Really? How so? What standards are those Im using to judge the pasts decisions exactly? Name them please.
You are evidently going by the fact the name Bruce does not have any 'Gay' association to it today.
In doing so you are ignoring the fact it
was associated as being a 'Gay' name by many in America back in the late 1970's when the show was made. It was a stupid notion, but it did exist regardless.
See, when you acknowledge that, you can then see how the name change did serve the purpose (as they saw it) to be more masculine.
When you choose to ignore that, you obviously will not see that at all.
I get it. You cant name or even articulate the real reason beyond whatever the reason they had.
See above. When they stated it was not masculine enough, it was rather obvious they were (needlessly) concerned about the gay association. At the time they just phrased it differently.
That should not have needed spelling out as earlier posts have already made that clear, but since you chose to state I can't articulate the reason, there you go.
I, instead, can tell you what was the visible pattern all over the TV series AND show you Ken Johnson himself telling you exactly that
And, as your conclusion, it is ME who cant see it.
When I have to spell out how they thought back then (not decades later), then no, you are making it clear you can't.
It was made when the TV show was released on DVD.
So in around 2003? That's
25 years after the fact. A lot of water under the bridge by then and that's rather a long time for KJ to let the 'myth' go un-refuted.
The part where you cant produce one single piece of evidence
Wrong. Witness testimony, especially when it's corroborated, is certainly accepted as evidence in a court of law.
and yet you talk like you was right there in the office at the moment when they made the desicion.
Never said I was there nor suggested anything of the kind, so you can cut that out.
I said I read an article about it that was written when the show first came out, not something said 25 years after the fact. And you try and hunt down out old articles from the 1970's. Not everything winds up online.
Because in the 70s no one was called Bruce to dispute the idea. And Bruce Lee never existed. Or he wasnt masculine enough...
Lol. I was joking about anyone named Bruce contesting the idea...Jeez...
And the Bruce Lee example is no more valid than saying 'Bruce Wayne' was proof against what was perceived in the late 1970's. Lee had been using the 'stage' name Bruce (one he had held for longer I beleive as well) at least as far back as his Green Hornet days (a good 10 years before the Hulk tv show).
To repeat: in late 70's America the name Bruce was stupidly associated as being a Gay name by many at that time. It was an undeniably silly notion, but it DID exist (just as many stupid notions prevail in the public's perception in this day as well).
I never thought a real piece of evidence could be questioned by some old piece of possibly-could-have-been printed material.
That it was printed and I read it I'm certain of. I've already conceded I'm not 100% certain of who said what in it, but I do recall the quotes were coming from Bixby and KJ so it does seem likely to me they did.
If I'm wrong to think they said it, then fine, but certainly it was somebody official as these articles were all part of their marketing when the show first aired. If we assume KJ had nothing to do with it, then why did he wait 25 years to publicly correct this error?
You probably know that subjetive memories are not a fact.
Ah, but according to you they ARE. Are you not accepting KJ's memories as fact?
See your contradiction there? You accept KJ's 25 year old memories as a certain fact, ones he has
does have a reason to wish to revise, over my 30 year old ones.
Ok, I can certainly understand that. But Stan Lee's and Lou Ferrigno's as well, who have both gone on record saying the same thing?
So you have 2 accounts here about reading the article back in the 70's, and you have both Stan Lee and Ferrigno whose memories contradict Johnson as well.
Those are the facts.
So for all we and you know, it could have been said by someone who had no part in the decision. Youll have to forgive me if I trust in real evidence instead of your 30 year old memories.
Fine. I stressed before it was my own opinion based on my 30 year old memories. You don't have to beleive me at all and you can trust in KJ's 25 year old ones instead. But like I said above, I'm not alone in having memories contrary to Johnsons.
Btw, do you know in an interview a few years back when he was questioned about the name being changed because of the whole 'less than masculine' deal, he said
"I don't remember it that way".
Rather telling comment imo. Why not just say "No, that was never it at all". I could think he was covering his behind with that comment, just in case someone stepped up willing to contest his recollection.
Two subjectives memories should make one objective piece of evidence you say?
Definitely. Witness corroboration is objective evidence in any court of law as I stated above.
Have you ever thought I am also old enough to remember? Because I am.
No I did not given your apparent lack of knowledge as to how the name was perceived in the US at the time. I remember it as we thought it was all a bit daft here in the UK (God knows what Australians made of it).
Expand that: If its not anywhere...
Now that's just
naughty..... It's one thing to question who said what in the article, but that's a very thinly veiled accusation that I'm making the whole thing up.
I guess I could understand your taking that route if I'd been alone in my account, but as someone else here remembers reading it that's basically calling us both liars.
Whats the possible relevance of saying it?
IF they have said it then that's evidence in your favour. Thats the relevance: It would have
helped your argument. If it was never spoken it does not.
They could have it completely disappeared. But they didnt.
They relegated it to a Tombstone. A nod to the fans and nothing more. And seriously, unless it's something unusual like 'Tiberius', most people hardly register middle names much. It's first and last that counts.
And its just ironic because in comics nobody ever said his name. It was written though. Just like in the tombstone.
Wrong. He has been called variations of the full name down the years, beginning with Stan Lee mistakingly naming him 'Bob' (I stated that before). They are not commonplace occurrences, but they have happened.
And for people who thought Bruce was not masculine enough, it could have been a lot easier to delete it completely.
But they kept it, with the name David over it, like the real problem was that Bruce Banner alone would make the whole name alliterative but David Bruce Banner wouldnt. Thats so strange. Its like facts were backing me up.
Are they?
Consider this fact. KJ claims he didn't want the name to sound 'comic-booky', right?
This is the man that gave us
"Steve Austin". That's a hero name that would suit any comic book book page!!
Seriously the alliterate names automatically sounding comic booky is a bit of a myth in itself anyway. I can name as many heroes as not who do NOT have alliterate names, and I've known people with alliterate names and never thought "oohh, that's comic booky!"
It's when the name has an obvious heroic, 'cool', or macho element to it as well it starts sounding a bit cheesy and invokes thoughts of comic book stereo-types (Like 'Dick Durrock', who also appeared in the Hulk btw).
Or you could accept the whole show was trying to escape the comic book aspect of the comics and thats why the traditional alliteration of the names was to be also avoided and that the name Bruce was kept as part of the character.
I could accept that if my own memory did not tell me that was not the case when the show first aired. See, for me, when I see a revised version of events stated some 25 years after the fact, I see 20/20 hindsight at work.
And lastly, I have to ask, SO WHAT?!!
Seriously, so what if they changed the named because they thought it was 'gay'?. That's the kind of silly thing they did back then and no-one got all riled up about it. These days though no-one will openly admit to doing it for good reason.
It seems you are just irked that some of us don't agree with taking Johnson's belated version as gospel.
Whatever...You have faith in KJ's version of events and that's fine.
I don't. No big deal one way or another.
and the full name of 'Robert Bruce Banner' was introduced in a later FF story simply to mask Stan's prior mistakes.
)
and even in the comics its getting way over the top and over done as well....
