Marvel TV update: Hulk yes; Alias and Punisher no

twitter Marvel TV update: Hulk yes; Alias and Punisher no0facebook Marvel TV update: Hulk yes; Alias and Punisher no0google Marvel TV update: Hulk yes; Alias and Punisher no0pinterest Marvel TV update: Hulk yes; Alias and Punisher no0tumblr Marvel TV update: Hulk yes; Alias and Punisher noreddit Marvel TV update: Hulk yes; Alias and Punisher no0stumbleupon Marvel TV update: Hulk yes; Alias and Punisher no0email Marvel TV update: Hulk yes; Alias and Punisher no

201205170301 Marvel TV update: Hulk yes; Alias and Punisher no
The “Upfronts” have taken/are taking place somewhere in Hollywood and New York and although it sounds like a bra convention, what it really means is the networks are parading their new shows for 2012-13 in front of TV reporters. The big comics news was a greenlight for the Green Arrow TV show—minus the arrow—but Marvel stuff also has some motion.

Basically, they nixed the Alias show that had been in development, as well as the Punisher show. The latter is probably a good thing, as it would have forced an imminent shortage of fake blood and bullet wound putty. However, the Hulk show, to be produced by Guillermo del Toro is moving forward. Okay, this is doubtless because Mark Ruffalo’s Hulk was one of the very bestest things about the Avengers, which stunned everyone because the last two Hulk movies were kinda…comme ci, comme ca, you know. But you see there is a problem here. And we’ll spell it out for you.

The reason the Hulk in Avengers was so great is because he was a supporting character not the lead.

Don’t you see? Freed from having to support an actual story, the Hulk becomes a fun, anarchic character. Or: The Hulk is green, like wasabi and also like wasabi, you don’t want a whole meal from it…just a little smear on your hamachi roll/ $1 billion movie.

And if you think about it, The Hulk was kind of a supporting character the last successful TV show, too. Or at least he wasn’t the overt catalyst of the action. Generally he just wandered into some situation, Hulked it up and wandered off, all lonely.

Anyway, maybe del Toro will come up with something good, but we’re in no hurry to see a whole Hulk movie any time soon.

• Now, the Guardians of the Galaxy, that’s another thing. Graeme McMillan pieces together all the information that leads him to suspect that the Guardians might just be that elusive May 16, 2014 Marvel movie.

Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige himself mentioned it as a possibility last month at the Avengers press junket, expressing his fondness for the property and listing it among Inhumans, Doctor Strange and the long in-the-works Ant-Man as non-sequel films being considered. Things started to feel a lot more real following the now-famous mid-credits scene of Avengers, where ****** is revealed as the mysterious force behind Loki's Chitauri army. ****** certainly has a history with the Guardians of the Galaxy crew, and is a big part of the cosmic sphere of the Marvel Universe they inhabit.


Graeme’s evidence isn’t terribly convincing, but that 2014 movie will probably be something offbeat for the reasons he lays out:

Though a Guardians of the Galaxy movie might still seem unlikely by nature, it’s clear that Marvel is looking at lesser-known properties to start widening their scope beyond the world of the Avengers. After all, marquee names like Spider-Man, X-Men, Fantastic Four and Daredevil are still locked up at other studios — likely for a very long time. There simply aren’t a lot of characters recognizable to mainstream audiences left available to Marvel Studios, so building up something like Guardians of the Galaxy is almost a must.


Martinex!

Comments

  1. I just want to say… I loved BOTH Hulk movies.

    Am I crazy?

    His book was also one of the longest standing comics in Marvel’s catalog. There must be a way to do compelling stories around him?

  2. MBunge says:

    The basic problem with the Hulk movies is they treated the character just like the TV show, as a special effect who shows up every so often to break stuff. The Hulk of the comics, at least the good ones, is an actual person who talks and has a personality and desires and fears and all that good stuff. People seem to have forgotten that Stan and company were inspired by Jekyl and Hyde, not The Fugitive.

    Mike

  3. MBunge says:

    And if Marvel is looking to expand their movie line up, I got 4 words for them.

    Devil Dinosaur. Rocket Raccoon.

