Talk:Ultimate Spider-Man/Archive 1

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.

The Madame Web theory is possible because in the Video Game when Spider-man is racing Johny Storm he says something about Madame Web in passing. And since the Video Games place in the marvel U continuity has never been cemented down, she may make an appearance in the future. Bhold1

Madame Web has appeared in Ultimate Spider-Man. In issue #102, she is part of the psych team that plans to change Ultimate Spider-Woman's memories (the Spider-Woman of this reality being merely a female clone of Spider-Man). She appears in a wheelchair (implying paralysis) and blind, similar to the classic version. However, she is younger than that version of the character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.5.25.124 (talk) 08:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

They should bring in Mysterio, I've been waiting for him ever since the HollyWood arc finished.Rauj16 02:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

That section actually isn't even correct. I haven't checked the main article the section is from, yet, but I know that the game isn't in-continuity. The issues that the game's "fall-out" supposedly would have had have instead events which completely conflict with the game. Things like characters in the game knowing each other when, in the comics that were purportedly supposed to deal with the game's events, they don't have the first clue who the other person(s) is/are. I don't really know how to deal with that section unless it's to take it out as a whole and put up some other snippet.

Last Thylacine 02:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it is out of continuity. How do you even know when it is supposed to be set. Cite something that disagrees with the current section before removing it. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A quick Yahoo! search brought me right back to Wikipedia; specifically, right here. I'll concede that it might not be out-of-continuity (hence one reason why I wasn't all "bold" and took the section out of this article), but if it is supposed to be in-continuity, then it will have to be after the very issues I cited due to the problems mentioned in that link. If it's set after those issues, then it conflicts with the in-game date of only three months after the Venom arc. It is unlikely that billboards for Kraven would still be up too long after that time period, as by this point in the comics he has been found to be a criminal and locked up by the Ultimates and SHIELD.

That's all how it is so much more likely out of continuity than not.

Last Thylacine 08:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but that's original research. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't. There's nothing pulled out of my heinie on this. Play the game and read the comics. The two are not compatible. There are too many facts--not conjectures, but facts--that make the game being a part of established comic canon highly improbable.

I realize people want the game to be a part of canon. As a devout Spider-Fan, I sure as heck would love it. But--it isn't. Or, at the most, it might be eventually, when events and writers align to make everything jive. At the present time, which is what must be considered, it is not canon, and therefore should not be thought of as such.

Last Thylacine 11:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I should clarify: That's Original Research. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I should clarify as well. You're patently wrong. The sources cited are the game and the comics. They conflict with each other. That's about as simplistic as I can put it; hopefully it's understandable now.

Last Thylacine 04:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand exactly what you're saying. You're saying, "Based on these two things, I think this." But it doesn't matter what you think because you are not a reliable source. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:32, 13 December 2006 (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)

I agree. Ultimate Characters are completely different from their 616 counterparts. They cannot be placed in the same place. UnDeRsCoRe 21:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A list does not seem uncalled for.

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. [2] --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 - exactly. I'm just saying leave it in Ultimate Spider-Woman until we know who she's a version of, since we'll probably know inside of 3 weeks anyway, and then merge it with that article. Why merge twice when you can merge once? -HKMarks 17:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - There are only four or five lines (first appearance, two lines worth of detail, Spiderfan.org calling her "MJ Clone", and her depicted powers) that aren't speculative or needlessly detailed. It would be nothing to merge it with any article. --Newt_ΨΦ 19:57, 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 in the book, just looked like a version of Scorpion. I guess the promos called him Scorpion though, so maybe it is different. --Newt_ΨΦ 17:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Wait and see I think we should just wait. Once she's named we should merge it with whatever 616 chracter article it best fits. (If there even is a 616 character that it's the counterpart of) UnDeRsCoRe 22:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Or Merge with the main Spider-Woman aritcle !--Brown Shoes22 23:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment- Spider-Woman is a disambiguation page and it provides links to the articles. You don't add a whole character article to it. The best decsion is to wait and see who she is and merge it with her 616 counterpart! UnDeRsCoRe 01:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment- Being that she has appeared in the Clone Saga it is possible that she is a female clone of Peter and if that is the case she won't have a 616 counterpart... Seraph 31 08:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - X-23..? Kidding... (...resisting... urge... to treat... like forum...) -HKMarks 14:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - And if she is a she-clone of Peter, then, as a minor character, she can be included in this article. --Newt_ΨΦ 15:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Wait and see. What does it hurt? Within two months, we'll know both who she is (I can't believe it's not obvious to everyone; there's more than . . . nah, never mind) and if she's likely to stick around. Deal with it then. Don't clutter the Ultimate Spider-Man page with her details. Doczilla 15:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and discard all (obviously invalid) 'wait and see' votes. --InShaneee 14:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge: I'm normally okay with wait-and-see, but the sheer volume of Ultimate articles with wackiness doesn't merit children from all heros. If the Spiderwoman article's section on USW becomes huge and unweildy, then a split would be appropriate. Right now, it's too soon to tell if she'll be a minor character or a break out star. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It was merged almost two weeks ago. How does one close a discussion, anyway..? -HKMarks 00:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Decision is closed. Consensus is to mergeBrian Boru is awesome 00:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

