Just finished Planet Hulk...

[megladon8]

...and it was incredible.

Sorry to make a new thread for this, but I was just dying to spill my guts on how much I loved this work.

Hulk has never been a particlarly intriguing character to me. What I mean by that is, the concept is wonderful, but I never really found a book that explored the character in a way that hit me.

"Planet Hulk" changed that.

The ending was absolutely devastating.

Iron Man is my very favorite Marvel character, but this story has made me effectively hate what he has become.

I am not reading any of World War Hulk until the hardcover comes out in January. I just hope that the follow-up and conclusion to this horrible tragedy lives up to this book.

Such a great story.

[jackolover]

I am not reading any of World War Hulk until the hardcover comes out in January. I just hope that the follow-up and conclusion to this horrible tragedy lives up to this book.

Such a great story.

I know you haven't read WWH but -

What do you WANT to happen in WWH?

What do you think WILL happen in WWH?

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I just finished the Planet Hulk HC as well, and found it enjoyable.
A bit to by the numbers in the plot, and the ending felt rushed (and I say that as someone who hates decompression - just felt a bit like the time to get to the crossover came and so the last couple of issues were a bit quick), but I'm interested enough to check out WWH.

Will there be a HC of it, and does anyone know what will be in it (as I assume there are 50 zillion tie-ins going on with it)?

[KirkWarren]

Planet Hulk made me start liking the Hulk as well. The arc sort of struggled through in the second act but finished strong. Loved the Silver Surfer fight and the ending was devastating. Definitely one of hte best Hulk stories I've read.

[Magneto Rocks]

Iron Man is my very favorite Marvel character, but this story has made me effectively hate what he has become.

Hmmm.

Well, the ending of Planet Hulk hardly gives you the whole story there.

[Kevinroc]

Hmmm.

Well, the ending of Planet Hulk hardly gives you the whole story there.

Yeah, just wait until he reads She-Hulk: Planet Without A Hulk. ;)

[Magneto Rocks]

Yeah, just wait until he reads She-Hulk: Planet Without A Hulk. ;)

Indeed! Followed by heroic old World War Hulk #1!

...Y'know in ten years when fans who weren't here at the time read back over this saga, along with Civil War and the like, they're going to wonder why the hell Iron Man bounces from hero in Illuminati special to villain for Planet Without a Hulk to hero for World War Hulk... etc, etc. It shall be tres amusing.

[Servo]

Indeed! Followed by heroic old World War Hulk #1!

...Y'know in ten years when fans who weren't here at the time read back over this saga, along with Civil War and the like, they're going to wonder why the hell Iron Man bounces from hero in Illuminati special to villain for Planet Without a Hulk to hero for World War Hulk... etc, etc. It shall be tres amusing.

I don't think he's 100% hero or villain in any of those stories, and neither is the Hulk. As I've said before, there are a lot of grey areas in these stories. I don't see why we have to have one uniform villain and one uniform hero. Is it so bad that heroes make mistakes too, or do you just want everyone to be either whiter than white, or blacker than black so you know who to root for?

[Magneto Rocks]

I don't think he's 100% hero or villain in any of those stories, and neither is the Hulk. As I've said before, there are a lot of grey areas in these stories. I don't see why we have to have one uniform villain and one uniform hero. Is it so bad that heroes make mistakes too, or do you just want everyone to be either whiter than white, or blacker than black so you know who to root for?

Oh not at all. I love my moral ambiguity and never knowing quite who to root for, and heroes doing bad things and making mistakes. I just don't like it when a writer tries to simplify it by taking a morally complex character and making them a 2d villain, like Morrison did with Magneto or JMS or OCCASIONALLY Slott do with Iron Man.

[Servo]

Must be a subjective thing then, cause I haven't seen any evidence that Stark is being written as a 2D villain. In ASM #544, JMS certainly didn't write him as such - there was empathy and understanding from a man who clearly has to stick to the decisions he's made and have the courage of his convictions, regardless of his personal feelings or regrets. He even ensured that May would get the care she both required and deserved. Not exactly the actions of a 2D villain.
In Thor, I'll admit his appearance and ultimatum to Thor could be viewed as arrogance, but certainly not evil or villainous.
Even in the story arcs you mentioned, you can't claim that he's been written as either a hero or villain. Misguided, and acting with the best of intentions would probably be the best way to describe it. After the fact, he's merely sticking to his decisions again. I think if he suddenly start backpeddling now, it would cause more chaos within the superhuman community, and likely cause another war.

