Originally posted by DisappearAin't retcons a b!tch? 😆
that's a completely inappropriate rationale. the wolverine who appeared originally in hulk was supposed to be a TEENAGE superhuman of spider-man's approximate physical stats, with claws in his gloves. he was considerably revamped before becoming the wolverine we know today. they're essentially two separate characters.
Originally posted by jinzin
Same character same history. 😐There's plenty of rationale to explain why Hulk hasn't killed him yet, cause he can't. as he so pointed out last month.
except for that one time when he was written as a spider-man-esque hero with clawed gloves. that seems like it'd be a blip in traditional wolverine canon.
my point isn't that hulk can or can not, should or should not, be killing any particular people. it was specifically to say that saying "wolverine's first appearance was in a hulk book" is not sufficient logic to explain why hulk hasn't beaten him to death in their fights.
Originally posted by DisappearActually it shows that he was intended to be able to go up against the Hulk.
except for that one time when he was written as a spider-man-esque hero with clawed gloves. that seems like it'd be a blip in traditional wolverine canon.my point isn't that hulk can or can not, should or should not, be killing any particular people. it was specifically to say that saying "wolverine's first appearance was in a hulk book" is not sufficient logic to explain why hulk hasn't beaten him to death in their fights.
Originally posted by DisappearPffft it's his first appearance.. what'd you expect him to be a fully fleshed out character by then?
except for that one time when he was written as a spider-man-esque hero with clawed gloves. that seems like it'd be a blip in traditional wolverine canon.
THe reason why people keep bringing it up in the first place if due to one thing, people treat Wolverine vs. Hulk like it's a joke, and often write it off as if it has no merit, but the fact that Wolverine's first appearance was fighting the damned Hulk, it kinda seems that it's whacked rationale to think it's a joke when they fight.
Wolverine was supposed to be written up to super hero standards, but there's really nothing that Wolverine did that even suggests a blip in his traditional canon as you say. Except for not being able to cut Hulk. That's it, he didn't do one thing that's really comic book superhuman in that book aside from take a Hulk bodyslam and that's no different than what Wolverine's capible of taking now.
Now if Wolverine was flying around shooting lazers out of his ass then what you say might have to value, but the character depiction of his first appearance isn't UNLIKE what he ended up turning into except for the fact that he can now take and dish out more punishment than in that encounter, so there's no reason to discard it.
Originally posted by DisappearI don't think that's why it was brought up in the first place so what does that matter?
my point isn't that hulk can or can not, should or should not, be killing any particular people. it was specifically to say that saying "wolverine's first appearance was in a hulk book" is not sufficient logic to explain why hulk hasn't beaten him to death in their fights.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Actually it shows that he was intended to be able to go up against the Hulk.
as a spider-man-esque superhuman with clawed gloves, yes. but when he was significantly revised to be a mutant, approximately 100 years older than previously conceived, and a hero [or anti-hero] as opposed to an objectiveless villain, you can't carry on a stream of logic that applied to widely different situations.
example: a year ago, i ate an apple because i believed it would be delicious. but today, someone told me i'd actually eaten a pear. did i still do it for the same reason? can the incident be looked at in the same light, even with physical examples to reference, now that the scenario it itself is modified? it's like applying the heisenberg principle to something that wasn't simply observing, but was actively partaking.
Originally posted by Disappear
example: a year ago, i ate an apple because i believed it would be delicious. but today, someone told me i'd actually eaten a pear. did i still do it for the same reason? can the incident be looked at in the same light, even with physical examples to reference, now that the scenario it itself is modified? it's like applying the heisenberg principle to something that wasn't simply observing, but was actively partaking.
Thoughtcrime! Thoughtcrime!!!! O'Brien is going to take you to room 101!
Anyway. The fact that Wolverine was orignally a Spider-man-esq character physically means littles since it wasn't actually said in the issue. It was said years latter, after the fact in an interview and has never been said on panel. Nothing he did in that first appearance strength, speed or agility wise is out of line with how is is depicted now. The only difference is now he has a healing factor ontop of it and his claws aren't part of his gloves (something that isn't widely known even now by the SHIELD highups).
Originally posted by DisappearIt's called retcon. You know what that means? 🙂
as a spider-man-esque superhuman with clawed gloves, yes. but when he was significantly revised to be a mutant, approximately 100 years older than previously conceived, and a hero [or anti-hero] as opposed to an objectiveless villain, you can't carry on a stream of logic that applied to widely different situations.
