The HULK is not a killer.

[daveageallen]

i was recently re reading world war hulk, where amadeus cho repeatedly says the hulk has never killed anyone in his life, and goes onto explain how his brain sets up math calculations and tells his body where to throw things and how hard to wreck stuff to ensure no one gets killed. i keep finding this pretty hard to believe.

so i was wondering, is this something the writer just made up to make hulk look like a good guy, or has he really never killed anyone in any of his millions of comics? i can almost swear he killed some people in te warly avengers comics on a rampage.

[Gunsmith]

Yes the Hulk is not a killer, but he is a natural disaster

[Westgarth J]

That was one writer's take, but other writers will have different interpretations, and if one decides that the Hulk is or was a mass-murderer and editorial approves, then that'll be retconned in as current canon, to be retconned out later as needs demand.
The actual setup and backstory changes to suit the needs of different writers, so if that was the last Hulk story where that particular idea was addressed, then it's currently canon. It might not be later.

[David Walton]

Sounds like a clever explanation for the fact that the Hulk hasn't killed scores of innocent bystanders during his frequent rampages.

Be interesting to get Peter David's perspective on this. During his run Bruce Banner's morality was a bit of a pretense. He actually enjoyed the destructive outlet the Hulk gave him. I remember the arc where Banner was taking on the characteristics of the Hulk (leading into the merger). Can't remember the issue, but it was Banner, not the Hulk, who left Madman to die.

[ĐØМ]

I remember an issue during the early 300's when Hulk fought the West Coast Avengers and it was stated the town he was rampaging in may have had hundreds of deaths. This was when Banner and Hulk were two separate entities, though.

[Whitster]

I'm certain Dai Thomas would disagree with that statement.

[David Walton]

That was one writer's take, but other writers will have different interpretations, and if one decides that the Hulk is or was a mass-murderer and editorial approves, then that'll be retconned in as current canon, to be retconned out later as needs demand.
The actual setup and backstory changes to suit the needs of different writers, so if that was the last Hulk story where that particular idea was addressed, then it's currently canon. It might not be later.

Comics have recently moved away from the idea that a hero never kills, so that's got to be doubly true of an antihero. I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere down the road Marvel acknowledges a death toll.

Peter David played his cards kind of close to the vest, but I get the impression his Hulk killed frequently--particuarly Joe Fixit. Onscreen Fixit's boss usually stopped him, but if you read between the lines I think it's clear his Fixit had few compunctions about human life.

[DarienA]

Yeah while it would be cool if this was the case (in terms of making calculations whatever), and while it sounded cool... I find it hard to believe in all his years of rampaging that no one was ever killed, nor that Fixit hasn't killed.

[carabas]

It's really simply.
At the time just before exile, editorial decided that the Hulk was a killer. Well, not a killer as much as an accidental squisher of people who live in the building he's hitting the Abomination with.

And some time later, around World War Hulk, editorial changed his mind about that, declaring him innocent of killing anything, no matter how ludicrous that seems.

[Sighphi]

Remember, dudes, the Ultimates didn't actually do anything new with the Avengers story, they just did things that people forgot about and dont actually know. Well, i guess they did take it a bit to the edge but all of what you saw there sort of happened in 616.

Hulk HAS threaten to eat people before.

[Blind pugh]

Yeah while it would be cool if this was the case (in terms of making calculations whatever), and while it sounded cool... I find it hard to believe in all his years of rampaging that no one was ever killed, nor that Fixit hasn't killed.
I'm SURE Fixit killed a guy called Glorian at least!

[Deadpooligan]

"Oh hey, what's going on in this thread?"

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/637/themaestro.jpg

[FlintEastwood]

So basically the dilemma is this: was Amadeus Cho stating that the Hulk has never killed ANYONE in his entire life, and this being a canonical statement? Also, what is the defining evidence that indicates the Hulk has killed or that he has not killed?

Cho's speech to the Hulk, as far as I can remember without re-reading anything, came off to me as an attempt to make the Hulk rethink his humanity and to get him to stop what he was doing. This obviously wasn't very effective, but you have to really think whether or not that was something that Cho could realistically make a statement about.

