Talk:Hulk

This talk page is automatically archived by User:MiszaBot I. Any sections older than 120 days are automatically archived to Talk:Hulk (comics)/Archive 5. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives
To February 2006 February 2006 - February 2007 February 2007 - August 2007 September 2007 - April 2008 May 2008 -

Cultural impact

I removed this section for discussion, after BOZ added the information, which he sourced to 'Review of Superman on the Couch: What Superheroes Really Tell Us about Ourselves and Our Society. By Danny Fingeroth By James R. Fleming'.

The insecurity and anxieties in Marvel's early 1960s comic books such as The Amazing Spider-Man, The Incredible Hulk, and X-Men ushered in a new type of superhero, very different from the certain and all-powerful superheroes before them, and changed the public's perception of them.

1. Most of this was integrated into the article's publication history, if about how the creators worked or the real world implications thereof, or in the character sections if an analysis of the characters.
2. This may be considered plagiarized. The original reads "In that respect, the self-consciousness and anxieties of such early 60s Marvel characters as Spider-Man, The Hulk, and the X-men can be seen as having ushered in an entirely new breed of superheroes that were quite unlike the virtually infallible and all-powerful superheroes that had come before, a breed of superhero that served to completely shift the superhero paradigm and the manner in which the public perceived and incorporated them."
3. This is the reviewer's personal opinion formed as a reaction to Fingeroth's essay; Fleming's qualifications are not evident, and I'm not sure using a review as a soapbox makes for much of a reliable source. I'd rather get Fingeroth's direct opinions from the book itself.

I'd be happy to see Fingeroth's work integrated, but to create a cultural impact section might pull us away from the GA we've been working towards, as they seem frowned upon, and for that reason, such materials were integrated before. A final note, it seems to me that I've seen the Jason Fleming writings pushed somewhere else in the comics articles on Wikipedia and it was removed there too.ThuranX (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

shrug I copied that text from Spider-Man after Peregrine Fisher added it (I did not read the original source), so if you're considering it plaigarism you may want to speak to him. I had thought that starting a Cultural impact section would actually bring this one closer to GA, since such a section was expected (and expected to be expanded) for the Spider-Man article to pass GA, and is included in Batman, Superman, and several other similarly FA & GA articles. But, that's just what I'm thinking, and I'm only one guy. :) BOZ (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll mention it there, but I think it would be a bit of O.C.E. to justify including it here too when it looks that close to plagarized. The Cultural Impact of the Hulk is represented in a number of sections, but most explicitly in the In Other Media section, wherein the character's effects on the counterculture, and asian-american cultures, and such. That aspect of the character hasn't been ignored at all. ThuranX (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Creation

Taking a cue from the Arts good article Gregory House, I've added a section about the parallels to Frankenstein's monster, with further information added. This new structure also matches up with that of the Batman article. A gx7 (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Please check the GA reviews this article has had, the intergration of all that into one section was a positive, and doesn't need separating out, which seems in this article to lead to fragmenting and in-universe creep. As such I've reverted it. ThuranX (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Since all of the content was abjectly real world, I don't understand the reference to "in-universe" and have reverted your removal. This seems to be relevent, well sourced material about the creation of the character, so I'm baffled by it's removal. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

For one, the new material in the 'frankenstein's monster' section is SYNTH, relying on the contributing editor's personal opinion regarding similarities, as well as the extrapolation of intent in the battle between the characters, which would need the issue writer's statements to support a desire to reflect Lee's inspiration. Without that material, there's no reason for a subsection. I could have compromised on the 'creation' section, but since all the 'new' material is a SYNTH violation, I prefer keeping the creation material in the context of the character's history, and think it ought to be restored. ThuranX (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

OK so we are in the D of WP:BRD and I have to say Cameron Scott's last version (based on A gx7's earlier additions) [1] looks good to me and is the kind of thing we should be aiming for. (Emperor (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

I like the Frankensteain stuff. It seemed to work best when it was part of the 1.1 Concept and creation section, although I think "Parallels to Frankenstein's monster" subsection should just be a part of its parent section. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If the material were in one creation section, that would work, but there are no 'parallels', we have Lee's comments on his inspiration, which isn't an outside critic paralleling the two, but Lee describing his thought process. This is further a problem because the 'creation section introduces the idea, then only part of that material is shunted off to a separate section. It's all material from the creators about their thought processes, and belongs together, except for the bit about Hulk fighting the Monster, which is really a SYNTH addition in the context of that as an intentional parallel. For that to stay, we'd need 'Writer X had Hulk fight the monster, in a story he intended to highlight the similarities' or some similar demonstration of intent from the writer. ThuranX (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The fighting the monster part is no good, I agree. I think the Frankenstein stuff fits better in a concept and creation section than in a characterization part. It seems like its the first thing that should be read, for the (rare) reader who doesn't know anything about the subject. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX said : For one, the new material in the 'frankenstein's monster' section is SYNTH, relying on the contributing editor's personal opinion regarding similarities, as well as the extrapolation of intent in the battle between the characters, which would need the issue writer's statements to support a desire to reflect Lee's inspiration. Without that material, there's no reason for a subsection. . It's in the reference I cited: "He owes a lot to that particular modern myth," Parker said. "Look at the first appearance of gray, flat-head Hulk. All he needs is bolts in him somewhere and he's the Frankenstein Monster. Even Stan and Jack always acknowledged that. Of course, he's also Jeckyll and Hyde, but he's closer in appearance to the Monster and the theme of man meddling with forces beyond him and loosing destructive force upon the world."

I just listened to the commentary on my copy of the Pilot episode DVD and it contains this line by director Kenneth Johnson that confirms the connection I made: "This is a piece of course inspired by Mary Shelley's Frankenstein when he finds the little girl at the lake"

I also agree with Peregrine Fisher in that the Frankenstein information is a lot more relevant to the concept of the Hulk than his characterisation throughout the comic's history.

I don't mind if all this is under the Creation heading but I feel that given the strong influence from Frankenstein's monster it would be helpful to have a special subheading as well.

Does this satisfy everyone?A gx7 (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I think the subsection isn't needed and makes it read oddly as it effectively goes over territory covered earlier. So I'd suggest integrating that into the main section (rather than just removing the section). (Emperor (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

agreed - someone want to take a run at it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

As it stands following Cameron's 'flows better' edit, I'm good with it, but need to clarify A gx7's deliberate baiting of out of context material. I said the quote you pull out of context in clear reference to the bit about Hulk fighting the Monster, and you know it, as you DELIBERATELY expunged the prefacing "as well as the extrapolation of intent in the battle between the characters, " to that quote. Stop playing that off as me demanding stuff about Lee's intentions in creating the character. Bad faith is bad. ThuranX (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Er, okay, I'll change it to contain your entire sentence. Sorry if it gave the wrong impression. A gx7 (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)