    Mike

  4. Dan Mishkin says:

    This issue of the difference between a lead character and a supporting character is one I brought up in a conversation with some editorial folks at DC a few years back.

    No one was convinced, but I argued that the umpteenth attempt to do a Green Arrow or Aquaman series was a waste of their resources. Those characters can work well in support or in the back-up stories where they originated — stories that are only obliged to provide a small thrill by means of interesting action gimmicks or an unusual setting.

    Look at what a tremendous asset Aquaman was in Cartoon Network’s Batman:B&B. Since he didn’t have the burden of carrying stories on his own, the writers could build a quirky and interesting (and still heroic) character around his egotism — what would be insufferable behavior in a lead made him a delight every time he showed up in the series.

  5. Dan, I sort of feel that way about Captain Jack Sparrow in the PotC franchise. As the trickster character in the Will/Elizabeth storylines he works great…as a main character not as much, at least dramatically. Of course, in practice, people would and did pay to watch Johnny Depp run around aimlessly for nearly three hours.

  6. As a fan of GotG, I would absolutely love it if they made a movie with this property. They are some of my favorite characters (new version and old). The potential problem however is would Marvel studios want to spend so much money on unknown characters to the public with a premise that would probably need a lot of special effects/money? And then even comic fans didn’t flock to the brilliant Abnett and Lanning books.

    But on the flip side, you have to start from somewhere to build a franchise, audiences might be ready for something new in a few years after Marvel’s steady diet of regular superhero movies, and, really, anything of quality that is marketed well should have a chance. And a movie might spark renewed interest in Marvel Cosmic.

    But will that tease in the Avengers movie be saved for this or Avengers 2 or 3?

  7. Synsidar says:

    People seem to have forgotten that Stan and company were inspired by Jekyl and Hyde, not The Fugitive.

    But if Banner has a depersonalization disorder, he has an obligation to get treatment. Otherwise, he’s as responsible for whatever harmful consequences his actions cause, including property damage, as anyone else who has a treatable mental illness.

    In some respects, the story development process for a superhero character is upside down and inside-out. Whatever the idea for a story is, the characters should be developed as parts of the story, and changed as necessary for the story to work. When keeping the characters unchanged takes priority over everything else, including the ending, how often is the story going to succeed?

    SRS

  8. What, no Woodgod?

  9. If the stories are good and the storytelling is good, the lead character could be a pair of scissors sitting on a desk or an amoeba floating in a raindrop. Of all people, I would expect comic fans to understand this.

    The Hulk can easily be a leading character and to suggest that he is only capable of being support is hilariously absurd.

    The reason the Hulk worked so well in the Avengers can be discussed/debated at length but to simply say the character can’t lead is crazy, IMO.

  10. Synsidar says:

    The Hulk can easily be a leading character and to suggest that he is only capable of being support is hilariously absurd.

    Suppose that you’re going to write one story about the Hulk, any version of him. What are you going to say about him that makes the story worth writing?

    SRS

  11. MBunge says:

    “But if Banner has a depersonalization disorder, he has an obligation to get treatment.”

    And exposure to gamma rays will give you cancer, not turn you into a super-human powerhouse. There’s a thousand different threads you can pull on to unravel sci-fi/fantasy melodrama, but I don’t think that’s the issue here.

    “Whatever the idea for a story is, the characters should be developed as parts of the story, and changed as necessary for the story to work.”

    I’ve got an idea for a story to explain Peter Parker’s real motivation for becoming Spider-Man. It involves Peter being sexually molested by Uncle Ben. Should those characters be changed to make my story work? When you’re adapting something for the big screen, you should start with what’s made that thing successful and popular enough to be worth adapting and build your story around that.

    Mike

  12. “Things started to feel a lot more real following the now-famous mid-credits scene of Avengers, where ****** is revealed as the mysterious force behind Loki’s Chitauri army.”

    Only that theory falls apart with a recent interview from Kevin Feige and Joss Whedon mentions that it was all Whedon’s idea to put ****** at the end of Avengers. Apparently ****** is one of Whedon’s favorite Marvel villains from one of Whedon’s favorite Avengers comics.

