From another thread: The Hulk -- to kill or not to kill?

[HulkSmash!]

Because it doesn't belong in the thread in which it started, and because the old thread dealing with it is, no doubt, buried many many pages back.

Originally Posted by tassa_kay

I'm not a Hulk completist, nor am I a particular fan of the more "intellectual" Hulk stories, but I'm especially not a fan of Hulk being this monster of pure rage who, subconsciously, avoids killing EVERYONE in his various rampages over the years. That's a ridiculous cop-out of a thing to do, and it really detracts from the scariness of having the Hulk "hulk out". After all, if people aren't in danger of dying, why bother trying to stop him? This was just a bad idea to me. YMMV.

Well, tassa kay, I find a fundamental flaw in your argument, and that is that the Hulk is a "monster of pure rage." While it's true the Hulk rampages, and fits the definition of "monster" according to most casual observers in the Marvel Universe proper, remember that at heart the Hulk is a misunderstood monster--blurring the line between monster and hero. I've always believed some sliver of Banner's psyche survives in the Hulk virtually all the time, nudging him toward heroism and away from being--and here's where the psychological underpinnings of the character come into play--the monster Brian Banner thought he would grow up to become. Granted, Pak's observations in IH #110 are a somewhat extreme form of that truism.

I do think the mechanism has its roots in the accidental death of Banner's own father by Bruce himself, for in that moment he likely saw the potential for what he could become. Balking, he first repressed the memory (until lately), which was the trigger for the Hulk's subconscious saving of the innocents.

Do I think the Hulk has never killed? I never said he wasn't a killer under certain circumstances and to ignore those instances would be pretty foolish. There's a pretty lengthy list of individuals the Hulk has, willfully, killed:

-Fialan, the K'ai assassin, from INCREDIBLE HULK #148.
-Galaxy Master, from INCREDIBLE HULK #270.
-Piecemeal, from INCREDIBLE HULK #408.
-Trauma (Troh-Maw), from INCREDIBLE HULK #416.

In addition, you could say his actions led to the deaths of the controller of Crypto-Man (INCREDIBLE HULK #205) and Glenn Talbot (INCREDIBLE HULK #260).

Oh, this Hulk Pak has shaped still has teeth, and he's capable of wholesale slaughter, but only when Bruce Banner's psyche is out of play, i.e. when Banner and Hulk were physically separated through scientific means (INCREDIBLE HULK #315-323) or when Banner committed psychic suicide (INCREDIBLE HULK #299-310). If anything takes Banner's mediating influence over the behemoth out of the equation, then yes, the Hulk can and often will kill.

The fact too is that while Amadeus Cho may suppose this is true, his is the only word we have for the matter. Most people out there aren't going to run the numbers like he has.

I guess what I'm ultimately trying to say is that the fear of the Hulk in the Marvel U is vastly more potent than the literal creature himself. The stories people tell about him, exaggerations and all, must be potent. "A beast like that has to be a murderer, doesn't it?" Not on a regular basis, no he doesn't. Remember too the BIG deals made out of the murders the Hulk had possibly, in the eyes of the public, committed--the airliner from HULK #4 (which turned out to be a moloid with the Hulk's power, under control of Tyrannus) and Ricky Myers from Bruce Jones' run in INCREDIBLE HULK #36, as framed by the Leader & Home Base. Mass murder, and killing a kid. No matter if the Hulk was later proven to be innocent, the public can and will still believe these lies.

Oh, and Banner's musings in INCREDIBLE HULK #603 about becoming the Hulk to give "evil" Banner something to spend his time on? The most effective lies are the ones told between two truths--in this case, Banner's admissions about his father make the lies he tells believable. No more and no less.

~G.

[tassa_kay]

Well, I hate to do that lengthy post a misservice, but being the most casual of Hulk fans, I'll only reply with this:

I'm not talking about the Hulk going out and willfully/intentionally killing people, I'm talking about Hulk killing people as collateral damage. I take issue with the cop-out Pak-ism that the Hulk, even in a purely Hulk state of mind, at the height of his rages, has never killed anyone by accident. It was a silly idea that takes the menace out of every Hulk rampage to me.