[jackolover]

Must be a subjective thing then, cause I haven't seen any evidence that Stark is being written as a 2D villain. In ASM #544, JMS certainly didn't write him as such - there was empathy and understanding from a man who clearly has to stick to the decisions he's made and have the courage of his convictions, regardless of his personal feelings or regrets. He even ensured that May would get the care she both required and deserved. Not exactly the actions of a 2D villain.
In Thor, I'll admit his appearance and ultimatum to Thor could be viewed as arrogance, but certainly not evil or villainous.
Even in the story arcs you mentioned, you can't claim that he's been written as either a hero or villain. Misguided, and acting with the best of intentions would probably be the best way to describe it. After the fact, he's merely sticking to his decisions again. I think if he suddenly started backpedaling now, it would cause more chaos within the superhuman community, and likely cause another war.

I saw Stark as a villain after CW, as the person who caused the SHRA, and Cap and Goliaths deaths. Maybe when Stark eventually redeems himself I will alter that opinion.

[Servo]

I saw Stark as a villain after CW, as the person who caused the SHRA, and Cap and Goliaths deaths. Maybe when Stark eventually redeems himself I will alter that opinion.

Stark didn't cause the SHRA. The act was already being pushed for by the Government when Stark found out about it and brought it to the attention of the Illuminati. The actions of the New Warriors is what accelerated the process. Stark got behind it because he thought it was the right thing to do. As I said, misguided maybe, but certainly not villainous.
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Red Skull responsible for Cap's death? Sure, one could argue that had Cap not been arrested and put in a vulnerable position, he wouldn't have been shot, but that's not very convincing. The Red Skull could just as easily got to him elsewhere.
I can't argue against Stark's involvment in Goliath's death - it was definitely wrong of him to attempt to clone Thor, and then deploy the unstable clone on the battlefield, so he is ultimately responsible for that - but again, I don't see it as a villainous act. Stupid and misguided again, but not villainous.

[rajincajun689]

Indeed! Followed by heroic old World War Hulk #1!

...Y'know in ten years when fans who weren't here at the time read back over this saga, along with Civil War and the like, they're going to wonder why the hell Iron Man bounces from hero in Illuminati special to villain for Planet Without a Hulk to hero for World War Hulk... etc, etc. It shall be tres amusing.


I've never been so torn about a fight as I was with the first issue of World War Hulk... On one hand I hated Tony at the time and wanted him to get the shit kicked out of him and on the other hand I didn't really want Hulk to win because of what he'd do to the characters I do like, such as Dr. Strange, and pretty much everyone backing up the Illumnati...


since when is getting your ass handed to you heroic?

[jackolover]

Stark didn't cause the SHRA. The act was already being pushed for by the Government when Stark found out about it and brought it to the attention of the Illuminati. The actions of the New Warriors is what accelerated the process. Stark got behind it because he thought it was the right thing to do. As I said, misguided maybe, but certainly not villainous.
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Red Skull responsible for Cap's death? Sure, one could argue that had Cap not been arrested and put in a vulnerable position, he wouldn't have been shot, but that's not very convincing. The Red Skull could just as easily got to him elsewhere.


I don't have an issue with the arguments about Stark being non-culpable for Caps and Goliaths deaths, and lots of people accept this. However, I am like Thor, and I don't see things as legalities and structures, where anything done as a result of these devices is lawful. Like Thor, I see a hero has to behave like a hero and not give into pressure. Tony was pressured and he caved. Simple as that. He's no hero in my opinion, and as a collaborator with the humans earns the title of villain. And as he is a collaborator, he is directly responsible for the deaths of Cap and Goliath. Richards and Pym are just as responsible, but Tony took it upon himself to drive the SHRA, so he has the most guilt.

[jigrig]

Must be a subjective thing then, cause I haven't seen any evidence that Stark is being written as a 2D villain. In ASM #544, JMS certainly didn't write him as such - there was empathy and understanding from a man who clearly has to stick to the decisions he's made and have the courage of his convictions, regardless of his personal feelings or regrets. He even ensured that May would get the care she both required and deserved. Not exactly the actions of a 2D villain.
In Thor, I'll admit his appearance and ultimatum to Thor could be viewed as arrogance, but certainly not evil or villainous.
Even in the story arcs you mentioned, you can't claim that he's been written as either a hero or villain. Misguided, and acting with the best of intentions would probably be the best way to describe it. After the fact, he's merely sticking to his decisions again. I think if he suddenly start backpeddling now, it would cause more chaos within the superhuman community, and likely cause another war.

You would think He might have an idea that Thor might be a tad pissed & at least show up in a better suit of armor, Yea, He's gonna take out Thor the old fashioned way.
I hope He gets bit by a rattler on His long walk home.

