Rage and anger are always limited. In fact, for The Hulk to be enraged for more than 20 minutes straight, that in itself would have to be a superpower
This is kind of the go-to argument in regard to the Hulk’s dynamic rage/strength power. My take is that people get it wrong when they think of anger directly. Anger is the stimulus that makes the Hulk adapt. This
adaptation can be ongoing; you don't need to have infinite anger--just keep getting the stimulus that caused the anger.
For example, let's say while you're stopped at a red light, someone rear-ends your car at an intersection. Initially the fact that some guy in essence hit a parked car (yours) makes you really angry. You get out of your car to exchange info, and the guy is a real jerk and blames you for the fender-bender. While it isn't anywhere near as threatening as the initial collision, I'd guess that there's a chance you'd get angrier. Now say this guy flips you off. Of the three events (accident, blame, gesture), it's the weakest of the three; HOWEVER, I'm guessing that there's a possibility that you'd get angrier still. If there were a limit to anger, then one would think that the initial collision be the maximum adrenaline induced rage that one could attain out off the three--but I think it's pretty clear that continued stimuli can maintain and even increase one's anger in a given situation, even if the cause is markedly less stimulating than the first.
Fortunately, you're not the Hulk, because in the example above your strength would multiply by several factors due to this continued anger stimulus and the guy that ran into you (let's call him D. Blake), would end up smashed.
The Hulk's strength has been shown to grow
exponentially (that's way more than double or triple); it has been shown to grow
geometrically by the second.
The Hulk is a psychological manifestation of pure rage given physical form by gamma rays.
If the comics say he has infinite rage (and they do), then he has infinite rage.
Hulk is nearly invincible and that disinterests me when arriving to his comics (the same thing with Superman).
Fair enough. I have no problem with that. I don't care for Superman for the same reason. But the difference I see is that Superman seems like he has all the powers, while the Hulk only has one. Plus, he has a huge host of weaknesses to exploit. The Hulk isn't invincible. He's lost to people with less than 10% of his strength (Spider-Man, for example), which proves what I've said all along: superior strength
≠ victory.
i read a quote from Stan Lee a few years ago, i have no idea where though, but he talked about how when he created Thor he wanted him to the be the strongest character. has anybody else seen that?
I've seen people say this all the time, but no one could ever show me in print where he said this. I've read dozens of interviews with Stan where he says he wanted to make a character
more powerful than the Hulk, but not "stronger".
I'm glad Smashlilman posted that video of Stan, though; I've never seen it. But, again, in it Stan says that Jack Kirby said, "bigger". Well, Thor was never bigger than the Hulk (even the handbooks have the Hulk weighing at least 400 pounds more than Thor and being taller, too). And Kirby always drew Thor smaller than the Hulk. So, like most things, the planning stage has some differences from the final product.
i wonder what made him change his mind to the hulk
I don't think Stan changed his mind; Stan gave Hulk the madder/stronger power, not Thor. If Thor's strength is
static and the Hulk's is
dynamic, then that means the Hulk
has to be stronger than Thor. If you were fighting a clone of yourself, but the only difference was that your clone could make himself stronger...then your clone is stronger than you.
The Hulk clearly still has muscles visable.
Wolverine was walking around as a bare skeleton with no visible muscle fibers.
And, again, I was never in favor of ditching the classic Hulk powers for this uber-90's kool healing factor.