"Wait and see" is, unfortunately, not the way Wikipedia works. Please see "Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball", as well as the current discussion on the WP:CMC talk page. --Chris Griswold (☏) 17:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Can someone at least cite where this character is called Spider-Woman?--Chris Griswold (☏) 19:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't even think the promos say it. --Newt_ΨΦ 19:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not mentioned in #98, the issue in which she briefly appears. --Chris Griswold (☏) 19:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No mention in the solicitation for #98 and 99: Spidey is reeling from the exposure of the Scorpion's unbelievable identity. But even that pales besides the string of revelations awaiting him such as: Who kidnapped Mary Jane and what does he/she want? Who does Spider-Man struggle against in the old warehouse where he fought his first battle? Who is waiting for him in the house in Queens he and his Aunt May abandoned recently? Your jaw will drop and your mind will go numb when you learn the solution to these mysteries. And the world of Peter Parker will never be the same. Parts 2 and 3 of 5. --Chris Griswold (☏) 19:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hiding (talk · contribs) merged the article until a citation can be found as to the name "Spider-Woman". Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics#The_Negotiater_.5Bsic.5D_and_Ultimate_characters Please see below. --Newt_ΨΦ 20:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge performed until source provided

Until we get a source for the character's name, no article can be created. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is Wikipedia the place for original research. Therefore, until a source is provided, in line with guidance and policy, I have merged the article. Note that a consensus cannot trump policies. Hiding Talk 20:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

A 20-second Google search turns up this: "Ultimate Spider-Man #97 begins the “Ultimate Clone Saga” which runs through issue #104. While the arc will feature Kitty and Mary Jane prominently, Bendis said it will also feature versions of the Ultimate Scorpion and Ultimate Spider-Woman." [3] and [4]

Well, whatever. I'll make a mental note to change the redirect if necessary later. -HKMarks 21:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, they help. The second link states Ultimate Spider-Woman will make her debut in “Ultimate Spider-Man #92”, was that actually correct? I'd note these articles don't actually help name the character which appeared in the comic. As it stands, this is still deduced content, and qualifies as original research. That said, there's still not enough information to justify a separate article per guidance at WP:FICTION. Hiding Talk 21:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care if it's merged, it just seemed like it'd be less trouble to do it later. Whatever, no big deal. The second link issue # I think was a typo; they say the clone saga starts at #97 later in the article. -HKMarks 21:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is, unless they offer a correction we can't quantify it as a tipo. That's why our guidance on reliable sources are quite stringent. We require sources which check their facts. We can't check their facts for them, nor can we make assumptions regarding possible tipos, such things are original research. With regards the merge, why put off until tomorrow what you can do today? Hiding Talk 22:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Er. We're up to #99 now. The only girls in #92 at all were Kitty Pryde, Jean Grey, and Rogue. Eeek! Rogue is totally Ultimate Spider-Woman! (Or we can just ignore the source as dubious and use the other one.) -HKMarks 22:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

We could do that, couldn't we. I'm not sure what being up to #99 has to do with owt at the mo though. Has any more information regarding the character been revealed? Hiding Talk 22:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No, just saying we know she wasn't in #92, so it's clearly wrong. -HKMarks 22:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Grrrr

Who hates the Spider-Man/Kitty Pryde pairing? Just curious. I mean really, think about it. It totally goes beyond what we're used to. 70.58.211.220

I appreciate your participiation, but this page is used to discuss improvements to the article. Have a spider-riffic day!! -Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry for the inconvenience. 70.58.211.220

Ultimate Carnage is Gwen?