    So not apart of some grand plan, but possibly might be the reason for Whedon to come back and do Avengers 2.

  13. Synsidar says:

    I’ve got an idea for a story to explain Peter Parker’s real motivation for becoming Spider-Man. It involves Peter being sexually molested by Uncle Ben. Should those characters be changed to make my story work?

    But why would you write a story about Peter Parker that you can’t sell to anyone? If you’re going to write fan fiction, then you can do whatever you want to with him, but your audience will be limited.

    If you want to write a story about sexual molestation, then you go ahead and write one and try to sell it, based on its merits as a story. The basis for writing stories about an existing character is that the story can be sold to that publisher, or that it’s your job to write about that character, not that the character makes the story succeed.

    SRS

  14. Not excited about a Hulk TV series, but I’d love to have a She-Hulk series. Pay Ruffalo to show up in the pilot to keep this in the movie-verse and then let Jennifer do her thing.

  15. Synsidar, that question is probably better suited for some of the other readers in here….Paging Mr. Busiek, paging Mr. Palmiotti!! You are needed in a creative capacity, please report to The Beat asap!

    I’m not an author (nor am I very creative) but for argument’s sake…

    Grey Las Vegas “Mr. Fixit” Hulk:
    A story about how the Hulk/Banner helped people with gambling addiction and problems with loan sharks only to find that he personally suffers many parallel issues.

    Green “mindless” Hulk:
    A story told from the Hulks mindless perspective where the narrative slowly shows that while he started out the story arc as mindless, by mid-way point we see that his mental abilities are improving at an alarming rate. Hijinx ensue.

    TV, “Lou Ferrigno” Hulk: Similar things they wrote about previously, over a five season run, where Banner and Hulk were proven to be successful lead characters—troubled Banner chasing down leads and trying cures for his uncontrollable side. And all the fun people he meets along the way. (Especially reporter Frank McGee!)

    Again, the idea is that the story is what’s important, more so than the characters. The characters get to come along for the ride.

  16. Where’s the Runaways movie?

  17. MBunge says:

    “Again, the idea is that the story is what’s important, more so than the characters. The characters get to come along for the ride.”

    Not when the characters are what people care about in the first place. Not to offend the Whedonites but it neither Joss nor his storytelling that propelled The Avengers to the biggest two weeks in movie history. If you’re telling a story about pre-established Character X and it’s the popularity of Character X that’s going to draw people to the story, the story should be appropriate to Character X instead of changing him/her/it to suit the whims of the carpetbagging storyteller.

    Mike

  18. Mike–I completely disagree. They may have come for the characters but they loved it because of Joss Whedon’s storytelling ability.

    The Hulk didn’t steal the movie because he’s big and green and well known. He stole the movie because of the film maker’s understanding of what makes viewers happy. Understanding how to tell a story. That doesn’t have to mean the specific plot points or content of the story itself. That bit where the Hulk threw Loki around like a rag doll, that’s storytelling, not “the character” per se. This is why they had two Hulk movie box office flops. It doesn’t have to be a deep or involved plot line to be an enjoyable story. Further, because you can sum up the plot of The Avengers in two or three sentences doesn’t speak to the storytelling abilities of the movie maker or the enjoyment of the viewer.

  19. Synsidar says:

    Again, the idea is that the story is what’s important, more so than the characters. The characters get to come along for the ride.

    Everybody knows that. Or should. But you seem to buy into the belief that a series based on a character is its own justification for never ending the character’s story.

    The Hulk is a very simple character. Getting mad and “hulking out” is a depersonalization disorder. The gamma rays element, and any aspect of the Hulk that lets Banner stay intelligent and act as a superhero, combine a power fantasy with the disorder.

    There are as many ways to handle the depersonalization subject matter as there are to handle other subjects, but if you have somebody transform, the story will be dismissed by many people as a Jekyll-and-Hyde fantasy and not read or seen. The fantastic transformation overwhelms all the other aspects of the story. In any case, Banner has an obligation to get treatment for the disorder. A one-shot story would probably have Banner’s hulking out precipitate a crisis, forcing him to end the hulking out or face severe consequences.

