When Did 616 Hulk Start Killing?

[ShadowBoxing]

So Bendis throws established continuity out of the window because he doesn't agree with it? Talk about arrogant...

And he really ought to avoid talking about 'ridiculous' things in comics. His own track record aint exactly spotless regarding remarkably stupid ideas making their way into his books.

But he is right...even back in the 60s Hulk would destroy whole towns and villages....In Hulk 300 he rampages across the countryside destroying everything in his way....no way When Hulk takes out a whole building, town or military base does no one die or get hurt.

 

[BrianWilly]

For the purpose of this argument, does it even MATTER whether it's the mindless Hulk that has killed people or not? That means something if you're trying to decide whether Bruce Banner is a hero... *not* when you're trying to decide, as the Illuminati apparently did, whether or not the Hulk's presence on Earth is a threat.

The public at large doesn't really know when the Hulk is "mindless"-- they just know he's a big, green guy who occasionally goes berserk and gets *really* dangerous.

Even if he only ever became mindless Hulk twice-- the third time it happens might destroy a city. They still might have decided to send him into space, no matter whose "fault" it was.

Exactly! Do you think that the victims of a mindless Hulk care which Hulk it was that destroyed their homes?

Should it matter? The question remains, has Bruce Banner done enough to take responsibility for the mindless Hulk? Has it come to the point where someone else has to take responsibility for the mindless Hulk? It was Bendis' job to convince us that it has, and I don't think he's so very off the mark.

The very premise, the very conception of the Hulk is and always has been that he's a constant danger to those around him because when he Hulks out, he's uncontrollable. Yet here y'all are telling me that he isn't a constant danger to those around him. That he is controllable when he Hulks out. It's makes no sense; you can't have it both ways.

 

[The Question]

Exactly. And even when The Hulk is all sweet an innocent, he's still a danger. He's one of the strongest non mystical/cosmic beings in the MU. And most of the time, he has the mentality of a child. A perfect example of this is in "Hulk: Grey". The Hulk was in the desert, when a jack rabbit hopped up beside him. He picked it up, and started petting it. But because he was so strong, he crushed it to death. Give the most innocent person on the planet The Hulk's powers, and they're bound to kill some people by accident.

 

[Grim Goblin]

I'll go with the previous posts starting with rjb182.

Sorry Green, but mindless Hulk is still the Hulk. Hell, he's even more Hulk without Banner since he doesn't have Banner's mind influencing him. Yeah I know that Hulk is just an mpd of Banner but since the gamma bomb, it took on a life of it's own (check all the times Hulk wants nothing to do with Banner).

And like rjb 182 said, the point is not wether or not Banner is too noble or heroic to kill, it's wether or not Hulk has killed before. He did, period. He was in a mindless state but he did.

And wobbly, the reporter wasn't speculating, The hulk had been on a rampage for over a week. obviously by that time they're would be have been an official check up on servivors to find out exactly how many people died in there.

 

[Mr. Green]

....no way When Hulk takes out a whole building, town or military base does no one die or get hurt.

Give me an example FROM THE COMICS where Hulk topples a building that would be full of people and nobody got hurt. Wait... YOU CAN'T. YOU WON'T.

Everyone keeps mentioning him knocking over buildings full of people when it's never happened.

Bruce has mpd and Hulk is one of those personalities. (I know some of you know this) So without Banner there is no Hulk. Therefore it was just the Hulk's body. That's an important point because it shows this: Using the mindless Hulk as an example of how Savage Hulk is an uncontrolable killer is a fallacy. It DOESN'T prove your point. Quit using it to do so.

 

[Mr. Green]

Even if he only ever became mindless Hulk twice-- the third time it happens might destroy a city. They still might have decided to send him into space, no matter whose "fault" it was.

EXACTLY! PERFECT POINT! I promise you I'm not being sarcastic at ALL.

Do you know why I am agreeing? Because Bendis could have said THIS instead, and he didn't. The mindless Hulk incident (Where Banner was seperated from Hulk's body) happened over 20 years ago. Bendis made it seem like he kills people frequently. I have already made the point that it was impossible for that to even happen in the last five years of comicbooks. Prove me wrong.