I have yet to read Ultimate Spider-Man #100, but this article states Gwen turns into Carnage? Is this true? If not remove it, If it is, please enlighten me. UnDeRsCoRe 23:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's true. After Nick Fury shows up to arrest everyone in the house, Gwen suddenly turns into Carnage.--Brand Eks 00:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well...that's a bit unsetteling. (Well Bendis did say there was going to be like 7 or 8 shockers right?) UnDeRsCoRe 01:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I read that issue as well. My theory on it is that after carnage absorbed Gwen's life essence she bacame a part of him. Carnage was killed off in the fight he had with Peter. Or was he? Carnage may have found a way to transform into the people he drains. Therefore Carage is Gwen Stacy not the other way around. Keep in mind that's just my theory and I will probably be proved wrong when Issue #101 hit's the stands. bhold1 15:18, 28 September 2006

I think that too. Carnage transformed or "masked" itself as Gwen using the DNA it absorbed. So, ya. UnDeRsCoRe 22:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

As I read the issue I was under the impression that the Gwen/Carnage was a clone using DNA from the original Gwen and the research that Ben Reilly stole from Dr. Connor. The original creature made from that research was destroyed by Peter and Gwen/Carnage is not him. some random guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.5.25.124 (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be accurate enough. On that thread, though, it looks as if quite a few of the 'Future Developments' need either fixing or outright deleting. There was definitely no birthday involved, at least. 68.96.255.13 01:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Bendis did age him but just won't point it out in this issue. I agree with the clean up of "Future Developments", it's nearly all speculation. UnDeRsCoRe 01:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I just bought and read issue #50 of Ultimate Spider-Man, "Black Cat." Imagine how surprised I was to take a look at the thoughts page and see this exchange beween a reader and Brian Bendis:

Q: Will Peter and Gwe's relationship become more complicated or will they just remain friends?

Or Gwen will become Carn-oops.

So it was revealed over two years ago (Feb 04) this would happen!

Spider-Carnage?

In this page it lists the Carnage seen in the Ultimate Spider-Man game as "Spider-Carnage". Unless I'm wrong, it was never named as such, or referred to. It was just Carnage. UnDeRsCoRe 15:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in all of Ultimate Spider-Man, neither Venom or Carnage are actually called by those names in the stories. Peter always calls Venom "Eddie", which is similar to Earth-616. The story arcs themselves are, however, called Venom and Carnage, respectively. Ranhalt 3:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Milestone

I just have a question. Marvel.com's catalog page depicted that in the Deadpool arc, Kitty and Peter were supposed to reach a milestone. It was supposed to be somewhere in #92 or #93, but I never saw anything that was even close to a milestone and I don't think there is anything on here about it either. I was just wondering if anybody knew what that was supposed to be and if it is important enough to include on the page. Thanks a lot.--TriPredRavage 21:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

issues with current plot

Honestly, someone keeps jumbling up the ongoing plot in this sereies with the Clone Saga. You can't shank this storyline it'll confuse people. And it ties in with the Annual #2 so to shaft that as well is un fair to the writers who put time and effort into the story arch.

Someone is simply cutting out the edits I make and re-pasting their terrible grammar almost everytime I go to fix it. Could someone please clean this arch up in a way that no one can argue it?

This is St Jimmy86 by the way I just can't log in right now I'm at school.

Hardcover editions and movies

It's common knowledge that Ultimate Spider-Man was inspired by the first Spider-Man film. The first hardcover edition features the Green Goblin and the Kingpin as main villains, and the first film has Gobby as the main badguy. The second hardcover edition features Doc Ock, Kraven the Hunter, and the Green Goblin as main baddies, and Doc Ock is the main adversary in Spider-Man 2. Now Spider-Man 3 is coming out and Venom is confirmed as the main badguy, and Venom is the main badguy in the third hardcover edition of Ultimate Spider-Man. Shouldn't there be a Trivia section of the article to include things like that? If Black Cat appears in Spider-Man 4, I'm adding it to all five articles.

Two things. One: Please add any good information to an article, rather than to its trivia section (or create one). If it's good information, it doesn't belong in a trivia section. Additionally, whenever an article is put up for serious comment and improvement, the trivia section is usually one of the first things to go. Two: We need reliable sources for any such claims, and there's a good chance youi will find them on a Web site or in an introduction to one of the books. We can't, unfortunately, go by common knowledge, because people who have no knowledge whatsoever will read the article. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That's all coincidence. Mind you, Ultimate Spider-Man launched in 2000. Additionally, Ultimate Green Goblin is nothing like movie Green Goblin, for one example. WesleyDodds 09:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

WesleyDodds is right on the money, because Ultimate Spider-Man was released in 2000, while Spider-Man the film was released in 2002. Megosoles 00:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

WHO DID THAT?

