Question for the day: In fiction, when dealing with someone incredibly powerful and seemingly evil, do you think it's more common that the character is a) someone inherently good who tried to gain greater power with the best of intentions, only to be corrupted by it, or b) an evil person seeking greater power for their own benefit who was overwhelmed by a more powerful, more evil force?
Lex Luthor during Morrison's World War 3 arc in JLA might qualify as an example of the latter, and I think the original Phoenix/Dark Phoenix Saga (before it was retconned that Jean was in stasis in the bay, and it had simply been the Phoenix assuming her form that went crazy) could be an example of the former.
Which one might the Hulk's story qualify as? In one sense, I feel Banner probably hoped the gamma bombs studies could be turned to something useful to humanity, but he was ultimately changed into perhaps the biggest anti-gamma research symbol you could have*. That seems to be the first scenario. However, the gamma bomb was intended as a weapon, one that was meant to give the U.S. the edge in the Cold War**, which, if used, could lead to significant loss of life. I don't know if the U.S. military ever used any gamma bombs in the Marvel Universe after that test. Probably not, out of fear of creating lots of Hulks. From that view, the attempt to build a devastating weapon to increase their strength unleashed a creature that they were unable to stop or control, at least not for any extended period of time.
I don't know what stirred all this up, but here it is.
* We know that tragic as this has been for Banner, the Hulk has saved the world several times, and so it's probably been a good thing in the long run that it happened. But people in the Marvel Universe are not very bright, so the majority of them probably don't see it that way.
** I'm sticking to the original origin. I have no idea what it may have been changed/updated by Marvel these days.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Good points. I think there is also a "nutjob" factor to consider. How many people, upon meeting someone incredibly powerful and seemingly evil, automatically just assume that the someone in question is just completely insane? There are all those old, snappy comebacks from B-movie heroes, after all: "You're MAD!" "You're INSANE!" "You're crazy scheme will never work!" Blah, blah, blah ...
Consider, for example, Hal Jordan: A good person driven insane and then overwhelmed by a more powerful, evil force, seeking greater power for his own benefit.
sea_of_green: The assumption of insanity does seem to happen an awful lot. Guess it comes with the difficulty of understanding someone else's motives, especially if that someone is (or is being controlled by) a very old, very different entity. There'd be a perspective issue, I think.
The interesting thing about Hal is, in his mind it wasn't just for his benefit, was it? He really thought he could wipe out existence and make a better one, not just for him. It was all prompted by his pain, and his desire to get rid of that, but at least some part of him tried to rationalize/justify it.
What I don't get is why the U.S. hasn't really jacked up a bunch of people. IIRC, even the Gamma Corps that tied in with WWH was a bunch of people they found who were like that, rather than people purposefully enhanced through exposure to gamma radiation.
After all, Doc Samson, She-Hulk, Abomination, the Leader, and probably a few other characters I've forgotten show that gamma exposure doesn't inherently result in an uncontrollable (but TOTALLY NONLETHAL) creature. It completely dwarfs the super-soldier serum, whatever serum Nick Fury has in his system, the Master Man formula the Nazis devised, the process that empowered Luke Cage, the process that empowered USAgent, and pretty much every other character I can think of that's been jacked up permanently.
Post a Comment