    As long as someone’s willing to publish Banner hulking out stories, a guy could do those until he lost track of the number, but he’d be writing the same Jekyll-and-Hyde fantasy over and over again.

    If a creative writer has an interest in writing a story about depersonalization, he’ll do one, shaping the characters and everything else to fit the subject matter, and then go on to other things.

    SRS

  20. Actually, concerning the comments of molestation, Barry Windsor Smith actually did do a plot of Banner abused as a boy, which was later stolen in part by Bill Mantlo. Smith eventually did his own version later, with original characters instead. It could also be noted that neither story sold too well.

    I do agree that any subject can be made readable though. Look at what Warren Ellis did to the Falcon in the Ultimate imprint. I imagine with the Hulk, studios are not looking at the comics or even the recent Avengers film (except for the dollar signs), but rather the older television show, which did have a nice and popular run even if it was incredibly formulaic.

  21. >>>The Hulk can easily be a leading character and to suggest that he is only capable of being support is hilariously absurd.

    Yes he can but can the VERSION OF THE CHARACTER AS SEEN IN THE AVENGERS BE A LEAD?

    Who we really need here is Todd Alcott and his WHAT DOES THE PROTAGONIST WANT? meme.

    The Avengers was a pop culture masterpiece that we will be quoting until the heat death of the universe, but dramatically it was pretty slack. Characters had mini-arcs, but they were very mini. I don’t blame Whedon for this as he had a lot of balls to keep in the air.

    The Avengers Hulk was a great character because he was allowed to rampage, unabashedly. That goes against the historical Jeckyl/Hyde aspect of the character where the rational ego battles the irrational — and deadly — id for control. Take that away and you have no conflict. What you will have is a big super strong green guy going around bashing people. Where’s the drama in that? Yes I know there is action, but memorable stories come from conflict not just action.

    Alex, what do you think would make the Ruffalo hulk compelling as a lead character?

  22. Torsten Adair says:

    Guardians of the Galaxy… yup, not front and center in the Marvel Universe, although Marvel is trying to change that… there were GotG toys at the Times Square Toys R Us Marvel display. They’ve also appeared in the Avengers cartoon.

    Will people see a little known comic book character movie? How many people watched “Blade”? How many watched “Men In Black”?

    IF the production costs are kept low…. (And they could be, if Marvel sells this less on the actors and director, and more on “connected to The Avengers movie!”) it could be made at the same cost as most movies.

    As for television, I’m still hoping for a Damage Control series. Cameo heroes and villains at the beginning of each episode, maybe even use the series as a trailer teaser prologue for the next blockbuster movie. (And use the series as a back-door pilot for She-Hulk, Superhero Lawyer.)

  23. “Suppose that you’re going to write one story about the Hulk, any version of him. What are you going to say about him that makes the story worth writing?”

    How ’bout, as another poster said above, the idea that the Hulk, no matter how destructive or dangerous, IS his own being, with his own personality, etc.? One that deserves to live, rather than be squashed out?

    Taking that a little larger, since the Hulk is supposed represent our “Hyde” side, why not look at that? The idea that the “good” and sedate and level headed is NOT always what’s needed to confront various events could make a story.

    In fact, I do think that’s one thing the filmmakers have missed out on so far – as someone said, he (The Hulk) has been done as a simple special effect, without much of a personality of his own. As I said in some other thread, for his own film, they NEED to get away from him hardly talking … he needs to talk, talk about how he hates Banner, etc.

  24. MBunge says:

    “But you seem to buy into the belief that a series based on a character is its own justification for never ending the character’s story.”

    Uh, no. That’s not at all what I “buy into”. What I’m saying is if you’re going to make a movie about The Hulk, then the character of The Hulk in that movie should pretty closely resemble the character of The Hulk in the comics. That’s it. The two Hulk movies so far fashioned the character more after the TV show, and the dramatic limitations of that have been pointed out. Whedon’s take on The Hulk worked great as a supporting character in The Avengers (and I think his take on Banner was even better), but it would be hard for that version of the character to succeed as a lead on his own.