The Hulk has always been a character that is inherently good, despite the fact that the people all around him see him as a menace and a monster. This specific statement is indicitive that he doesn't go out and try to kill, even in the World War Hulk arc (remember, he only wanted to kill the members of the Illuminati, not anyone else). Maybe people will have been injured or killed in the fire fight, but it usually isn't an option to kill innocents.

It does bring up interesting questions about the diachotomy of the Bruce mind and Hulk mind, and more important it raises the question of "Are they two different minds, or just two separate parts of the same mind?" In either case, I think that the Bruce Banner mind would be the more likely of the two to be a killer than the Hulk. The Hulk, to me, will always be that beacon of good that is muddled by the misunderstanding of those around him (deep down, he's a great guy, really, he is!)

[Ex_]

I think it's ridiculous that in all the friggin damage that he's caused, the Hulk has NEVER been responsible for someone's death.

[Superbeast]

I thought the argument was a Hulk with Bruce has never intentionally killed anyone. When he has been seperated from Banner physically or when Banner has been completely shut out mentally, he has killed people who have got in his way due to collateral damage but never consciously.

[Hrungr]

Yeah, you need to read that segment again. They do address that the Hulk has killed, but they list each instance and the circumstances surrounding it. I can post up the relavent page in a few hours if anyone's interested.

[Lord Moon]

I'm certain Dai Thomas would disagree with that statement.

That was probably Thor's fault though

[Hulk_Is]

"Oh hey, what's going on in this thread?"

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/637/themaestro.jpg

End of Thread.

LOL. I was gonna add my 2 cents but I saw this and it pretty much sums everything up. Even moreso if the Maestro really is the future version of the 616 Hulk, and not an alternate reality version.

On second thought, I'm gonna add more anyway.

Let's face it, the Hulk selectively kills as well as accidentally kills innocents. Why do you think Banner is so adamant about trying to control the Hulk's actions when he himself is not in control of the body? Rage can be blinding. Not to mention that if you have anger issues yourself and sometimes you feel strongly enough to destroy a few humans because they are so precious and easy to kill. Banner's inner turmoil keeps him fragile, what better way to deal with his own fragility than to remove the fragile that exsists before him? He wants to do good mostly, but being tormented by inner demons day in day out could easily send a man to the fringe. Not to mention a man with the keys to an engine of destuction. He could rape the planet.

This is the Marvel universe, where characters have character. These characters, superhero or supervillain or inbetween, are written to feel many things, even if it reflects the negative emotions of reality.

Banner/Hulk are in a unique position.

[lobsterj]

i was recently re reading world war hulk, where amadeus cho repeatedly says the hulk has never killed anyone in his life, and goes onto explain how his brain sets up math calculations and tells his body where to throw things and how hard to wreck stuff to ensure no one gets killed. i keep finding this pretty hard to believe.



That sounds incredibly stupid. For such a smart guy, Greg Pak sure has a funny idea of how being a genius works. It doesn't allow you to aim and throw items with perfect accuracy and strength to accomplish any goal.

Besides, does Hulk also have x-ray vision to make sure all buildings he destroys are free of occupants?

[RedRonin]

i was recently re reading world war hulk, where amadeus cho repeatedly says the hulk has never killed anyone in his life, and goes onto explain how his brain sets up math calculations and tells his body where to throw things and how hard to wreck stuff to ensure no one gets killed. i keep finding this pretty hard to believe.

so i was wondering, is this something the writer just made up to make hulk look like a good guy, or has he really never killed anyone in any of his millions of comics? i can almost swear he killed some people in te warly avengers comics on a rampage.

It was an incredibly stupid explanation, impossible to believe even in a world where radiation gives you super powers. However, a lot of people at Marvel, including Tom B, believe the Hulk has never killed. Both in the sense of that he's never taken a life personally or that all the destruction he's caused has never killed anyone.

Personally, I think it hurts the character and what it stands for. I always think of the Hulk as a metaphor for the A-Bomb, so it kind of lessens the character when you say he's never killed anyone.

[CMBMOOL]

I always thought it was Banner's conscience guiding the Hulk into saving the day. :tongue:

[SMARTASS8]

I think it's ridiculous that in all the friggin damage that he's caused, the Hulk has NEVER been responsible for someone's death.