[Servo]

I don't have an issue with the arguments about Stark being non-culpable for Caps and Goliaths deaths, and lots of people accept this. However, I am like Thor, and I don't see things as legalities and structures, where anything done as a result of these devices is lawful. Like Thor, I see a hero has to behave like a hero and not give into pressure. Tony was pressured and he caved. Simple as that. He's no hero in my opinion, and as a collaborator with the humans earns the title of villain. And as he is a collaborator, he is directly responsible for the deaths of Cap and Goliath. Richards and Pym are just as responsible, but Tony took it upon himself to drive the SHRA, so he has the most guilt.

Well, that's certainly a very 'black and white' way of looking at it. So, by your reckoning, because Stark screwed up, he's automatically a villain?
Again, no-one is claiming that he's a whiter-than-white hero, but he is still a good guy. Sure, he let his misguided sense of what was right get the better of him, but he's no villain. To call him such illustrates an overly simplistic view of the situation. There are, as I keep saying, grey areas.

You would think He might have an idea that Thor might be a tad pissed & at least show up in a better suit of armor, Yea, He's gonna take out Thor the old fashioned way.
I hope He gets bit by a rattler on His long walk home.

I don't think turning up in something akin to Hulkbuster armour is going to convey a welcoming message of friendship to Thor. Plus, as was evidenced in the issue itself, I don't think Stark was expecting Thor to be as powerful as he turned out to be.

[Magneto Rocks]

since when is getting your ass handed to you heroic?

I feel the speech he made showed good understanding of his character and despite the fact that many readers who hate Stark tried to twist it, it spoke well of Tony's character and was a great speech. In ten years, or even five years- or even, I'd bet, within 2 years, when there's no longer a great resentment towards Tony Stark, people who read that speech will write it off as another typical heroic speech before battle- but they won't call it at all villainous, of that I'm sure. Same with his nice little conversation with Sentry in 4.

[rajincajun689]

I guess you've got a point there. When I think back that moment was when I started liking Stark again cause he was doing something noble for the first time in a while.

[shaxberd]

I feel the speech he made showed good understanding of his character and despite the fact that many readers who hate Stark tried to twist it, it spoke well of Tony's character and was a great speech. In ten years, or even five years- or even, I'd bet, within 2 years, when there's no longer a great resentment towards Tony Stark, people who read that speech will write it off as another typical heroic speech before battle- but they won't call it at all villainous, of that I'm sure. Same with his nice little conversation with Sentry in 4.

I expect the speech and the posturing were more for the benefit of his superiors and other SHIELD personnel who were no doubt watching or listening in on his conversation. For something as a conversation with Thor about Asgard suddenly appearing in Oklahoma, I don't think it could be avoided, even with his pull as Director of SHIELD. If the conversation could actually have been private, then it might have gone differently. That said, Stark certainly had the means to keep anyone else from listening in if he'd wanted.

Looking at the exchange more closely, Tony offers Thor the diplomatic solution after the EMP hit, which would also have negated any electronic surveillance. As such, this part of the exchange could be construed to be what Tony had wanted to do in the first place if he hadn't been required to swagger for the sake of other watching eyes and ears. Hard to prove, but it makes sense.

[Magneto Rocks]

I expect the speech and the posturing were more for the benefit of his superiors and other SHIELD personnel who were no doubt watching or listening in on his conversation. For something as a conversation with Thor about Asgard suddenly appearing in Oklahoma, I don't think it could be avoided, even with his pull as Director of SHIELD. If the conversation could actually have been private, then it might have gone differently. That said, Stark certainly had the means to keep anyone else from listening in if he'd wanted.

Looking at the exchange more closely, Tony offers Thor the diplomatic solution after the EMP hit, which would also have negated any electronic surveillance. As such, this part of the exchange could be construed to be what Tony had wanted to do in the first place if he hadn't been required to swagger for the sake of other watching eyes and ears. Hard to prove, but it makes sense.

...Err.... I was referring to his speech to Hulk in WWH1. However, your theory make sa certain amount of sense.

[ivesaidway2much]

I feel the speech he made showed good understanding of his character and despite the fact that many readers who hate Stark tried to twist it, it spoke well of Tony's character and was a great speech. In ten years, or even five years- or even, I'd bet, within 2 years, when there's no longer a great resentment towards Tony Stark, people who read that speech will write it off as another typical heroic speech before battle- but they won't call it at all villainous, of that I'm sure. Same with his nice little conversation with Sentry in 4.That really depends on what people reading the story think about the Illuminati shooting the Hulk into space and a million people at the very least dying indirectly because of it. To me it seemed like a now that I've been caught, I might as well try to save whatever esteem I can speech. To you it was heroic. I would imagine it will likely split down those lines in the future as well. Because their act of betrayal was what made me think Reed, Black Bolt, Strange, and Iron man were jerks months before Civil War or Silent War even started.