    Mike

  25. MBunge I think he was talking to me.

    I wasn’t buying into that concept either. Not sure how he got that conclusion. (But I have a hunch we’re gonna find out!)

  26. Synsidar, I think we may be discussing different things. You keep talking about storytelling through the filter of the financial aspects of the topic. With the Peter Parker comment, you said, “But why would you write a story about Peter Parker that you can’t sell to anyone?”

    With the hulk comment you asked what would make it “worth” writing. With the Banner comment you said, “As long as someone is willing to publish…”

    I don’t think money belongs in a discussion on storytelling. And not to keep bringing up Mr. Whedon but he has a terrific quote on the topic of popular vs. getting the story out there. While speaking of his goofy little show, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, “I’d rather have a show that 100 people have to see than a show 1,000 people like to see.”

    I’m only talking about telling an enjoyable story. Not how well it sells, whether or not a publisher will print it, or if it will be made into a $200 million dollar film, a cartoon on MTV or a low budget AMC tv show.

    With that said, I think you might be limiting your thinking when you write, “The Hulk is a very simple character.” Sure he can be. Or he can be an incredibly complex character. It’s all in the storytelling. We’ve seen “simple” characters turn into super complex characters (i.e. Swamp Thing) but we’ve also seen seemingly simple characters have really fantastic story arcs (i.e. superman).

  27. Heidi, I really don’t know what would turn Ruffalo’s Hulk into a very compelling character for a big budget feature film. Maybe they could do a storyline similar to World War Hulk where he is sent off to another place/dimension/time/etc. (ala John Carter), where the situation he’s placed into precipitates ethos, pathos and logos.

    Maybe the key to doing a great Hulk story is keeping it brief. They could do a few vignettes that take place in the same universe (like Sin City) or maybe something more like, “Tales of the Incredible Hulk,” to tell those individual stories and keep them separate (like in Creepshow).

    Great storytellers are able to come at these things from different perspectives, making us see things in a way that we didn’t expect. Giving us what we need, not what we want.

  28. @Torsten Adair

    (Stands up to applaud Damage Control idea.)

  29. Synsidar says:

    With that said, I think you might be limiting your thinking when you write, “The Hulk is a very simple character.” Sure he can be. Or he can be an incredibly complex character.

    No, he can’t be complex. The hulking out is pure fantasy, and the fantasy aspect limits the audience all by itself (as does the refusal to let characters age). Marvel Editorial eventually shifted away from the “depersonalization” Hulk to the “multiple personality disorder” Hulk, but Banner still had a treatable disorder, and the disorder is the basis for the character. A dramatic development or change for the Hulk/Banner demands that the disorder be treated, or cause his demise. There’s no point in trying for complexity, because the hulking out isn’t believable on its own terms. Trying to write the Hulk as complex would be like writing an SF story based on the Moon acquiring turquoise polka dots. Unless the writer can come up with an acceptable explanation, there’s no story.

    The financial aspects of storytelling can’t be separated from the artistic aspects, because creative storytelling work requires too much time and effort. If someone winds up with drawers or multiple files of unsold fiction, he’ll probably quit trying to write fiction.

    SRS

  30. LOL Synsidar, I think we can agree to disagree.

    As a concept, money has nothing to do with telling a story. Period. There is no “financial aspect” of storytelling. There are financial aspects to life and I think it goes without saying that without money, you dont have food or shelter and you die cold and hungry. What you’ve said could literally apply to almost anything in life. (For example, you might claim that without oxygen, there would be no good artists…its irrelevant to a discussion on storytelling.)

    As for the Hulk as a complex character, why do you impose such limits on what a character can and can’t be? Despite editorial oversight, I’ve seen pillaging aardvarks take spiritual journeys of the mind. I’ve seen Spidey reveal his biggest secret to a sick boy in a hospital bed and cry his eyes out afterwards. I’ve seen a group of old characters that nobody wanted, from a defunct comic company, turned into a masterpiece of storytelling. I’ve seen Batman transformed from a scary gun toting vigilante into a campy caricature of himself and back into a dark, complex character. We’ve all seen characters transformed again and again but you say it’s not possible with the Hulk.

