Exactly, the Hulk of recent times who kills just isnt an interesting character to me, and isnt the Hulk i know and love. Okay, the classic Savage Hulk has killed, but its been very rare, and IMO a stupid mistake by the writers. Banner's mind is in the Hulk somewere THATS what should stop him from killing.
Ok, your personal preference is that you don't like the Hulk killing, fair enough but the fact the character has done it, both in the past and present means it isn't a trait foreign to the character. Therefore, saying a killing Hulk is not the hulk is wrong.
Ok, your personal preference is that you don't like the Hulk killing, fair enough but the fact the character has done it, both in the past and present means it isn't a trait foreign to the character. Therefore, saying a killing Hulk is not the hulk is wrong.
Lol, it is wrong because the hulk has killed, rare or common, he has killed. For the record, Fialan, the guy classic savage hulk mercilessly killed was innocent, he was just an assasin doing the job he was hired to do, very much like a soldier.
IMO, Hulk killing, even just accidentally, gives Banner's fear of the Hulk much more meaning. Why else would he be afraid of the Beast withing if no one in his path ever gets harmed?
Ok, your personal preference is that you don't like the Hulk killing, fair enough but the fact the character has done it, both in the past and present means it isn't a trait foreign to the character. Therefore, saying a killing Hulk is not the hulk is wrong.
I dont want a murdering or man slaughtering Hulk as well, it's my personal preference, but as recently as World War Hulk, Marvel went out of their way (thank God considering this stupid thread) that the Hulk IS NOT a killer.
I dont want a murdering or man slaughtering Hulk as well, it's my personal preference, but as recently as World War Hulk, Marvel went out of their way (thank God considering this stupid thread) that the Hulk IS NOT a killer.
I don't want him slaughtering people either but the fact still stands that he has killed, does kill and likely will kill in the future. No he's not a cold blooded murderer, yes he tries not to kill where possible but does that mean if the new hulk kills accidently or with intent (possibly killing abomb) he's not the Hulk? No ofcourse not, he'd still be the Hulk because it's not totally foreign to the character and we all know (or I should hope so) that this hulk isn't exactly going to run about killing left, right and center.
It would greatly diminish the movie character in my eyes if he killed. In the comics, it's bad enough when he has killed in self defense, it's kind of a low ball approach to have him snapping necks like mid-90's Steven Segal.
It's all to do with personal preference, I don't see a problem if the army are attacking him, he's just trying to defend himself and people get caught in the cross fire. The only point I was stressing is that even if the new hulk does kill (I'm not talking cold blooded murder here) it doesn't make him any less of a hulk because he has done it in the comics.
But the debate is not wether or not he's done it in the comicbooks, it's wether or not the Hulk will be a killer in this movie and wether or not that is even a good idea regardless of whatever medium the character is in. Besides, he has been portrayed as both killer and non-killer so the "comics did it" arguement doesn't even really work. The comics also did Toad Men as enemies, you want the movies to do that to?
Having the Hulk be a killer is as Nivek put it "lowball" no matter if it's the comic page or the big screen.
But at the same time death is something that could potentially happen while the creature trying to defend himself or Betty or someone he has befriended or even just someone whom the creature understands is not his enemy. If Hulk chucks a boulder at a helicopter and it goes down or explodes in mid-air I can sort of hang with that if it's not portrayed as a calculated move but rather Hulk wanting the big metal bird that's shooting hot metal things that hurt to get the hell off of him.
The creature might have some awareness that there are human beings in the copter but without Banner's intellect at his disposal he's not going to throughly think through the idea that these are soldiers who are only following the orders of their obsessed and crazyass General.
In a nutshell, soldiers are always trying to hurt Hulk and to hurt Hulk's friends. So Hulk will smash!
Which maybe on the surface seems like the exact same thing as him being a killer but it's not. If someone gets killed trying to put down a gorilla the gorilla is not a cold blooded murder who's joyfully taken a human life. He's creature acting on his natural instinct to defend itself from what it sees as an enemy. Obviously with The Hulks tether to Banner's conscience he has a bit more capacity than what an animal would have to understand the situation, but not a whole lot more. There's also context to consider where like it or not, soldiers are basically the bad guys in most Hulk stories. Maybe not neccessarily evil but they more often than not don't stop to consider anything else about the Hulk. He's a monster and they have orders to capture him or put him down and that's it for them.
But the debate is not wether or not he's done it in the comicbooks, it's wether or not the Hulk will be a killer in this movie and wether or not that is even a good idea regardless of whatever medium the character is in. Besides, he has been portrayed as both killer and non-killer so the "comics did it" arguement doesn't even really work. The comics also did Toad Men as enemies, you want the movies to do that to?
