I have some other thoughts on the movie, but I'll wait until more folks have seen it (except to say--BEST STAN LEE CAMEO EVER!!).But here's a question that won't spoil anything.
In three distinct TV/film incarnations, we haven't had anything resembling the Hulk's comic book origin. In fact, even though all three versions were fairly explicitly independent of each other, they all 3 use essentially the same origin story.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those fanboys who whines whenever an adaptation varies even a scintilla from my beloved comics books. I'm all for creators telling the story in their own way. So this is more out of curiosity than objection.
But I had always felt that this classic shot...
...was one of the more iconic in comics history, yet it's been routinely passed over 3 times.Are bomb tests too old-fashioned? Is Bruce Banner being transformed because of sacrificing himself for another no longer an interesting message (as opposed to being a victim of experimenting on himself)? Is the "unbridled science = bad" meme more relevant these days?
And, just because I'm rambling here, whither Rick Jones?? Three incarnations, and not even a mention?? We can bring in characters who must be ridiculously obscure to the general public like Glenn Talbot. The new movie even name-checks Jack McGee, for crying out loud! Rick Jones was there at the founding of the flipping Marvel Universe--where's the love?
Of course, part of it is that there are whole generations whose only memories of the Hulk are from the 1970's TV series. So that's what they're going to give us. And we'll get references to that show, instead of the comics. And again, there's nothing wrong with that.
But I've got to say, I miss Rick Jones and the trench...
8 comments:
Well, that third panel above is, I think, referenced in the "Banner throws himself in front of a deadly machine in order to save someone else" scene in the Ang Lee movie. He even flashes black and white for a few frames. That's reasonably close, as far as I am concerned.
Now that I think about it, the Lee film also featured Cold War-era bomb tests, including (infant) Banner being present at the site of an explosion.
Sure, the whole thing was shifted around a little so that the film could feature the Cold War and yet still have a modern-day Banner, but it's like all of the basic elements of his origin were there, just remixed somewhat.
At least the cartoons have featured Rick prominently as Banner's best but (until the UPN series dropped him in favor of She-Hulk) as well as the gamma bomb test.
My friends and I are wondering if we should bother with the movie. Some of the reviews have been less that pleased, according to one of my crew.
I wish I could edit "best but" into "best bud", which is what I meant to write.
Jay--point taken about the "Banner throws himself" in Ang Lee's movie...i hadn't remembered it as well as I thought I had. Still, I like to think that my general point stands, in that the TV/films have shifted from the comics "military research bad" to the "bio-research bad" meme.
Shadowwing...I give the movie a thumbs up. Not as good as Iron Man, better than Ang Lee's attempt; not perfect, but a good fun movie.
The current Hulk version, where he's apparently part of a failed effort to develop a super-soldier, has the convenient property of setting up a later introduction of Captain America, the product of an earlier(?) super-soldier serum project.
Another thought: the serum-turns-Blonsky-into-Abomination reminds me of the subplot of the Marvel:Ultimate Alliance game where a Shield super-serum project produces massively strong ogres.
Well, these Marvel films seem to be using quite a bit of the Ultimate Universe (especially the Ultimates) in their backstory. And in the Ultimates, Bruce Banner is trying to recreate the super-soldier serum, injects himself with an experimental version and turns into the Hulk. Which is kinda similar to the Abomination in this movie.
But, yeah, it's a pity they're not going the bomb blast route. That's Hollywood for ya!
Post a Comment