If you're going by that rationale, every superhero that's ever had a fight with a villain in public has been at least partially responsible for someone's death.

To be honest, I feel today's Marvel is quite different in terms of killing than they used to be(back in the good 'ol days:tongue: ). At one time Hawkeye separated from his wife because he couldn't believe she let her rapist die, but today Hawkeye goes around killing people with his arrows. I think Spidey might be the only "hero" left that has never killed someone in cold blood(although I stopped reading his books a year or 2 ago so that may no longer be accurate).

[Hrungr]

The analysis in question:

http://namea.net/Images/Hulk_Cho_Analysis1_Sm.jpg

http://namea.net/Images/Hulk_Cho_Analysis2_Sm.jpg

http://namea.net/Images/Hulk_Cho_Analysis3_Sm.jpg

As you can see they do touch on the issue of the Hulk killing and the reasons behind them.

[Treqqor]

As you can see they do touch on the issue of the Hulk killing and the reasons behind them.

I dunno.

There was no self defense with the 2nd Trauma murder. In fact, the Hulk kept on laughing as the process continued and finished. That's not the act of someone acting in self defense.

[Drdmx]

I dunno.

There was no self defense with the 2nd Trauma murder. In fact, the Hulk kept on laughing as the process continued and finished. That's not the act of someone acting in self defense.

Actually, no. First, can you call it killinig Trauma if he was already dead? Furthermore, that was self defense. The Troyjan threatened to continue attacking the Hulk and the planet itself if he did not cooperate in Traumas resurrection. After the Hulk did what he did, Armageddon basically abandoned his ambitions in the thought that karma would come back to the Hulk.

As for the Maestro being an argument for the Hulk killing, keep in mind that the Maestro has repeatedly been referred to as insane throughout that series, as well as in other series referencing him. This was due to what he had lived through with an apparent atomic war that took place, and all the radiation that he soaked up as a result. I think it's safe to say that a "sane" banner wasnt inside the Hulk at that time, influencing him. That really kind of supports Amadeus Cho's argument if nothing else...

[Doc Goblin]

That's one of the things I hated about World War Hulk. It's not that I just think it makes no sense that miraculously no one dies in the Hulk's rampages. It's that trying to confirm it and make it some kind of rule just undermines the Hulk's character. He just doesn't work that way. It breaks the character. If there's no real danger to his rampages... what the hell is the point of any of it? There's no drama in it. Oh no, if Banner gets too angry he's going to... break people's stuff! He's going to kill... their insurance plans! He's going to leave a mess and not clean it up!

[Sean Whitmore]

Those scanned pages are among the most hilariously lame I've ever read.

Because in the end, that's what Hulk is really about; being a big, green Rainman knocking down buildings in just the right angle so as not to land on anyone.


SEAN

[Treqqor]

Actually, no. First, can you call it killinig Trauma if he was already dead? Furthermore, that was self defense. The Troyjan threatened to continue attacking the Hulk and the planet itself if he did not cooperate in Traumas resurrection. After the Hulk did what he did, Armageddon basically abandoned his ambitions in the thought that karma would come back to the Hulk.

How do you explain the remorseless maniacal laughter, then?

People just defending themselves don't react that way. People enjoying someone's death do.

That's not exactly innocent.

[BobfromHR]

I thought the argument was a Hulk with Bruce has never intentionally killed anyone. When he has been seperated from Banner physically or when Banner has been completely shut out mentally, he has killed people who have got in his way due to collateral damage but never consciously.

This is the most reasonable assessment.

Honestly though. In Marvel earth collateral damage should be if not accepted practice at least tolerated. When a super villain is doing some mean nasty things. he has to be stopped. And if we go by Marvels sliding time line. All of these mean nasty things have happened in the span of a couple of decades.

Quit trying to compare this to the real world. The only thing close I can think off would be Israel during the height of suicide bombings. Or someone living in a war zone. You just have to deal with some shit and move on with your life.

I mean The Juggernaut collapsed one of the world trade center towers. And no one bats an eye. But a (human) bomb goes off near a school in a comic a couple years ago? CIVIL WAR!

