MERGED: The Hulk - Hero or Monster?

[Kevinroc]

Spinning out of Planet Hulk/ World War Hulk discussions, I thought I'd ask this question.

If it came down to it, black and white answer, would you call The Hulk a hero or a monster?

http://image.milehighcomics.com/istore/images/fullsize/41319167562.1.GIF

[Expletive Deleted]

I'd probably go with some shade of gray, but with I had to pick . . . monster. Just gut reaction, no real justification for it.

[Pendaran]

While the normal portrayal is generally some shade of gray, if I had to choose between the two, the Hulk has a bit too many attempted murders and some really petty whining and violence from his part on him for me to feel clean in picking hero.

[Kevinroc]

I know The Hulk would really fit into a 3rd category (which is why I didn't put it here). But I thought I would ask, deep down if you had to slant it one way or the other, where would you place The Hulk?

Author's note: ED and Pen, hope you don't mind me starting this thread. I was thinking about how the Hulk #100 discussion was just going in circles but I began to wonder what CBR posters actually did think of The Hulk. That's why I started this thread.

[david r]

I see the Hulk more like a small child. If you are calm and friendly to him, he'll calm down and be reasonable. But if provoked or angered, he can kill you with a swat. Or destroy an entire city.

[Expletive Deleted]

It's fine by me. Interesting topic.

[Sir Tim Drake]

The Hulk is a heroic monster.

[mattx110]

he's kinda been a hero sometimes. now he's kind of a monster who is on a leash by well, some emotionally troubled guy.

[Sean Whitmore]

If I have to pick one it's definitely monster. Otherwise, the Banner/Hulk conflict is nonexistent...or at least illogical. Imagine Peter Parker locking himself away in a cave so Spider-Man couldn't get out. :)


SEAN

[Omega Alpha]

It's funny that people consider the Hulk a monster because he has killed or tried to, but everyone thinks that Wolverine is THE ultimate hero...:rolleyes:

[Pendaran]

If it makes you feel any better, I find Wolverine fairly monstrous too. There was a really nice rooftop exchange between the Professor Hulk, Adam Warlock, and Wolverine about their respective inhumanities in Infinity Gauntlet. It was some suprisingly nice characterization to be found in the middle of a big event thing.

[Sean Whitmore]

It's funny that people consider the Hulk a monster because he has killed or tried to, but everyone thinks that Wolverine is THE ultimate hero...:rolleyes:

No, people consider Hulk a monster because he regularly goes insane and destroys entire cities.

How the hell does that have anything to do with Wolverine?


SEAN

[Sean Whitmore]

If it makes you feel any better, I find Wolverine fairly monstrous too. There was a really nice rooftop exchange between the Professor Hulk, Adam Warlock, and Wolverine about their respective inhumanities in Infinity Gauntlet. It was some suprisingly nice characterization to be found in the middle of a big event thing.

That was cool. Especially since Warlock was using their inhumanity, telling Hulk and Wolverine to kill Thanos if they got the chance because only they would. Starlin was very good at bringing humanity to such big events.


SEAN

[Omega Alpha]

How the hell does that have anything to do with Wolverine?


Wolverine has killed much more than the Hulk ever will. And intentionally. And not necessarily villains. If he's a hero, so is the Hulk. And let's not even begin to talk about the Punisher...

[Kevinroc]

Some of the recent comments are reminding me of Kurt Busiek's work on The Order. When the big 4 Defenders were cursed and growing darker. The Savage Hulk didn't seem to be effected by the curse (he didn't grow darker and he didn't want to rule the world). The Grey Hulk was too dark. The Professor Hulk was just right for the rest of the group.

[Pendaran]

Wolverine has killed much more than the Hulk ever will. And intentionally. And not necessarily villains. If he's a hero, so is the Hulk. And let's not even begin to talk about the Punisher...

Technically really only the Punisher blows past the Hulk. Wolverine's killed a lot of people, but not on a regular, dedicated basis, like the Punisher, nor on as wide a scale, like the Hulk. Logan's kills are more groups of ninjas and the ocassional personal enemy. Frank also nuked an island with a ton of people on it, so he's way in the lead. The Hulk mostly causes death via collateral damage at that. The punisher is decidedly the all time leader leaving his compatriots in the dust.

[Sean Whitmore]

Wolverine has killed much more than the Hulk ever will. And intentionally. And not necessarily villains.

Who cares how many bad guys Wolverine has killed? (and yes, it's all been bad guys unless you can point out an innocent civilian I've missed) That's a completely different issue.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Bruce Banner might accidentally be burned with a cigarette on the subway and seconds later the Hulk is tearing down Manhattan.

Banner also considers the Hulk a monster, by the by.


SEAN

[Kevinroc]

Who cares how many bad guys Wolverine has killed? (and yes, it's all been bad guys unless you can point out an innocent civilian I've missed) That's a completely different issue.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Bruce Banner might accidentally be burned with a cigarette on the subway and seconds later the Hulk is tearing down Manhattan.

Banner also considers the Hulk a monster, by the by.

SEAN

And The Hulk doesn't have a high opinion of Bruce Banner, either.

[Sean Whitmore]

And The Hulk doesn't have a high opinion of Bruce Banner, either.

Naturally. Banner puny. :D


SEAN

[Kevinroc]

Naturally. Banner puny. :D


SEAN

Banner's just upset. He'd be listed up there with Richards and Doom if he had more time to study instead of fighting against Hulk all the time. :p

http://img267.echo.cx/img267/8043/intelligenceunparalleled2qa.jpg

http://img279.echo.cx/img279/5059/intelligenceironman3ix.jpg

http://img279.echo.cx/img279/1124/intelligencebreakthroughs6sh.jpg

[Sean Whitmore]

Banner's just upset. He'd be listed up there with Richards and Doom if he had more time to study instead of fighting against Hulk all the time. :p

It's his own fault, though. All those times Banner spent locked up in a self-made prison or a lab or exiled and whatnot...what, he couldn't have brought some books with him? Maybe earn that second and third doctorate? :)


SEAN

[Kevinroc]

It's how own fault, though. All those times Banner spent locked up in a self-made prison or a lab or exiled and whatnot...what, he couldn't have brought some books with him? Maybe earn that second and third doctorate? :)


SEAN

Books? Then they'd argue.

Bruce: I want to read this book.

Hulk: Hulk want comic books. Banner books boring.

Bruce: It's important that I read this book.

Hulk: Argh! Puny Banner! Hulk want comic books!

Bruce: Shut up, you monster!

