Posted: 15 April 2021 at 9:54pm | IP Logged | 8
|
post reply
|
|
I hear you guys, very insightful views all around.
I'm gonna stop with the answering of particular statements and stuff because it's boring and needlessly confrontational.
In my case, I'm a huge Batman and Superman fan and feel very strongly about their "no killing" rule. The rule is fundamental to their respective character identities, in my view.
But it's true that someone trying to contradict that could easily point out examples of golden age comics, the Burton and Nolan machine guns and the recent Snyder aberrations.
I'm not such a big Marvel fan, nor a Hulk fan in particular. Yet I've always seen him as "different" to traditional heroes, and I think that was pretty much the point of his creation: "What if the traditional monster from the monster comics was the hero instead?"
And I like the concept a lot, but it raises a lot of issues if you want to see him generating a lot of mass destruction as this kind of monster is wont to do.
So, the aforementioned confusion shared by the comic sites, some very important Marvel writers, YouTubers and such.
I guess I just don't get "why" it's so important to establish that a character such as The Hulk doesn't kill people while characters as Wolverine, Punisher and dare I say, Captain America (sorry, don't want to get into another mess) do and everything's fine.
I accept the Greg Pak rationalization, but for most people watching the movies and reading the recent comics, The Hulk does kill people apparently. Unless someone explains them otherwise. And that means there's a problem there.
Edited by Rodrigo castellanos on 16 April 2021 at 1:33am
|