Obviously, like I said, YMMV. But you're making a complicated argument out of a very simple question, and citing examples that a casual reader like me can't readily verify (I'm taking your word for it here, but I'm sure it's accurate) isn't really helping your case here. It basically boils down to this: if the Hulk, even in a completely-Bannerless state, has never killed someone in his extremely destructive fights by accident, then why would anyone ever bother trying to fight him? Better to step back and leave him alone, no? (I realize that it's not really that simple, but you get my point.)

[DetectiveDupin]

The Hulk never killing by accident is a stupid idea.

[HulkSmash!]

The Hulk in a Bannerless state HAS killed as collateral damage. That's not something Greg Pak's story refutes. The fact remains it yet could happen again. That's still something to fear. (And besides, as previously noted, it's not like the whole Marvel Universe KNOWS the Hulk regularly doesn't kill, especially John Q. Public.)

~G.

[Hrungr]

Here's how it works:









So in essence, if Banner's mind is tampered with or separated from the Hulk, he can and has killed innocent people in collateral damage. But if Banner's in there, the Hulk will subconsciously "run the numbers" to keep innocents from harm but he's still willingly killed on occassion.

[Doc Goblin]

I love Greg Pak's work on the Hulk. But really, this whole thing that Hulk manages to not kill just doesn't work for me. At all.

I am totally on board with the portrayal of Hulk as being part hero, part monster. He's on that line. He blurs it. He's a misunderstood monster. He's not a vicious, uncontrollable maniac the military fears/wants to believe he is. But... he is still a monster. So there has to be a threat here. If the Hulk can "run the numbers" and avoid doing any real harm in his rampages, then there is no threat. The rampages are rendered pointless because the drama of them is sucked right out along with the teeth.

It just undermines so many core principles of the character. One of the most well known characteristics of the Hulk is that he just flips out and loses control. Well... if he's running the numbers on everything he does, subconsciously or not, then he isn't losing control at all. And then there's the question of why would Banner care or stress so much over being the Hulk if he knows his subconscious pretty much neuters any real threat the Hulk poses to people? There's very little drama there if Banner knows this.

Plus, just to accept this premise, you have to accept the idea that Banner is so fundamentally heroic and caring over the sanctity of human life that even the extreme rage of the Hulk can't overcome those subconscious qualities. ...This is the guy who became the Hulk because he was building a bomb.

I'm not saying it's better that the Hulk goes around stomping people into paste. But accidental deaths due to him tearing through a city? You take that away and the only legitimate thing to worry about with the Hulk's rampages is "oh no, he's going to mess up their stuff."

[Hrungr]

Originally Posted by Doc Goblin

I love Greg Pak's work on the Hulk. But really, this whole thing that Hulk manages to not kill just doesn't work for me. At all.

I am totally on board with the portrayal of Hulk as being part hero, part monster. He's on that line. He blurs it. He's a misunderstood monster. He's not a vicious, uncontrollable maniac the military fears/wants to believe he is. But... he is still a monster. So there has to be a threat here. If the Hulk can "run the numbers" and avoid doing any real harm in his rampages, then there is no threat. The rampages are rendered pointless because the drama of them is sucked right out along with the teeth.

Personally I love this (Pak's) explanation and it just works with his history. He is a misunderstood monster, but one that still can rack up billions of dollars in collateral damage. However you have to remember that deep down he's still one of the good guys and a tragic character you're supposed to empathize with. If you have him indescriminantly killing innocent people you make him a villain.

[Venom Melendez]

Originally Posted by tassa_kay

Well, I hate to do that lengthy post a misservice, but being the most casual of Hulk fans, I'll only reply with this:

I'm not talking about the Hulk going out and willfully/intentionally killing people, I'm talking about Hulk killing people as collateral damage. I take issue with the cop-out Pak-ism that the Hulk, even in a purely Hulk state of mind, at the height of his rages, has never killed anyone by accident. It was a silly idea that takes the menace out of every Hulk rampage to me.

