The Incredible Hulk or “How You Solve Problem Like Hulk?!”

Alternate Post Subtitle: "Hulk strongest hero there is! But Hulk movies not so strong!" 

 [whining] Well I can't help but be a little disappointment with how little a response I got to my previous post. I type my fingers to bloody rags for you and this is the thanks I get?![/whining] 

 Well, hey, you guys have busy lives and even by my standards, that post was longwinded as fuck. Well, I always strive to learn from my mistakes and do better. Hopefully this one goes over better. 

 Honestly, I wonder if I should even review this movie, seeing as I'm not sure how much, if any of this movie is still canon. And yes, because I am a pervert, most of my questions relate to the whole "No sex" aspect. Does that also apply to flogging the bishop, dating Rosie Palm and her five sisters, greasing the flagpole, and...OW! Okay, okay, I'll stop. But I still feel it's a valid question. It would answer the "I'm always angry," bit in The Avengers. I'd be pretty angry too if all forms of sex were forever off the table, including typing with one hand, waxing your weasel, rubbing the pink eraser, and...okay that's enough.

 But I did agree to review the films that make up the MCU and technically, The Incredible Hulk is part of the canon. However, since it is probably only tangentially part of the canon, really this will be more of a half-snark. To supplement things, I decided to revist Ang Lee's Hulk, doing a compare and contrast between the two films to help us better understand the strengths and weaknesses of both. So really,you guys will receive two 1/2 snarks, which adds up to one whole, so you will get your money's worth. 

 But first up, the origin story. Linkara's summation "Hulk strongest hero there is! But Hulk origin story not so strong!" is fairly accurate. A superhero origin story needs to be compelling from the getgo, providing what amounts to a miniature portrait of the hero: this is who he is, this is his shtick, and this is why he does what he does. But the Hulk's debut issue is kind of all over the place. It's the kind of story that should have lean, mean plotline with strong pacing, but instead it's kind of a meandering mess. 

The Hulk's publication history has also been fairly shaky. When Avengers #1 was released, Hulk was the only team member who didn't currently have a solo title to his name, his having been canceled due to low sales. It somehow seems fitting that a character with a shaky comic book history would also have a shaky cinematic history. 

 Some characters survive and ascend to major character status within their comic book universe, because they are just straight-up cool right out of the gate, but with Hulk, he survived because the concept behind him is so inherently interesting that the writers just can't let go of it. Everyone feels like a different person when they get mad, so a guy who turns into a literal monster when he gets mad, kind of speaks to us. And there are some interesting literary motifs to play with like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde or Frankenstein. As shown in the debut, initially the Hulk was grey, but he received the green dye job due to printing costs. While this may have been a stroke of penny-pinching, it also serves as an evocative form of visual storytelling, playing up the Frankenstein motifs. 

 I have to say of the two films Hulk speaks more powerfully to me. Don't get me wrong: I understand the detractors' complaints. They went in expecting all-out, whiz-bang superhero action; instead, they got a moody art film about a guy who turns into a green monster when he gets angry. The titular character barely appears in the movie. But while I don't deny the film's goofy moments nor do I deny that it comes across, at times, pretentious in its attempts to be all deep, at the same time, it is way more interesting visually and thematically. 

People mock the arty angles Ang Lee uses, but I find it so much compelling than Incredible's Action Blockbuster Generica. Though I freely admit I too, sometimes scratch my head at some of Ang Lee's angles and cuts. Like this one, in which a villainous character dies, but it is undercut by the white outline around the character which renders it unintentionally hilarious. What was Ang Lee's reasoning behind all these cuts and angles? Was he trying to emulate the aesthetic of comic book panels? I did have a second DVD with some extras, which has some behind-the-scenes info, but my DVD player has completely crapped out on me. :pouts: I suppose I could have waited to do this post until my player was repaired, but I really wanted to get it out there. Even if this only matters to me and a handful of others, I still strive to do this justice. 

 And there's no denying that dogs scene is goofy as fuck, something that looks like it came from a Looney Tunes cartoon in the middle of what is supposed to be a serious film. 

 But what I keep coming back to, the reason Hulk remains so compelling to me is the emotional core of the story, which can basically be summed up as "The Sins of the Father." It is a classic trope, but it is one that I am a sucker for. Basically, the whole movie centers around the question "To what extent, can Bruce escape the toxic legacy his father handed down to him?" 

It's a question that a lot of survivors of child abuse have to deal with, but even those who aren't survivors of abuse probably deal with this idea. It becomes kind of scary the more you think about it, how so much of your life, who'd you become, was shaped by stuff that happened before you were even a twinkle in your daddy's eye. It is true thar you still have choices that might change the legacy handed to you, but the question is to what extent do you have any choices. Or to quote the classic Philip Larkin poem:

'This be the verse'

 

They fuck you up, your mum and dad. 

They may not mean to, but they do. 

They fill you with the faults they had 

And add some extra, just for you. 

