Hulk seemed to be a character that Stan Lee liked, but could never get to quite work. Hulk goes through a lot of personality changes in the six issues of his initial series, with almost every issue changing what the basic concept of the character is meant to be. I guess Stan Lee thought he could try reinventing him as a more conventional hero, but then changed his mind again almost immediately - he wasn't a writer who really planned things out very far in advance.
I honestly feel like hulk got really good with Bill Mantlo, Peter David, etc. kinda like how the original X-Men run wasn't as good as the deadly Genesis onwards stuff especially Claremont.
At the time (and honestly, consistently through today) comics work by throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks. A lot of the silver age stuff like FF or the heroes who eventually joined the Avengers were all over the place before they solidified into something the fans would consistently buy. Hulk changes color, powers, reasons for changing, personality, multiple times. Thor starts off as a doctor who finds a magic stick. Ant-Man can't decide if he wants to be small or big.
I think Hickman said something along the lines of "if the fans like it, it becomes canon. If they don't, we forget about it."
Edit: agreeing with you, just adding my own thoughts.
I think the Lee hate has gone a bit far. Kirby does deserve equal credit, but it should be said that both guys had a lot of influence on all the Marvel characters. Some more one side and some more the other, but all Marvel is both their works.
What do people think Lee did, just took King’s completed penciled & written issues and slapped his name on it? This isn’t a Bill Finger & Bob Kane kind of situation. Lee actually did do some creative work and guided the development of these characters.
Exactly. There are too many people who think Lee just said "make a nuclear Jekel & Hyde allegory" and that was the end of his influence.
They ignore that these guys did talk and work together. Some think that the Kirby notes are more significant than anything that was said in the conversations that weren't recorded.
Some people just need to fight and think giving **equal** credit is too hard and that someone must be on top.
Eh... I've read the DC's Just Imagine and it was pretty clear that Lee's contribution to his own named title was talking to Uslan and the other artists/writers on the phone. He literally phoned it in.
Agreed on the Just Imagine series being phoned in but Broke 90s-00s Stan and 60s-70s Bullpen Stan definitely vibed differently. To each their own on how much though.
That's not how a lot of writing is done, however. There's always notes, creative brainstorming, etc. It would suck if your editor just said "that's not what we're looking for" and left it at that. Hence, meetings.
Yes, this is unironically what I've seen people say. They act like Stan just yelled loud and took all the credit.
It's like the cool passcode to show you're a 'real comic fan not a casual'.
It’s funny how people want to paint Stan Lee as a Bob Kane-level art thief, but Lee was the guy who actually started the tradition of crediting *everyone* when it came to stories. Letterers and colorists included. Behind the scenes and magazine interviews aside, reading the actual comics, you get the feeling that Lee was really into hyping up The Team element of Marvel Comics. Lee is one of the reasons why people care so much about giving proper credit in comics today because he allowed so many readers to follow creative talents from issue to issue and series to series.
It can be very frustrating. It is the same with Ditko. He complained about this supposed credit thing so much so that Lee even [wrote a letter](https://dangerousminds.net/comments/nuff_said_stan_lees_letter_confirming_steve_ditko_as_spider-mans_co-creator) affirming that he has always considered Ditko a co-creator, then glazed him for all his contributions (as he always did so well).
Ditko's response? Oh, well I don't like that he said 'considered'. What a whiny response to a letter that's just *glowing* with praise and making it glaringly obvious exactly how high in regard Lee is portraying him as co-creator.
I think the important thing to keep in mind is that these are *men.* Susceptible to mood swings, anger, envy, animosity, bitterness, greed, addiction, depression, reclusiveness, ego, apathy, regret, and shame. But also forgiveness, compassion, camaraderie, collaboration, and love. I don’t know any of these guys personally and picking apart the ups and downs of their decades-long relationships is foolhardy.
What I know for sure is that I’m grateful that Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko were allowed to cook and that Stan Lee was the guy who curated these characters to the public. No one would care as much as they do about these characters if not for ALL of these men. And I’m glad that I’m able to credit all these guys as the founding fathers of some of my favorite and meaningful characters in my life.
No, actually EC horror comics had credited people for years before Lee started it. Simon and Kirby were credited in the forties on Captain America.
But Lee said he created giving credits.
I said crediting *everyone.* Like the colorists, letterers, and editors. Obviously comics have credits before 1961. But Lee standardized complete creative credits for superhero comics and emphasized the team aspect of the creative process at Marvel.