I agree with everything you said though, I especially like the part about the gorilla. With the Hulk he is primal and acts on those instincts but the humanity in him or that tiny bit of banner is what keeps him from squashing everything that gets on his nerves. For example the factory fight, now the hulk could've just squashed all those soldiers who were trying to harm him then be on his merry way, he didn't though, he ran, he was just trying to escape. The soldiers wouldn't let him though, he was like a caged animal and retaliated, just like any primal beast.
For those unwilling to admit that Hulk has killed will you admit that he is the biggest attemptive murderer in the world?
He throws boulders and tanks around and theres always someone who moves an inch and happens to avoid their demise.
Does that make things soooo much better?
He throws boulders and tanks around and theres always someone who moves an inch and happens to avoid their demise. Does that make things soooo much better?
Thats not how its explained. You don't read the comics. Which is fine.
OK, so ignoring the comics, is it a good idea to have a killing Hulk in the movie? I don't think so. It makes him less sympathetic.
Self-defense? Not at all. Thats silly to even mention. If I killed a toddler that tossed a few stones my way, even if that toddler was (for some strange reason) trying to kill me, that wouldn't be legitimate self-defense.
People say that he's like a wild animal. But if a wild animal kills someone they are put down. If a wild animal killed someone you love you'd still be pretty pissed. Hes not entirely portrayed as wild animal in this film anyway. Some of the same people that have said Hes a wild animal, he cant be blamed have also said He could have killed the people in the factory easily if he wanted to, he chose not to. You people cant have it both ways. If he chose not to kill some people, then he must have chosen TO kill the people that he DID kill. This is if he even kills at all in this movie, which I still dont know for a fact. Wild animal dont pick and choose who they kill. If they are attacking you, theyre trying to kill you.
But does any of that matter? What really matters is the pathos of the character. I don't think that a killing Hulk takes away much pathos from the Hulk, but it takes a hell of lot away from Banner. And that's the real problem here. If the Hulk kills people, Banner should do SOMETHING about it. If he can't find a cure, he should kill himself - by any means necessary. He cant trust the military? Have a scientist friend do it. He cant shoot himself? Sedate himself to death. Nothing short of a nuke can kill him? Find a nuke. Something. Anything. Maybe he doesnt care about lives hes taken and thinks that saving loves can make up for it. Maybe, but hes still a murderer and should be held accountable. Ya know, with a trial and a jury and all that. Hes a wild and uncontrollable beast? That what Not guilty by reason of insanity is for. Thats doesnt mean someone goes completely free.
What if Spider-Man occasionally freaked out and killed people? Say that he occasionally loses his mind and starts tossing cars around cops show up and try to stop him he kills them. Well, he was a wild beast, he was defending himself, you mess with the bull and you get the horns. Would Spider-Man be less of a hero in that situation? Well yeah. Obviously he would.
I see what you some of you people are saying, I really do. Hes uncontrollable, hes just defending himself, its not his fault, its to be expected when you mess with a wild beast, etc. But even if I accept all that, which I do to some extent, it still just takes away too much from the character of Banner.
huh?
Thats how it is. Everytime someone attacks they magically survive.
Self-defense? Not at all. Thats silly to even mention. If I killed a toddler that tossed a few stones my way, even if that toddler was (for some strange reason) trying to kill me, that wouldn't be legitimate self-defense.
If he is mentally ******ed do you expect him to analyze his actions before execution....no, he won't. So thats not a good analogy.
People say that he's like a wild animal. But if a wild animal kills someone they are put down. If a wild animal killed someone you love you'd still be pretty pissed. Hes not entirely portrayed as wild animal in this film anyway. Some of the same people that have said Hes a wild animal, he cant be blamed have also said He could have killed the people in the factory easily if he wanted to, he chose not to. You people cant have it both ways. If he chose not to kill some people, then he must have chosen TO kill the people that he DID kill. This is if he even kills at all in this movie, which I still dont know for a fact. Wild animal dont pick and choose who they kill. If they are attacking you, theyre trying to kill you.
Again I use this smiley: .
He is a wild animal in the sense that he doesn't think like human being, he doesn't reason hence why people call him a "wild animal". Of course someone would be pissed if a wild animal attack/killed a loved one...how is that relevant to the argument though?
So he "chose" not to kill the people in the factory....? Really? or did it just turn out that way?
Cause from my knowledge of the basic principles of life when you throw something really heavy at a living creature that is much smaller the creature can get seriously hurt or killed. From the clip he is just throwing around machines like crazy. If the soldiers aren't killed its by luck.