The decision on 'Ultimate Spider-man: Story Arcs' was Keep, not Delete/Merge. What int he world did you do to it? We were just starting ot get something done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.57.77 (talk • contribs)

If you're talking about the story arc edit I suggested, the current layout for what's happening now was a complete mess. It seemed people were completely copying and pasting what they wanted into the middle of other people's sentances. They were fragmented, incomplete, and worse off they were incorrect. I don't know who did the actual editing, but I called for a relook at the story arc description cuz someone keeps jumbling it up. --St jimmy86 05:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I MEANT the fool who deleted the article Ultimate Spider-Man (Story Arcs) and redirected it here when there was NO NEED to. It had been up for deletion for a bit of time, to many people's disgust, and thankfully it had been kept - only for someone to delete it without permission!

It's A Man In Black check it up with him and oh yeah he's a administrator in wikipedia. Have fun!!! Brian Boru is awesome 17:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Right here [5]. Don't shoot the messenger. Brian Boru is awesome 18:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ultimate Spider-Woman

I was thinking about this character, and I think that she's a female clone of Peter, and possibly the Ultimate incarnation of Ben Reilly. Do you think it's worth putting in the article, or no? Tai112

It is if you are Brian Michael Bendis. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Edited for accuracy

I removed the bit about USM breaking the record for longest creative collaboration (presumably in comics), because it was innaccurate; Dave Sim and Gerhard worked together on Cerebus for issues 65 through 300.

Although I agree with you, the fact that it was hyped this way should be mentioned. This does not mean, of course, that we should not mention that it is untrue. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 11:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this just adds confusing. It's not being billed as the longest running creative team on any comic, it's the longest running creative team on a Marvel Comic (as the article itself states). As Cerebus is an independent comic, it really doesn't bear mentioning.

Ultimate Spider-Man Video Game

The page needs editing regarding the USM video game. In several places it refers to events happening in the game as concrete continuity. However, there are several story errors (and disagreeing comments from the creators) on the continuity of the game and comic, discussed here -Jonathan

Characters

Should'nt the Lizard be added to the Enemies section and What's the deal with Ultimate Gwen Stacy/Carnage. Where does that go? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.134.101.180 (talk) 11:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Oz

I vote that someone creates an arcicle about Oz and it's effects, probably with a list of the characters created by it. I think the're (In chronological order):

• Ultimate Spider-Man,
• Ultimate Green Goblin,
• Ultimate Hobgoblin,
• Ultimate Docter Octopus,
• Ultimate Carnage I (Made from Peter's blood),
• Ultimate Carnage II (Made from Peter's blood),
• Ultimate Richard Parker* (Made from Peter's blood),
• Ultimate Spider-Woman (Made from Peter's blood),
• Ultimate Scorpion (Made from Peter's blood),
• Ultimate Tarantula (Made from Peter's blood),
• Ultimate Kaine/Defomed Clone (Made from Peter's blood),
• Ultimate Demogoblin (Mary-Jane).

Feel free to amend any mistakes to the list.

• P.S: Richard Parker is included due to clone status, also notably exibiting no powers. He is rapidly aging though.

Thanks.

          I am currently doing this, unless there are objections.
          -EvaCipher 08:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmm...

"Kitty Pryde recently left the Xavier Institute and is moving back with her mother at Queens, and enrolls to Midtown High School to be with Peter." Hmmmm...I smell a mean romantic relationship ruining conspiracy by our little Miss Shadowcat. Unless...she just wants to be his friend and not hurt his relationship...I hope. Just raising some thoughts. 71.217.236.119 23:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Death of the Goblin

We NEED more info!

        I agree TOTALLY!! I bet that MJ is one of the Goblins. I hope they have a big OZ-powered fight!!!
        -EvaCipher 08:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

 Unfortunately, Marvel is kind of hush-hush with the new storyline. All that they will say is that Norman Osborn/The Goblin brakes out of the Triskelion   Prison (where Nick Fury and the Ultimates hare based) he has been in for since the Ultimate Six storyline. Seeing as how Spidey has beaten him a couple times, as well as possibly hearing about what happened with Harry's transformation into the Hobgoblin, I'm sure it is a story about payback. Electro is also supposed to be in the story, but not much has been released.----Frodo1511 23 June 07

Ultimate Kaine?

In the article the scared clone of peter in the clone saga is referred to as simply scarred clone. In reality he is ultimized kaine as mentioned in the letters section of USM 100. Can someone please make this changeDoms1477 02:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate Spot?

