Amount

The InGwenible Hulk

11 Apr 2015 18:03 #41435 by lfan
The InGwenible Hulk was created by lfan
Cashing in on the Spider Gwen phenomenon, Marvel is doing a special set of variant covers in June, featuring Gwen as various superheroes including Wolverine, Thor, and Dr Strange, just to name a few. Of course, this one piqued my interest:



ElF

This message has an attachment image.
Please log in or register to see it.

The following user(s) said Thank You: Raa, Ravens_ghost, rednecko, Agent00Soul

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • lfan
  • lfan's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
More
11 Apr 2015 19:09 #41436 by D_Berkhart
Replied by D_Berkhart on topic The InGwenible Hulk
That does ignite the imagination! Great looking artwork too.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 Apr 2015 20:08 #41438 by TwiceOnThursdays
Replied by TwiceOnThursdays on topic The InGwenible Hulk
This needs to be a comic.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Apr 2015 10:00 - 12 Apr 2015 10:29 #41446 by AuGoose
Replied by AuGoose on topic The InGwenible Hulk
To be honest, I don't like it. Not this particular piece, which is exactly as titillating as it is intended to be, but the whole massive Gwen-as-everybody run it comes from.

Gwen is a great character and very much in the spotlight as a far more interesting foil for Peter in the last two Spidey movies. And don't get me wrong, having her take up the role as the web-slinging protagonist is inspired.

But...

Superheroes have always suffered a bit of a forced dichotomy between the person and the powers. To the extent we see things like plot-powered collars that shut off a person's every 'special' ability while miraculously not impairing their 'normal' bodily function in any other way - a split as clean as cleaving the planes of diamond. I think the everyone-is-Gwen antics are actually undermining that the 'person' sides of the iconic characters have any value at all. Who cares about the sacrifice of Dr, Stephan Strange or the genius of Tony Stark when with a wave of the brush we can hand all their powers to a teenager? I think decoupling person and power so casually cheapens them both.

Over-thinking, I'm sure. But it still bugs me.
Last edit: 12 Apr 2015 10:29 by AuGoose.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Apr 2015 15:29 #41448 by castor
Replied by castor on topic The InGwenible Hulk

AuGoose wrote: To be honest, I don't like it. Not this particular piece, which is exactly as titillating as it is intended to be, but the whole massive Gwen-as-everybody run it comes from.

Gwen is a great character and very much in the spotlight as a far more interesting foil for Peter in the last two Spidey movies. And don't get me wrong, having her take up the role as the web-slinging protagonist is inspired.

But...

Superheroes have always suffered a bit of a forced dichotomy between the person and the powers. To the extent we see things like plot-powered collars that shut off a person's every 'special' ability while miraculously not impairing their 'normal' bodily function in any other way - a split as clean as cleaving the planes of diamond. I think the everyone-is-Gwen antics are actually undermining that the 'person' sides of the iconic characters have any value at all. Who cares about the sacrifice of Dr, Stephan Strange or the genius of Tony Stark when with a wave of the brush we can hand all their powers to a teenager? I think decoupling person and power so casually cheapens them both.

Over-thinking, I'm sure. But it still bugs me.



Well i would disagree from an intelectual standpoint.

The Gwen explosion is largely based i think on one concept: Emma Stone in the Recent Spidermen Movies is a great character, better arguably then Peter Parker. She is the one really take away from it . So the concept of what if she had the powers instead of petter is slightly subversive but fine.

(and yeah this is entirely the movies: The Comic Gwen from 35 years ago is just Stan Lee going back to his soap opera roots)

They have done plenty of comic covers like this over the years-What if spiderman was a wolverine, or an iron man, or a Black widow was in Jurassic Park, And these are fine . Cash Grabs yeah but fine.