[mattx110]

If I have to pick one it's definitely monster. Otherwise, the Banner/Hulk conflict is nonexistent...or at least illogical. Imagine Peter Parker locking himself away in a cave so Spider-Man couldn't get out. :)


SEAN
well, spiderman has been through quite a few "spiderman has done more harm than good" moments, and tried to quit. he also grew extra arms and turned into a giant spider at least twice. so, he's also been through a lot of internal "what am i? why can't i just be human?" type things. but of course, he doesn't eat people.

meanwhile, kevinroc has the right idea. if i ever get to write/draw a hulk book, i'm totally gonna have a couple pages of internal conflict taking the form of a sitcom within hulks mind.
it seems brilliant/cute enough to work. either the fans'll go
"that's exactly how a monster with the mind of a child would imagine his discussion with his brainy boring alter-ego"
or
"what idiot editor let this shmuck do 4 pages of "life with hulk"?!??!? curses! i declare this work bad."

[swinebread]

I like the Hulk the best when is a monster. He can be a misunderstood one but the monster is more interesting to me.

[Jadeskies]

Jees, this one is so simple. Hulk is classified as an Anti-hero. Just the same as Namor and Punisher. All three have thier reasons for doing what they do and sometimes what they do is save lives or do good deeds. Punisher kills them before they can kill you because the system won't do it when it needs to be done. Namor is protecting his people from scum sucking air breathers. Hulk if left alone is a non-issue but theres always someone who wants to put him down or turn him into thier weapon. Hulk is a primal creature and has on many occaisions protected the world from extreme enemies and a good many times Hulk has the right amount of sense to know he has to protect innocent people. That of course is all fluid as the dynamic of brawn over brains is constantly changing for the hulk.

He's anti-hero. You should of added that option in your poll.

[Sean Whitmore]

He's anti-hero. You should of added that option in your poll.


You don't quite get the black-and-white answer concept, do you? :)


SEAN

[streator]

monster.
1

[Atom_basher]

i actually see him as a monster in a superhero's world. if hulk were in an old time story without other heroes itd easily be considered a monster story

[spacy]

wouldn't compare him with other heroes in MU, so maybe more monster than hero

[Jadeskies]

I do get the black and white concept but you cant possibly register the hulk as hero or monster. Anti-hero is not a shade of grey, its a very defined role in comic books, not a catch all.

[Green Goblin]

Neither he's a anti hero

[agrich]

Sorry, but it's not a legitimate either/or question. It'd be like me asking you "Are you a comic fan or a human being?"

A hero is, simply, one who does heroic things. The hulk is a monster who does heroic things. So he's both.

[Jeff-E]

I say he's a monster that stumbles in to heroics. If the Hulk was just a hero it would make the Banner/Hulk conflict obsolete. There wouldn't be a reason for Banner to want to be rid of the Hulk if he was just a hero.

[The Mirrorball Man]

The Hulk is a honster.

[The Fury]

The Hulk is a honster.
Honster? I would have said more Heronster.

...

Hero in my view.

[Kevinroc]

He's anti-hero. You should of added that option in your poll.

No, I shouldn't have. I see a number of people making this misunderstanding.

We all know Hulk has done some good deeds and some scary deeds in his time. But I wanted to dive into the heart of the matter. When it all came down to it, if you HAD to say whether you considered The Hulk a hero or a monster, what would you call him?

[xzilledangel]

the hulk is a monster that happens to do heroic things from time to time.
here are a few definitions of monster for you guys to chew on

an imaginary creature usually having various human and animal parts
giant: someone or something that is abnormally large and powerful
freak: a person or animal that is markedly unusual or deformed
a cruel wicked and inhuman person
(medicine) a grossly malformed and usually nonviable fetus

I think hulk fits many if not ALL of these. If banner was in control of the hulk personality more then you "might" be able to call him a hero. You really cant throw hulk into the anti hero barrel because quite a few things the hulk does is all done on impulse,emotional rage or just simple anger. Characters such as the punisher and wolverine make logical (in thier minds) choices and follow them through. Hulk just smashes if you mess with him for the most part.

If you look at the Hulk currently in the planet hulk story arc even he recognizes himself a monster with other monsters around him.

[Bloodstrike]

I think The Hulk is more like a Monster, He is a man struggling with himself and really does'nt know how to account to all the Damage that he has caused due the Struggle within. We have see alot of changes with this Character. The Original Hulk Smash, the Smart Hulk with Bruce Banner in total control and then there was the Gray Hulk once again that was a some what Thug in control. Then there was the split of Banner/Hulk where Bruce had some what of a normal life and the Hulk a Rampage terror, That didn't last long because Bruce had remerge with his Alter Ego. Then we got the Future Imperfect Hulk Version? you all got to remember Bruce was abuse as child and the problems do manifest into something.

[Kaos]

he's a monster..he flips out he kills people an smashes **** down..but he does have some heroic tarits. But when it boild down to it, he's a monster.

[We R. Venom]

I think the Hulk is a great Hero. He is a noble beast who has the bravery to live in a society that shuns him, much like a mutant but to a greater degree. He never gives up trying and that is Heroic to me.

[PastePotPete]

I disagree with posters who say this isn't an "either/or" question. Of course, logically you can't answer it, scientifically you can't answer it. But you can write interesting arguments supporting either side. Great topic for debate!

He's a damn monster, I say!

Most versions of The Hulk (Grey Hulk, Savage Hulk to name two) do NOT want to help people or save the world. They just want to be left alone. What would the Hulk do if left alone? We can only assume he'd hunt, eat, sleep and generally wander around in the woods like an animal. So this is a sentient being with great physical might, enough to do great things, but he'd rather go rut around in the dirt, eating and sleeping his days away. That's a monster.

The great thing about the Hulk though, is that you can sympathize with this monster. Who hasn't ever wanted to shirk off all their responsibilities and go live in the woods somewhere because they were disgusted by the world? The Hulk is Marvel Comics' version of Henry David Thoreau!

Plus, Hulk is a lightning rod for people who lust after power, because he has so much power himself. People are always trying to take Hulk's power and use it for themselves. They want to drain it, control it, transfer it to themselves. Hulk beats the living crap out of the power-mongers of the world. That is always satisfying to read about. I mean, one of his main enemies is the Unites States Government!

But that doesn't make him a hero. Just a monster accidentally in service to a good cause.

[del gorky]

You don't quite get the black-and-white answer concept, do you? :)


SEAN
I really think the problem is that most of us have moved beyond either/or distinctions in general, much less in terms of interpreting ficitional characters. Oddly, Hulk's essential qualities may best be displayed by Grant Morrison's work on the Seven Soldiers mini-series Frankenstein. In this mini-series, Frankenstein is a unstoppable supernatural force that consistently singlemindedly works to destroy evil. Collateral damage occurs, not all can be saved, but the evil must be eliminated. I have a weird feeling that this might have been some retooled ideas for Hulk since Frankenstein was recruited to work for the govt. task force SHADE. This easily could've been a Hulk storyline where he is sent in as a walking WMD by SHIELD to solve major threats.

