Instale o Steam
iniciar sessão
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chinês simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chinês tradicional)
日本語 (Japonês)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandês)
Български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Tcheco)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol — Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol — América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polonês)
Português (Portugal)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar um problema com a tradução
Este tópico foi trancado 
Regras e diretrizes para discussões
Denunciar esta mensagem
Address the concept at hand - "Hulkness."
This isn't "The Intestinal-Fortitude Man" meets "The Intestinal-Fortitude Woman." The Hulk does not overcome "Indecision Man" by pointing out to him the best choice for toilet-bowl cleaner using his superior uber-Deciding Hulkness Power gained from being bombarded with gamma rays...
You're reaching far outside "The Hulk" concept and backpeddling off into the weeds.
In "The Hulk's" "Hulkness," his primal rage is his "strength," both physical and "will." But, it's not so very much "will" as simply that rage must be expressed - It can no longer be contained. As a result, he turns into a huge "monster" filled with rage... and unbridled power in the form of raw, primal, physical strength.
Just an aside: "Smart Hulk" is the worst decision anyone over there at the MCU has ever made... It's dumb. It literally destroys the character in an effort to create a new one so audiences can... "talk to it." IWO - So they can identify with it, have a chance to experience its inner-life, "emotions," problems... narrative... so they can make "The Hulk" into a lead character for further exploitation. And, as a result, it turns "The Hulk" from a fantastic character into a mundane one. Which is... dumb. Now, they've painted themselves into a corner and there is no easy way out. But, hey, they get paid the big bucks to come up with stuff like that and audiences don't appear to care much. /shrug
They have not developed the Bruce Banner character enough. He is supposed to be where the audience identifies with Hulk & explores the relationship. He is reclusive & extremely emotionally repressed. Ironically the depiction of him in the Avengers game was much better.
They almost brought those elements of the character into the first Avengers movie as Bruce talks about suicide & the other team members are clearly afraid of him, but then they sacked it off later on and just told Mark Ruffalo to be himself.
They hinted at it again in Ragnarok but didn't go nearly far enough with it.
By the time he merges in the movies, Bruce Banner is just some guy who turns into Hulk. So since the character has no development like say Tony Stark, they just said let's make him Hulk all the time.
I guess Edward Norton is not on board which sucks, but given the whole Multiverse thing they have been doing, it would have been a great time to bring in his Bruce Banner in another Hulk movie with Ruffalo & develop the character for the MCU
1. Are there ever times when rage is not entirely uncontrollable - and if yes, then just how much self-control can someone manage to gain / regain in that situation?
2. Is the philosophy from the previous question, about gaining self-control, portrayed well by the media where this could be applied as a reasonable explanation for the story or themes depicted?
If the answer to both questions is yes then I don't see why there should be any complaints, however, I suspect that for most critics, the answer to the first question will be yes while the answer to the second question will be no.
From there, we can attempt to reason why the portrayal or depiction was not suitable, which I believe is a far more constructive & truthful way of forming conclusions than what some of the other people responding to this topic have used as their mode of reasoning.
(Also, unrelated side-note, but I have nowhere else to put this,
I largely agree. The reason is pretty clear, too - "The Hulk" can't read a script... IOW - It's very hard to develop a "Hulk Character," and that's what the audience comes to see. What they get is "Bruce Banner," though, and a big green monster.
They actually did a decent job in pushing the Banner angle in the MCU up until they "smartified" Hulk. Considering they did not have a direct tie-in with an actor playing in an MCU "origin" movie, it wasn't too shabby. The sort of "love interest" angle with Black Widow was a good touch. BUT, Banner is plagued by "werewolf syndrom" in that he fears that the emergence of The Hulk will eventually kill the ones he loves.
People do not like working with Norton.
https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/did-edward-nortons-bad-attitude-keep-him-out-of-the-mcu.html/
I don't know what they're going to do with their Multiverse concept. IMO, it's got "problems." Movie-goers can accept some wild, crazy, things. But, they're going to want something to hold onto as a stable platform from which to watch the stories unfold. ie: If everything is new, crazy, different, unpredictable, unexpected... it loses meaning and significance.