To BrianWilly: Does it bother that you are arguing about a character that you obviously know nothing about? Does it bother you that your biggest argument (Hulk knocking over buildings and destroying cities) hasn't even happened?

Prove me wrong.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Wasn't there an issue a long time ago where the Hulk accidentally killed a deer and he went all childlike and emo over it? People probably wouldn't matter as much to him as the deer, but I still don't think he's killed very many people. I guess there was a shift at some point where the idea of the Hulk's not leaving casualties in his wake went from being a point of fact to a ludicrous assumption.

 

[Mr. Green]

Wasn't there an issue a long time ago where the Hulk accidentally killed a deer and he went all childlike and emo over it? People probably wouldn't matter as much to him as the deer, but I still don't think he's killed very many people. I guess there was a shift at some point where the idea of the Hulk's not leaving casualties in his wake went from being a point of fact to a ludicrous assumption.

That's the thing that bothers me though. There WASN'T a turning point because all the Hulk fans would hate that, and any writer who understands the Hulk wouldn't do that anyway. Bendis just DECIDED one day, "Hey. I think Hulk is a killer because I didn't like the movie."

His editors need to be slapped for letting that happen.

Oh yeah, and the Future Imperfect thing is irrelevant because neither Iron Man or SHIELD would know about that.

 

[gildea]

Oh yeah, and the Future Imperfect thing is irrelevant because neither Iron Man or SHIELD would know about that.

Uh no it's not we're talking about what iron man or shield know but only IF hulk has killed people when destroying buildings. WHICH HE HAS.

The debate wasn't what shield knows about hulk but if he had destroyed a building in the past and killed people. that's all.

Your line of argument hasn't been "shield doesn't know" but "hulk doesn't do this" so don't try and fudge the issue when a counter example which you claim should exist does.

So are you now saying hulk DOES kill by accident but shield simply doesn't know about it and THATS the flaw in the story?

 

[wobbly]

Afaik, in Future Imperfect they never stated or showed that anyone had died in the building that fell. Will have to dig it out and re-read it to be sure but if that is the case saying he killed in that scene is assumption rather than fact.

 

[gildea]

Afaik, in Future Imperfect they never stated or showed that anyone had died in the building that fell. Will have to dig it out and re-read it to be sure but if that is the case saying he killed in that scene is assumption rather than fact.

the bit i'm referring to is just before the maestro snaps hulks neck and the person is lying in the rubble, bloodied and says "maes...tro...kill..." the hulk then exclaims "oh hell".

It could be said that it doesn't say the character dies in black and white but i don't think we're that unsophisticated as readers. We'd also then need to make the assumption that hulk knew the people would survive.

Whether the person died (and i thinks its obvious they did) i was responding to this post by mr green anway :

To everybody: PLEASE SHOW ME AN EXAMPLE IN AN ISSUE THAT IS IN CONTINUITY WHERE HULK SMASHES A BUILDING THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE FILLED WITH PEOPLE.

At the end of the day the death is immaterial as there is no way hulk can hit someone like the maestro into an occupied building, destroying it in the process but working on the assumption that people wouldn't die.

 

[The Question]

Give me an example FROM THE COMICS where Hulk topples a building that would be full of people and nobody got hurt. Wait... YOU CAN'T. YOU WON'T.

Everyone keeps mentioning him knocking over buildings full of people when it's never happened.

Bruce has mpd and Hulk is one of those personalities. (I know some of you know this) So without Banner there is no Hulk. Therefore it was just the Hulk's body. That's an important point because it shows this: Using the mindless Hulk as an example of how Savage Hulk is an uncontrolable killer is a fallacy. It DOESN'T prove your point. Quit using it to do so.

The thing is, it can be argued that Banner is one of The Hulk's personalities. Mindless Hulk is another one of his personalities, just like Savage, Devil, and Joe Fixit.

 

[wobbly]

the bit i'm referring to is just before the maestro snaps hulks neck and the person is lying in the rubble, bloodied and says "maes...tro...kill..." the hulk then exclaims "oh hell".

