Brian Bendis answers Road to CIVIL WAR: New Avengers: Illuminati Q & A

[CMBMOOL]

To check out this Q & A section go to Newsarama.com.


Enjoy!!! :)

http://www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=66106

[guy2]

great comic very well done

[Weapon Ick]

"Squirrel Girl MAX"

YES!!

[StoneGold]

I like how people on Rantarama were all ticked off that he didn't tell them the ending to Civil War.

[Young Avenger]

I'm glad that Bendis choose to ignore She-Hulk #4. I think it's total bullshit that no one died doing Hulk's rampages. He destoryed building, tanks, airfighters with their pliots still inside. Does Shulkie expect me to believe that not a single person died?

[agrich]

See, we don't have to wait for Son of M #5 to find out which side Black Bolt is on.

[Young Avenger]

See, we don't have to wait for Son of M #5 to find out which side Black Bolt is on.

We know that he didn't side with Tony. That doesn't mean he will be anti-registration. He probably won't give a s**t like Namor.

[Effect]

I have to agree, it really is beyond silly to even think that no one dies or gets hurt when the Hulk goes crazy. He can lift tanks, destory buildings and really he's gone crazy in cities hasn't he? Don't really see how one can say that unless the person writen to say that is in deep denial.

[Dermie]

I'm glad that Bendis choose to ignore She-Hulk #4.

I'm glad that he didn't ignore it--and actually took the time to acknowledge the point that She-Hulk/Slott made in that issue, and explain it away, rather than simply ignore it.

[StoneGold]

Eh, whether or not a hero has killed changes so often... anyone want to track the number of times Cap killing in WWII has changed? Seriously, no continuity to it.

[stillanerd]

Q: I may be a bit thick, but it wasn't clear to me if Black Bolt was supportive of Iron Man's position at the end of the issue. I'll assume yes, since he didn't fly off in a huff. But why would he support the voluntary registration. Like Namor, Black Bolt is the leader of a sovereign nation, not a superhero. Why would he care about something that will only be impacting America in the short term.

BB: Here is the script to that scene:

IRON-MAN

Well.

I'm sorry you can't communicate with us, Black Bolt. I -

6- Black Bolt holds up a stern hand with stern pursed lips.
7- Black Bolt gestures at him through with pursed lips.
8- Black Bolt points at them with disappointed, hateful eyes.
9- From Behind Reed Richards, Black Bolt flies away. Iron Man hangs his head as Reed gets up to leave.

IRON-MAN

I think I got the gist.

At last. A definitive answer. Wish the artist communicated that better in the first place, but oh well, thanks for clearing that up Bendis, if you're reading. Now can somebody alert Wikipedia and tell them Black Bolt DOES NOT support registration?

[Sean Whitmore]

I have no problem with Marvel changing their "Hulk never killed" stance (or rather, Bendis changing Marvel's "Hulk never killed stance" :) ). I just thought it was a little weird that he'd never killed anyone before, but he killed 26 people and children during the relatively shortest rampage he ever went on. :D


SEAN

[Orion101]

Well everybody has a right to their opinion now how about a second opinion hmm. ;)

By Dan the Man Slott. As far as this whole "Has Hulk killed or hasn't he" argument goes...

This is my personal take:

The Hulk has never taken an innocent life. I don't care what a SHIELD agent told Iron Man. That's just my take.

Because the second the Hulk's responsible for the loss of innocent life-- pfft-- the character is over.

In Bruce Banner's eyes, no innocent life is more-or-less important than his own. If an innocent person did die by the Hulk's hand, he could never live with himself. He would FIND a way to end his life beforre that would happen again. It can't really be rationalized away by saying he'd TRY to kill himself. Bruce is smart. He'd figure out a way.

It doesn't matter how ludicrous that supposition is. It's an apogogic argument. The fact that Bruce hasn't killed himself MEANS that he hasn't taken an innocent life.

(It kind of works like this... Two guys are driving along a road in Texas. Every so often they see a shoe lying by the side of the road. One guy says to the other, "Hey, why is it you only see ONE shoe by the side of the road?" After thinking about it for a long time, the other guy says, "Well, I guess if there were two shoes, someone would've take 'em."
Does that argument explain WHY there's only one shoe by the road? No. But it does give a good explanation for why there's not two.)

Wha??... What's that Slott-fella goin' on about?