I like Norton's abilities, but he just does not play well with others, it seems.
Well, for a normal human person, "rage" is always "controllable." What do we say about ourselves when we can't control it? We "lost" control. ie: We had it, but lost it. (Or could have had it.)
We see a human's lack of self-control over their anger as a bad situation and one that should always be avoided. It's the expected proper way to deal with "rage."
The Hulk is that fictional thing that is subjected to a mythological level of rage and "The Hulk" is the result. The gamma-ray origin doesn't give Hulk rage, it unlocks the boundaries of it that we normal humans experience. (So to speak)
The Hulk is what we want as the easy release for our rage, so we just live vicariously through him, I guess. :)
There's a lot of open-endedness, there. ("media/story/themes")
The most important thing in a story is the "story." So, if there's a theme, how is it presented?
Let's say there is a "theme" of "controlling rage."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlzm7-gvTRg
"Falling Down" (1983) is about a loss of control by a "normal" human man. But, it's "outrage" that's in effect, here. Douglas's character loses his control over his outrage at.. everything in society we get outraged about, but do not act upon that outrage. (Though, his true trigger isn't revealed until the end, so I won't spoil it.)
There's no mistaking the theme in that, right? It's presented excellently... there's absolutely no question as Douglas's character is doing what we all might want to do, anyway, right? Empathy here is absolute, though decidedly in an over-the-top way... so the story isn't boring. If self-control happened, there'd be no "story" here.
So, what would whatever character (I assume your mean She Hulk) be "controlling" and how could we see that in a positive light or identify with it? You know - For "good story" to happen.
I think it's absolutely possible to craft a story where a character's "self-control" is a near super-power. But... here's the thing - "Rage" is bad. We are always told that while we may feel angry, we should see past that anger and refuse to give into it, right?
In that sense, we'd all be superheroes if we managed to do that.
So, to have "rage" as what is being "controlled" to yield enough noteworthiness that it's a "super-power" is... hard to do in one episode. At least, completely without tie-ins it would be.
"Joker" (2019) was a great movie. It was not a great "Batman's Joker" movie as much as it was just a great movie in its study of the character. Isn't there a little bit of "rage" and "outrage" finally getting out of control there, too? "I'm tired of saying it isn't..." :)
While it did have some slow bits and things that could have been cut, it took almost two hours to get to the emergence of "The Joker." AND, the audience had already brought in a huge amount of character-knowledge-luggage with them. The audience expected Joker's true nature to emerge, but instead of it just being "madness" the story depicts a "driven" character who was fragile and their madness was more... "caused."
To effectively demonstrate "self-control of rage" as a laudable super-power in a premier that's 30 minutes long... ?
No.
They'd have to do terrible things to that character in an "abuse montage" and give as much time to covering that self-control and the positive results of it, or the continued persecution of the character for that, resulting in generating empathy and compassion for the character's "sacrifice" just to build up enough importance for that "rage control" in super-human terms and, eventually... that would fall apart - It's a "comedy." :)
So... "double-no." :)
As in the scenes I described earlier, they could have easily demonstrated a foundation for her "rage" that wasn't so ludicrously overstated. They didn't. They choose that over-the-top oft-quoted statement for its "effect." Bad choice, IMO, to with the "murdered" angle. :/
I'm not quite sure of the exact "complaint" you're talking about. (Honestly)
I agree. It's a "story" we're talking about, right? It has... stuffs to pull apart to figure out how it did what it did. We can actually talk about things like that much more easily than something completely reliant on interpretation.
I'm not heavily involved in the subject, so it's not really a "big deal" to me. It is interesting and not just a little bit worrying, though...
These big Blockbuster project sorts of things are straying further and further and further away from "Original Content Creation." They're relying so very much on what's not in the script in order to gain gravitas and attention... And, the people running the show are getting used to that "creative strategy."