[Magneto Rocks]

To be fair though, you're a diehard Hulk fan.

I didn't think it was that bad at the time at all, and made a certain amount of sense, and at that time Iron Man wouldn't make it onto my top ten character list and I was expecting to go anti-reg. I'd wager if WWH had come out without Civil War, you'd have a MUCH higher ratio of people saying that speech is heroic, which Pak clearly intended it to be.

[shaxberd]

To be fair though, you're a diehard Hulk fan.

I didn't think it was that bad at the time at all, and made a certain amount of sense, and at that time Iron Man wouldn't make it onto my top ten character list and I was expecting to go anti-reg. I'd wager if WWH had come out without Civil War, you'd have a MUCH higher ratio of people saying that speech is heroic, which Pak clearly intended it to be.

Going back to this speech, I don't think I would call this speech heroic. He's trying to explain his actions here, and really, the person he really owes an explanation to is the Hulk. Instead, he's addressing the people, concentrating on damage control in terms of popular opinion instead of addressing how royally he screwed up. Even if shooting the Hulk into space was the right thing to do, he totally failed in terms of the execution of that objective. Like a quinjet or two couldn't have been spared to make sure that the Hulk got to where he was supposed to go and monitored the destruction of the capsule he was in so it couldn't be rigged to explode and make an entire planet unlivable. He takes responsibility for shooting the Hulk into space but not for the bigger mistake which was failing to follow through completely.

This is sort of the same mistake that Kirk made in Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan. And Khan was pissed, too. And he also had a point.

[jackolover]

Well, that's certainly a very 'black and white' way of looking at it. So, by your reckoning, because Stark screwed up, he's automatically a villain?


Automatic?

Okay, nothing is black and white, I agree. For all I know, Stark has a mental problem due to his previous alcoholism, and he makes arrogant, faulty decisions. You can explain it away as much as you like. The guy sided with non-powers over his own clique. Sure Tony Stark is doing a good job as Director of Shield, and I have no problems with how Initiative is run. But I don't see him in the light of good times. I see him in the light of hard times. I have my own faults, and I can recognise them and maybe avoid the situations where I will make the wrong decisions. Maybe Tony couldn't avoid a similar circumstance in CW. But the fact remains. Tony took the initiative in a that situation (CW), and didn't try to avoid it. Tony had shown above normal courage in other moments of conflict, which led me to believe in his ability to show courage all the time. He didn't in the CW, when confronted with the option to side with his friends, or to forsake his friends. And, as you say, things aren't always black and white. I can't think of a reality of heroes who aren't behaving like heroes, but being augmented with legislation and propped up by systems, yet that's what we've been reduced too. A Carlton light hero universe.

I say, show me the heroes that don't have to have leashes, or be subject to political authority. Free heroes, who have the flexibility to weed out corruption, instead of being manipulated by it. Governments don't deserve to put restrictions on the powerful heroes that have saved society countless times. (Maybe society doesn't like all these powerful people around, so, should send all of them to the Negative Zone). The compromise is just that. Compromising the heroes ability to operate unhindered and, therefore, better.

I think Stark has got a long way to go to redeem himself for the bind he has put the heroes in. Tony doesn't fit the strict definition of villain, but he has overseen the transition from one world into another. If Doom is allowed the label of villain, then I think Tony, for all his laudable intensions, has the same claim of villain, in the eyes of Cap and Thor.

[jackolover]

To be fair though, you're a diehard Hulk fan.

I didn't think it was that bad at the time at all, and made a certain amount of sense, and at that time Iron Man wouldn't make it onto my top ten character list and I was expecting to go anti-reg. I'd wager if WWH had come out without Civil War, you'd have a MUCH higher ratio of people saying that speech is heroic, which Pak clearly intended it to be.

Well, I can see both sides to seeing that speech as heroic or spin. But obviously, Tony thought the Hulk was out to kill the Illuminati, and Tony makes the mistake that most people make; that the Hulk kills. Who knew the Hulk had this fail-safe device called 'The Bruce Banner calculating delivery system', that avoids death and destruction in every conflict? Tony sure sounded like he was going to buy it. Did Tony really know for certain the nanobots would neutralise the Hulk?

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Alright, if I do get the World War Hulk HC, whenever it's released, I'm not going to have to know about Iron Man and Hulk having a tiff in another book am I?
Because if that's the case, I'll probably just pass.