Obviously, like I said, YMMV. But you're making a complicated argument out of a very simple question, and citing examples that a casual reader like me can't readily verify (I'm taking your word for it here, but I'm sure it's accurate) isn't really helping your case here. It basically boils down to this: if the Hulk, even in a completely-Bannerless state, has never killed someone in his extremely destructive fights by accident, then why would anyone ever bother trying to fight him? Better to step back and leave him alone, no? (I realize that it's not really that simple, but you get my point.)

Except the guys that do fight him are guys like Ross(who doesn't really care if he's harmless or a menace, he just hates him) and villains like the Leader.

Plus, all of the Hulk's are a part of banner, so it's not hard to believe he has some influence on them(Except for Guilt and Devil versions).

[Jeff Mclachlan]

The Hulk not killing anyone during his rampages is the "Superman's glasses" of the character. It doesn't make sense, but it's the only way the character can work so you have to go with it.

If the Hulk is killing people you lose sympathy for Bruce Banner because then obviously he should either turn himself over to the authorities or kill himself. If he doesn't do either of those things he's culpable.

[Dick/babs]

Originally Posted by Doc Goblin

.

Plus, just to accept this premise, you have to accept the idea that Banner is so fundamentally heroic and caring over the sanctity of human life that even the extreme rage of the Hulk can't overcome those subconscious qualities. ...This is the guy who became the Hulk because he was building a bomb.

."

i am not a big fan of The Hulk and not even a little fan But even I know that Banner became the Hulk when he saved Rick Jones from the blast site not because he was building a bomb

[Talkie Toaster]

Originally Posted by Hrungr

Personally I love this (Pak's) explanation and it just works with his history. He is a misunderstood monster, but one that still can rack up billions of dollars in collateral damage. However you have to remember that deep down he's still one of the good guys and a tragic character you're supposed to empathize with. If you have him indescriminantly killing innocent people you make him a villain.

I agree with this when it comes to the various incarnations of the green Hulk (even though in Hulk #400 the merged Hulk went on such a rampage that it at least cost the lives of the Leader, Soulman and Ross, the last two accidentally), but the gray Hulk had absolutely no problem with killing people during PAD's run. The only two confirmed kills I can think of are the gold skinned guy (who was resurrected but Hulk didn't know he would be) and Saunders (original Redeemer) but he was constantly offering to break people's neck. If it weren't for guys like Quartermain and Berengeti stopping him, he would have racked up quite a bodycount.

[steveg887]

I think it makes a lot more sense for him to run the numbers like Cho and avoid killing people than having absolutely no innocent people harmed after all these years just out of pure luck.

[agrich]

I'm sorry, it obviously doesn't make a bit of sense that over all the years of him picking up tanks and smashing them together, no random soldier was ever killed because of the Banner part of him being able to run the numbers on exactly how to throw a tank that will prevent a human being inside it from being crushed like jelly.

It's far more reasonable to say the Hulk simply shouldn't be blamed for deaths that occur when he's defending himself from attack. Like the Talbot example in the original post. I mean, back when we thought Norman Osborn was dead, Spider-man wasn't a "murderer" for Osborn being killed while attacking Spider-man. Certainly there are plenty of incidents of heroes fighting bad guys and the bad guy being killed, and it doesn't make the hero a murderer -- the villain brought it on himself.

Writers can say whatever they want, but that doesn't make it plausible. It was a lot better when Marvel simply ignored the possibility of the Hulk killing people when he was throwing tanks around, which worked just fine for around 30 years.

[Sighphi]

I think Hulk only fights on Sundays or Holidays so there arent people in the areas he smashes...and all the soldier are on...some other place so all that equipment is being used by pogs and we all know that pogs arent people so they dont count.

[ResIpsaLoquitur]

Of course, Pak recently suggested that Banner's "accidental" killing of his father may have subconsciously been intentional.

On the other hand, Banner's dad was clearly trying to kill him at the time, so, meh. Self-defense either way.