The Issue of Hulk and Civilian Deaths

[SavageBanner]

Superhero "no-kill" codes are a by product of the 1960's Comics Code, which at one time barred depictions of heroes ever killing, even in self-defense. The Hulk, Spider-Man, and Iron Man all got their start in Code-approved comics, so they all had to be straight-laced with zero body counts.

The code has evolved over the years, especially during the 80's. That's when you had Spider-Man accidentally kill a woman who was trying to kill him, Wolverine disemboweling his enemies, and the Punisher going from using non-lethal ammo to the real thing. Even the Hulk has built up a body count since the '80's, mostly in self-defense. He did intentionally "kill" Glorian, but he didn't know Glorian was immortal at the time. The guy just stood up and walked away...

 

[Hoblin]

Didn't say it was tacked on for that reason. Ang could have had him kill no one and been fine. What I meant by tacked on was things like Cracker Jack mentioned, he throws a huge circular disc in the base, everyone just HAPPENS to duck immediately. Or say... the plane scene, it didn't need to be in there, at all.

There are ways to show he's not a killer without having it deliberately thrown in your face. Which is what I meant by tacked on.

Gotcha. And I agree. But I still disagree with people who are using the comics as a references for this.

As a side note: I feel sorry for people who are constantly wondering what the purpose of life is - "What are we here for?", "What's it all mean?", "Blah, blah, blah." - They walk around in a perpetual state of confusion about their life and I pity them. It must suck for them - because I know that I was put on Earth to see this movie.

 

[Sentinel X]

I see a debate thats not going to end. If you expect a big green monster that rampages through cities, tossing cars carelessly and smashing the hell out of building has not killed one person even if it is accidently...then you are somewhat delusional.
Its like the old Adam West Batman show, Batman always happened to have some strange gadget he just happens to need. Its corny and its not realistic.
That being said..I don't think the movie needs to show Hulk killing people (accidental or not) but even if its not shown I think its obvious that there will be casualties. Seriously, this isn't one big Walgreens commercial.

 

[Khemik@L]

Gotcha. And I agree. But I still disagree with people who are using the comics as a references for this.

As a side note: I feel sorry for people who are constantly wondering what the purpose of life is - "What are we here for?", "What's it all mean?", "Blah, blah, blah." - They walk around in a perpetual state of confusion about their life and I pity them. It must suck for them - because I know that I was put on Earth to see this movie.

You need some serious counseling my friend

 

[Hoblin]

I see a debate thats not going to end. If you expect a big green monster that rampages through cities, tossing cars carelessly and smashing the hell out of building has not killed one person even if it is accidently...then you are somewhat delusional.
Its like the old Adam West Batman show, Batman always happened to have some strange gadget he just happens to need. Its corny and its not realistic.
That being said..I don't think the movie needs to show Hulk killing people (accidental or not) but even if its not shown I think its obvious that there will be casualties. Seriously, this isn't one big Walgreens commercial.

I don't consider myself delusional. And I might even call the idea unrealistic. But that's the way it is in the comics, and we ARE talking about a comic book character.

 

[Hoblin]

You need some serious counseling my friend

I might have used a little too much exaggeration. Basically I'm trying to say that I'm really, really excited for this movie.

 

[Khemik@L]

I might have used a little too much exaggeration. Basically I'm trying to say that I'm really, really excited for this movie.

Thats Cool man I know you were kidding anyways. I'm excited too at least you get to see it before me. I live in the Caribbean so I gotta wait maybe like two weeks after release before I see it. Bummer!

 

[Sun_Down]

It seems like everyone has missed the point of this thread. As I read the OP's post, the question seems to be not about Hulk purposely killing his enemies but about him accidently killing innocents during his rampages. Hulk will obviously be trashing cities and fighting in very heavily populated areas, the question of of accidental deaths as a result of the collateral damage is a valid one.