Increasingly over the last two and half decades, the Hulk comic has revolved around Hulk versus external threats and not the Hulk/Banner internal dichotomy. The Hulk has moved more toward being an intelligent, rage driven warrior against greater evils and against restrictive, bureaucratic authoriarianism whether in governmental or corporate form. Hulk has moved pretty far toward being a Robert E. Howard type of Barbaric protagonist who struggles against the decadent effects of civilization. Planet Hulk, obviously has greatly continued to further this portrayal. I really look forward to seeing how WWH handles these themes. But I fear we may see a returned focus to the less sophisticated dichotomous Banner/Hulk, Hero/Monster approach. The mere fact that a thread devoted to such a topic has popped up here may show that this is how the funny book zeitgeist is moving. I feel it would be sad if it did so. I see little value in revisiting this earlier interpretation esp. since Hulk probably will not attract top notch talent to make such an approach entertaining for more than a year at most after WWH.

[Kevinroc]

I mean, one of his main enemies is the Unites States Government!


Hulk was fighting the US Government before it became "cool." Now everybody has done it. Captain America, Superman, Batman, The Inhumans, The X-Men.

Hulk was doing it long before them.

[Will.S]

I can't really vote for one or the other since I've always seen him as both.

[phantom1592]

A monster.


I've never really seen the hulk as a hero. He's not interested in helping people. He just wants to be left alone. He doesn't fight crime, he fights anyone that bugs him. He doesn't try to preserve life, He'll rip the support beams off a building. He doesnt' fight because of Moral duty, He does it out of Pride. To prove that Hulk is strongest there is.

He really has no "heroic" qualities. I think the Professor version may be an exception, but Savage and Grey weren't heroes.

BANNER risked his life for people a few times, but Hulk was convinced he was indestructible, and spent half his time wanting to smash puny humans.

Any people he may have saved were a coincidence.

[hmnut73]

Hulk is the classic misunderstood monster that does heroic things. The phrase "Hulk Smash" while catchy is not really something a hero would go around saying.

[Kevinroc]

A monster.


I've never really seen the hulk as a hero. He's not interested in helping people. He just wants to be left alone. He doesn't fight crime, he fights anyone that bugs him. He doesn't try to preserve life, He'll rip the support beams off a building. He doesnt' fight because of Moral duty, He does it out of Pride. To prove that Hulk is strongest there is.

He really has no "heroic" qualities. I think the Professor version may be an exception, but Savage and Grey weren't heroes.

BANNER risked his life for people a few times, but Hulk was convinced he was indestructible, and spent half his time wanting to smash puny humans.

Any people he may have saved were a coincidence.

I don't want to get that deep into this but that assertion is completely incorrect.

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/7126/juggernautih172a7ov.jpg

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/3733/juggernautih172b7jc.jpg

(And they fight. The fight ends with Hulk tossing Juggernaut, removing his helmet. Hulk was then going to leap away as he thought he had won. Juggernaut was waiting to ambush Hulk and the X-Men [Xavier, Cyclops and Jean] come along and take out Juggernaut. So Hulk leaves, thinking he won.)

[phantom1592]

I don't want to get that deep into this but that assertion is completely incorrect.

(And they fight. The fight ends with Hulk tossing Juggernaut, removing his helmet. Hulk was then going to leap away as he thought he had won. Juggernaut was waiting to ambush Hulk and the X-Men [Xavier, Cyclops and Jean] come along and take out Juggernaut. So Hulk leaves, thinking he won.)


Looks like a good book. Wish I had read it. I only read Hulk every couple of years, but my comments reflect what I saw. Long time readers obviously have more material to pull from. Personally I never any heroic motives.



Except of course involving Betty or Rick. He considered them friends and wanted to protect them.

[Modi]

Hero, but seeing that the other marvel "heroes"can't leave him alone and have to "help"him all teh time he starts acting like a monster in their eyes. This was touched upon in Hulk 100 recently

[Brian888]

I think classic Hulk is pretty much exactly the same as Godzilla. Often, Hulk is antagonized somehow and goes on a rampage. Alternatively, he just goes on a rampage for no discernible reason, just like Godzilla. However, when something even worse rears its ugly head, Hulk will take it down, even cooperating with those who usually fight him to do so. Just like Godzilla.

And since I'm pretty comfortable with calling Godzilla a monster...Hulk's a monster.

[nuclearman]

He's big, green, he scares the living spit out of people:eek: ... and he smashes stuff

He is a monster!!!:eek: :eek:

[The Punished]

Hero.

Everybody just likes to keep f'n with him because he's green.

[cable guy]

The Hulk is a heroic monster.

But the heroic part won out for my vote.

[phantom1592]

Hero.

Everybody just likes to keep f'n with him because he's green.


Hey, It isn't easy being green.....








C'mon SOMEONE was going to go there!:o

[karasu]

He's an effing monster. When Banner has any influence over him he can accomplish some heroic things. Without Banner he's just a destructive whiny watermelon.

[-S-Man-]

Ultimately, if you think about it, he is a monster though. I have never seen him perform an act of heroism but then again I haven't read that many comics and furthermore that many hulk issues not the early Avengers issues.

But thats the premise of the character, he's that monster that isn't a villian but is treated like one...he reminds me of Frankenstein's monster. It tackles peoples ideology of the monster at the most basic and intricate levels, which is; either take it at face value (ugly brute) or go deeper into the man behind the creature.

Is the Hulk the equivalent to Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde?

[superfriend]

When the Hulk has his rampages and such and given the uber-realism and deconstructionism that Civil War seems to be introducing...is it safe to assume that the Hulk has been not only endangering people but also murdering them when he goes into his fits?

Or is it just a case of The Hulk killing a handful of people over the years? Or none?

What do you think?

[XPac]

It would certainly be a reasonable to assume people were hurt or even killed during Hulks various rampages. But unless they specifically tell us that's the case, we really don't know for a fact one way or the other.

If Marvel tells us that no one dies in these things, then as comic readers suspect our belief. In they outright say people were killed, then obviously suspension of belief isn't an issue.

[PatchMadripoor]

If it happens it is indirect, because someone was in the building during a fight involving the Hulk.

You probably get more innocent deaths from big villian teams vs. hero teams fights.

Just leave Hulk alone and no one dies.

[Xanrn]

Bah what aload of Rubbish, "leave Hulk alone".

That A)doesn't work and B) is not a long term solution to anything.

[Jake V]

Bah what aload of Rubbish, "leave Hulk alone".

That A)doesn't work and B) is not a long term solution to anything.

Sure it does. 9 times out of 10, Hulk retreats into the desert or some forest to be left alone. Pretty much every single fight he's been in has started with some jerk provoking him.

[Alan2099]

Nah. Hulk doesn't kill innocent people don't die. It's just hack writers that want to take the fun out of the stories that kill them, and later blame it on Hulk. :D

(It's a lot funier if you picture (insert writer's name you don't like here) following Hulk around with a sniper rifle. "hey, Hulk didn't kill that little girl!" *BANG*)

[Pendaran]

It really depends what writer you ask. Bendis established that innocent people die as collateral damage of the Hulk walking the Earth in Illuminati. Peter David established that when the Mindless Hulk went on his rampages, a lot of innocent bystanders died, and had the Professor Hulk throw an enemy into high powered gunfire and cause an explosion that basically killed an innocent man as collateral damage to one of his rampages.

