first page, look at the block of fine-print copywrite and publisher info. The title listed there officially is Ultimate Spider-Man. Why Marvel dropped the "Ultimate Comics" title is unclear, but the fact remains they didn't not release this new Ultimate Spider-Man title under that title.

For another thing, this article has almost no room for relevant expansion past being a stub. This title is a direct, continuation of the continuity of the Ultimate Spider-Man issues #1-133. Which means sections like character descriptions and title history would be redundant if recreated here, when they already exist at the Ultimate Spider-Man article. Breaking down the Storyline summary is also redundant as the article List of Ultimate Spider-Man story arcs also already exists.

The only relevant content in the article right now is the opening paragraph, which should just be a section in Ultimate Spider-Man.

This so called "Ultimate Comics" title (even though as I said it's not even truly titled that), is pretty much the next volume of the Ultimate Spider-Man series. There's no reason for a separate article.

These are the reasons I believe this article, with whatever relevant content it may contain, should be merged into Ultimate Spider-Man and made into a new section in that page.Danleary25 (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a separate series, under a different imprint and a different name. The latest issue (released today, September 2nd) has the text, "Ultimate Spider-Man" in it, but the previous issue didn't. It clearly read 'Ultimate Comics Spider-Man No. 1, October 2009." Ultimate Comics Avengers had the same. I'm guessing it's just an error, as this happens from time to time, especially in comics. It's way too soon to just assume Marvel has dropped the imprint that they have been promoting since last year. Especially based on the little evidence you're giving. I would also like to point out that per WP:CRYSTAL, it is against policy to assume the future of an article's subject.

As for the covers, the new imprint does not specifically say "Ultimate Comics: Spider-Man." But, for example, look at DC's "All Star" imprint. The text doesn't read "All Star Superman" or "All Star Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder, but those are the titles regardless.

Plus, here are Marvel's official listings for the next two issues: 3 and 4. Both are clearly listed as Ultimate Comics Spider-Man.

The summary should stay until it warrants its own article describing Ultimate Comics storyarcs. List of Ultimate Spider-Man story arcs should not have the info from this series, so I'm going to remove it. So once again, there's no evidence save for a possible printing error in a recent issue. The article should stay the way it is now, though obviously it could use a few improvements. Friginator (talk) 02:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems that this is of low enough importance that it should be a subset of the ultimate Spider-Man, article, which frankly, should probably be a subset of the Spider-Man Article, under other versions of the character. How important outside of comics fandom are the various incarnations of Spider-Man? User:gearyster —Preceding undated comment added 19:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC).

Well I have to say I disagree with User:gearyster. Ultimate Spider-Man is an long-running separate comic book to Amazing Spider-Man (or the various other 616 publications) wiht enormous differences that should be noted. As for the merger I disagree with it. Ultimate Comics: Spider-Man is clearly the successor to Ultimate Spider-Man but it has fundamental differences (in cast, tone and status quo). It is also technically part of a new imprint (even if it is just the next generation of the Ultimate Universe). I see this siutation as similar to why New Avengers shouldn't merged into Avengers (comics). Planewalker Dave (talk) 10:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

As well as having "Ultimate Comics Spider-Man" printed in the publisher info. of issue 1, the new volume of Ultimate Spider-Man appears under the Ultimate Marvel comics hub on the marvel website, instead of the spiderman/ultimatum hubs like the previous. Ultimate Spider-Man is also a completely separate character from a different universe, not just a branch of the 616, main universe spiderman, so it should not be a subset of the regular Spider-Man article. (Asaspades (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC))

It may be of note that the Ultimate Spider-Man vs Ultimate Comics Spider-Man argument (with regards to the title) has begun again (hopefully for the last time) here. It should be noted that if we do go to Ultimate Spider-Man, this would make the current publication Ultimate Spider-Man v2 and therefore the only reasonably course would be to merge this article with the other. Whether we then split the character off into his own article, is another issue though. Planewalker Dave (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Articles be merged now, especially since the series reverted to the original numbering... Isn't giving this a separate page kinda like if you gave a separate page to Amazing Spider-man Vol. 2? The story picks up where the other series left off, and now the numbers are continuing from where they were too. It's just like many long-running Marvel series (Amazing Spidey. Daredevil, Fantastic Four) where the numbering started over for a while, but then later reverted, and it was all considered part of the same series. This even more so than some of those as not only has the story continued from where it was left off, but the same writer worked on both series. I think this should qualify as one series. 24.148.26.74 (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Those other comics had different titles, though. I still think we should keep the original Ultimate series and the new "Ultimate Comics" series separate. Friginator (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to revisit this proposal, given they readopted the previous numbering, retitled the book, etc. (even if it did end again). I think taking a page from other titles that have relaunched, then gone back to old numbering/titling would be in order (The Fantastic Four would be a perfect example) Darquis (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

i think a new article should be created for the new series as this time it really has Ultimate Comics in the title and second the title is differnt from the previous ie. Ultimate Comics: All-New Spider-Man, a article should be created by that name. 117.197.245.75 (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)