But they were fucked up in their turn 

By fools in old-style hats and coats, 

Who half the time were soppy-stern 

And half at one another's throats.

 

Man hands on misery to man. 

It deepens like a coastal shelf. 

Get out as early as you can, 

And don't have any kids yourself.

This scene remains just masterful to me, even if given the state of his life, it's hard to tell how much of this is really Nick Nolte acting. 

  Hulk doesn't completely do justice to the weighty themes it takes on, but it deserves credit for attempting these themes in the first place. I enjoy superhero films as much as the next person, but even I admit that they can be the cinematic equivalent of a McDonald's meal: you generally know what you're going to get and as a rule, it delivers on what it promises. 

But superhero stories can do more, tackle weighty issues like alcoholism in the classic "Demon in the bottle" arc for Tony Stark which, despite the sublime silliness only comic books can provide and the dated fashions (it came out in the 70s), still managed to be a wrenching look at alcoholism and the effects of addiction, a storyline which has become part of the canon of Tony Stark. Heck within the confines of the MCU, the movies have managed to tackle themes of PTSD and its effects, along with issues related to the post-9/11 security state. 

 As of late, though, I have to admit that both comic books and comic book movies seem to have retreated from doing real analysis, content with facile, surface-level stuff that carefully tiptoes around making any real statement. I blame GamerGate and its cousin, ComicsGate for this. Both of these campaigns*, which are actual Cancel Culture, not a rich TERF getting called on her BS, drove a lot of artists, writers, and creators underground or out of the industry entirely for daring to :gasp: suggest that maybe entertainment not be so overwhelmingly White and Male. 

 Fun Fact: There are actually just two genders--Male and Political--just as there are only two races--White and Political. 

 Here's the thing: all art is inherently political, bitches. Every story, regardless of its message or intent, is delivering a message. It may not be as overt as propaganda, but there are still messages. If the writer have a narrative with heroes and villains, the writer is basically saying, "I find these traits to be desirable, but these not so much." 

 For example, if your villain is a rich tycoon who dumps toxic waste into the river, rather than pay a little extra to dispose of it properly, in framing this in a negative light, you're saying that rich people have a responsibility to the communities they serve and having money doesn't give you the right to do whatever you want regardless of how it affects others. I'm afraid there a political messages wrapped up in that. 

 tl;dr, all art is inherently political and complaining about messages in your stories is like complaining about there being any spice in your food. And trying to sidestep messages because you're afraid of controversy, results in stories that are toothless and weak. 

 As for The Incredible Hulk really there isn't much to say about. It's more like an amusement park ride and given that this was done by Universal Studios, my assessment isn't too far off. I will concede that the effects are better than Hulk. You get more of a sense that the Hulk is actually there and there's some weight behind his movements, unlike Ang Lee's which comes across more as a cartoon. I'll also concede that the fight scenes are better, even if they aren't as creative as some in the MCU. I especially like the college scene where the villain, Emil Blonsky, manages to briefly keep up with the Hulk. Once Blonsky becomes less human, he becomes much less interesting and he wasn't that interesting to begin with.

 In other words, I'd place him as a 2 on the villain scale. He has some interesting moments and becoming the Abomination is interesting but not that much. 

 I also liked Ang Lee's version of General Ross better, where while he knows how sketchy it is, keeping a man locked up indefinitely without a trial, and genuinely respects Bruce, that doesn't change the fact that Bruce's practically a walking nuke that needs to be taken care of for the sake of the safety of others.

 Whereas Incredible Hulk's version doesn't make a lot of coherent sense. He apparently wants to catch Bruce and figure out his secrets, so he can make an entire army of Hulks, but what part of an entire army of uncontrollable rage monsters sounds like a good idea? 

 But really, there isn't much there when it comes to The Incredible Hulk. It's just kind of okay, whereas say what you will about the Ang Lee version, but it is memorable. 

 I'm told that in the comics, the character Samuel Sterns becomes a villain known as The Leader and it's probably for the best that there weren't any sequels made to this movie, because I would pretty much spend the entire movie going, "The Leader is good, The Leader is great, we surrender our will as of this date." And yes, I mentioned this solely as an excuse to do a gratuitous Simpsons reference. I thought you guys were used to that thing by now. 

 Stan Lee Cameo: The dude who gets the tainted soda 

 Credit Cookie: Tony Stark wants to talk. 

 *One of my biggest pet peeves is how people add the suffix -gate to the name of every scandal. It's just tiresome. The original made sense--it took place at the Watergate Hotel--but there's no reason every knockoff has to follow this trend. One day, there will be a scandal regarding an actual gate, and we'll be forced to sit through news about something called GateGate. 

 If we must emulate 20th century political scandals, why not emulate the Teapot Dome scandal? Adding -Dome as a suffix immediately makes things sound much more badass, making it sound like a "Two Men Enter, One Man Leaves!" scenario. The exceptions to this naming pattern will be GamerGate and ComicsGate, which will be referred to as Pathetic Shitstorm I and Pathetic Shitstorm II, because that is what they were.