 

[Kirmit]

It seems like everyone has missed the point of this thread. As I read the OP's post, the question seems to be not about Hulk purposely killing his enemies but about him accidently killing innocents during his rampages. Hulk will obviously be trashing cities and fighting in very heavily populated areas, the question of of accidental deaths as a result of the collateral damage is a valid one.

In this film the only fight in a highly populated area is the final one with abomb and I'm willing to bet most of the collateral damage in that fight will be Abomb's fault.

 

[jacob301]

have you played the hulk:ultimate destruction game?

there are civilians deaths in that game.

Jacob

 

[unstoppable]

considering iron man happily killed, not sure they really give a monkeys about killing people who are 'bad'

as for everyone else, especially soldiers who are just doing their jobs, not entirely sure what my stance is but the best approach is the seriously harm them but not cause any deaths..

I feel the time when he starts killing innocents is a time when his angle has to be completely changed and reworked.

sorry to disagree but I hope some ppl die Hulk is going to use enough force to get the job done and consider his strength he'll probably kill ppl

 

[Nivek]

Okay, this is going nowhere. Hulk fan's (y'know, people that know the character) say the Hulk doesn't kill. And then you got Random people who think Collateral Damage in the comic book universe means (just like in the real world) people die. Oh, and since Hulk is "Savage", he must be looking to kill people.

Let's just tie this thread off before some people are put in their place, because I dont need to hear realism being mentioned in the world of Comic Books or comic book films. I know which characters and books to read if I want some wetwork and carnage. Hulk is not, and should not, be one of those titles that that kind of thing does not belong in.

 

[FrostBite]

Okay, this is going nowhere. Hulk fan's (y'know, people that know the character) say the Hulk doesn't kill. And then you got Random people who think Collateral Damage in the comic book universe means (just like in the real world) people die. Oh, and since Hulk is "Savage", he must be looking to kill people.

Let's just tie this thread off before some people are put in their place, because I dont need to hear realism being mentioned in the world of Comic Books or comic book films. I know which characters and books to read if I want some wetwork and carnage. Hulk is not, and should not, be one of those titles that that kind of thing does not belong in.

I can be a real Hulk fan. I can want him to not kill. I can want him to never kill even. But if the beast has killed someone in the movie, I find it less offensive than if they were to put it in the canon comic book.

I don't need realism either, all I am saying is (and as another TRUE Hulk fan like yourself..) I don't care if he kills accidentally in this film.

Not everyone who is a true fan, is a purist. I love re-tellings, and as long as he isn't a murderous sex hungry fiend like in the Ultimates, I am cool.

 

[Nivek]

Or a murderous superstrong Mongoloid like in Banner! Or a mindless dupe like any John Byrne take on the character.

 

[unstoppable]

that is sligthly disturbing.

there is no reason to "smack" a child unless you are tying to instill that physical violence is a viable solution to life's problems.

ok now I think we're getting off topic

 

[turtlefocker]

Cool

 

[FrostBite]

Or a murderous superstrong Mongoloid like in Banner! Or a mindless dupe like any John Byrne take on the character.

Agreed.

If he kills someone, I don't want it to be murderous, he's not the punisher. And when he stops being calmed by Betty and sent into a "rape" mode by her like the Ultimates? Well then... that's when I bomb Marvel studios.

 

[Nivek]

have you played the hulk:ultimate destruction game?

there are civilians deaths in that game.

Jacob

And I could "kill" people as Superman and Spider-man in their respective movie games as well. Now, what was your Point?

 

[Knightsaber Priss]

Let's face it, people will die in this film accidentally by Hulk not meaning to do something, but doing it out of a primal, reaction to a perceived threat. This would for the most part explain why Bruce Banner wants to find a cure. It makes the pathos of Banner's duality that much more authentic. The only character I can see intentionally using his power to cause massive civilian deaths would be Abomination.

 

[terry78]

And to make the last off-topic comment, yes, I'll smack my child if they get out of hand. Little kids don't respond to verbal threats, sad to say.