But does any of that matter? What really matters is the pathos of the character. I don't think that a killing Hulk takes away much pathos from the Hulk, but it takes a hell of lot away from Banner. And that's the real problem here. If the Hulk kills people, Banner should do SOMETHING about it. If he can't find a cure, he should kill himself - by any means necessary. He cant trust the military? Have a scientist friend do it. He cant shoot himself? Sedate himself to death. Nothing short of a nuke can kill him? Find a nuke. Something. Anything. Maybe he doesnt care about lives hes taken and thinks that saving loves can make up for it. Maybe, but hes still a murderer and should be held accountable. Ya know, with a trial and a jury and all that. Hes a wild and uncontrollable beast? That what Not guilty by reason of insanity is for. Thats doesnt mean someone goes completely free.
He DOES decide to kill himself. He shoots himself in the head but Hulks out before any damage is done. It seems like in TIH , the Hulk automatically takes over whenever Banner is stuck in a dire situation...hence the Hulking out as he plummets to the ground from the helicopter in the clips and trailers
What if Spider-Man occasionally freaked out and killed people? Say that he occasionally loses his mind and starts tossing cars around cops show up and try to stop him he kills them. Well, he was a wild beast, he was defending himself, you mess with the bull and you get the horns. Would Spider-Man be less of a hero in that situation? Well yeah. Obviously he would.
Of course he would be less heroic. But then again Hulk isn't as heroic as Spider-man, I think thats pretty obvious.
I see what you some of you people are saying, I really do. Hes uncontrollable, hes just defending himself, its not his fault, its to be expected when you mess with a wild beast, etc. But even if I accept all that, which I do to some extent, it still just takes away too much from the character of Banner.
And I completely disagree. It gives Banner quest for a cure and hate for the monster even more gravitas.
The Hulk and Banner are physically one and the same but they are two different entities and personas. If Banner had full control of Hulk, Hulk wouldn't be Hulk. Banner doesn't wants to cure Hulk because he realizes how much of a danger he is to innocent people. He can be unstoppable but he knows that he creates havoc whenever Hulk surfaces...this is what seperates him from other villains such as Abomination. And imo thats a hero.
huh?
Thats how it is. Everytime someone attacks they magically survive.
If he is mentally ******ed do you expect him to analyze his actions before execution....no, he won't. So thats not a good analogy.
Again I use this smiley: .
He is a wild animal in the sense that he doesn't think like human being, he doesn't reason hence why people call him a "wild animal". Of course someone would be pissed if a wild animal attack/killed a loved one...how is that relevant to the argument though?
So he "chose" not to kill the people in the factory....? Really? or did it just turn out that way?
Cause from my knowledge of the basic principles of life when you throw something really heavy at a living creature that is much smaller the creature can get seriously hurt or killed. From the clip he is just throwing around machines like crazy. If the soldiers aren't killed its by luck.
Well in the script...
He DOES decide to kill himself. He shoots himself in the head but Hulks out before any damage is done. It seems like in TIH , the Hulk automatically takes over whenever Banner is stuck in a dire situation...hence the Hulking out as he plummets to the ground from the helicopter in the clips and trailers
Of course he would be less heroic. But then again Hulk isn't as heroic as Spider-man, I think thats pretty obvious.
And I completely disagree. It gives Banner quest for a cure and hate for the monster even more gravitas.
The Hulk and Banner are physically one and the same but they are two different entities and personas. If Banner had full control of Hulk, Hulk wouldn't be Hulk. Banner doesn't wants to cure Hulk because he realizes how much of a danger he is to innocent people. He can be unstoppable but he knows that he creates havoc whenever Hulk surfaces...this is what seperates him from other villains such as Abomination. And imo thats a hero.
I can tell from almost all of your responses that you're not a Hulk fan or that at least you're not a reader of the comics.
We're having two different conversations about two different Hulks: the comic Hulk, and this movie Hulk. Im right when I speak of the comic Hulk, but we have two different opinions when speaking of what might be best for the movie Hulk.
The heroic aspect of the creature is extremely important and having him kill can undermind that in the writing. It's a delicate, and weird balance to strike I admit but it can also be one of the things that makes Hulk interesting. He's not a good guy who turns into an evil monster. He's a good guy who becomes a creature of raw power, the strength at the cost of the intellect to properly guide it. Wether it's Gamma Bomb origin or "searching for the hidden strengths that all humans have".
Does he destroy it or accept and control it? In either case, what is the fate of Hulk himself? He is Banner, but he is also Hulk.