Well, he's a little sick at the moment, he's just taken some NyQuill, and he's started typing about himself in the third person. (All true). But he's got a point...

The point is this: The Hulk, just by being alive, is pretty much proof that he hasn't taken an innocent life.

But what about all of those cities he's leveled?

Well... What about all of those buildings that Thor's knocked the Absorbing Man through? Or all of the buildings that Iron Man's knocked the Titanium Man through? And so on, and so on... If you're going to play by THOSE rules than the entire Marvel Universe is populated by heroes with buckets and buckets of blood on their hands. And WHO wants to read about THAT?

"Oh," you might say, "I'm sure that Iron Man and Thor are REAL careful about whose living rooms they plow through or what buildings they knock down."

And to that I'd say, "Then just use that same kind of No-Prize-thinking to explain the Hulk. That there's some sliver of Bruce Banner's subconscious that makes SURE that he doesn't take an innocent life while he's rampaging." That's no more-or-less feasible than the Iron-Man-&-Thor-are-just-being-careful argument.

Whatever it takes. Because you HAVE to maintain the integrity of the character.

For example, in the 90's there was only one major Punisher project that did NOT come out of editor Don Daley's office. It was written by a big name creator, and the premise involved the Punisher being haunted by the ghosts of innocent bystanders-- bystanders that HE himself shot down during his war on crime.

Don tried his best to kill the project-- and, in the end, it was done against his will and through another editor. Why? Because Don believed that the Punisher NEVER HAS nor EVER WOULD shoot an innocent bystander-- even by accident.

And that makes a lot of people roll their eyes. 'Cause just think about it. Think how many bullets the Punisher fires EVERY D@MN DAY! It just doesn't make any sense, right? Somebody GOTTA go down in the crossfire, right?

Wrong. Because think about the Punisher's origin. When his family was killed, THEY were innocent bystanders. If the Punisher was EVER the cause of something like that-- his war on crime would be over. He'd stop. The End. If he WERE to continue doing what he does-- the CHARACTER would no longer have any integrity.

Does all of this seem a little silly? Like the "Hand of God" protecting that soldier who crawled out of the Hulk-thrown-tank in Bendis' example? Yeah. But guess what, it's comics. Comics are silly. And the mainstream Marvel Universe does have a "Hand of God" that protects its character's integrity. It's been there since FANTASTIC FOUR #1-- when the Human Torch melted his way through jet planes... and all the pilots bailed out in time. And, hopefully, that "Hand of God"-- as silly as it is-- will still be around when your grandkids are reading Marvel comics.

So? Could the Hulk be responsible for the "logical" deaths of hundreds (or thousands)? Could the Punisher ever shoot down innocent bystanders? Sure. In my mind, that's what the Ultimate Universe and What Ifs are for.

Whew! Okay... Please forgive any NyQuill induced typos. Time for yours truly to hit the sack. One crusty ol' curmudgeon signing off--
G'night!

Dan

The post is here http://www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=66106&perpage=25&pagenumber=3
I'd add further comment but theirs nothing I can add that he hasn't already said.

[Jake V]

It's still a load of crap.

The difference between the Punisher and the Hulk is that the Punisher is in control of his actions. The Hulk is just made of rage and is an engine of destruction.

The idea that the Hulk has NEVER killed anyone in one of his rampages is possibly the most absurd one in comics. The idea that if he accidentally killed someone it would ruin his character is also absurd. If there's no actual danger in any of his rampages, why is he a scary character? Why should we care when any superheroes move in to stop him? Are they fighting to save insurance companies money? Would Banner try to kill himself? Sure he would. Hulk just won't let him die, that's all. Why else do you think Banner considered Hulk to be a curse? He probably made peace with the fact that Banner won't let him die a long time ago, of course, the fact that people die in Hulk rampages is the reason Banner is so resistant to becoming Hulk. If no one was in any danger when he Hulked out, why would Banner try so hard to be rid of the Hulk?

And if people sometimes die when Iron Man or Thor get blown through a building, that's fine with me. Its easier to swallow than the alternative.

[StoneGold]

It doesn't matter how ludicrous that supposition is. It's an apogogic argument. The fact that Bruce hasn't killed himself MEANS that he hasn't taken an innocent life.

No, that just means that every time he tries to committ suicide, he Hulks out and can't. I'm pretty sure they've done that bit before.

