HULK MOVIE SPOILER - (but an obvious one)


I say this is an obvious spoiler because I think everybody knows it before they enter the theatre, but any way, here's the spoiler:

The current Hulk movie focuses on Bruce Banner (rather than the Green Guy) as the central protagonist whose story drives the movie.

The previous Hulk movie did the same.

The Hulk TV show did the same.

I think this is why I tend to be less than satisfied by Hulk movies and Hulk TV episodes. You see, Bruce Banner's main goal in life is to stop becoming the Hulk. Trouble is, it's impossible for me to root for Bruce Banner in this, for two reasons:

1. I don't want Bruce Banner to stop becoming the Hulk, because then there would be no more Hulk, and I don't want that.

2. I know Bruce Banner will never stop becoming the Hulk, because then there would be no more Hulk, and Marvel won't allow that.

Thus I both want and expect the protagonist to fail in the main goal of his life. This undermines the effectiveness of the storytelling for me personally. Since I'm not rooting for the protagonist, I gradually lose interest in the plot. By the second half of the movie, all I was interested in was seeing the Hulk smash stuff. I wasn't rooting for Bruce Banner so I became bored with Bruce Banner.

Did anyone else feel the same way?

to trust the character of the Hulk.
I don't think they understand the book's appeal.
The overwhelming proof of this is the way we are all going gah gah over him saying "Hulk smash".
The Hulk is wish fulfillment of the primal power in all of us.
The Hulk is indomitable.
Humanity - both his own and the outside world cannot stop him.
We want to be indomitable.
We want to overcome our own weakness and the limits society puts on us.
In any Hulk vs Abomination fight their is a pattern.
Blonsky is stronger and more skilled and wins early while verbally villifying Hulk.
Hulk's rage spikes and Blonsky faces true palpable fear as he begins losing.
Blonsky asks "Why?", "How?", "Where did he go wrong?"
The Hulk responds with "Where are your words now? You are weak! Hulk is strongest one there is!"
We all want to say that to our oppressors.
That is his appeal - The Hulk is our wish to batter down life's frustrations.
Toho often makes the same mistake with Godzilla.
They don't seem to understand that we are all rooting for Godzilla not the army.

Rooting for the protagonist is not the be all and end of all any intimate experience with a narrative.

For me, it was exactly the fact that the movies and other media focused on Banner that had me interested. Hulk's actual comic gets really boring really fast when its just about Hulk. In fact, for a self-admittedly "less cerebral" movie, The Incredible Hulk put forth an interestingly profound thought that made me really stop to think.

When Banner and Betty are driving in the car to see the mysterious Mr. Blue we get to see deep into Banner's motivations toward the Hulk - he wants to destroy it. He doesn't want to learn to live with it, and have tea and crumpets with it, and get along all howdy-do. He wants the monster dead. This is an allegory we should all relate to. We all have a bad side, but we can't just destroy it either. It's a part of who we are.

Banner's drive to eliminate the Hulk is unbalanced - he's not seeking balance with it - and so he is doomed. This has all the makings of a superb tragedy (sadly its a serial so we'll never really see that). What should make this work is that the Hulk should be unpredictable and scary (which they got a bit of in this movie). Stan Lee's original concept had a man transforming at night into something that didn't act like him, believe in the same things, etc. That should be terrifying.

People who live with Multiple Personality Disorder often have a personality that is horrified by the others. That should concern all of us. Its like a stranger taking your wife on a date and all you can do is hear about it. Its like some criminal committing horrible acts WITH YOUR APPEARANCE and making it so YOU have to go on the run. That's MPD.

Look at it from this perspective: You root for the Hulk, but his motivations are just as incompatible as Banner's. The Hulk's main goal in life is to be left alone:

1. I don't want Hulk to be left alone because then there would be no conflict in the stories, and I don't want that.

2. I know that the Hulk will never be left alone because then there would be nothing to tell an interesting story with. "Hulk, outside of his Cave of Solitude is picking flowers and being left alone. The Abomination descends from the sky with an earth-shattering landing. Hulk asks to be left alone. Abomination: "Ok, fine be that way." Abomination walks away." Marvel won't allow that.

It seems to me that they don't understand the book's CURRENT appeal. The Hulk that Stan Lee was trying to create was something akin to a modern monster story. The appeal for me in those days was exactly the fact that this Banner guy turned into an unpredictable monster and had to suffer for it. That was interesting human drama.




Some did, yes . . . but others moaned and said later "I so knew he was going to say that at that moment."



Speak for yourself. I have absolutely no need to be that violent.



Ostensibly, yes.



That's debatable. There has to be some sense of suspense for the protagonist's well-being.



Again speak for yourself.



Yes to the former, not so much to the latter. We may foolishly want to overcome society's limits, but most of the people who do that are in jail. We should want to work together as a society to determine which limits are going to work the best for keeping things balanced (a message of the movie actually - Banner needs to balance or come to terms with his "limitation" not destroy it completely).



And that is why Abomination/Hulk battles get really old really fast.


When were pissed, yeah.