Obviously you want to be able to sympathize and root for Banner in his quest to find a cure but at the same time you also want to be able to cheer for the Hulk and be able to feel like you're not cheering on a murderer, unless you're just there to see killing and don't really give a damn about anything else in which case there are other genres, characters, and movies to go to.
I can tell from almost all of your responses that you're not a Hulk fan or that at least you're not a reader of the comics.
We're having two different conversations about two different Hulks: the comic Hulk, and this movie Hulk. Im right when I speak of the comic Hulk, but we have two different opinions when speaking of what might be best for the movie Hulk.
The basis of why Hulk isn't an evil character is because, like I mentioned, he's a reactive character, not proactive. Barring his earlier Gray Hulk and Ultimate Hulk days, the Hulk never goes out looking for trouble. Even if Banner is in Hulk form, if he sees you, unless you're basically ganging up on him or purposely pissing him off, he either disregards you or views you as a friend if you do something positive for him. That's the whole basis, and also the reason he's been viewed as a threat and a hero, depending on how he's treated, he reacts accordingly.
Don't be rude. It was an honest assessment. Lots of people dont read the comics and they assume that the way things might work in the real world are how they work in the Marvel Universe. If you were familiar with the comics you wouldnt have called him the biggest attemptive murderer in the world or that its by magic that people survive. There is an explanation for it. I don't feel like explaining it, but its not magic, and if you had read WWH you would know it, and there are dozens of clues going back for more than 40 years that hint at it.
Im not judging you because you dont read the comics. Please dont be rude to me for merely stating that you dont.
IMO, Hulk killing, even just accidentally, gives Banner's fear of the Hulk much more meaning. Why else would he be afraid of the Beast withing if no one in his path ever gets harmed?
The effect of hulk killing accidentally on the hulk
The effect of hulk killing accidentally on banner
now for banner, it's great because it will feed of his motivation to get rid of the hulk so it adds depth to the physical character.
however with regards to the hulk himself, it makes him less sympathetic because he ultimately just wants to be left alone.
the only way to deal with it is to have a less remorseful hulk on film, a more actual savage one who looks down on humans and may help them if it serves his gains in the end but doesnt care about the average death of a puny human. So he may save new york but end up killing a few people for that. He may end up working with the avengers but is more than happy to take them out if they piss him off.
This last hulk would probably prove for the best conflict for banner because people can see what good the hulk can do while he would purely focus on the negative 'all life is precious' aspect and see no good at all.
It's a tricky one because each different combination brings a unique and interesting viewpoint from the audience. Are you supposed to like/hate or just accept the character. Is he good/bad or just a character. Do you envy/feel sorry for banner, does banner hate/like/accept all parts of the hulk and vice versa.
Everyone's got a different view on this from the comics and for the poorly misrepresentative tv show and no one wants to budge.
I just hope they pick the route that can provide the best results.
personally I wouldn't mind the one that endangers the lives of the few for the greater good but maybe he knocks out innocents but doesn't kill them or maybe only kills soldiers. I dunno know, I've yet to figure out an equilibrium in my head.
I'll just add it all depends on how intelligent and sympathetic you want the hulk to be. I would go as far as saying ang's hulk was highly intelligent, able to navigate to betty without a map, bite a warhead off a missle, deflect a plane travelling to a bridge. The only reason he didn't speak was because he didn't want to talk to the 'puny humans'. He always had his agenda which was a continuation of what banner wished to achieve at most points of his transformation
save betty
see betty
beat the crap out of his dad.
his relationship with banner was not as bad because they were very much on a similar wavelength.
If you want the conflict with banner, then you either have to play a more savage hulk with less repercussions for his actions or a simlarly intelligent hulk who simply doesn't care about hurting the puny humans.
but a sympathetic hulk leads to a weak plot driven banner.
ROFLOL...this a COMIC BOOK MOVIE...YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A GAMMMA RADIATED MONSTER OF A MAN...IT'S NOT REAL...NO ONE WAS REALLY KILLED OR INJURED!
Btw, Iron Man killed alot of people in that movie...blowing up the base and the weapons, and Batman killed alot of people as well...it's not real...it's a movie...okay.
ROFLOL...this a COMIC BOOK MOVIE...YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A GAMMMA RADIATED MONSTER OF A MAN...IT'S NOT REAL...NO ONE WAS REALLY KILLED OR INJURED!
Btw, Iron Man killed alot of people in that movie...blowing up the base and the weapons, and Batman killed alot of people as well...it's not real...it's a movie...okay.
Hiruu's right. I hadn't realized that we were talking about a movie and that this wasn't real. Now that he's pointed out our mistake, we can all stop discussing it.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