It could be said that it doesn't say the character dies in black and white but i don't think we're that unsophisticated as readers. We'd also then need to make the assumption that hulk knew the people would survive.

He didn't. He realised as soon as the building started falling that people were in danger and leapt in to try and save them, disregarding the threat the Maestro still posed. And if PAD had really wanted people to believe Hulk had killed in that scene he could have just had the Hulk lift the debris and exclaim 'oh hell' over a mangled corpse, but he didnt, he showed the guy was still alive.

At the end of the day the death is immaterial as there is no way hulk can hit someone like the maestro into an occupied building, destroying it in the process but working on the assumption that people wouldn't die.

Well...the collapsing building fell on people, rather than it being occupied but going with this thought...if it's ok to allow such an assumption on the Hulk bringing down that building convict him then can we also assume the Avengers, Fantastic Four, X-Men etc, are also as guilty? All have been involved in pitch battles in the heart of New York at one time or another (probably fought in cities more often than the Hulk when you think about it), with no shortage of property damage incurred and civillians put at risk along the way. If we assume the Hulk must have killed someone in his past, surely they all must have too?

 

[gildea]

He didn't. He realised as soon as the building started falling that people were in danger and leapt in to try and save them, disregarding the threat the Maestro still posed. And if PAD had really wanted people to believe Hulk had killed in that scene he could have just had the Hulk lift the debris and exclaim 'oh hell' over a mangled corpse, but he didnt, he showed the guy was still alive.

I see it as he showed the guy dying. Given the way the person's voice trailed off. Also the hulk would be unlikely to exclaim "oh hell" if the person was going to live, more likely something along the lines of "thank god you'll live" or something.
The scene IMO is very much set up for hulk to be distracted by the death given the way it's written (they'd have need to informed us the guy had survived otherwise). It's a very common way of doing deaths in comics, movies and tv people more often than discovering the corpes find the dying body and it utters its last few weak words.

HAVING SAID THAT i don't think if the character dies is relevant to the discussion at hand as i was answering a specific question posed by mr green which wasn't about causing deaths per se. But even if the character did survive can you honestly say the hulk knew he would (which is the real issue i think)?

Well...the collapsing building fell on people, rather than it being occupied

No, they were in the building. The vey page before it has one of them state "Quick, lets get out of h.." and above their heads perez has drawn in the blinds of the window they're looking out of.

but going with this thought...if it's ok to allow such an assumption on the Hulk bringing down that building convict him then can we also assume the Avengers, Fantastic Four, X-Men etc, are also as guilty? All have been involved in pitch battles in the heart of New York at one time or another (probably fought in cities more often than the Hulk when you think about it), with no shortage of property damage incurred and civillians put at risk along the way. If we assume the Hulk must have killed someone in his past, surely they all must have too?

The difference being that they have (in general) far more intelligence than the hulk and much more control. The hulk in the MU is viewed as much as a force of nature as anything else. IF the avengers do kill people by accident they can be held accountable far more readily than the hulk.
There is a significanct difference in someone like a hulk and the thing, people refer to the hulk as child like which is a good comparison, you wouldn't give a child a hand gun would you? It's too powerful for someone of that intelligence to be trusted to operate.

But i'm not making that assumption, though i am saying i believe it has happened because of future imperfect.




I should also add I DON'T want 616 hulk to be a killer in the accidental sense because he *needs* to be the hero. I just don't think it's logical to claim that he doesn't cause deaths by accident HOWEVER I am MORE than willing to accept this leap in logic because having a superhero book where the hero routinely causes innocent deaths by accident simply WOULDN'T work. It can happen once or twice (happened to spidey dodging gun fire in another peter david work, death of jean de wolfe) for plot reasons (as i believe it did in future imperfect) or character development (which was bruce jones initial idea). But as a long term concept i think it is UNSUPPORTABLE for a super hero comic book of the hulk's stature and fame.

Even though I really think the line of argument saying its logical for hulk to not kill by accident is wrong my simple answer to that is SO WHAT? The hulk has survived for many many years being written to avoid it and in general doesn't need to have that added to his backstory.

(of course despite bendis's comments i believe he was very careful to actually not have the hulk kill and it can be easily fixed by writers in the future).