Originally posted by DisappearOh yes lets compare real life to comic books. doped It proves your point perfectly since in the real world there are mutants and people gaining powers via radiation... :droolio:
example: a year ago, i ate an apple because i believed it would be delicious. but today, someone told me i'd actually eaten a pear. did i still do it for the same reason? can the incident be looked at in the same light, even with physical examples to reference, now that the scenario it itself is modified? it's like applying the heisenberg principle to something that wasn't simply observing, but was actively partaking.
Oh wait. 😬
None of that stuff happens in real life. 😐
Cause the comic books are a fictional world that peopole make up. 😆
It's called retcon, get over it. doped
i haven't said once that there wasn't a retcon, or that his original appearance in hulk wasn't referenced again under the new, mutant context. i haven't expressed dislike or contempt for it, either. i've merely said, and been berated for saying, that his original appearance in a hulk comic [when envisioned completely differently than he has come to be known] is not sufficient reason for why he can withstand fighting the hulk. christ almighty, did you read what i've written?
and the "comparing comics to real life" defense wears thin, especially when the comparison is based on a principle of actions, and not on any realistic measure. it's an excuse to continue deluded thought processes.
good god.
lastly,
What is not readily apparent is that Wein intended the Wolverine to be a teenage mutant with claws extending from a pair of special gloves. "He was a mutant only in terms of his ferocity and animal senses. He was a hunter and a tracker and incredibly resilient. He was able to get the stuff knocked out of him by the Hulk and still be able to get back on his feet."[11] In fact, Wein would have made Wolverine as super-humanly strong as Spider-Man had he continued writing the X-Men.[12] Dave Cockrum later asserted that originally, he and Len Wein intended Wolverine to be revealed as a mutated wolverine, but Stan Lee nixed the idea.
am i wrong in saying that the original depiction, intended to be a mutated wolverine with spider-man's stats and clawed gloves, is NOT reminiscent of wolverine as we know him today? have a made a fatal error in judgement?
Originally posted by DisappearYes. And you're wrong. It's a clear indicator that the creators of the character intended him to fight the Hulk. It's the same character no matter how you try and separate them out.
i haven't said once that there wasn't a retcon, or that his original appearance in hulk wasn't referenced again under the new, mutant context. i haven't expressed dislike or contempt for it, either. i've merely said, and been berated for saying, that his original appearance in a hulk comic [when envisioned completely differently than he has come to be known] is not sufficient reason for why he can withstand fighting the hulk. christ almighty, did you read what i've written?
Originally posted by DisappearNo.. the past can be rewritten in comic books. It can't in real life. Your analogy is flawed. and it ignores the concept of the retcon.
and the "comparing comics to real life" defense wears thin, especially when the comparison is based on a principle of actions, and not on any realistic measure. it's an excuse to continue deluded thought processes.
Its the same character, that's what a retcon is.
Originally posted by Disappear
good god.lastly,
am i wrong in saying that the original depiction, intended to be a mutated wolverine with spider-man's stats and clawed gloves, is NOT reminiscent of wolverine as we know him today? have a made a fatal error in judgement?
Let's take a look:
😱 You're right they're nothing alike!
Originally posted by Disappear
i haven't said once that there wasn't a retcon, or that his original appearance in hulk wasn't referenced again under the new, mutant context. i haven't expressed dislike or contempt for it, either. i've merely said, and been berated for saying, that his original appearance in a hulk comic [when envisioned completely differently than he has come to be known] is not sufficient reason for why he can withstand fighting the hulk. christ almighty, did you read what i've written?
But given that Wolverine's first appearance WAS fighting the Hulk it IS part of a sufficient reason to justify that the characters are intended to fight eachother...
Again it was never brought up to prove WHY he's able to fight Hulk.
Originally posted by Disappear
am i wrong in saying that the original depiction, intended to be a mutated wolverine with spider-man's stats and clawed gloves, is NOT reminiscent of wolverine as we know him today? have a made a fatal error in judgement?
Originally posted by Martian_mindEvery time its savage or mindless Hulk.
So everytime Hulk says Hulk smash he's out to kill?Also,i'm saying that once it's obvious to him that he's the stronger of the two he stops,it's what he did with Thor...
Do you really think that hulk holds back? No seriously, cause that's some funny shit right there.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Every time its savage or mindless Hulk.Do you really think that hulk holds back? No seriously, cause that's some funny shit right there.
And how many people have they killed?
Riiight,because Hulk totally kept on trashing Thor during they're fight.I never said he holds back,unless you count him not killing them hi holding back.