But what about the intelectual devolopments-well this website is devoted to the concept kinda of Womens Strength, and what if and nohting is wrong if they where stronger then men. Okay fair. What if instead Tony stark being a engineer who devoloped a hyperpowerful suit, Stacy was an Engineer who developed a hyperpowered suit? That i think still works One of the Clever conceits that the movies make is-She is kinda smarter then Peter is. In 2 she makes the big electrical invention out of the concents of a policeman trunk. And Emma Stone did it without being a stereotype nerd. Shes just smart. So while it maybe strange to See iron man Logan-that kinda works. And in this case if she applied herself to the study of gamma Radiation.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 Apr 2015 14:16 #41458 by lfan
Replied by lfan on topic The InGwenible Hulk
Here's a few others as well as the rundown of the covers she'll be on:

www.flickeringmyth.com/2015/04/the-ingwe...covers-for-june.html

ElF

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • lfan
  • lfan's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
More
13 Apr 2015 20:56 #41462 by Woodclaw
Replied by Woodclaw on topic The InGwenible Hulk

AuGoose wrote: To be honest, I don't like it. Not this particular piece, which is exactly as titillating as it is intended to be, but the whole massive Gwen-as-everybody run it comes from.

Gwen is a great character and very much in the spotlight as a far more interesting foil for Peter in the last two Spidey movies. And don't get me wrong, having her take up the role as the web-slinging protagonist is inspired.

But...

Superheroes have always suffered a bit of a forced dichotomy between the person and the powers. To the extent we see things like plot-powered collars that shut off a person's every 'special' ability while miraculously not impairing their 'normal' bodily function in any other way - a split as clean as cleaving the planes of diamond. I think the everyone-is-Gwen antics are actually undermining that the 'person' sides of the iconic characters have any value at all. Who cares about the sacrifice of Dr, Stephan Strange or the genius of Tony Stark when with a wave of the brush we can hand all their powers to a teenager? I think decoupling person and power so casually cheapens them both.

Over-thinking, I'm sure. But it still bugs me.


This is a pretty interesting point that I both agree and disagree with.
On one hand, I often considered that the excessive dependence of a character from costumed identity and a power set in the long run is a sign of either lazy writing or underdeveloped character. While it's undoubtable that having powers and/or leading a double life will impact a character's psyche, making this the one dominant element in writing means cheapening the character as whole since the human element becomes a simple sidedish. Granted, this is not a universal rule, this style of work might suit some characters -- like the Punisher. Making the components of human and powers not fully integrated and interchangeable is the basic of many What If/Elseworlds scenarios -- one of my favorite J. Michael Straczynski's "Bullet Points" work exactly on this base -- allowing the authors to explore different versions of the same character.
In this sense I think that decoupling is a good thing.
On the other hand, I see your point: Elseworlds and similar scenarios are often funny and interesting because they are complete stories, inserting this kind of situations in an ongoing narrative smell of easy sales more often than not. Also, as I said above, being a super should have a sizeable impact on a character. So in this sense, I think that separating the two halves without making a gigantic deal of it is the worst idea ever.

On the subject of abusing Gwen right now ... it's not anything new. Last year Marvel pretty much abused Rocket Racoon and Groot on every avaible cover after Guardians of the Galaxy smashed the box office. Based on the decade and the imprint, Wolverine, Batman, Superman, Spider-man, the Punisher, Venom, Lobo and probably others were plastered all across the board to boost sales, it's just a basic marketing trick that just won't die ... and sometimes it bugs me too.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
14 Apr 2015 06:21 #41465 by TwiceOnThursdays
Replied by TwiceOnThursdays on topic The InGwenible Hulk

Woodclaw wrote:

AuGoose wrote: To be honest, I don't like it. Not this particular piece, which is exactly as titillating as it is intended to be, but the whole massive Gwen-as-everybody run it comes from.

Gwen is a great character and very much in the spotlight as a far more interesting foil for Peter in the last two Spidey movies. And don't get me wrong, having her take up the role as the web-slinging protagonist is inspired.

But...

Superheroes have always suffered a bit of a forced dichotomy between the person and the powers. To the extent we see things like plot-powered collars that shut off a person's every 'special' ability while miraculously not impairing their 'normal' bodily function in any other way - a split as clean as cleaving the planes of diamond. I think the everyone-is-Gwen antics are actually undermining that the 'person' sides of the iconic characters have any value at all. Who cares about the sacrifice of Dr, Stephan Strange or the genius of Tony Stark when with a wave of the brush we can hand all their powers to a teenager? I think decoupling person and power so casually cheapens them both.

