The Thor Message Board >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 2,362
In Reply To

Member Since: Wed Sep 28, 2011
Posts: 1,461
Subj: delusional.
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 01:00:44 pm CST (Viewed 93 times)
Reply Subj: Disagree.
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 11:24:10 am CST (Viewed 93 times)

Previous Post

    because basically, the comics are there to fuel the movies. This is especially the case now that the mouse has the hero. As a marvel icon, the character of Hulk just doesn't have the pop culture crossover impact enjoyed, say, back in the early eighties.

Most casual youtubers are big Hulk fans, everyone knows the Hulk -he's more of an icon than anyone in marvel bar Spider Man, so the appeal is still there.
The problem with the Hulk movie was far more different expectations of what they were getting than the Hulk doesn't resonate these days.
And the poodle. Don't forget the poodle. It had it's flaws.

    Modern audiences, even the youth market seem to be looking for a little more sophistication in their stories. In a post-LOTR atmosphere this can only be good for the likes of Thor, who was once a marvel cornerstone. Heck, even Conan, once a marvel stalwart who later fell out of favour got a new big screen reboot.

The first Hulk movie was far more sophisticated than Thor/Cap/Iron Man (poodle excepted). The second had a lot of good stuff even if it was more formulaic - which it had to be to clear up the bad air surrounding the first movie. It beat all projections of it's success and if it had come out first would be have been a lot better received.

    Hulk's powers have steadily been increased and diversified to maintain the character's appeal. Most of the writers are old enough to remember when it was very different, but now the MU is full of 'supermen'. The 'instant regeneration' from injury and the (apparently / alluded) 'infinite' capacity to become stronger through emotions have actually weakened the character's broad/mainstream appeal at the expense of merely appeasing fanboys and hulkamanaic writers alike.

The healing factor was written in because they could now show blood in comics and PAD felt it was more bad-ass to have him heal instantaneously than not to be damaged at all - it was a retcon of sorts for the gritty 90's. Nothing to do with fanboys.
The anger /stronger dynamic was there from the early days. It had nothing to do with fanboys as there were barely letter pages back then let alone Supes/Hulk dream fights to fanboy over. He was a new character.
The Savage got stale sure, but he wasn't the original Hulk anyway. Gravage was - now we have him back again. If anything there's been a detour around Hulk's psyche for his entire history and now we're touching base.
Also I hardly think Hulk as a metaphor for destruction inherent in every human is a stale concept.
It's a *fundamental* concept.

Hulk being more of an Icon than Iron-man, Spider-man, Captain America, or Wolverine is a Myth. And it's becomming more true that even Thor is more of an Icon to Marvel than Hulk, the success of his movie shows this.

It's not the 80's anymore the whole stupid = cool thing is long dead. And Hulk isn't as popular. The Higher ups at Marvel can't deal with this simple fact so a big difference between movie Thor, and comic Thor ensue.

As for the More sophisticated than the listed movies OMG! LMAO post title. And I'm one of the few who thought the movie was good. I like the way it was presented. I like Eric Bana as an actor. It wasn't the tragedy everyone makes it out to be. But to believe either Hulk movie was on the scale of Thor, or Iron-man is pure delusion.

"Pay Homage to the Might of Thor, Son of Odin!"- Odin
Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software