 

[wobbly]

I see it as he showed the guy dying. Given the way the person's voice trailed off. Also the hulk would be unlikely to exclaim "oh hell" if the person was going to live, more likely something along the lines of "thank god you'll live" or something.
The scene IMO is very much set up for hulk to be distracted by the death given the way it's written (they'd have need to informed us the guy had survived otherwise). It's a very common way of doing deaths in comics, movies and tv people more often than discovering the corpes find the dying body and it utters its last few weak words.

I disagree. I read the Hulk's "Oh Hell" as a reaction to the guy saying "Maestro kill", like it suddenly reminded him the Maestro was still there.

No, they were in the building. The vey page before it has one of them state "Quick, lets get out of h.." and above their heads perez has drawn in the blinds of the window they're looking out of.

The difference being that they have (in general) far more intelligence than the hulk and much more control. The hulk in the MU is viewed as much as a force of nature as anything else. IF the avengers do kill people by accident they can be held accountable far more readily than the hulk.
There is a significanct difference in someone like a hulk and the thing, people refer to the hulk as child like which is a good comparison, you wouldn't give a child a hand gun would you? It's too powerful for someone of that intelligence to be trusted to operate.

Well, I have never had a problem accepting the Hulk had never killed, no more so than accepting the aforementioned heroes hadn't either, and when you see realism arguments put forward to justify this change that doesnt really fly for me when you consider there's no way Thor or the Thing could realisticly avoid civillian casualties when they cut loose on an opponent in a populated area.
But the gun point is a good one, however, for me there's a huge difference between potraying the Hulk as a potential threat to civillian lives, which he has always been, there's no doubt about that, and having him realise that potential by actually having killed (and killed often by the looks of it). Making him a killer, especially a careless indirect one (at least someone like Wolverine or the Punisher are usually justified when they kill), fundamentally damages the character (ie, the Illumaniti are definitely right to send this monster away and he really shouldn't ever return). Basically, he goes from being a misunderstood monster to being a genuine one.

But I'm not making that assumption, though i am saying i believe it has happened because of future imperfect.

I should also add I DON'T want 616 hulk to be a killer in the accidental sense because he *needs* to be the hero. I just don't think it's logical to claim that he doesn't cause deaths by accident HOWEVER I am MORE than willing to accept this leap in logic because having a superhero book where the hero routinely causes innocent deaths by accident simply WOULDN'T work. It can happen once or twice (happened to spidey dodging gun fire in another peter david work, death of jean de wolfe) for plot reasons (as i believe it did in future imperfect) or character development (which was bruce jones initial idea). But as a long term concept i think it is UNSUPPORTABLE for a super hero comic book of the hulk's stature and fame.
Even though I really think the line of argument saying its logical for hulk to not kill by accident is wrong my simple answer to that is SO WHAT? The hulk has survived for many many years being written to avoid it and in general doesn't need to have that added to his backstory.

(of course despite bendis's comments i believe he was very careful to actually not have the hulk kill and it can be easily fixed by writers in the future).

I would agree with that, but unfortunately the way Bendis presented it and with his comments (and that he seems to be able to do whatever the hell he likes at Marvel) it does look like they have decided to ret-con the Hulk into having killed, and killed a lot (hence Tony's "how many this time?"). It remains to be seen how they will follow this through but if that is the intention I find it distasteful to say the least.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Give me an example FROM THE COMICS where Hulk topples a building that would be full of people and nobody got hurt. Wait... YOU CAN'T. YOU WON'T.

Everyone keeps mentioning him knocking over buildings full of people when it's never happened.

Bruce has mpd and Hulk is one of those personalities. (I know some of you know this) So without Banner there is no Hulk. Therefore it was just the Hulk's body. That's an important point because it shows this: Using the mindless Hulk as an example of how Savage Hulk is an uncontrolable killer is a fallacy. It DOESN'T prove your point. Quit using it to do so.

read that one

 

[Ahura Mazda]

Damn I cannot argue with the scans above I guess the Hulk probably did cause some collatarel damage. However, I would just like to say if the Hulk did so did others....