[Sean Whitmore]

Slott does raise a good point with his Punisher example, but I do think there's a difference:

Punisher killing an innocent person would be the end of that character, because at that point he'd become no different than the criminals he kills.

Hulk killing innocent people doesn't really damage the idea of the Hullk irreperably, because the idea IS that he's a dangerous monster that Bruce has dedicated his life to ending. Even if he HASN'T killed anyone, it's purely by accident. The difference between a killer and an attempted killer is purely semantic.

Two things wrong with Dan's assumption that Bruce would have killed himself:

1) Saying that's he's smart and would find a way is a bit of a dodge. He's been unable to cure himself for decades, why should he be able to figure out a way to kill himself?

2) Who's to say Bruce WANTS to die? Is it that selfish to not want to kill yourself, even if it might save others? I mean, yeah, I guess it is, but so what, then Bruce is selfish. Hardly his worst quality.


SEAN

[XPac]

I honestly don't have a problem with people being killed in Hulk's rampages. It's not like he's intentionally doing it, so it's not really a knock against the character.

I also don't buy that Hulk being alive is evidence that he never killed anyone. If Banner is a weak enough person to commit suicide, then he's a weak enough person to chicken out of commiting suicide too. I know that sounds hypocroticial in some ways, but the point is that Banner is a weak messed up person. So him not suceeding in killing himself doesn't necessarily prove anything.

[StoneGold]

One other suicide thing I meant to mention, no matter how smart he is to try and commit suicide, Hulk is just as smart. Because Banner is Hulk. They aren't too separate beings. Maybe this could have held water pre-PAD, but definitely not since PAD started writing.

[The Foreigner]

Slott's reasoning is extremely flawed, as people have stated above. The Punisher example doesn't apply at all...

To explain something away because "Comics are Silly" is pretty stupid if you ask me.

[Dan_Slott]

Slott's reasoning is extremely flawed, as people have stated above. The Punisher example doesn't apply at all...

To explain something away because "Comics are Silly" is pretty stupid if you ask me.

The Foreigner,
The Punisher example is an analogy. It's not a direct comparison. I'm not drawing a direct comparison between how many bullets the Punisher has fired versus the number of buildings the Hulk has torn down. I'm drawing an analogy between how those action affect the integrity of the character.

Logically, the Punisher shoots SO many bullets during his adventures that SOME innocent bystander SHOULD have been hit by now. But if that DID happen, then the Punisher's story is over. As a character, he can not continue to function if he'd committed such an act.

Logically, the Hulk's rampages SHOULD have taken out innocent bystanders. And that's fine for the character of the Hulk (the monster), but it's the end of the character of Bruce Banner (the man). Bruce Banner just doesn't work as a character if the Hulk has taken an innocent person's life.

Why these stories may be interesting-- it's my take that that's what Elseworlds, What ifs, and the Ultimates are for.

[Zombienorthstar]

Slott does raise a good point with his Punisher example, but I do think there's a difference:

Punisher killing an innocent person would be the end of that character, because at that point he'd become no different than the criminals he kills.



Not necessarily...for him to be morally justified to the reader then maybe. However, self righteous people are usually hypocritical.

He could take a Faith from Buffy stance that anyone he killed doesnt matter because in the balance hed saved hundreds of people...'still putting [him] firmly in the plus column'

[Young Avenger]

Logically, the Punisher shoots SO many bullets during his adventures that SOME innocent bystander SHOULD have been hit by now. But if that DID happen, then the Punisher's story is over. As a character, he can not continue to function if he'd committed such an act.

Just to let you know, The Punisher did shoot an innocent bystander. In the Daredevil vs Punisher mini, Frank shoots a homeless man by incident during his fight with Daredevil. The guy was a reck. He almost had a nervous breakdown realizing he was responsible for killing an innocent man. Lucky for him DD got him to a hopstial in time.

[Sean Whitmore]

Just to let you know, The Punisher did shoot an innocent bystander. In the Daredevil vs Punisher mini, Frank shoots a homeless man by incident during his fight with Daredevil. The guy was a reck. He almost had a nervous breakdown realizing he was responsible for killing an innocent man. Lucky for him DD got him to a hopstial in time.


That sounds about right. Nuts as Frank is, I didn't think he'd taking shooting an innocent in stride. He won't even shoot cops, and they're less "innocent" than civilians (and he has no problem shooting at costumes).


