Roger Ebert said this in his Incredible Hulk review:“…the Hulk, who is one of the lesser creatures in the Marvel Comics stable.”
That comment right there PROVES that the “best professional critic” doesn’t know jack about comic books. I wonder how many other “facts” he has wrong in all of his other reviews?
There are many reasons why the Hulk is a well-known superhero:
- The Hulk TV show with Bill Bixby and Lou Ferigno is part of Americana. It’s been in syndication for years, and is widely available on DVDs, Netflix, and Hulu.
- The Hulk has been in cartoons on Saturday mornings.
- He has been in comic books since 1962.
- He is the strongest hero in the Marvel Universe.
- He had a major hyped motion picture 5 years ago that generated a large amount of money.
- He is one of the most recognizable comic book characters in the world.
- The most famous wrestler of all time, Hulk Hogan, ripped off his name!
- The Hulk is an A-List character in the Marvel Universe, although his marketing has taken a back seat to Spider-Man and the X-Men in the 1990′s, Hulk, Avengers, and Fantastic Four are the foundation of the Marvel Universe.
- When DC and Marvel crossed over decades ago and matches their A-list characters against each other, they had Superman vs Spider-Man and Batman vs THE HULK. You tell me who is a “lesser known creature”.
- Numerous video games.
- A 1965 Esquire magazine poll amongst college students which “revealed that student radicals ranked Spider-Man and the Hulk alongside the likes of Bob Dylan and Che Guevara as their favorite revolutionary icons.”
he hasnt been the same since his boyfriend died
Hulk Rules! Hulk Rules!
Hulk don’t have boyfriend! Hulk Smash Puny Anonymous!
He didn’t say the Hulk wasn’t well-known, he just said it was one of the lesser creatures in Marvel Comics, which is a true statement.
What does lesser creature mean?
Inferior? Hulk is the strongest.
I am inferior because I have the smallest
penis.Wow, this was a really quality post. In theory I’d like to write like this too – taking time and real effort to make a good article… but what can I say… I procrastinate a lot and never seem to get something done.
I doubt that you would that slightest resemblance of truth from either of those guys.
Rick Deckard (_Harrison Ford_) is a former Blade Runner who is sent back to the job when a team of Replicants come…
Wow, someone completely missed the obvious meaning of Ebert’s sentence. Picture, if you will, a stable. But not a stable that houses normal things, like horses…oh, no, this stable holds Marvel super heroes. So in this stable are Spider-Man, Thor, Dr. Strange, Adam Warlock, etc. All people of high or at least moderate intelligence. Hulk is a beast. He is a mindless, ID-fueled beast of rage. One might call such a beast a “lesser creature.”
Ebert is not wondering how to make a movie about a non-popular hero. He is speculating on how one makes a movie based on a central character who’s only motivation is mindless, bestial rage. Impressive spread of facts, but perhaps you should actually read a sentence before you accuse it of being factually incorrect.
His full quote was: “By the time the Incredible Hulk had completed his hulk-on-hulk showdown with the Incredible Blonsky, I had been using my Timex with the illuminated dial way too often. Consider the dilemma of creating a story about the Hulk, who is one of the lesser creatures in the Marvel Comics stable. You’re dealing with two different characters: Mild-mannered scientist Dr. Bruce Banner, and the rampaging, destructive Hulk, who goes into frenzies of aggression whenever he’s annoyed, which is frequently, because the Army is usually unloading automatic weapons into him.”
Ebert is a MOVIE critic, and I believe he is using “stable” to describe “Marvel movie properties/marketability”. Kinda like Pluto is part of Disney’s stable, and is a “lesser creature”, and probably shouldn’t have a feature film. It has nothing to do with the Hulk’s intelligence. Ebert’s sentence is describing the Hulk as a lesser PROPERTY in the hierarchy of Marvel characters (also called stable).
If it was such an “obvious meaning”, why do we have two different views? Are you that condescending to believe you have a higher intelligence than I?
I may possibly concede that his sentence could be considered ambiguous, however I don’t see him comparing the Hulk’s intelligence to Adam Warlock’s. Perhaps Ebert meant that the Hulk was a one-dimensional character (and therefore a “lesser creature”), because his last paragraph says, “When you get down to it, as a fictional creature, the Incredible Hulk is as limited as a bad drunk. He may be fun to be around when he’s sober, but when he drinks too much, you just feel sorry for the guy. ”
If he did mean “lesser creature” = “limited character”, he was still wrong. Hulk is a very psychological complex character. Anyone who read any of the Hulk’s comics would have seen that. If he meant “lesser creature” = Hulk is inferior in some way to other Marvel heroes, well, Bruce Banner is a genius and the Hulk is the strongest there is. I don’t see why the term is used.
In fact, if you do a search on “lesser creature Hulk”, ONLY ROGER EBERT seems to view the Hulk as a “lesser creature”. Just him. Could he have an insight into the character that 50 years of Marvel fans do not?
You are the second person to take issue with my post. The first being “He didn’t say the Hulk wasn’t well-known, he just said it was one of the lesser creatures in Marvel Comics, which is a true statement.”
That person did not attempt to prove that “true statement”.
“Lesser creature” is generally used to compare men and women, and humans to animals. The Hulk is the strongest there is. He is a pitiful creature, but Ebert is using the term to describe HOW HARD IT IS TO MAKE A MOVIE about the Hulk. It’s not hard.
My point remains the same, regardless if Ebert meant the Hulk was a lesser property or a one-dimensional character” Ebert had no knowledge of the character for him to make that statement.
As for you, you should have presented your argument in a more polite way. Your overall tone and last sentence was not appreciated at all. Your words are very snobby, condescending, and frankly uncalled for.
I do appreciate you contributing, but not your prissy attitude. Anyone ever tell you that before or am I the first?