I honestly don't know how someone could reasonably argue Hulk has never killed anyone by accident. Then again people did argue that The Juggernaut had never killed anyone.....so yeah.

[Cain Marko]

Hmmm. I always chalked Hulk managing to avoid killing people collaterally up to the same rarely-mentioned-yet-official homing ability that allows him to guide and aim his leaps across long distances. It looks like the writer of that Cho conversation was thinking along the same lines.

[Drdmx]

How do you explain the remorseless maniacal laughter, then?

People just defending themselves don't react that way. People enjoying someone's death do.

That's not exactly innocent.

1. Again, Trauma was already dead. You cant murder someone who is already dead.

2. If you read that comic, (I remember it well because the art was horrible), the Hulk was explained to that the process would kill him and raise Trauma from the dead.

a. Just cause the Hulk overloaded the machine doesnt mean that if he would have allowed it to drain him at a rate it could handle, it wouldnt have killed him.

b. The also had General Ross in custody and threatened to kill him if the Hulk attempted to cause destruction.

c. Lastly, they brought enough arnament to wage war on the plant, and were prepared to do so.


The thread is based on whether or not the Hulk is a killer. The Trauma incident is trying to turn whether or not he was a jerk on that given day into him being a killer. It's not the same thing.

[ĐØМ]

The analysis in question:

http://namea.net/Images/Hulk_Cho_Analysis1_Sm.jpg

As you can see they do touch on the issue of the Hulk killing and the reasons behind them.

Yah, that one in the first scan was what I was talking about.

[The Batman]

You know, I thought it was silly when they had Ultimate Hulk eating people. This calculus of non-lethality explanation for why the Hulk's never hurt anybody in any of his rampages ever is just as bad.

[Kevinroc]

It all comes down to something Dan Slott said about Civil War. Where you come down on whether the Hulk kills people is ultimately whether you really believed Captain America or Iron Man. If the Marvel U. is a place where the Hulk doesn't go around killing people in his rampages, Cap was right. If the Marvel U. is a place where Hulk does kill tons of people, Iron Man was right.

[The Batman]

Isn't there a middle ground between tons of people dying in the Hulk's rampages and nobody dying in the Hulk's rampages?

[Treqqor]

You know, I thought it was silly when they had Ultimate Hulk eating people. This calculus of non-lethality explanation for why the Hulk's never hurt anybody in any of his rampages ever is just as bad.

Agreed. It's impossible to calculate a person falling backwards and not hitting their head in a way that can kill them (it does NOT take much) when a building is crashing down around them.

Plus, if Reed Richards and Dr. Doom have been wrong in their lifetime before, why can't Cho? It's just a theory, and even if he is the 7th smartest man on earth, it does not mean he is 100% correct about everything.

The theory works for him, that's great. It still doesn't have to be correct.

[David Walton]

Agreed. It's impossible to calculate a person falling backwards and not hitting their head in a way that can kill them (it does NOT take much) when a building is crashing down around them.

Yeah, but it's psuedo-science. You could argue that just as Hulk's strength grows exponentially with his anger, Banner's latent intelligence grows exponentially to compensate for the Hulk's rampages.

[Blind pugh]

It all comes down to something Dan Slott said about Civil War. Where you come down on whether the Hulk kills people is ultimately whether you really believed Captain America or Iron Man. If the Marvel U. is a place where the Hulk doesn't go around killing people in his rampages, Cap was right. If the Marvel U. is a place where Hulk does kill tons of people, Iron Man was right.
WoW another view in common with Slott I should marry him.

[David Walton]

It all comes down to something Dan Slott said about Civil War. Where you come down on whether the Hulk kills people is ultimately whether you really believed Captain America or Iron Man. If the Marvel U. is a place where the Hulk doesn't go around killing people in his rampages, Cap was right. If the Marvel U. is a place where Hulk does kill tons of people, Iron Man was right.

Except Cap's position was completely independent of the question of whether or not superheroes can be dangerous.

He was coming at it from a civil rights perspective. Doesn't matter if heroes could cause more harm than good. You can't force them to register.