    I actually think you hit it on the head yourself in this last post when you wrote, Unless the writer can come up with an acceptable explanation. Bingo. So tell your story where the moon changes colors with polka dots!! I’ll be the first to read it. You don’t have to pass some kind of “reality test” when you tell a story. You can tell any story you want. And if you tell an entertaining story, nobody is going to question your explanation of those changes to the moon’s color…except maybe online.

  31. Mike L says:

    I thought del Toro had specifically stated that his vision for this TV version was more a tribute / update of the original TV series and had nothing to do whatsoever with the current cinema version. That’s just going to confuse the audience, especially if it’s marketed as a tie-in for the Avengers.

    The Hulk can most certainly work as a lead. The portrayal that Whedon and Ruffalo put on screen for the Avengers is far more interesting than the previous two films. It worked, in part, because it went in a new direction where Banner wasn’t portrayed as a 98-lb. nerdling prone to fits of rage. This Banner was a fugitive, but rather than vainly searching for a cure for his condition, he was using his intellect and medical / scientific skills to benefit those that had no one else to help them. This might be the most ‘heroic’ portrayal of the Hulk, period, where it’s not about the trauma of his childhood or attempting to fix himself, but accepting it and moving on to try to do some good, both with and without a gamma-powered physique.

    The Avengers signals an important change in the status quo with the entire world becoming aware of the existence of supermen, Norse Gods, aliens, etc. SHIELD can’t Men in Black this stuff away. Take Ruffalo’s Banner and put him in a position where he’s not viewed as some sort of uncontrollable monster, and have him continue his crusading work — perhaps in some sort of charitable initiative funded by Tony Stark (with Stark continuing to passive / aggressive him into coming to work for him), and you’ve got a very interesting set-up — not to mention that whatever good Banner hopes to do will be overshadowed by those that want to figure out how to make more Hulks for their own ends, especially now that the world has seen that the Hulk may be a brute, but he’s not a mindless, uncontrollable monster.

    Marvel Studios has done a great job so far with their coherent connected universe and I’m hoping that Disney doesn’t pressure them into going for the quick cash grab and slapping together some TV product for ABC that doesn’t live up to the standards of the films. There’s plenty of characters that could work on the small screen and build out the mythology, but the Hulk’s really not one of them. I’d vote for the Runaways — it’s self-contained enough to work on its own merits, and there’s plenty of room for cameos and tie-ins to the film universe.

  32. Al™ says:

    Okay, Hulk. Green Arrow. More ‘green’-based characters please. Green is the new network gold.

  33. If Del Toro and company really wanted to make him interesting, Peter David’s whole Id/Ego/Super-Ego framework could open tons of creative potential, story-wise.

    But this will be every bit as formulaic as the old series. It would be nice, considering that Marvel hasn’t really had any live action television programming in 30 years (not counting the dumpy Hulk TV movies, or the after the fact Nightman TV series), that they may try to redefine themselves. The comic books certainly are more hellbent on building new readers than keeping any old readers whatsoever. But with Jeph Loeb in the TV mix, the chances for anything innovative are null and void.

  34. Michael McDonnell says:

    They did say the series will focus on the relationship between Bruce Banner and Betty Ross.

  35. James says:

    I really enjoyed the 2 Hulk movies – and he was a highlight from The Avenger movie. So I would love another outing with him, series or movie! Betty is a favorite too – as long as there ain’t a Red She-Hulk!! haha…

  36. Syn:
    “No, he can’t be complex. The hulking out is pure fantasy, and the fantasy aspect limits the audience all by itself (as does the refusal to let characters age). Marvel Editorial eventually shifted away from the “depersonalization” Hulk to the “multiple personality disorder” Hulk, but Banner still had a treatable disorder, and the disorder is the basis for the character. A dramatic development or change for the Hulk/Banner demands that the disorder be treated, or cause his demise. There’s no point in trying for complexity, because the hulking out isn’t believable on its own terms. Trying to write the Hulk as complex would be like writing an SF story based on the Moon acquiring turquoise polka dots. Unless the writer can come up with an acceptable explanation, there’s no story.”