Stan Lee, by contrast, had the Hulk threaten to kill a randomly grabbed hostage from the street unless Thor did what he said, but he never had the Hulk do anything beyond show an ocassionally extremely callous/lethal attitude to the lives of people around him.

On the other hand, Dan Slott strongly disagrees with this entire concept, and Greg Pak tries to limit it to the moments when the Hulk has been externally made insane.


*shrug* Depends who's writing that week.

[Scott Iskow]

*shrug* Depends who's writing that week.

I'm not sure the question should even be answered, as it depends on the level "realism" in comic books. If you apply too much realism to Hulk, then the gamma rays killed him and the whole story never happened. Apply too little and you might find yourself thinking, "Here's a rampaging beast who topples buildings and throws tanks... and nobody dies?"

And we're not just talking about the Hulk, we're talking about Bruce Banner. (I think even Marvel forgets about that sometimes.) I think people tend to forget about his human alter ego.

[Pendaran]

Well, various writers have answered it, in one way or another, in actual comics, is basically the thing. So it more depends on which of them you want to listen to or ignore.

[Kevinroc]

Marvel editorial is trying to remain ambiguous on the subject, if that means anything to you.

[niall mc cann]

Didn't Adam Warlock pick the Hulk and Wolverine as his two unofficial "assassins" during the infinity gauntlet?

I think i remember him taking them aside out of earshot of Captain America and the other heroes who he felt would have a moral objection and basically saying "If the opportunity arises, kill him".

It seemed to imply the Hulk had blood on his hands.

I have a hard time believing the idea that not one person has died as a result of the Hulk's actions over the years, but that does create a kind of moral stalemate on the stories: if it's a regular thing, it seems like the decent thing for Banner to do would be to pop a bottle of sleeping pills and chow down...

[PatchMadripoor]

one of Banner's biggest fears is that "Banner" will die and the raging Savage Hulk would be let loose, without having Banner to rein him in ever again. It's always been an explanation why Banner never "does himself" in.

It's one of the big differences between 616 Hulk and Ultimates Hulk. That Hulk has NO PROBLEMS, smashing, killing, EATING innocent people (see Hulk vs. Woverine #2) who piss him off. While the 616 Hulk is capable of inflicting death (see rcent issues of Planet Hulk storyline), it is Banner who has been the subconcious core that keeps him from outright bloody murder and mayhem. If Banner finally decided (or the writer who progreses the story) to accept cold-blooded killing to be rid of his enemies, then we would see a LOT more innocents killed by the Hulk.

[superfriend]

I was kinda riffing off the paradigm shift that Civil War has created amongst the fanbase.

It seems with Civil War, fans now have the propensity to accept that Spider-Man, Cap, Iron Man, etc have caused wanton property damage, been guilty of endangering innocent civilians negligently, and perhaps not been as altruistic or noble in motivation throughout the span of their entire careers.

I figured if people can turn on the heroes based on one story, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to consider the Hulk's rampages or Namor's invasions as being a major source of carnage. A toll taken in human lives.

I suppose in order for Civil War to be as important as it's supposed to be to affect this shift in thinking, Stamford should be relatively important as far as disasters go. So, we should assume that no single superhero event has caused the damage and death that Stamford did...otherwise, the precedent for the SHRA isn't as vital and it sort've diminishes the story.

That said, it sounds like for the new post-Civil War status quo that the idea that real danger is being put to the citizenry and therefore there must be reasons why people feel danger and that is probably because people die when superpowered people show up.

[Pendaran]

To talk about a paradigm shift and the like though, implies this is a new concept or debate.

Peter David was writing in the aforementioned stuff I noted years and years ago, as far as the Hulk and death, for example. No one batted an eyelash. Then again, we didn't have easy to use internet message boards back then, maybe people would have been screaming about it.

David was for instance the guy who went with writing that Bruce couldn't kill himself even if he wanted to, it would only cause another transformation, and that the Hulk can never permanently die, even atomic disintigration only takes him out for an extended period.

[Scott Iskow]

David was for instance the guy who went with writing that Bruce couldn't kill himself even if he wanted to, it would only cause another transformation, and that the Hulk can never permanently die, even atomic disintigration only takes him out for an extended period.

Whereas Dan Slott's She-Hulk believes that Bruce Banner, being a scientific genius, would find a way to make it permanent. Maybe her faith in her cousin is misplaced?

[Pendaran]

It's really more a case of "it depends who's writing that week".

[superfriend]

To talk about a paradigm shift and the like though, implies this is a new concept or debate.

Peter David was writing in the aforementioned stuff I noted years ago, for example. No one batted an eyelash. Then again, we didn't have easy to use internet message boards back then, maybe people would have been screaming about it.

You're right, but I don't think it's been as widely accepted by editorial as it is now with the apparent success of Civil War. And not like this direction is an unexpected by-product either...there seems to be a concerted effort on Marvel's part to make the MU more realistic and that requires this extra layer of superheroes-as-WMDs to achieve.

Like someone else here said, in Millar's Ultimates you have a very similar endgame that was built from the ground up with this worldview in mind. 616 MU has only had small isolated incidents or stories dealing with these concepts like PAD or others...where now, we have an initiative to make the 616 version more like Millar's Ultimates. Where PAD's story regarding this might've been the minority with most stories glazing over things like property damage, and endangerment of citizens...I think Slott's stories will now be the minority and things like property damage and endangerment should be assumed.

At least that's how I'm seeing the effects of Civil War going forward.

[Pendaran]

I don't know, I don't really think that Civil War is going to have this massive sweeping, permanent effect down the years that Quesada and the like keep saying it will. Comics go through grim and dark periods, just look at the post Watchmen/DKR era, and then they go back, it seems cyclic to me.

I doubt the status of the Hulk as related will ever change from "it depends who is writing him that week".

[Pendaran]

More simply, Marvel really doesn't care about continuity, even during Civil War and the lead up to it, the view on all this depends which writer is writing, Bendis, Slott, Pak. It's not like Marvel particularly steps in to have them not have their own personal viewpoints be the ones portrayed.

If that's the way it is /during/ all this, I don't see that changing after. Slott's stories won't be a minority so much as "and this writer is treating it like this happened this way, as opposed to that writer over there writing in their comic that it happened their way."

[superfriend]

Maybe you're right. plus, putting the Hulk in a this light of being a mass murderer isn't all that heroic and I can see Marvel remaining coy on the subject.

So, it probably will never be given an "official" ruling one way or the other.

[Shellhead]

It's a bad idea to leave the issue ambiguous.

To me, it's a pretty serious deal if Hulk routinely kills innocent bystanders. It doesn't matter that he has also saved the world, he would be a menace that the other heroes must stop. (Unless it turns out that they are frequently killing bystanders, too, in which case it would be hypocrisy to single out the Hulk.)