SEAN

[Violently Apathetic]

That sounds about right. Nuts as Frank is, I didn't think he'd taking shooting an innocent in stride. He won't even shoot cops, and they're less "innocent" than civilians (and he has no problem shooting at costumes).


SEAN


In what sense?

[Sean Whitmore]

In what sense?


Well, to Frank, if DD or Spidey gets in his way, they deserve to be shot. He's said and demonstrated this many times. Even though they aren't evil, they've chosen to get involved, so they're not exactly innocent.

From that, you'd think that he'd feel the exact same way about a cop getting in his way. But when it comes to cops, Frank won't fight back.


SEAN

[Young Avenger]

From that, you'd think that he'd feel the exact same way about a cop getting in his way. But when it comes to cops, Frank won't fight back.


SEAN

I think he doesn't fight back against cops because they are just doing their jobs. Frank won't feel right killing or shooting anybody who's civil duty is to protect and serve the public.

[Violently Apathetic]

Ah, thanks for clearing that up, I was trying to understand why someone doing their job would somehow be less innocent, I forgot to take into consideration the way Frank views people completely.

[Sabrinaset]

Bruce Banner just doesn't work as a character if the Hulk has taken an innocent person's life.

I can't see why not. Banner has been prtrayed as an extremely screwed-up individual. Just reading the Hulk/Sentry issue by Jenkins a few years back alone...

...and as for the Banner/Hulk suicide issues: Banner has tried to kill himself before, at least in the Azzurello(sp) and Corben mini...and the Hulk came out. I'm sure that, off-panel, Banner has tried before. PAD pretty much said in the last issue of his first run that the Hulk was Banners survival instinct, and I'm pretty sure that in at least part of that issue...I think it was referrred to as "The War Between Hulk and Bruce" that he had/will try to kill himself many times. Now, granted, that issue is not in cannon, but still... The Hulk will find a way to survive, even if the Banner personna no longer wants to.

[Zombienorthstar]

Suicide is of course an extremely emotional thing so it makes sense the hulk would stop banner.

However i think the bigger issue here is why do we expect so much of banner. Most people even if they killed an innocent wouldnt do the supposedly noble thing and kill themselves. i think the character of banner would be much mroe interesting if hes shown as just a regular guy: someone who tries to shirk the duties of his angry other half...thats much more realistic than banner nobley sacrificing himself. What i always liked about marvel was the every-man super heroes...be honest with yourself if you were in banners shoes could you say that youd definetley 100% take responsibility for somethign you cant help?

[Jmacq1]

The problem isn't killing in general, it's the fact that it's innocent bystanders getting killed, explicitly including children, according to the Illuminati special.

So this character that Marvel has plastered on lunchboxes and backpacks and T-Shirts for the kiddies, that sells tons of action figures, and is generally one of Marvel's more commercially-recognized characters is now a killer of children? I just don't buy it (no pun intended). "Logical" or not, if the Hulk had been getting children killed for years now, the other Marvel heroes -would- have found a way to end him, permanently. This is a snowball effect:

Not only is Hulk no longer simply a "tragic, misunderstood/sympathetic figure," he's now a literal monster. A child-killer.

Not only are all Earth's heroes apparently so incompetent that they can't stop him, but they've also -worked with- this child-killer off and on for years. So by extension just about all of Earth's heroes are apparently perfectly OK with a few kids getting killed every so often because every once in a while they -need- the Hulk? Sorry, not buying that, either.

Bruce Banner being so spineless as to accept the Hulk as a killer of innocents basically flies in the face of his portrayal across the entire existence of the character. We're talking about a guy that ran out onto an active bombing range to save the life of some punk teenager he didn't even know. Not the act of a coward, I don't think. Nor of someone with a paltry regard for human life.

This whole "Hulk as a killer" business will either get quickly retconned or Joey Q will pull some sleight-of-brain answer out of his arse to explain how Hulk is a killer but isn't or some crap like that.

[Sean Whitmore]

This whole "Hulk as a killer" business will either get quickly retconned or Joey Q will pull some sleight-of-brain answer out of his arse to explain how Hulk is a killer but isn't or some crap like that.


Pretty easy to explain away, really. This wasn't one of Hulk's usual "somebody pushed me on the subway" rampages. He was affected by a Gamma Bomb planted by AIM (or something; I don't remember).