What the heck is going on? What happened to Death of the Goblin? Maybe Bendis is giving Spidey a break from life-changing events? Probably not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.139.79.124 (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

 This is supposed to be Issue 111, right after the Ultimate Knights story arc, but right before the Death of the Goblin story. I think this is one of the classic issues like the Clone Saga epilogue, or the Detention/Dumped issues where it is a singular story, not intended to be part of any ongoing arc, but to simply move the storyline of Peter's own personal life forward. This is the issue where Peter and Aunt May have the much-hyped "talk" about Peter being Spidey, while Ultimate Spot, I guess, is a new enemy for the Ultimate universe. It'll be interesting to see how the two events play out in one issue. ----Frodo1511 23 June.

Powers

There's a line in the Powers section saying that Ultimate Spider-Man is weaker than his 616 counterpart. Was this ever stated as official canon by Marvel?

I'm kinda inclined to think that if Ultimate Spider-Man is weaker, it's probably because he's significantly younger than the original Spider-Man. Something along the lines of not having fully come into his powers yet.

I'm suggesting it should be noted in the powers section one way or another. 64.128.89.154 17:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

USM Game

Doest Sable already know Spiderman's identity by the time we encounter her in game? Cause im pretty sure she refers to Spiderman as Peter Parker durring the limo part of the game.

Premiere Hardcover

Marvel recently released information about the Clone Saga being collected into a Premiere Hardcover format. Where should this book be listed? The Tradepaperback version of the Clone Saga is already listed with the other TPBs, but the Premiere HC probably doesn't belong with the other Hardcovers, considering that the Clone Saga will be more than likely be compiled along with another story arc for the ninth hardcover edition. Should there be a new section created specifically for the Premiere HC?--TriPredRavage 22:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• That's been done with every Ultimate Spider-Man collection, I have the Ultimate Carnage edition. It's not important. SaliereTheFish 17:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually some people think "Clone Saga" in hardcover is Volume 9 of the oversized HC series, which isn't helped by the fact that apparently this article says it is. So it's not important that some of the shorter trades came out in HC? Please explain that position! This article needs to reflect all the various collected editions or none at all! STFmaryville 09:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
    • When checking the marvel comics website there is no Volume 9 of the hardcovers yet. There is a clone saga premiere hardcover, but no volume 9. I found this misleading when looking up the books to buy them. So I have changed it in the article. IF you wish to change it go ahead, but I felt it was too misleading to assume it was volume 9 when it is not labeled as such. Thisis a link to the page explaining the premiere hardcover. --Yagamiichigo 05:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate Knights ending

I am looking forward to this, considering it's the final Bendis-Bagley team issue made of USM, and there's a lot to expect. At the end of #109, Moon Knight is unmasked to Spidey and his friends. Suggestions on who Moon Knight is? My number 1 suspect is Kitty Pryde, but that could be just fan-fueled fury. Let's use what we know about Moon Knight's activities. I'll be waiting. 65.103.61.154 20:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Moon Knight is Marc Spector (or another alias). this was revealed way back in Warriors.

Hm. Well, you're right. Kitty is still doing superheo work, as seen in USM #112. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.43.20.53 (talk) 19:35, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate Scorpion and Carnage

Should it be mentioned that Scorpion(Peter Clone) and Carnage(Gwen Clone) could feature in either the Ultimates or a possible Ultimate Thunderbolts? Or is this just hopeful speculation?

This is definite speculation and original research unless you have a source. Until then, it should not be included.--CyberGhostface 13:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Game

I think we need to determine when the game actually happens. It must be before the annual because Spidey calls Shocker "Herman" which he only finds out is Shocker's name in the game. And he is friends with Mary Jane so it must be before the breakup. - The 4th Snake 18:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

All of that would be classified as original research. If an editor or Bendis comes out and says anything though, feel free to write about it and source it. 149.166.137.148 21:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The Ultimate Spider-Man Game was heavily based on the Ultimate Spider-Man comics. It took the established events from book one through six and branched out into a new, non canon, story. The Game is not canon with and even contradicts some of the events in books seven onward. some random guy 23:47 08 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.5.25.124 (talk) 08:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ultimate Spiderman by sc89.jpg

Image:Ultimate Spiderman by sc89.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Original Title

that article does not state that the original title was "Ground Zero: Spider-Man", it says they were originally going to call it that. That's not the same thing. i'm gonna remove that from the beginning of the article, it might be an interesting fact to put later in the conception of the idea, or even in the Ultimate Marvel main article, but not where it is.

Captaincanuck65 (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

How about "originally planned to be called"? Includes that it was only an idea, but also includes the fact that it was not the original title, simply a pre-production title. Rau's talk 02:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Osborn: Dead or Alive

Isn't Osborn dead? The scene where he blows a hole in the Triskelion was a flashback. You can see Gwen Stacy escaping in both panels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.121.216 (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)