Comments on: Comic Critics #55!

By: Rob

Rob — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 17:08:34 +0000

Who is this “Hulk” you speak of? Is he new in Action Comics?

By: jccalhoun

jccalhoun — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 14:21:59 +0000

I don’t buy anything with Loeb’s name on it. Trick me once, shame on you. Trick me dozens of times, shame on me.

That being said, I still don’t understand the logic of taking a financially successful team off of Hulk and restarting the book at number 1 yet again.

By: T.

T. — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 04:31:52 +0000

The fundamental reason why World War Hulk was good and why Loeb’s Hulk isn’t is because there were very high emotional stakes for WWH.

The fundamental reason Loeb’s Hulk isn’t good is Jeph Loeb wrote it.

By: T.

T. — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 04:30:41 +0000

I feel like commentators are missing the joke (or maybe I’m misreading the comments). The comic is suggesting that WWH and Loeb’s Hulk are essentially the same thing.

In that case, this installment is an epic fail. Nothing is as bad as a Jeph Loeb comic. Nothing.

By: Mike Blake

Mike Blake — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:27:37 +0000

I’m not sure adding the “Whoosh!” panel is an example of nuanced storytelling…

By: TimCallahan

TimCallahan — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:31:34 +0000

But…he DID stop making them pay. So he’s a big fat liar in that case.

Loeb’s version is more honest: He’s the f***ing Hulk! Literally, in case of the Ultimate universe.

By: Ricardo

Ricardo — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:15:00 +0000

I dropped the book immediately two issues into that lambasting slug fest called Planet Hulk. And that was my last Marvel book after Marvel decided to drop Milligan & Allred’s X-books.

By: Bry

Bry — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:45:33 +0000

”The f***ing Hulk is here“? Really?

By: Nitz the Bloody

Nitz the Bloody — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:25:32 +0000

” Good strip. I liked WWH, and have been enjoying Loeb’s Hulk for the most part, but there’s nothing nuanced about either of them. It’s Hulk punching people. Sometimes that’s enough. ”

The fundamental reason why World War Hulk was good and why Loeb’s Hulk isn’t is because there were very high emotional stakes for WWH. Vengeance may not be an original motivation*, but the amount of anger and hurt that King Hulk had at the Illuminati was justified to his knowledge. It was well-done melodrama, in the sense that Hulk’s anger was on such a epic scale.

Similarly, contrast lines like ” Never stop making them pay ” with lines like ” The f***ing Hulk is here! “

By: jazzbo

jazzbo — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:50:30 +0000

Good strip. I liked WWH, and have been enjoying Loeb’s Hulk for the most part, but there’s nothing nuanced about either of them. It’s Hulk punching people. Sometimes that’s enough.

By: Tom Fitzpatrick

Tom Fitzpatrick — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:41:57 +0000

I kinda like World War Hulk, at least he kicked the crap out of everybody, and gave some real good a$$-kicking before he went down.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:38:33 +0000

I feel like commentators are missing the joke (or maybe I’m misreading the comments). The comic is suggesting that WWH and Loeb’s Hulk are essentially the same thing. They both feature the Hulk beating up other heroes to make himself feel better (I haven’t read Loeb’s Hulk, so I’m basing this on the comic strip).

When he does the Whoosh sign over his head, the clerk is implying that the customer missed the sarcasm in his claim that WWH had nuanced storytelling.

By: DigitalGonzo

DigitalGonzo — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:10:25 +0000

I think I’m one with the crowd here: liked Planet Hulk, didn’t like World War Hulk (Strange Smash? Really?), and accept Loeb’s Hulk as Hulk smashin’ stuff.

By: Flythe

Flythe — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:00:56 +0000

At first I didn’t like this strip because I thought he said “Planet Hulk” based on the description. Then I re-read it and noticed he said “World War Hulk,” and now I fully endorse it.

By: Adam

Adam — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:00:14 +0000

I liked World War Hulk. I haven’t been a crossover junkie since “The Infinity Gauntlet,” but WWH was a rare story where I bought almost every tie-in issue.

I…enjoy…Loeb’s Hulk, but it’s jarring to go from the high-conflict, high-emotion style of Greg Pak to the slobbernocker that Loeb is writing. McGuiness’ well-drawn art and the pretty colors help. 11 issues in 16 months doesn’t.

And is anybody else sick of all the Hulk specials Marvel’s published in the last year? It’s like filler for the missing Loeb issues.

By: Nitz the Bloody

Nitz the Bloody — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:53:11 +0000

” But like the points out, I still don’t understand why WWH was considered good and Loeb’s Hulk isn’t. ”

World War Hulk had an actual story to it? For once, I have to disagree with Sean and Brandon; World War Hulk intended to actually portray a conflict and resolve it in a dramatic manner, and did so quite well considering its nature ( I.E. the crossover event ). Loeb’s Hulk seems to consist of little more than a big mean jerk hitting people, now switched to two big mean jerks hitting people. The protagonist of World War Hulk was a monster who wanted retribution for the way he’d suffered, so the result of the Red Hulk comic ( like any other recent Jeph Loeb work ) is audacity without story justification.

By: Squashua

Squashua — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:42:24 +0000

World War Hulk was not as good as I’d hoped it was.

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:32:57 +0000

I liked Jeph Loeb’s Hulk, although when I decided I needed to cut some titles from my pull list it was one of the first ones I cut. But like the points out, I still don’t understand why WWH was considered good and Loeb’s Hulk isn’t.

By: Jake

Jake — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:28:28 +0000

Neither World War Hulk or the current Hulk book are as good as Planet Hulk was. Hell, the first half of Bruce Jones’ run was better than Hulk currently is.

By: Scott MacIver

Scott MacIver — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:24:26 +0000

I like Jeph Loeb’s Hulk, and I didn’t like World War Hulk.

Now I feel all backwards…