Over-thinking, I'm sure. But it still bugs me.


This is a pretty interesting point that I both agree and disagree with.
On one hand, I often considered that the excessive dependence of a character from costumed identity and a power set in the long run is a sign of either lazy writing or underdeveloped character. While it's undoubtable that having powers and/or leading a double life will impact a character's psyche, making this the one dominant element in writing means cheapening the character as whole since the human element becomes a simple sidedish. Granted, this is not a universal rule, this style of work might suit some characters -- like the Punisher. Making the components of human and powers not fully integrated and interchangeable is the basic of many What If/Elseworlds scenarios -- one of my favorite J. Michael Straczynski's "Bullet Points" work exactly on this base -- allowing the authors to explore different versions of the same character.
In this sense I think that decoupling is a good thing.
On the other hand, I see your point: Elseworlds and similar scenarios are often funny and interesting because they are complete stories, inserting this kind of situations in an ongoing narrative smell of easy sales more often than not. Also, as I said above, being a super should have a sizeable impact on a character. So in this sense, I think that separating the two halves without making a gigantic deal of it is the worst idea ever.

On the subject of abusing Gwen right now ... it's not anything new. Last year Marvel pretty much abused Rocket Racoon and Groot on every avaible cover after Guardians of the Galaxy smashed the box office. Based on the decade and the imprint, Wolverine, Batman, Superman, Spider-man, the Punisher, Venom, Lobo and probably others were plastered all across the board to boost sales, it's just a basic marketing trick that just won't die ... and sometimes it bugs me too.


This is a thorny issue.

Taking the powers from one character, and displaying them through the lens of another character can be both the worst writing and some of the best. A lot of What if's are truly dreadful, but some are excellent, and lead to new thoughts on both the alternative character and the current character. Stan Lee is famous for telling people that Spider-Man isn't someone with the proportional powers of Spider, that's simply the powers, he's really Peter Parker, and you define that FIRST. THAT's the story, and the genius that defined why Marvel (at the time) was totally unlike DC. Using Gwen Stacy to re-exaimine this question is a valid story telling device. As is using Miles Morales. Done correctly it makes you re-think things about Peter as well as the new characters. This is also precisely why they had "normal" Spider-Man meet both of them, so you could contrast them directly.

The new Thor, pretty fun stuff. With a side helping of looking at "Who is Odinson, when he's not "Thor" and he doesn't have his hammer, I think Thor DID define himself by his hammer and being worthy of it (and that was pretty silly/stupid of him). So what is he without it? What is someone else like with it? What exactly is "it" anyway? That can lead to an interesting series of stories. And the true measure of this stretch won't be told until more of those questions are dealt with. (I'm afraid that when I'm finally told why Odinson is "no longer worthy" that I won't like it, and it'll color my perception of the rest of the arc, though really that's a bit unfair to the story, it's more than that).

If you ask people to list of some of the best superhero comics the list will be things like Astro City, Dark Knight, Watchmen, The Killing Joke, Kingdom Come, All Star Superman, Marvels, Hellblazer, Sandman, Robinson's Starman (etc). (I'll leave out Maus, Transmetropolitan, V for Vendetta, Sin City, Strangers in Paradise, etc as not Super hero). You can add to this list things like Miller's run on Daredevil, or the Claremont/Byrne/Austin run on X-men, or Denny O'Neil's run on Batman (etc), but those start to get harder, and they aren't the ones that people talk about first. (Also, O'Neil is famous for bringing the core question of "Who is Batman?" as the primary tool for telling the stories. IS he Bruce Wayne that puts on a Batman costume to fight crime? Or Batman that puts on a Bruce Wayne suit to do the things he needs Bruce Wayne for? Asking these sorts of questions are at the core of swapping powers around in a character, or putting Kal El in Kandor, where he's "just another person", and then showing what makes him "Superman" is more than just a list of powers)