It's not actually "creating" anything. It's just restatements and magnetizing memes to haul in views because its what the audience just saw in their backyard, last week. That's bad. That's a "there are no new ideas" scene. Eventually, what's going to happen? (It already HAS happened, but I'm not going there in this thread...)
So, a movie takes time to make, right? A show, a TV special, something... Well, they take time. People have to thunk up stuff, write stuff, beg for money, justify money, get the assets, do movie, make it work, edit, cut, reshoot... It's a process.
With an original work, well that's going to be judged on its quality, right?
With a "relevant current memes" work... gotta go fast. Gotta go fast or by the time you're done, the audience has forgotten it, it's no longer relevant, not as important as the new meme...
To keep a multi-million dollar project's memery-themed fundamentals viable long enough for the work to make it to the screen/channel... you have to keep pumping it up until the premier. (I'm not even joking a little bit about that.)
"So, you're staring in the new picture "Woman With a Gun." Please tell us how your own struggles to overcome sandwichmaking in the kitchen and brutish, ignorant, monstrous men in your life influenced how you portrayed your character."
/sigh
In both Gaddot's statements after playing "Wonder Woman" and Larson's after "Captain Marvel," both have claimed to have finally portrayed strong women in film and to have overcome male bias/prejudice/gravity-itself... I guess none of the great actresses in wonderfully written stories playing awesome characters have ever done squat and they should feel their award-winning careers are hollow and worthless, right? :/
We could have done, instead, with "these are good stories" and those films could have worked hard to stand on their own merits by having excellently crafted characters in riveting and engaging stories.
But.. no.
Because doing that is much harder than just "chasing the meme." By "chasing the meme" they also save MILLIONS out of their publicity budgets, too. Millions, even hundreds of millions in some cases... and they don't have to actually write a good script. They can just blame bias for poor performance and guilt people into giving them money and air-time.
**
Edit-Added: Do you know why most box-office movies "fail?" Do you know why good movies "fail" at the box office? Marketing and publicity. One frequently sees the "lack of marketing and publicity budgets" being repeatedly mentioned for all those good movies that failed at the box office, right? And, why do little known one-weekend-run crap sci-fi movies fail? Nobody cares enough about them to give them a marketing and publicity budget...
Today, studios just need Twitter. That's their "marketing and publicity budget."
**
If this continues with so many darn companies insisting on "relevance" what we will end up is with a string of billions of monies being dedicated towards promoting and inducing... the same memes, over and over and over. It won't stop.
No "social problems" can ever possibly be seen to be solved because there is no movie-money in "solved social problems." Zero. end_of_line
We will never,ever, get another "Ripley" out of this production model. We will never once ever see another Katherine Hepburn playing Eleanor of Acquitaine in "The Lion of Winter." There will be no more Scarlet's. There won't even be a "Designing Women" or, gods forbid, "Golden Girls" TV shows... It. Will. Not. Happen. It can not possibly be allowed to happen.
Because money. Because "easy money." Because it's always because of "easy money."
And, now you know why I bothered entering this thread in the first place. :)
That's cool. No problem. I take individual posts on their face, so it's not like I bring a ton of luggage into a post in some "forum history" sense. (Well, at least where it's clear the other person is doing the same, too. :))
2. The Hulk comics abound with Hulk variants: The Leader, Grey Hulk, Savage Hulk, etc. The concept of "Hulkness" is therefore not tied to the "state of being the Hulk" with "Hulkness" being about "strength by muscle." Instead, because the Hulk can be characterized as a kind of lycanthrope or Jekyll/Hyde character, Hulkness is about surpassing a threshold and therefore is concerned with "becoming the Hulk." In that sense, Hulkness is tied to the Gamma Radiation because this is the core of what the Hulk embodies, a mutation of gamma radiation run amok.