On the other hand, if it never happened, that is a very important point too, as that speaks to the level of realism that both writers and readers should be dealing with while reading these comics. I first started reading Hulk when I was about 7, so I could sympathize with the childish brute who reacts with tantrums when the world treats him badly. That's still how I prefer to think of the Hulk, the innocent man-child that nobody should mess with unless they want serious trouble. Suspending disbelief is easy, because I'm already doing that for the sorceror supreme, the master of magnetism and the thunder god.

[Xero Kaiser]

I assume that if Hulk goes on a rampage in the middle of a crowded city, then people are getting killed. I don't think they shot Hulk off into space because he causes a lot of property damage when he's angry

[Pendaran]

Maybe you're right. plus, putting the Hulk in a this light of being a mass murderer isn't all that heroic and I can see Marvel remaining coy on the subject.

So, it probably will never be given an "official" ruling one way or the other.

Oh, I don't really regard it as ambiguous when writers blatantly and explicitly refer to people dying, I more refer to that Marvel doesn't care when other writers ignore said writers, and then they respond with their own.. and so on, and so forth, and so on.

[garin]

I don't have a problem with compromising the heroism of the Hulk, because I don't think he should be treated as a superhero in the first place.

It makes sense that people have died during rampages, but even if they haven't, I think it has to remain possible. If Hulk is magic and never hurts anyone even accidentally because he's a "hero", that's stupid. I think there should always be an element of the monster to him, Banner should be scared of what the Hulk might be capable of.

[superfriend]

Well then how does Cap's shield always manage to bounce perfectly back into his hands?
He has to miss sometimes.

[Xanrn]

So how are they made to stop people getting near him?

a Moving Military exclusion zone? Yeah he spots it and then he goes nuts.

Also leave him alone where?

Besides from the interior of the Antartic, there aren't any many places where he could be truely alone.

Sahara and the Gobi have Nomads.

The Rockies and Nevada have people, military bases.

Thats not counting wierd monster, or Wild Life trying to eat Banner or him not having a tantrum because he dropped a tree on his foot.

[garin]

Well then how does Cap's shield always manage to bounce perfectly back into his hands?
He has to miss sometimes.It's not quite the same thing. I can buy Cap being so incredibly talented that he doesn't miss, and I can accept Reed Richards or Tony Stark being intelligent enough to create the things they do. It's part of the superhero milieu.

However, if the reason the Hulk never harms anyone is because of his great prowess, because he tries hard not to ever let it happen, I think it compromises the idea of the Hulk-as-monster. We'd be expected to believe he only damages buildings that he somehow knows are empty, is constantly watching out for and intercepting falling debris before it can hurt anyone.. (HULK IS CAREFULLEST ONE THERE IS) it doesn't work for me, and doesn't fit with my personal conception of the Hulk.

[unkiedev]

I THINK The Hulk killed folks in the Richard Corben/Brian Azarello (I Think) MAX title: Banner.

But I also think it was a Max book, so maybe they don't count. Anyway, that title also had an extremely violent and murderous Dr. Sampson, and Bruce Banner trying to kill himself every chance he got, so it probably isn't continuity.

[Guitar Hero]

I think the Hulk does kill innocent people on a regular basis, i mean, he has so much resentment towards the humans, and when he's angry, he doesn't actually stop to make sure he didn't hurt anybody in the building he just tore down. And i think you have to take non-humans into consideration too, i mean has he killed a lot of aliens lately? i think it's safe to assume he has considering his role in Planet Hulk.

[superfriend]

It's not quite the same thing. I can buy Cap being so incredibly talented that he doesn't miss, and I can accept Reed Richards or Tony Stark being intelligent enough to create the things they do. It's part of the superhero milieu.

However, if the reason the Hulk never harms anyone is because of his great prowess, because he tries hard not to ever let it happen, I think it compromises the idea of the Hulk-as-monster. We'd be expected to believe he only damages buildings that he somehow knows are empty, is constantly watching out for and intercepting falling debris before it can hurt anyone.. (HULK IS CAREFULLEST ONE THERE IS) it doesn't work for me, and doesn't fit with my personal conception of the Hulk.

I understand.
I bet I could make room for the non-mass murdering Hulk in the superhero milieu as well but I get where you're coming from. Kinda like A-Team or G.I. Joe style violence--lots of kicks and splodes but strangely benign as everybody parachutes or is thrown/leaps to safety. ;)

[phantom1592]

I don't think the Hulk ever just.... Smashed an innocent person. But I DO believe that people died because of his rampage. When you can hear about people dieing in Riots and getting trampled in the rush of sporting events...

Imagine the Hulk landing in the middle of Madison Square gardens Even if he doesn't throw a punch I don't picture the populace leaving in an "orderly" manner ;)

[Scott Iskow]

However, if the reason the Hulk never harms anyone is because of his great prowess, because he tries hard not to ever let it happen, I think it compromises the idea of the Hulk-as-monster. We'd be expected to believe he only damages buildings that he somehow knows are empty, is constantly watching out for and intercepting falling debris before it can hurt anyone.. (HULK IS CAREFULLEST ONE THERE IS) it doesn't work for me, and doesn't fit with my personal conception of the Hulk.

I think what's happening here is that Marvel Universe itself is to blame. There was a time when the MU wasn't so cruel as to let innocent bystanders get crushed in the Hulk's rampages. But comic books have become more mature and more complex since those innocent times... And where does this leave the Hulk? More intriguingly, where does this leave Bruce Banner?

[Orion101]

To all those who say the Hulk doesn't care or wouldn't be aware if he kills people see this. http://img145.exs.cx/img145/2135/aim7tx.jpg
And this http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/931/blob2c0kp.jpg along with this http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/9696/blob2d7dd.jpg
Also if the Hulk were regularly killing large nubers of innocent people I don't see him being friends with as many heroes as he has been friends with. Plus theirs the fact that he was a Defender for years. Your telling me he was killing an wntire building worth of innocent of people the playing frisbee with Nighthawk the next week come on.

[Pendaran]

Your telling me he was killing an wntire building worth of innocent of people the playing frisbee with Nighthawk the next week come on.

More that next week he was doing stuff like this:

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/5551/thormt385e3ky.jpg

Seriously, if you want to start digging through scans, there's as much horrible stuff as there is good. The Hulk has several pretty notable moments of not caring if anyone dies.

Like... this one:

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/1331/hulk40038qj3.th.jpg (http://img529.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hulk40038qj3.jpg)

[Orion101]

Okay I'll bite, see these http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/7126/juggernautih172a7ov.jpg
plus http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/3733/juggernautih172b7jc.jpg By the way that last one looks like the events were taken out of context. Plus the Hulk stops when he sees it's Ross. As for the former as I remember correctly that was an issue of Thor not the Hulk and was clearly out of character other heroes have acted out of character when being written in other peoples books too like when Thor murderd a mutant he could have easilly knocked unconscious by slapping, in the pages of X-Men both examples of bad writing.

[Pendaran]

Thank you for illustrating my point.