But what does my first list have in common? They ALL are NOT "continuity" and would be classified as "else world's stories" (when they were written, if such existed at the time). And I'd say that while they were marketing ploys to make money, they were first and foremost fantastic stories. Yes even Killing Joke, that it was later brought into continuity after the fact has nothing to do with that it as written outside the normal continuity, and I'm maintaining that the freedom that doing so allowed it, is part of the reason it makes these list of "bests". And, that it allowed it to tell about a slightly different Batman/Joker/etc, and then be free to examine that. They are all alternative takes on characters, Astro City making it's own from full cloth (and Astro City #1 is one of the best essays on Superman, despite it not being a Superman story, and clearly it's telling great stories but ALSO commenting on comic book characters we all know and love) Hellblazer by taking a character from Swamp Thing and spinning a tale, Sandman and Starman by crafting new stories, making a new character, but ones that are freed from the past. constraints, freezing the author to just tell the story they want.

Germane to this conversation, Starman was very concerned with Legacy and what makes a Hero. Jack was TOTALLY not "Hero material", but ended up making a better Hero than his brother David, who failed spectacularly in one of his first outings as Starman. This is very much "Take this existing characters powers, and show what the three people are like with them: Ted Knight, Jack Knight, and David Knight. With a side helping of "Is Ted Knight helping society better by being a scientist or putting on a colorful costume and fighting crime?" That these questions are central to Robinson's Starman are part of the reason why it's so good.

Watchmen was forced to do that after Moore wasn't allowed to use the Charlton heroes (Captain Atom, The Question, Peacemaker, etc). And was probably better for it, but it's also clearly a meta tome about comics book, written as a comic book, and has plenty to say about Superman and Batman.

On a side note, this is why I liked Oracle, as she was a running essay on isn't she MORE EFFECTIVE as Oracle than she ever was as Batgirl (and probably even more so than Batman. And maybe Batman should spend more time as Bruce Wayne using his REAL superpower, gobs of money, to solve problems.)

So yes, these things CAN end up defocusing on the person -- but done CORRECTLY do the exact opposite. IT's pretty had to do that with just images though, so mostly these are just fun cool alternative covers (that you can choose not to buy). I'm not a huge fan of alternative covers, but sometimes I get cool art out of them. (I just never ever ever buy more than one copy of a comic, as despite everything, they should not be encouraged.)

(* Also, some of the proper "ElseWorlds" stories are pretty damn decent too like Red Son, a few of them are pretty rancid as well, and I think led DC to stop making them. When really, they just need to commission good stories, not "Elseworlds Stories")

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
14 Apr 2015 23:16 - 15 Apr 2015 17:18 #41481 by Agent00Soul
Replied by Agent00Soul on topic The InGwenible Hulk
At first I thought Marvel was going to do a series where Gwen gets to be all those characters for one issue and, speaking as a Spider-Gwen fan btw, I was totally ready to let the shark into the tank and get the ramps set up.

But when I realized it was just variant covers, I didn't mind. Marvel does those on a regular basis anyway and sometimes the art is good enough to make me spend a bit extra for one, although I too never ever buy more than one copy of the same comic.

Now as for the Gwen hulk-out art itself, I love it! Her facial expressions and poses are not only dynamic, but they clearly imply that we are looking at Gwen taking the place of Bruce Banner in the 60s turning into a scary monster, not Jen Walters or Betty Ross becoming their more savvy alter-egos. It's definitely InGwenible Hulk and not InGwenible She-Hulk. Kudos to artist Nick Bradshaw for essentially keeping the Amazonian proportions of the She-Hulk (still feminine with a muscular hour-glass figure and large, gravity defying breasts) but making it clear that this is a "Hulk smash!" moment. Whenever Jen or Betty get that far gone, they get beefed up into completely muscle-bound androgynous forms.

Finally, I don't think Marvel has given us a good female Hulk-out since their two-page fan service opus in Ultimate Hulk Vs Wolverine #4 six years ago. We were overdue. I think this might be deliberate. If you search "She-Hulk transformation" in Deviant Art, the first thing that pops up is this piece by Ben Dunn which bears more than a little resemblance:

www.deviantart.com/art/She-Hulk-transformation-253991713
Last edit: 15 Apr 2015 17:18 by Agent00Soul.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
Time to create page: 0.073 seconds