 

[Mr. Green]

Okay, I will give you those. Hulk has smashed a couple buildings during fights, and that is undisputable evidence.

However, my point was still that Hulk doesn't get mad and smash a city unless provoked. He can also control himself. It is VERY rare that he goes into a blind rage, or worse becomes mindless.

Why I am REALLY mad is because Bendis' writing made it seem like Hulk is a walking Holocaust, when in fact, he hasn't even been the "Savage" Hulk for quite some time. That means that he can fully control himself. It is impossible for Hulk to have done anything fatal to innnocents in the last five years. (I limit it to five years because only collected in the mid 90s and again with Bruce Jones' run.)

That was simply OUT OF CONTINUITY and Bendis doesn't know ANYTHING about the Hulk anyway. He used an example from the damn MOVIE! I think those editors need to be fired tommorow.

EDIT: I believe it was in Thor: BloodOath where after Thor was in a fight with the absorbing man and the city was ravaged with tons of injuries. No deaths were mentioned and the scene looked worse than anything in the above pictures.

So is it realistic for Hulk to kill but nobody else? Hmm...

 

[Mr. Green]

The debate wasn't what shield knows about hulk but if he had destroyed a building in the past and killed people. that's all.

Read above to see my argument and why I'm pissed.

Didn't get the chance to read Future Imperfect, but from what Wobbly says it sounds like you are just posting whatever suits your argument. You make it sound like Hulk did something to blatantly put lives in danger.

It is FACT that Proffesor Hulk (Banner Hulk) would always put saving innocent lives as first priority.

 

[Grim Goblin]

Well Proffesor Hulk was Banner's full mind controling the Hulk's body (not really, but it was another personality that appeared to to be Banner in control).

I give you the point that the Hulk would never go on any kind of rampage unless provoked but it doesn't change the fact that once provoked past a point he wouldn't hesitate to smash puny humans. maybe not squash them by hand one at a time but still...

I'm not going to argue in defense of Bendis 'cause that would be a real waste of time. He screwed up, period.

And I wasn't trying to say that mindless Hulk is the same thing as savage Hulk but there are similarities. Mindless Hulk could have just continued to fight the avengers in #316 but once they started fighting Samson, he just left. So I agree that the Hulk isn't a bloodthirsty creature. But I'm sticking to my point that mindless Hulk killed a lot of people and that it still counts.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

EDIT: I believe it was in Thor: BloodOath where after Thor was in a fight with the absorbing man and the city was ravaged with tons of injuries. No deaths were mentioned and the scene looked worse than anything in the above pictures.

So is it realistic for Hulk to kill but nobody else? Hmm...

Thor's careful not to cause any casualties. The tide of a few of his battles has turned, in fact, because he was concerned for the safety of others while his opponent wasn't. Tarene, while trying to be a hero on Earth in Thor's absence during the King Thor saga, endangered civilian lives and got scolded by Jake Olson (who was just a part of Thor splintered off at the time; the real Olson was long dead and presumably in Heaven, if the imagery of the annual his spirit left in is any indication) for it. That's why most of Thor's fights with the Juggernaut end in his teleporting Jugs away, too: 1) he knows he can't beat the Juggernaut one-on-one and 2) he knows if he tries to beat the Juggernaut, he can't guarantee bystanders won't be killed in the process. He's also tried to lure the Hulk out of populated areas in most of their fights.

 

[The Question]

Okay, I will give you those. Hulk has smashed a couple buildings during fights, and that is undisputable evidence.

However, my point was still that Hulk doesn't get mad and smash a city unless provoked. He can also control himself. It is VERY rare that he goes into a blind rage, or worse becomes mindless.

So? Who was talking about that? Provoked, mindless, or otherwise, it still makes no sense that no one would have died during The Hulk's rampages.

Why I am REALLY mad is because Bendis' writing made it seem like Hulk is a walking Holocaust, when in fact, he hasn't even been the "Savage" Hulk for quite some time. That means that he can fully control himself. It is impossible for Hulk to have done anything fatal to innnocents in the last five years. (I limit it to five years because only collected in the mid 90s and again with Bruce Jones' run.)

