Byrne Robotics: Hardest superhero to write (hold the reality, please)

I think that's a very good insight.

Well, there is a major flaw right there.

Yeah, I knew that was coming. I'm not an avid follower of those particular outlets but they are pretty mainstream in this specialized field. If you have any other links contradicting their position from more respectable outlets in your view, of course you're welcome to share them.

If you're going to ask if the Hulk is responsible for any deaths, you'd better get your English phrasing right*.

Of course English is not my native tongue, still don't understand the exact relationship between that fact and me raising this particular issue though.

I strongly feel that with what I've said before I'm well covered though, I'm pretty good at phrasing:

"The recent Hulk movies are about as close as a "mainstream version" we get these days and I don't have them completely fresh in my mind but I remember them heavily implying that he killed people. Or at least that when the Hulk came out people died, to phrase it more elegantly."

Rodrigo, that kill count video is not very persuasive.

It definitely isn't. I've said so myself by describing it as gimmick fan made video with aliens and robots included. But saying with absolute certainty, without any "evidence" (meaning: Word of God trope) "Marvel's Incredible Hulk movie does not have the Hulk killing anybody" seems a whole lot less persuasive to me and completely based on personal feelings. Again, any evidence to support that statement, you're welcome to share.

Movie rules: ... Comic book rules: ...

Again, seems like your very personal rules on the subject. Specialized sites, countless YouTube interpretations, star Marvel writers and the movies themselves (will elaborate on that next) don't seem to agree with you. I do like your rules, though.

When Thor or Iron Man get knocked through a building, by the Juggernaut, do people assume that action killed bystanders?

Yes, very much so. In fact they recently made a few movies precisely revolving around that same very subject, they were called AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON and CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR. Perhaps you've heard of them.

No Juggernaut yet, though. I'm sure he'll make an appearance in the next few years.

Let's be clear: I've said the Hulk doesn't kill innocent bystanders.

You did, yet I didn't use that term and from a quick review of the thread no one else had until you did. If you want to build a straw man and proceed to fight him, you're welcome to do so of course. This is the internet after all.

But since I'm being schooled on phrasing, I feel it's an important clarification to make.

Used to be finding the traditional tropes “stupid� was a cue it was time to find another hobby.

Again, I know I haven't said that. I'm actually very fond of the traditional tropes.

Rounding up, I'm just not clear on how those traditional tropes apply to the character of The Hulk, because of his unique nature. He's clearly not designed to behave like Superman, nor the Cookie Monster.

Apparently some important Marvel writers, some relevant comics culture sites, lots of YouTubers and the writers and producers of the Marvel movies themselves seem to share that confusion to a certain degree.

So again, I'm pretty confident on defining the issue as *NOT* stupid (I really dislike that word).

As I said before on this thread again and again, if what the majority of you guys advocate is indeed the canon I'll happily accept it. I'm curious about the matter, that's why I raised it.

What I'm finding in the analysis of the comics and movies themselves doesn't seem to match with your views in general, though.

What one wishes the way things were and the way they actually are often don't match as well.

Again, if only!

Thanks for the discussion, guys.

There's movie Hulk, TV Hulk, Ultimate Hulk, and dumb/innocent green Hulk. Those are the ones I'm most familiar with--and then there's more! Smart Hulk, gray Hulk, savage Hulk, red Hulk, totally awesome Hulk, immortal Hulk--!

When some people think that Hulk has killed, which Hulk are they talking about? And when others say there's no way Hulk has ever killed, who are they thinking of?

MY Hulk is dumb/innocent green Hulk (who the movie and TV Hulks are based on) and I'm pretty sure he hasn't killed anyone.

Rodrigo, I did not intend this specifically at anyone. What I meant was that there is murder, manslaughter, killing, and responsible for dying. They're different, and too many people seem to actually WANT to see the Hulk murder people (and then... eat them?)

But please be sure I intended no insult, nor even a comment to you. That wasn't the point at all!

Serial fiction tends towards heterogenous representations that don't always jibe with one another. You have to decide what you feel is true to the core portrayal of the character.

My rule sums that up.

For example, do I think Batman shouldn't kill anyone? Absolutely. He even has a professed dislike of guns and swore never to take a life.

But specialised sites, you tubers, et al will be able to point to instances where the portrayal differs. Early panels by 'Bob Kane' (probably not Bob though) with Batman wielding a smoking pistol. Batman with machine guns mounted to his Batmobile blasting away in Burton's Batman. Batman blowing up a circus strongman with dynamite in Batman Returns.

If you're sensible, you realise that these instances are aberrations. The core rule still holds true: Batman doesn't kill.

Which is a means to illustrate something similar for The Hulk. Instances of Hulk maybe killing someone in a movie doesn't instantly set a precedent of the core truth of the character.

Ang Lee had the Hulk standing 15 feet tall. That doesn't mean that's how tall the Hulk is! He's big, yes, but he's not Giant Man.

Love the O'neil/Goodwin quote that somebody already posted:

Denny was fond of saying "We don't ask why the Batmobile doesn't get caught in traffic." That is apparently the corollary to the Archie Goodwin saying about how the entire DC Universe is an inverted pyramid built on a secret identity that's a pair of glasses. If you want to tear it apart, you can do so with ease. You're not nearly as clever or smart as you think you are if you decide to go and nitpick it and tear it down, because there are loose threads everywhere. All that proves is that you're a killjoy. If you want to take it apart, it's very easy to do, but that's not the point. You either accept the world you're in or you don't. If you do, you're going to have a blast. If you don't, you better find something else to read, because you're going to be very unhappy.

This certainly applies to lifelong comic fans like me, who have always understood this, and just loved comics for what they were.

However, when it comes to movies we are not the target audience, and Hollywood has clearly decided the O'neil/Goodwin paradigm doesn't satisfy movie viewers. So you're going to get a different depiction. Personally, I choose to ignore the differences and enjoy both.

Sadly, to the extent there is a demand for consistent portrayals of these characters, it is the comic versions we grew up loving that will eventually disappear, because the "other" audience is vastly larger and more influential than we are.

One version that did the look and spirit right were the Christopher Nolan DARK KNIGHT movies. I will never in a million years understand why, when each of those movies was making a billion dollars, others looked at the GREEN HORNET character and said "Let's get Seth Rogan to make an unfunny spoof about an unlikeable dunderhead! Audiences will love that!" And not too long after that, another producer did the same to Britt Reid's grand-uncle the LONE RANGER! (Not sure what the thinking behind the darker than dark TV versions of ARCHIE, SABRINA, and NANCY DREW is either.)

Not to turn this into a movie thread, but these examples do make me wonder about the comics if people are writing our favorite characters wrong JUST to be different than what has been done before.

I agree for the most part, except that most of the movie Avengers seem to have no compunction with killing.

John W. wrote:

I agree for the most part, except that most of the movie Avengers seem to have no compunction with killing.

I think another part is the very fabric of big screen actioners, the long shadow of movie staples like James Bond, the Man with No Name, Indiana Jones, John McClane and every character Arnie has ever played. Get in a scrape; witty one liner; casual execution — you know the drill.

I wince when I see Iron Man do something like that, but I imagine to the regular movie crowd it seems almost comfortingly familiar.

Certainly, when Shane Black helmed/wrote Iron Man 3, he brought a little bit too much of his oeuvre to the project.

In my opinion, that's EXACTLY what they're doing.

<< Prev Page of 9 Next >>

Printable version

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum		<< Prev Page of 9 Next >>