SEAN

[Slumber Hulk]

I'm just waiting for Hulk to get back and show them how dangerous he really can be. I hope he tears up Strange's little townhouse!

[Zombienorthstar]

Does Banner always remember his time as the Hulk??

Or does he get blackouts?

[Sean Whitmore]

Does Banner always remember his time as the Hulk??

Or does he get blackouts?


That's really one of those things that's left up to each writer, because the Hulk's changes aren't always the same. Sometimes Banner can see everything the Hulk does as it's happening. Other times he wakes up with no recollection, or vague memories.


SEAN

[Zombienorthstar]

So can he defineltey remember the child murder?

[StoneGold]

Bruce Banner being so spineless as to accept the Hulk as a killer of innocents basically flies in the face of his portrayal across the entire existence of the character. We're talking about a guy that ran out onto an active bombing range to save the life of some punk teenager he didn't even know. Not the act of a coward, I don't think. Nor of someone with a paltry regard for human life.

And yet, he was afraid to talk to Betty for god knows how many issues. Banner running on to the testing site was like the one act of courage he had committed up till that point in his life. And then there's the problem that you're talking like Hulk and Bruce Banner are two separate entitites. Again, ever since Peter David, that doesn't apply. Hulk affects Bruce. Even if Bruce tried to kill himself, Hulk wouldn't let him.

[Jmacq1]

The issue of the Hulk "stopping" Banner from killing himself isn't really the point. I'd even go so far as to saying it's subconsciously prevented him from finding a permanent "cure" for himself, as well. But if the "Hulk" side of his personality can have that much influence over the "Banner" side, the reverse should also be true. Hence: No killing.

But I'd also like to point out that the kind of "courage" required to talk to a woman you're attracted to and the type of courage required to potentially sacrifice your life to save another person are two very, very different things. I've known plenty of people that wouldn't flinch (much) at being in a firefight or otherwise dangerous situation, but become completely flustered around attractive members of the opposite sex. Just like I'm sure there are plenty of smooth-talking ladies' men that wouldn't even consider running into a burning building to save someone's life. It's just a foible of human nature.

[Orion101]

Okay I can accept the whole Banner may not actually be able to kill himself thing, but their is no way you can expect me to believe that he could be killing people for all these years and wouldn't turn himself in years ago. Or that he could be a member of the Defenders for years and all this wasn't brought up. That's even more ludicrous that his rampages not killing, and it desecrates the characters involved.

[StoneGold]

Okay I can accept the whole Banner may not actually be able to kill himself thing, but their is no way you can expect me to believe that he could be killing people for all these years and wouldn't turn himself in years ago. Or that he could be a member of the Defenders for years and all this wasn't brought up. That's even more ludicrous that his rampages not killing, and it desecrates the characters involved.
As opposed to Namor, who must have committed mass genocide when he flooded Africa with the help of whales in the 30s. Or the super ultra levels of mass genocide the Silver Surfer comitted while he was working for Galactus.

[Orion101]

As opposed to Namor, who must have committed mass genocide when he flooded Africa with the help of whales in the 30s. Or the super ultra levels of mass genocide the Silver Surfer comitted while he was working for Galactus.

Those were the only other two mass murderers on the team so I can see why they would except the Hulk no one else has that excuse. Plus the case with Namor happened decades ago before any of them were born and Surfer's took place in other parts of the universe and ended before becoming a member so it's sort of out of sight out of mind to them. Hulk on the other hand if Bendis is to be believed has been murdering large numbers of inncocnet people before,during and after he was a Defender essentially in the other members backyard. This would essentially mean he would he would be palling around with them then the next week kill a few dozen kids the next day be palling around with them again. I don't like the implications here.

[Hiromi]

If you can define it as quote on quote murder, depending on his persona at the time the Hulk might possess the mindset of a teenager, a toddler, or a full grown adult. If a toddler shot and killed someone would you hold him as acountable as you would a normal 25 year old?

As for why Banner doesn't do anything permament about it? Its my belief that hey maybe he wants to, but the simple fact is he can't. Reed Richards has devoted years to finding a cure for him, and failed, ditto quite a few other high level scientists and others like Doc Samson. He can't kill himself, and his own subconscience might be affecting him adversly in his pursuit to stop the Hulk.