You're scaring me. I have no desire to get that analogously violent with life's frustrations.


Godzilla is symbolic of the bomb! No damn wonder the Japanese don't root for him! Ever notice his breath is radioactive!! Godzilla is a cultural narrative response to a horrific event for the Japanese. Look at the pattern.


Radioactive terror destroys city.
Japanese army brave, but useless.
Massive destruction.
Japanese people humbly rebuild, knowing that the radioactive terror is still out there . . .

Did I just describe a Godzilla movie or WWII?

All is well - the reason I think many people like the hyper destructive Hulk and Godzilla personnas over societies better angels is because it is a safe (on screen or page - not realworld0 way of indulging in juvenile destructive impulses - usually on behalf of some vaguely positive cause (I'm talking Godzilla's 3rd or 4th movies off and on forward)

I agree the Hulk started out as a Hyde/Frankenstein hybrid - much more in the horror than superhero vein.

However, Hollywood has generally clipped the voices of those two characters too.

The monster clearly articulates his point of view - it just doesn't match up with society.
Hyde has a point of view - it's distasteful because it comes from the darkest parts of humanity.

If you think most of humanity doesn't have a little HULK SMASH living inside them then you haven't driven during rush hour in a big city.

There is a dark part of many of us that sides with these characters points of view - not the majority of the time - but in our most frustrated or childish moments.

Not everyone is as mature as you and never lets their inner child out to play. Kudos on your constant inherent restraint BUT remember what the Bacchae says happens to those who don't regularly indulge small losses of control - THEY GO MAD!!!

Just kidding I'm sure you're cool - just taking me at my earlier word and I'm doing the same.

As to the Abomination fights getting boring - WELLLL since there' never been one on screen - it would have been nice to see the first one be archetypal - the book has been a strong seller for 40 + years so the must do something right.

Same with Hulk smash - the cheers were loud - Yours is the first allusion to negative mumbling that I have heard.

As to Toho
Godzilla WAS a symbol of the A bomb - that's why the orignal works so well and why Cloverfield ripped it off so beautifully a metaphor for our human/non-political response to 9-11.

But as soon as he began defending Earth as often as he destroyed it - he became Hulk like - More a primal force responding to man and others than just a creation of man. It's a subversion of the original intent but all living things grow, adapt, even mutate.

Interesting to hear such a different point of view on the same character.
I don't run into folks who are so enamored of Banner over Big Green.

It is for me - but you raise a good point. I've heard it said that most Americans don't like the literary form known as tragedy. I suspect this is true, although I have no data to support that suspicion. But I know this: I personally don't like the literary form known as tragedy, which is, I think, what Hulk stories often are.




I could read stories about the Green Guy till the sun goes nova. But that's because the Hulk almost always wins his fights. He may lose in other ways, but I can at least root for him to win his fights, and he does, and I'm satisfied.




True. And philosophucally interesting. But cinematically boring to me personally.




As you say - a superb tragedy. It would have been emotionally impactful if the Hulk had accidentally killed Betty. Superb tragedy. I understand it. But I don't have any part of me that wants to experience it.




And to win his fights. If he isn't left alone, then he fights, and he wants to win, and he does win. This is satisfying.

> Did anyone else feel the same way?

Not until you brought it up, but that's an interesting point. However, the end of the movie implies that you won't have that dilemma in future Hulk movies.

You are totally right on that count. I have nothing against a little catharsis - and what better way than through fiction to let out those, inherent in all of us, impulses.


Mostly where my negativity is coming from.



That's why we have to be careful identifying with them. Knowing that something is fiction dulls our response. Its okay to identify with Hyde for instance, because generally he's fake and any debate about his rightness or wrongness will be purely intellectual. Imagine someone identifying with Charles Manson, however, and you have a different problem - a very different reaction.

Now, I am not saying that we should see the fictional monsters in the same light as the real ones - no - that would be a blurring of fiction and reality to the level of a mental problem, but in my opinion the Hulk should be a bit more of a monster in the truer sense of the word. Scary. Not cuddly. And definitely something to see as being a problem that Banner very understandably does not like. Let's just not get desensitized to the monsters. Desensitization subverts fiction's ability to have any affect other than visceral.

This latest movie actually did a pretty good job of that. Hulk's reaction to lightning was borderline insane. It seems cute and childish, but imagine if you were near an enraged Hulk and happened to sneeze - he would punch a hole through you.





Oh, I have. And yes there is a whole Hell of a lot of HULK SMASH in me at those times. The thing is, I don't like that about myself. When someone cuts me off in traffic and I contemplate releasing Armageddon on their butts that is a bad thing. Sure I feel it, and just like Banner I want to get rid of it. It will only get me killed or jailed so its no good. Therefore Banner is very easy to identify with.



I think we can agree that the best place for those "not the majority of the times" is the movie theatre. Just remember that you just called them childish.


My inner child comes out, but even he needs a little discipline. Or else I wake up with a stomachache from too much ice cream. I only hope I'm mature.