I'll say it again:

Seriously, if you want to start digging through scans, there's as much horrible stuff as there is good. The Hulk has several pretty notable moments of not caring if anyone dies.

Just as your scans don't magically make my posts not happen, neither do mine magically make yours not happen. And sure, I could post a ton more, of everything from the Hulk having a warcry during a rampage through Attilan of "Hulk kill!", to, you know, ones involving actual dead bodies, to ones involving the Hulk doing things like killing his villains, to the notations from New Avengers: Illuminati about the Hulk and death, I'll instead say what I said a few times already:

Sometimes the Hulk is written as caring about not getting people killed, sometimes he's not. Sometimes he's written as actually getting people killed ontop of that, sometimes not. It depends on the writer, and their view on the Hulk.

If you'd like to ignore that about the Hulk and comic books, that's certainly your perogative. It doesn't make the comics you're ignoring not exist, it only makes them not exist for you.

[StoneGold]

Your telling me he was killing an wntire building worth of innocent of people the playing frisbee with Nighthawk the next week come on.

But you are forgetting, Nighthawk is an a-hole.


And really, being in the Defenders isn't a good example. Namor once flooded Africa. Norrin practiced semi-regular... man, genocide isn't even a good term for what he did, too small.

[Orion101]

Thank you for illustrating my point.

I'll say it again:

Seriously, if you want to start digging through scans, there's as much horrible stuff as there is good. The Hulk has several pretty notable moments of not caring if anyone dies.

Just as your scans don't magically make my posts not happen, neither do mine magically make yours not happen. And sure, I could post a ton more, of everything from the Hulk having a warcry during a rampage through Attilan of "Hulk kill!", to, you know, ones involving actual dead bodies, to ones involving the Hulk doing things like killing his villains, to the notations from New Avengers: Illuminati about the Hulk and death, I'll instead say what I said a few times already:

Sometimes the Hulk is written as caring about not getting people killed, sometimes he's not. Sometimes he's written as actually getting people killed ontop of that, sometimes not. It depends on the writer, and their view on the Hulk.

If you'd like to ignore that about the Hulk and comic books, that's certainly your perogative. It doesn't make the comics you're ignoring not exist, it only makes them not exist for you.

You make good points the fact is writers have a habit of not giving a fig about what someone before them has wrote and writing whatever fantasy pops in their head with no explanation for the change. I just perfer to read the events that actually fit in character.

[Pendaran]

You make good points the fact is writers have a habit of not giving a fig about what someone before them has wrote and writing whatever fantasy pops in their head with no explanation for the change. I just perfer to read the events that actually fit in character.

Here's my problem with that. The Hulk doesn't have a consistent personality to argue as "in character". The guy who wrote him as taking hostages and threatening Thor with them? Stan Lee. Who had a hand in establishing the character from the get go, where the Hulk was originally more of a villain.

The guy who established that the Mindless Hulk's rampages killed a bunch of innocent bystanders, and who in one issue had the Professor Hulk go on his "everyone must die!" rant, went on a rampage that actually got an innocent bystander killed and left Marlo braindead, and threw his enemies into high powered gunfire to kill them? Peter David, who wrote the character for the longest run of anyone. David also did stuff like have the Hulk throw tram cars full of people around, simply for being in a bad mood.

The basic problem of the character is that the Hulk has had many different eras and personalities, under many different writers, and so whatever reader is most familliar with whatever era views that one as "true"

So thusly, when Bendis comes along recently and goes in NA Illuminati "oh yeah, the Hulk kills lots", you get people who go "well, that makes sense" and you get others who go "that's the stupidest thing ever, Damn you Bendis!", depending on what they associate with the character.

[StoneGold]

You make good points the fact is writers have a habit of not giving a fig about what someone before them has wrote and writing whatever fantasy pops in their head with no explanation for the change. I just perfer to read the events that actually fit in character.

Well, no, you prefer to read the events that fit with your perception of the character. Like Penderan said, there's enough of both versions that you are going to be ignoring about half of Hulk's stories sticking to the he never done nuthin to nobody version.

[Shellhead]

If Hulk is a menace, than are his fans bad people? Does this mean that Marvel will never publish a monthly Hulk comic again? Will he be permanently banned from joining teams? Hunted by SHIELD? Start working with super-villains? Or go into permanent exile?

[Pendaran]

edit- doubles.

[Pendaran]

If Hulk is a menace, than are his fans bad people? Does this mean that Marvel will never publish a monthly Hulk comic again? Will he be permanently banned from joining teams? Hunted by SHIELD? Start working with super-villains? Or go into permanent exile?

I'm an avid reader of the Elric of Melnibone novels and short story anthologies and a fan of the character. I don't think that makes me a bad person, though Elric's quite the menace. Hell, dude's basically a sociopath.

Really, if you don't like how one stretch of writing is treating the Hulk, give it even a few months. Some other stretch will treat him entirely differently. This is unlikely to change ever.

[Arilou]

But you are forgetting, Nighthawk is an a-hole.


And really, being in the Defenders isn't a good example. Namor once flooded Africa. Norrin practiced semi-regular... man, genocide isn't even a good term for what he did, too small.

Geocide?

If Hulk is a menace, than are his fans bad people?

No, why would they be? There are lots of Magneto and Dr. Doom fans around after all.

Does this mean that Marvel will never publish a monthly Hulk comic again?

I don't understand the question. How is one related to the other?

Will he be permanently banned from joining teams?

Why would he? Menaces are on lots of teams. *cougcough* Sabretooth *coughcough*

Hunted by SHIELD?

Isn't being hunted by SHIELD/The Army pretty much standard ingredients for The Hulk?

Start working with super-villains?

Why?

Or go into permanent exile?

Maybe.

The point is that while the Hulk is a menace, he's also in a way *innocent*. Hulk is like a child and like a child he is not, in the true sense of the word, responsible.

I do not think Hulk is a killer in the sense of *intending* to kill. It's just that when he's angry he's likely to totally ignore "puny humans"

(It also gets kind of complicated because even if Hulk isn't innocent *Banner* would still be)

Hulk is a menace, not in the way Doom is a menace, but in the way a hurricane is a menace.

[Brian "Vash" Ashby]

By all rights Hulk should be hunted by the other heroes

Then Banner could become a hitchhiker

And walk down that road with that piano song playing

[IamtheRock3]

if illumanti in correct


and he been killing innocents during his rampage


Can he be called a hero, or tragic figure, when he cause so much death


I feel he tainted

[MAK15]

yeah sure, he mighta accidentally killed some people, but he's also saved 'bout as many with his exploits.
so, I says 'hero'

[IamtheRock3]

saving 7 people when you killed

3

is not what a hero make


So add a few 0's to both of those numbers and you see my point

[Pendaran]

There was a thread almost basically on this previously, on this very forum

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=162289&highlight=Hulk

[Pendaran]

And this one too tackled the subject:

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=150788&highlight=Hulk

[Beast]

Hulk's an Anti-Hero. So yes, innocents get hurt or die because of him.