3. So the formula is: Gamma Radiation --> The Resultant Hulk mutation. In The Leader the mutation affects the brain, in Banner the gamma unleashes The Hulk, in Doc Samson's case the gamma radiation makes him strong but he ends up retaining his human form. And the list goes on.
4. "Hulkness" is a produced effect caused by Gamma radiation and sometimes has nothing to do with monstrous strength, as in the case of The Leader.
5. What you call 'Smart Hulk' from the MCU is an actual Hulk called "Professor Hulk" found in the pages of marvel comics in the 1990's. Professor Hulk merges Banner, Hulk and the Grey Hulk (aka Joe Fixit) into one character.
tldr;
'Hulkness' is not about monstrous strength but about the resultant mutation produced by Gamma radiation. Sometimes the Gamma radiation doesn't augment muscle strength at all.
https://i0.wp.com/legacycomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/she-hulk-1-artgerm.png?fit=1349%2C2048&ssl=1
-- art by Artgerm
I agree. It's exactly like that, but taken to the fantastic edge of a "sympathetic" character. Jekyll was a tortured man, after all. His Hyde was... the werewolf. Hulk is one of my favorites, as well, but that came from watching the old "The Incredible Hulk" TV show as a kid.
Well, we can't ignore the fact that comic publishers need monies... So, throwing curve-balls at superheroes is often necessary.
Hulk is something about our own fear of "losing control," too. That "werewolf" thing where it sounds "cool an' all" to be a werewolf until the true "curse" part revealsitself... Our primal drives take over and then... are focused on our loved ones. That's a big fear - Ask a harried parent when their kids won't stop asking "Are we there yet" from the backseat... :)
It's still a bad move. It may be fine for the comics, since they have to change things up now and then, but a comic has a heck of a lot more leeway in that than a movie-universe does, IMO.
In the comics, maybe.
But, while the movies are certainly based on the comic-book characters, they must obey "story stuff."
We know "Dr." Bruce Banner is a "smart guy." So, if Hulkness, in the comics, can sometimes boost something else, that's one thing - Readers saw it in the panels in those comic-book "stories." But, in MCU? We haven't seen that. All we know is what is there in the MCU's offerings.
Is there some story bit in any of the MCU stuff that pushes the idea Hulkness... does something else?
Did one Marvel character, when faced with Banner hulking out, exclaim "Oh, no! Now he's smart enough to beat us at backgammon!" I.. don't think so. But, I haven't seen all the MCU movies and spin-off streaming stuffs. (Has anyone? :))
Comic-Book readers do get some fanservice with little known bits popping up, here and there, in the MCU. (Yay! Howard the Duck! I actually had this at one time: https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Fear_Vol_1_19)
But, have we been shown anything other than that rage-fueled strength in an MCU offering that is Hulk's claim to fame?
This? : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader_(character)#Film
I'm not deep into Hulk lore. I probably had a few comics as a kid, though. But, he's always been a favorite and Banner is, or should always be, a "tortured character." (Add: That's part of the problem I have with The Hulk as he's shown in the MCU. Sure, story has to happen, but... it dilutes the character a bit.)
The irony there is that The Hulk's actions, though often wantonly destructive, are usually "for the good." Well, at least the plot pieces that drive them are answered, and solved, when The Hulk shows up. (Mostly...)
Sure, it's the tortured character trope, but... it's got that sometimes positive spin on it. Ironically, Banner has to always be one step ahead of those seeking him because... of... the evidence left behind by his good deeds points to a "monster." (Granted, that's a sort of classic, not-Avengers look.)
"The Hulk" is unique. Well, mostly. "Man-Thing" (MC's Swamp Thing/whatever) had to hide, too. A few others could hide in plain sight. (Spidey, Batman, Supes, etc) Banner could hide in plain site but... not reliably. So, in essence, he could never hide among other people and couldn't afford to not hide.
If "anxiety" could reach the level of rage... The Hulk would always be in control of Banner.
PS: Uh... lol? - An "Anxiety Beast" would be a huge hit in today's comic market.