I totally get what you've been saying. The issue was just a question of identifying with Banner or the Hulk. I only wanted to point out that I personally like the Banner element because it DOES give me a character to identify with. Banner is me in a road rage situation who stays out of jail. Banner is me when some bratty kid kicks me in the crotch and I don't knock him unconscious with a brick. Its fun to watch him Hulk out though too, that's the catharis point I made above, and I think you were down with all along. But if there is no Hulk-out, where is the catharsis? All Hulk all the time is just all chocolate ice cream all the time - its a hell of a fun way to spend the day, but man I'm sick later.



Yep, that was actually a cool part of the movie for me. Personally, I saw the anger build in that fight. Abom had Hulk up against that wall and his bones were digging into Hulk's skin. Abom was totally winning, it was there in the body language and even Hulk's face. Then Hulk started getting a little more pissed. It was subtle I grant you, but I thought that's what I was seeing. Hulk got pissed there and started rallying. Abom even started looking desperate. From that point on in the fight Hulk was going nuts on Abom, and Abom was doomed. If I could I would totally take you with me to see Hulk again, buy your ticket and all, if we could go and examine that moment. I'm sure I saw "madder Hulk gets . . ." happening there.





I heard loud cheers too . . . I also heard someone in the theatre yell it out before Hulk did.



"grow" = neutral, "adapt" = positive (in the sense that if you don't adapt you die), "mutate" = sometimes negative. Many mutations are not viable and are technically abominations of original form (pun!). A boy born with no eyes in a third world country because of industrial pollution is a mutation that is a response to giving other people benefit. Maybe the mutation benefits some, but yeeesh. See where I'm going? Some character themes should be left alone. Some may like them, but the rest of us lose our eyes.




Glad to expand your horizon. (not an insult, we all need horizon expansion).

I'll bet that it is true, but, ok, you personally don't like tragedy. That's fine.



Ok, can't argue with that. Basically, all your interested in is seeing a fight, and seeing your guy win that fight. I'll admit that it is satisfying.


Ok, I'm glad you found that interesting philosophically, but why are these two ideas mutually exclusive? I found Hulk cinematically exciting because A: There were satisfying fights, and B: it was philosophically interesting.



Ah the paradox of tragedy. A bigger tragedy would be if the Hulk eventually killed Banner and we never saw him again. I guess I don't have any part of me that wants to experience that.



Alright, that's what you want. I want more, so I didn't totally agree with you in the first post. I just hope that we can both get the things we want from our fiction that satisfy each of us.

WARNING - MORE MOVIE SPOILERS...


When the Green Guy was on the screen, I was riveted. When he wasn't, I could have fallen asleep I was so uninterested. Oh, I was also interested in Blonsky, because he wanted to be all that he could be, and I rooted for him to achieve it. I often root for villains when their goals are something other than just hurting people for the fun of it. Blonsky wanted to be the ultimate fighting man. He was pursuing self-actualization. I rooted for him, even though I knew in the end he would lose to the Hulk. I knew also that he would achieve a high degree of fighting prowess, and thus to a certain extent he would attain his goal. It was satisfying to see him revel in it, without regard for his physical ugliness. He of course had to be stopped, because he started hurting people for the fun of it, but that's what the Green Guy has always been for.

I was on the edge of my seat the entire movie. Even though I knew the outcome, just as I did with Spider-Man, DD, and Iron Man. This was a very good movie and filled with suspense.

> HULK MOVIE SPOILER - (but an obvious one)

> When Banner and Betty are driving in the car to see
> the mysterious Mr. Blue we get to see deep into
> Banner's motivations toward the Hulk - he wants to
> destroy it. He doesn't want to learn to live with
> it, and have tea and crumpets with it, and get
> along all howdy-do. He wants the monster dead. This
> is an allegory we should all relate to. We all have
> a bad side, but we can't just destroy it either.
> It's a part of who we are.
>
> Banner's drive to eliminate the Hulk is
> unbalanced--he's not seeking balance with it--and
> so he is doomed. This has all the makings of a
> superb tragedy (sadly its a serial so we'll never
> really see that). What should make this work is
> that the Hulk should be unpredictable and scary
> (which they got a bit of in this movie). Stan
> Lee's original concept had a man transforming at
> night into something that didn't act like him,
> believe in the same things, etc. That should be
> terrifying.

I would further note that these things you've said, which are really self-evident, strike at the heart of Marvel's recent effort to "sissify" the comic character; those efforts really do destroy the character. If the Hulk isn't a dangerous, unpredictable monster, the personaification of rage, fear, frustration, irrationality, and all of those darker things of which he's supposed to be composed, then there's nothing scary about him at all, and no reason whatsoever for Banner to want to destroy him. His "plight" becomes a humorous thing, good for nothing other than being the butt of jokes. Forget "Don't make me angry; you wouldn't like me when I'm angry." This version is more like: "Watch out for that one; when he gets mad, he turns into a 2,000-pound teddy bear." Spoken through barely repressed giggles, of course.

What recent stories are you alluding to? World War Hulk? Planet Hulk?

> What recent stories are you alluding to? World War Hulk?

Of course.