And no, it hasn't changed my mind about him. I still don't care about him.

[Kevinroc]

The thing is... Marvel's kinda taken the attitude lately that it isn't really just Hulk. It's basically any super powered fight. The final fight in Civil War had... what was it... 53 deaths or some such?

And what was the final number of people that died due to the actions of The Inhumans in Silent War #1? (Honestly, I'm not sure right now.)

I mean... You couldn't just lay this kind of thing on The Hulk's feet.

It seems to have become a line-wide rule. I don't know why specifically you want to focus on The Hulk if other characters are as responsible for the loss of life (and not in a "I let Carnage live" kind of way).

Eventually, I imagine, the pendulum will swing back and civilian deaths will basically be a rarity and we will see it discussed as such.

So just... whatever... Really...

Hulk will fight against the Marvel super heroes and eventually fight alongside them again (and then go back to fighting against them and then alongside them and then just keep repeating this for as long as Hulk is in publication). That's basically how that works. That's how it has worked since Hulk first appeared and the Marvel Universe was "born".

Hulk has fought with and against many Marvel characters at some point in his history. And I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

Some writer will come along and say "Hulk is responsible for a ton of death" and then some other writer will come along and say "No, he's not." Repeat process over and over again.

So I really don't think anyone should make anything that even resembles a huge deal out of something that Marvel can't even seem to agree on.

(I mean, Marvel's biggest writer Bendis basically says "yes" but the main Hulk writers of Pak and Slott [I am listing Slott since writes She-Hulk] basically say "no" while Marvel editor Tom Brevoort basically says "maybe".)

[Pendaran]

It seems to have become a line-wide rule. I don't know why specifically you want to focus on The Hulk if other characters are as responsible for the loss of life (and not in a "I let Carnage live" kind of way).

I imagine people focus on it, because unlike anyone else, it has been attatched to the Hulk as a regular occurance, not just a stand out big tragedy that makes Captain America cry and surrender.

No one has said "innocent people are dying because Hercules walks the Earth", for example.

It's thusly portrayed differently, and it ignores the comics being referenced in the original post to say otherwise.

The OP specifically asks "does the Hulk's portrayal in this comic affect..", going "yeah whatever" isn't really addressing the question.

(I mean, Marvel's biggest writer Bendis basically says "yes" but the main Hulk writers of Pak and Slott [I am listing Slott since writes She-Hulk] basically say "no" while Marvel editor Tom Brevoort basically says "maybe".)

And Peter David had Hulk rampages causing deaths years before that. As an after the fact statement on the Mindless Hulk's rampages, and as collateral damage of one of the Professor Hulk's rampages. Slott himself.. I'm not sure why he ignores ten year old+ stories, but *shrug*

I mean... You couldn't just lay this kind of thing on The Hulk's feet.

That Jolen killed some guys doesn't make the concept go away for the Hulk. People are /giddy/ these days to talk about when Reed or Tony or whoever gets people killed, it's a perfectly valid question to ask then as far as applies to the Hulk and people's viewpoints on him.

So I really don't think anyone should make anything that even resembles a huge deal out of something that Marvel can't even seem to agree on.

You and various posters made a huge deal out of the misdeeds of Reed, Tony, et al, and I've yet to hear "no one should make a huge deal out of this because in a few years people will ignore it", from the people so doing. I think people are perfectly entitled to thusly post about the Hulk in the same way, if they feel that way about the matter.

I mean, Marvel certainly disagrees with all the people calling Tony a supervillain and such, and notes that writers have different views, but that's not seen as a valid point for not making a big deal out of whatever he's done and to who, and none of this stuff gets mentioned when it is. This is thusly no different, and there's really no need to pretend it's different.

I'm almost certain if someone said "I don't think anyone should make a huge deal out of what Tony Stark's done, even Marvel can't agree on it", the response would be.. interesting. Or: if various posters can make a huge deal out of what Tony Stark does, for the /exact/ same reasons and with the /exact/ same issues about "well, Marvel can't agree, everyone will ignore it in a few years, etc.", whoever they like can make a huge deal about the Hulk's rampages being retconned as killing people.

In fact, I'm dead certain that if when the next issue comes out, the explosion took out Caeira and goes on to take out the rest of Sakaar, people will make an even bigger deal out of that, despite all the things that could be said about "why no one should be posting about the Hulk and casualties" being directly applicable to that situation, and yet I doubt somehow anyone will be posting "come on people, stop making a big deal about what the Illuminati are doing, everybody kills now."

[steve2275]

we both get angry and like to smash

[Jaykob]

Ultimately, if you think about it, he is a monster though. I have never seen him perform an act of heroism but then again I haven't read that many comics and furthermore that many hulk issues not the early Avengers issues.

But thats the premise of the character, he's that monster that isn't a villian but is treated like one...he reminds me of Frankenstein's monster. It tackles peoples ideology of the monster at the most basic and intricate levels, which is; either take it at face value (ugly brute) or go deeper into the man behind the creature.

Is the Hulk the equivalent to Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde?

Coincidentally, Stan Lee has stated many times that both Frankenstein's monster, and Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde were his main inspirations in creating the Hulk.

[Hulk_Is]

I'd have to say a monster. A monster can do heroic acts, but remains a monster. For every heroic act of the Hulk, there is at least 10 different occasions he's terrorized somebody. It's his nature. Banner isn't heroic. He wants to accomplish things for the good of mankind, but his darker nature tends to be indifferent more than helpful.

So he can be a hero and save the day (thank god for that), but more often remains a haunted monster.

[Canemacar]

I don't think he's a hero, monster, or anti-hero. He's more a force of nature than anything. He isn't innately heroic though he does seem to have the impulses of one from time to time. He isn't heartless and doesn't TRY to go around hurting people, so I don't think monster is applicable. An anti-hero acts heroic out of unheroic motivations but that isn't the Hulk either IMO since he acts unheroic at times and when he does it doesn't seem to be with unheroic motivations. Force of nature seems most fitting because he doesn't seem to fully grasp just how strong he is and how easily he can hurt people. Much like Leny from Mice and Men.

[Mike Smash!]

The Hulk is a heroic monster.

That's how I see it too. He's a monster who fights villains and saves the world not for ideological reasons, but personal ones or because he's reacting to something.

Forced to choose, I'd say he's a monster.

But someone said earlier that he shows no interest in helping people. That isn't true. Even in his most grouchy and vicious personnas, he has conscience. And one thing has held true for the Hulk in his long history. For all his talk of wanting to be left alone, he's lonely. And the minute shows him the slightest kindness, he's willing to die to protect them. He also has a soft spot for the weak, animals, the small and children.

[projectnrm]

Hulk works best as a monster.

True, he's more than capable of committing heroic acts. But there is just so much more that can be done with the character when he's this loose cannon who might do awful, AWFUL things if left unchecked.