EDIT: And the Hulk is pretty much irrelevant to the registration debate. He's never put tights on and tried to save mankind from supervillains. Plus the government's known who the Hulk really is for years, for all the good that's done them.

[Drdmx]

I just dont like the description "killer" applied to the Hulk. To me that implies intent. I think that's why in the MU they refer to him as a force of nature. I'm good with that, I'm actually good with Chos reasoning. Just dont put him in a box by calling him a killer.

[Hypestyle]

I think some writers, in the attempt to go for 'hyper-realism' come up with stuff like this, but they don't realize it ends up ruining the heroic purity.. the same rationale of 'collateral damage' could apply to any superhero or group where the battle takes place in a populated area.. that's what ticked me off about Civil War.. did they really have to 'kill' 800 people to make the point that battles in populated areas can be dangerous?.. same with the Hulk's initial rampage in Ultimates.. like some authors, for the sake of 'deconstruction', do these drastically negative plot-points so that they can leave their mark or get props for being 'bold'..

[FlintEastwood]

I think some writers, in the attempt to go for 'hyper-realism' come up with stuff like this, but they don't realize it ends up ruining the heroic purity.. the same rationale of 'collateral damage' could apply to any superhero or group where the battle takes place in a populated area.. that's what ticked me off about Civil War.. did they really have to 'kill' 800 people to make the point that battles in populated areas can be dangerous?.. same with the Hulk's initial rampage in Ultimates.. like some authors, for the sake of 'deconstruction', do these drastically negative plot-points so that they can leave their mark or get props for being 'bold'..

I think this is an interesting point. Where is the line drawn? Should the MU mirror reality for the sake of storytelling, or is it better to bring back a more idealistic view of superheroes? I personally think I relate more to the older versions of heroes for the simple fact that they is less gray area involved when determining a hero's actions and motivations. But I digress...

I think the Bendis style of writing has left the door open for a lot of this "hyper-realism"; when looking at some of his earlier titles like "Powers", the setting is the real world with super heros. It feels like the MU has made a shift in this direction, and perhaps that is why many people disagree with the current state of the MU. Maybe the MU should focus more on being the MU with various influences on the real world instead of the other way around.

I think this has negatively effected characters like the Hulk, Wolvy, and Iron Man, but on the other hand I like the direction it has taken Captain America (Steve Rogers), for the simple fact that it adds more depth to his character in regard to his separation from WW2 era culture.

[The Batman]

For me, silliness aside, the problem with this isn't what it says about the realism of a Hulk comic but the way it undercuts any tension in the Banner/Hulk struggle.

[Cain Marko]

Agreed. It's impossible to calculate a person falling backwards and not hitting their head in a way that can kill them (it does NOT take much) when a building is crashing down around them.


It's also impossible to be spacially aware of exactly how much strength to put behind a leap in Texas so that you'll land precisely in an empty parking lot in Arizona. But it's one of Hulk's super powers. If Hulk has that power then being able to innately calculate trajectories and whatnot of his smashing isn't all that hard to swallow, in a comic book science kind of way.

[Treqqor]

It's also impossible to be spacially aware of exactly how much strength to put behind a leap in Texas so that you'll land precisely in an empty parking lot in Arizona. But it's one of Hulk's super powers. If Hulk has that power then being able to innately calculate trajectories and whatnot of his smashing isn't all that hard to swallow, in a comic book science kind of way.

Something tells me he simply jumps. There's never been an implication of intense (subconscious) calculations except for the the fact that he randomly lands in alright spots.

Is EVERY aspect of his character now going to be explained by brilliant calculating going on behind the scenes? Maybe it's not "the madder Hulk gets, the stronger Hulk gets" but really, the madder he gets, the more he's able to calculate the best way to punch his enemies so that he only APPEARS stronger, but really, he's just smart. How far can we stretch this rubber band?

[David Walton]

Something tells me he simply jumps. There's never been an implication of intense (subconscious) calculations except for the the fact that he randomly lands in alright spots.

Didn't Peter David do the storyline where Hulk was subconsciously attracted to ground zero where the Gamma bomb went off, and it turned the Maestro's ghost was pulling him there?

That feasibly involved some subconscious calculation.