Five years in the real world. In the comics, it's more like a year. Maybe less. And really, people have died because The Hulk exists. This is a fact. Did the Illuminati exagerate it? Maybe.

That was simply OUT OF CONTINUITY and Bendis doesn't know ANYTHING about the Hulk anyway. He used an example from the damn MOVIE! I think those editors need to be fired tommorow.

How is it out of continuty? And really, using the example from the movie wasn't out of context. It would be ridiculous for The Hulk to throw a tank that far and have the soldiers be fine.

EDIT: I believe it was in Thor: BloodOath where after Thor was in a fight with the absorbing man and the city was ravaged with tons of injuries. No deaths were mentioned and the scene looked worse than anything in the above pictures.

So is it realistic for Hulk to kill but nobody else? Hmm...

It didn't say no one died either. I'd assume that people would have died there.

 

[Mr. Green]

So? Who was talking about that? Provoked, mindless, or otherwise, it still makes no sense that no one would have died during The Hulk's rampages.

Okay then. Will you then agree that it makes no sense that the Avengers have ended innocent lives during their epic battles?

How is it out of continuty? And really, using the example from the movie wasn't out of context. It would be ridiculous for The Hulk to throw a tank that far and have the soldiers be fine.

I made a timeline showing how it would be impossible for Hulk to have killed any innocents.

It didn't say no one died either. I'd assume that people would have died there.

Okay, well Thor would be responsible of killing too. And so would 95% of the A-list superheroes in Marvel. I can see how it can be done to get some great storytelling going, but in the Illuminati it is done just as a simple way out.

Bottom line, I don't like the idea of them making my favorite hero a cause of innocent death. I don't think Thor fans would like it if someone said "Innocent people are dying because he walks the Earth." I don't think ANYBODY would like it if that happened with their favorite hero, and that's why ANY writer should be allowed to just be like, "hey, whatever, this guy rampages through the city everyother issue for no reason. All he DOES is kill innocents."

 

[The Question]

Okay then. Will you then agree that it makes no sense that the Avengers have ended innocent lives during their epic battles?

Of course. Just saying, The Avengers would probably try and save innocents. I doubt The Hulk would care enough to do so.

I made a timeline showing how it would be impossible for Hulk to have killed any innocents.

No, you didn't. Since several people here have shown that it is VERY possible.

Okay, well Thor would be responsible of killing too. And so would 95% of the A-list superheroes in Marvel. I can see how it can be done to get some great storytelling going, but in the Illuminati it is done just as a simple way out.

Except, I'd probably lay the blame on Absorbing Man. He was doing most of the smashing. Difference between Hulk and Thor is that when The Hulk's in a fight, he doesn't care enough to make sure nothing around him gets smashed.

Bottom line, I don't like the idea of them making my favorite hero a cause of innocent death. I don't think Thor fans would like it if someone said "Innocent people are dying because he walks the Earth." I don't think ANYBODY would like it if that happened with their favorite hero, and that's why ANY writer should be allowed to just be like, "hey, whatever, this guy rampages through the city everyother issue for no reason. All he DOES is kill innocents."

The things is, The Hulk isn't a hero. Never has been. He doesn't live by some moral code or fight the good fight. He simply tries to survive. Sometimes, that gets people hurt. He's not a villain either, mind you. He's one huge, walking, smashing grey area.

 

[Mr. Green]

The things is, The Hulk isn't a hero. Never has been. He doesn't live by some moral code or fight the good fight. He simply tries to survive. Sometimes, that gets people hurt. He's not a villain either, mind you. He's one huge, walking, smashing grey area.

Good post, and good point.

Keep in mind that the majority of the time in the last 20 years, Hulk has either been Banner Hulk or Gray Hulk, both of which have control over their actions as to avoid unnecessary smashing. And the current incarnation of the Hulk is one of my favorites, because it gives Hulk intelligence while keeping the power of the regular Savage Hulk.

I think if you read Planet Hulk (It's only two issues in, catching up would be easy) because everyone who does loves it, and then you would be like, "Man! This character is way cooler than anyone else in the world! I finally understand the character!"