Just look at his tagline "the strongest one there is". Who wants to read about a hero who can't be stopped? Pitting Hulk against other heroes poses an interesting challenge and always makes for a fun read (Ultimates #5 is still one of my favorite comic books ever).

[thronzeblast]

I think killing being the distinction of if you are good or bad,hero or villian is long gone.It"s becoming common place now to find a hero that has killed at least one person.Be it intentional,unintentional or because there was no other choice.

[Magneto Rocks]

Well said Pendaran!

[JoeK32880]

Hulk isn't a hero or a villain, he just wants to be left alone but is so stupid he thinks everything that happens is an attack on him.

[3D Master]

Depends on which Hulk you're talking about out.

There's the Grey One, the Monster/Demon Hulk (aka Banner's dad), the Simpleton Green one (aka Hulk mad, Hulk smash), and there's the new green one, essentially a merger between Grey and first green, aka present Hulk.

Some are monsters, some or heroes, some are neither.

[Kevinroc]

Well said Pendaran!

http://www.newsarama.com/WWLA_07/Marvel/initiative.html

Moving on to Iron Man McCann jokingly referred to the character as "villain of the year."

http://www.newsarama.com/WWLA_07/Marvel/mondo.html

"What villains will we see fighting the Hulk in World War Hulk?" Paniccia, jokingly: "Tony Stark."

The truest things are said in jest, man. ;)

Tony will eventually stop being a supervillain. But this thread is about Hulk so we talk about Hulk. :p

(This post is tongue firmly planted in cheek.)

[Pendaran]

But sometimes the truest things are said in jest.)


Edit: Never mind. I just wanna talk about Hulk smashing and bashing, not how morally right he is or how morally wrong he is for declaring war against Earth or what big jerks The Illuminati come off as in Civil War and Silent War. I'm frankly just sick of this topic.

I feel this is interesting juxtaposition of a recent comment, with an older comment from the same poster. I'd think instead most people might note "the editors just made a joke", as opposed to closing with parting shot commentary of "it's a joke, but it's all true anyway!" on a topic that's purportedly done with, and they're apparently very tired of, and not act as though it compares remotely to serious dialogue or commentary from other writers.

It smacks of reaching in the face of a demonstration of entirely applicable points. You know, like continuously trying to make a huge deal out of one thing, along with near constant commentary about it, while telling people to stop doing so with another, despite the glaring similarities. Or how weary someone claims to be of a particular topic until apparently some posts float up that agree with a view they don't like on some pretty notable double standards.

[Shellhead]

Although I voted "monster", the answer is complicated for two reasons:

1. Hulk has gone through a lot of different phases in terms of who and what he is exactly.
2. Marvel has been inconsistent in handling the Hulk.

At various times, we have seen the Hulk act like an amoral thug, a childish brute, and even Dr. Bruce Banner himself. On at least one occasion, Hulk was even a separate entity from Banner, allowing them to both exist at the same time. The brilliant Professor Hulk that worked with the Pantheon was not a monster, but the childlike brute who went on frequent rampages was, despite his acts of heroism.

Separate from Hulk's many incarnations is the issue of how Marvel has handled him. While the U.S. military regularly hunted the Hulk, Marvel's heroes sometimes fought the Hulk and sometimes teamed up with him. If Hulk was killing people in all those rampages, it seems curious that Dr. Strange would spend so much time and effort taking care of the Hulk when it would have been easier and possibly the right thing to do to exile him from Earth or even just kill him.

I became a Hulk fan back in the silver age, when he was the childish brute who fought for the Defenders but also roamed all over the place in his solo title. I did read his early appearances as the gray-skinned thug and also the green-skinned thug who was one of the first Avengers, but those appearances seemed like aberrations to be overlooked. Although they are out of continuity now, I also enjoyed Hulk's retconned adventures from his magazine, when he fought off the invading Krylorians, again with Hulk as the childish brute.

Anyway, this means that I find the depiction of Hulk as a mass-murderer to be unpleasant and disturbing. I just don't see how Hulk will be able to return to Earth without constantly being hunted by all the heroes now, at least all the pro-registration heroes. And even the anti-registration heroes would have to think twice about siding with a mass-murderer, or even just staying out of his way the next time he goes on a rampage.

[Pendaran]

The brilliant Professor Hulk that worked with the Pantheon was not a monster,

The Professor Hulk actually did some of the Hulk's worst stuff, killing a bystander as collateral damage, facilitating a whole bunch of dead soldiers in invading a country, etc.

You have to reach back to the Hulk's original appearances where he wanted to use alien weaponry to destroy mankind to blow past it.

Well, there's the mindless Hulk, but that's not exactly an everyday persona.

Peter David, I find, actually wrote the darkest Hulk out of anyone. Bendis just did a retcon, he didn't do a sometimes extremely dark exploration of the character's psyche. David's Hulk would talk about killing and the like far more frequently than the other versions generally did. Even the post Professor era under David had things like a mildly creepy speech from Rick Jones on the subject, and a spite rampage in LA.

[Reptisaurus!]

Hmm. Can go either way.

Heck, should go either way.

If there's an easy answer, it's not a good Hulk story.

[TheCurse]

although i picked hero i feel he falls somwhere in between

[Economist]

Don't forget, besides the mindless destruction, there was his brief stint of taking over one of the Florida Keys and renaming it Hulk Island. Made himself dictator for a few days. Didn't kill anyone, but still not something that is excuseable.


Factor in his lack of sanity (Devil Hulk and Mastro waiting to get out) along with a temper which can at times be very unstable (depending on Hulk) he really is too dangerous to be allowed to just roam free realistically.

[beetheb]

Don't forget, besides the mindless destruction, there was his brief stint of taking over one of the Florida Keys and renaming it Hulk Island. Made himself dictator for a few days. Didn't kill anyone, but still not something that is excuseable.


Factor in his lack of sanity (Devil Hulk and Mastro waiting to get out) along with a temper which can at times be very unstable (depending on Hulk) he really is too dangerous to be allowed to just roam free realistically.

Actually, when he took over Duck Key, a horrendous Hurricane hit the Island, and Hulk made a Sea wall by piling up cars, boats, yachts etc., saving the entire Island....

This debate can really go on forever, because for as many instances you can make where Hulk acted like a monster, I can show you as many in return where he acted Heroic, and usually in the same issue or storyarc...

[Pendaran]

This debate can really go on forever, because for as many instances you can make where Hulk acted like a monster, I can show you as many in return where he acted Heroic, and usually in the same issue or storyarc...

Do you feel they make the times where he acted like a monster not having happened? Because there are also a few issues where he acted rather purely horribly. That he has other times where he's acted well doesn't suddenly make various comics not have happened. That's not so much a debate as seeming to say that as long as there's some good in there, anything bad done is irrelevant. For instance, within a very short time of that arc, was the Hulk's spite rampage through LA where he threw tram cars full of people around.

Or, as another poster asked, as far as the recent retcon of the Hulk's rampages having a death toll, do you feel that lives saved balance out lives taken in the grand scheme of things?