[Cain Marko]

Something tells me he simply jumps. There's never been an implication of intense (subconscious) calculations except for the the fact that he randomly lands in alright spots.


It's been explained a few times that Hulk has a strange radar ability that allows him to do it. I can vaguely remember an issue where he needed to travel to another hemisphere. It was too far to jump across the ocean in one leap so he had to hop from island to island across the ocean with it being explained that he was innately able to sense where those islands were along the way.



Is EVERY aspect of his character now going to be explained by brilliant calculating going on behind the scenes? Maybe it's not "the madder Hulk gets, the stronger Hulk gets" but really, the madder he gets, the more he's able to calculate the best way to punch his enemies so that he only APPEARS stronger, but really, he's just smart. How far can we stretch this rubber band?

It's certainly not the most airtight explanation but the groundwork for it did at least exist already. It would probably have been best to just not make it an issue in the first place and leave it up to suspended disbelief. But since they didn't, that's probably about as good an explanation as you could come up with. And it would be very difficult to justify an ongoing Hulk series or heroes ever working with him if he were a monster walking around slaughtering people Juggernaut-style in his rampages. So while it's a stretch, I can give them a pass.

[Treqqor]

Didn't Peter David do the storyline where Hulk was subconsciously attracted to ground zero where the Gamma bomb went off, and it turned the Maestro's ghost was pulling him there?

That feasibly involved some subconscious calculation.

I thought it was more like how birds can migrate to the same spot back and forth. Not by doing calculus, which is what it seems Cho is implying.

I think subconscious calculating is being substituted by something a little more primal, like instinct. Which strikes me as more Hulk-like regardless.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Those pages with Amadeus Cho conveniently ignore something that was mentioned earlier in this thread, that the Joe Fixit Hulk needlessly murdered Glorian. It wasn't in self-defense, either, Glorian had just tried to mess with the Hulk's mind and he didn't like it. Now, Glorian is a superpowered assistant to the Shaper of Worlds so he got better, but as a matter of intent and as far as the Hulk knew he was killing him, so if you take that into account the idea that Banner always stops the Hulk from killing doesn't really wash. Banner killed Madman, too, as someone has mentioned, and he killed his father.

Another thing that's kind of telling is that, in Infinity Gauntlet, Warlock came to both Wolverine and the Hulk and asked them, if the opportunity came, to "sanction" Thanos. They both seemed all for it, IIRC. The Professor Hulk also thought it was funny to "kill" Tyrannus by pouring out what Tyrannus believed to be the last sample of the water that gives him eternal life.

So, it is a little hard to believe that he has never, ever killed anybody. If one wants to believe that it's just a comic book conceit that one has to accept no matter how irrational it is, like his pants staying on.

[CMBMOOL]

Those pages with Amadeus Cho conveniently ignore something that was mentioned earlier in this thread, that the Joe Fixit Hulk needlessly murdered Glorian. It wasn't in self-defense, either, Glorian had just tried to mess with the Hulk's mind and he didn't like it. Now, Glorian is a superpowered assistant to the Shaper of Worlds so he got better, but as a matter of intent and as far as the Hulk knew he was killing him, so if you take that into account the idea that Banner always stops the Hulk from killing doesn't really wash. Banner killed Madman, too, as someone has mentioned, and he killed his father.

Another thing that's kind of telling is that, in Infinity Gauntlet, Warlock came to both Wolverine and the Hulk and asked them, if the opportunity came, to "sanction" Thanos. They both seemed all for it, IIRC. The Professor Hulk also thought it was funny to "kill" Tyrannus by pouring out what Tyrannus believed to be the last sample of the water that gives him eternal life.

So, it is a little hard to believe that he has never, ever killed anybody. If one wants to believe that it's just a comic book conceit that one has to accept no matter how irrational it is, like his pants staying on.

Well those are more cosmic adventures, and even the government can have every information on the Hulk's cosmic or mystical trips as even they can be wiped out after a while by an outside source.

[Avenger08]

I do think the Hulk has killed people but more as an accidental thing during his rampages. I mean, he wouldnt outright try to kill someone for no reason. He may accidently just be doing some angry hulky things and throw something that hits a person. But not really that bad of a thing.

But it its cool the idea that amadeus gave