 

[Doc Samson]

Personally, I never liked the idea of Banner having any control over the Hulk whatsoever, as far as directing his anger to help other people. I like the whole Betty situation, where the Hulk always protects her, because naturally he should have some kind of memory of who she is, but just using the Hulk at will to defend people I never really understood. The whole thing that makes it interesting to me is the nature of the Hulk's attitude in terms of his aggression. He only attacks those who attack him while at the same time if he's left alone, then he goes about his own business until he changes back, which usually consists of playing with small animals or taking in the scenery. I don't ever want the Hulk to willingly kill anything, unless its huge and a monster, but at the same time, I don't really understand the whole hero thing. He's an anti-hero at best, and misunderstood. But if people quit pissing Bruce off, the Hulk wouldnt even manifest, he's not going around dressing up to fight crime, Batman he's not...

 

[Doright]

Didn't say it was tacked on for that reason. Ang could have had him kill no one and been fine. What I meant by tacked on was things like Cracker Jack mentioned, he throws a huge circular disc in the base, everyone just HAPPENS to duck immediately. Or say... the plane scene, it didn't need to be in there, at all.
There are ways to show he's not a killer without having it deliberately thrown in your face. Which is what I meant by tacked on.

I got the feeling from the plane scene that Hulk was trying to save the people on the bridge which I think is cool. I don't think he really cared about the Puny human flying the plane. In fact wasn't he crawling up the plane trying to get at the pilot as it flew him into the stratosphere?

I like that idea.

Basically I see Hulk like this...

If puny solders are stinging Hulk with their pop guns Hulk will smash but Hulk don't like when Innocent Puny human who is leaving hulk all alone gets run over by tank and will smash tank.

 

[FrostBite]

I got the feeling from the plane scene that Hulk was trying to save the people on the bridge which I think is cool. I don't think he really cared about the Puny human flying the plane. In face wasn't he crawling up the plane trying to get at he pilot as it flew him into the stratosphere?

I like that idea.

Basically I see Hulk like this...

If puny solders are stinging Hulk with their pop guns Hulk will smash but Hulk don't like when Innocent Puny human who is leaving hulk all alone gets run over by tank and will smash tank.

I got the idea, I just feel the scene itself, the plane going towards the bridge... all of it, could have been gotten rid of, it was pointless to me. It was only put there to go "look! Heroics!" and we didn't need it. Instead we needed a central threat.

 

[Ultraman Nexus]

Superhero "no-kill" codes are a by product of the 1960's Comics Code, which at one time barred depictions of heroes ever killing, even in self-defense. The Hulk, Spider-Man, and Iron Man all got their start in Code-approved comics, so they all had to be straight-laced with zero body counts.

The code has evolved over the years, especially during the 80's. That's when you had Spider-Man accidentally kill a woman who was trying to kill him, Wolverine disemboweling his enemies, and the Punisher going from using non-lethal ammo to the real thing. Even the Hulk has built up a body count since the '80's, mostly in self-defense. He did intentionally "kill" Glorian, but he didn't know Glorian was immortal at the time. The guy just stood up and walked away...

Look I don't think anyone is advocating censorship nor are they being fans of Freddy Wertham. Superhero characters having severe reservations about using their powers to kill even their enemies or someone being a fan who prefers characters not do that isn't the same thing as making the Superman books to operate under Mort Weisnger rules or something. It's not about bringing back the Silver Age down to the smallest detail. I really hate it when any arguement against gratutious grim and gore in superhero stories is just kinda casually dismissed as "oh you just want the Silver Age back." or "That was all because of Wertham so it doesn't count."

 

[Doright]

I got the idea, I just feel the scene itself, the plane going towards the bridge... all of it, could have been gotten rid of, it was pointless to me. It was only put there to go "look! Heroics!" and we didn't need it. Instead we needed a central threat.

I am not so sure though. The plane went on to bring hulk up to where he couldn't breath and knocked him out. this added the drama of him falling into the water and all that followed... removing the plane and the reasons Hulk jumped on the plane would have compleatly changed the end game of that chase. Sure it could be done.. Don't get me wrong but as it stands the Plane sequence does more than just showcase the Hulk saving people.