    Wow. Astonishing to argue against fantasy on a comic book board! What you say is so patently wrong, it’s not even worth arguing against, and I suspect most here will rightfully dismiss your argument and move on. Clearly fantasy stories can work, be complex, etc.

    My fear is that someone like you becomes a writing teacher and drains all the passion and imagination out of some crazy kids!

    Not going to argue this back and forth with you, as there’s clearly no point, but, whatev.

  37. Here’s a question I have… I thought Ruffalo was a great Banner. Did he have anything to do with THE HULK tho? Or was that pure CGI?

    I don’t know how that works.

  38. Synsidar says:

    Wow. Astonishing to argue against fantasy on a comic book board! What you say is so patently wrong, it’s not even worth arguing against, and I suspect most here will rightfully dismiss your argument and move on.

    What do you think the point of writing a story is? In a typical Hulk story, the stupid “Greenskin” Hulk would either encounter evildoers by accident, or Banner would become angry over some wrongdoing and change into the Hulk, who would then punish the bad guy. Story after story would have Banner waking up after changing back, to have him do something before becoming the Hulk again. The cumulative effect was to present the Hulk as some sort of hero, since he didn’t hurt good people.

    How many times could a person read such stories before knowing how they’d go without reading them? What connection to they have to real-world depersonalization, which will probably result in a person being arrested and/or ordered to get treatment?

    The issue at hand was whether the Hulk was worthy of being a lead character in stories. He’s not, because the transformation is central to the Hulk concept, and without it, how entertaining is Banner? You can’t write a Hulk story without the transformation, but with it, there’s no point in trying to make him complex.

    One of the hard things to do when writing a fantasy is to make the setting, characters, etc. believable and to make events logical. Are you arguing that if someone is writing a fantasy, he can have things happen for any reason at any time, and if the reader finds that hard to accept, he’s at fault because he isn’t suspending his disbelief for everything in the story as the writer demands that he do?

    I’d like to think that you aren’t arguing that fantasies should be written to appeal to people who don’t know how to read.

    SRS

  39. Hulk is basically as good as there are things for him to smash.

  40. OK, according to this, Ruffalo really WAS the Hulk. It wasn’t pure CGI:
    http://bit.ly/M14jTO

    That’s pretty darn cool.

  41. Synsidar, not that I’m a glutton for punishment but I have to say it again, I just don’t think we’re talking about the same things. NateC and I are saying that you can do anything you want in a comicbook and you’re coming up with reason that a story can’t be told. Forget the outside reasons, forget the “motivation” of the publisher, and the editor. Forget the motivation of the writer and the reader. Forget the sales figures and whether or not the comic shop can sell it. Just focus on this; can a story be told or not?

    As a for example, you keep saying that Hulk stories can only be based on Banner having a conflict, “Hulking out” and then dealing with the aftermath. In response to that, I direct you to a Hulk arc from January of 2003 starting in issue #47. In this arc, Banner doesn’t change into the Hulk but still has the Hulk’s strength. That is a perfect example of how creative writing can transform an older, one-dimensional, well-used character into a more complex and more interesting leading character. Not formulaic and very entertaining.

  42. Michael McDonnell says:

    Think of the Hulk being chase by General Ross in the series, sending out military units to capture or destroy the Hulk, be like a live action version of the 96 cartoon.

  43. Syn:
    “What do you think the point of writing a story is?”

    That depends on whether you are writing it only for yourself, or for others to also read. In the second case, I’d say it’s communication. The first? Still kind of is, as you are getting something OUT of yourself into concrete form (i.e. something that exists outside your own mind) for you to re-ingest and interact with in some way. Maybe that’s self-analysis or attaining self-knowledge or something. Anyhow, the answers should show that it’s not some simple, pat answer.

    “I’d like to think that you aren’t arguing that fantasies should be written to appeal to people who don’t know how to read.”

    WTF? Where do you get this stuff? That’s just moronic. If you’d like to address what I actually said, and maybe stop basically saying “I’m right and you’re wrong because I said so,” we can dialogue. Otherwise, this is pointless.

Speak Your Mind

*