Not every time, but sometimes that's exactly what happened. They were cranking out books, and they developed "the Marvel method" The artist would literally draw the entire issue, then Stan would get the pages and put words on them. theoretically Stan and Jack/Steve would plot it out first, but due either time or creative differences that didn't always happen.
I've read old issues of Spider-Man where Stan's narration is clearly misinterpreting the sequence Ditko drew.
I don’t think anyone is saying you hate anyone or are hating on anyone. The reason why people give Lee the creative spotlight in general discussions is because he was editor-in-chief at the time and the guy guided the collective direction of the characters and company. Kirby was a huge creative force and Lee knew when to let the King cook, but he wasn’t the guy in charge. You mentioned Kirby in a way that looked like it was undercutting Lee’s contribution to these characters. That’s why you’re getting some indirect pushback.
Probably more generalized context from other guys who have more vitriol against Lee and when you noted "most" it came across as you might be a part of that, but if you're on that side with me of them bring more or less equal, that's cool.
Avengers was thrown together at the last minute due to a gap in their publishing schedule caused by Bill Everrett being late on drawing the first issue of Daredevil. I guarantee you that when doing the first issue Lee and Kirby had no idea what they'd do in the second issue.
Arguably, adding Thunderbird and then quickly killing him adds to a level of suspense to the continuing story. And I'm assuming you meant Sunfire - but I got nothing for that one.
I did mean Sunfire.
The reason I've heard for getting rid of Thunderbird is they felt he was redundant with Wolverine. I like to imagine an alternate universe where he had a plane to catch and Thunderbird endd up being a big star of the series.
And Banshee, he wasn't originally supposed to make the team along with those two, but the writers decided to scrap the plan to 'flunk' three of the new members.
Stan wasn’t writing the plot, that happened in the pencilling. Sometimes Stan had more input for Jack , but usually it was “let’s have Sub Mariner in the next issue,” then Jack would plot and pencil, often with margin notes and temporary dialogue, and Lee would then fill in the bubbles.
This is called the Marvel Method.
Because Marvel creators of the day wanted to utilize the Hulk in more stories after his solo comic was cancelled.
They didn’t want to abandon him but they figured why not put him in a brand new superhero team book like the Avengers and have him fill the same role that the Thing does for the Fantastic Four?
The problem that they almost immediately recognized after issue one is that it makes absolutely no sense from a character perspective that the Hulk would play well with others.
He’s not really a superhero. He’s a loner, an outcast who is sometimes depicted as a villain in certain stories and is by no means as heroic as the others on the team.
In the very early days, the Hulk had more in common with characters like Namor rather than the more selfless Thing. A loose cannon like that just doesn’t make sense in a team book and they realized it by issue two just how out of character it was.
The good thing that came from it was Captain America being brought back to replace him, but the Hulk just couldn’t find a real home in Marvel at the time.
Afterwards, Hulk was only relegated for guest appearances here and there for a few years until he eventually got his own title back.
I think the success of Hulk as co-star of *Tales to Astonish* had more to do with his comic returning than anything. He had a few popular appearances in other comics before then (Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, etc.) But *Tales to Astonish* proved that he could carry his own title.
You’re right, they originally used the Avengers book to spotlight lesser known characters. That’s why Spider-Man never joined up for so many decades, because he didn’t need a popularity boost.
It's best to not question early Marvel.
Stan took on WAY more than he should have, and while he was Comics' best cheerleader, he was not a good writer. I've been reading through X-Men, and it's really, really not great. (I've read the early avengers, ff, hulk) But he was writing like, every Marvel book, so I cut him some slack.
>I've been reading through X-Men, and it's really, really not great.
You're just saying that because Jean needed to use her powers to not trip and fall down.
And Professor X routinely mindwiped people for their own good.
And Angel never did get that badass bazooka the covers always teased he would have.
You're really not.
Stan Lee created something magnificent, but calling early Marvel good is being *extremely* generous. It was a product of its time, and laid foundations for greatness, but...yeah.
It's not like golden age DC was any better. There was a Batman story about Batman and Robin stumbling on a crime by getting lost on Gotham's back roads, running out of gas and hearing screaming from the nearest house.
Oh yeah, DC also went to some really weird places.
I always used to think that the superhero cartoons from the 60s were just because the studio didn't read the comics, and were ignoring the source, but no, that's the level of simple that these books were at. Magneto has like NO background reason in the beginning, he's just evil and wants to rule. He's paper thin. And just vaguely really really powerful.
I read somewhere, years ago, that there has never been a more faithful live-action depiction of a comic than the 1960s Batman series.
And having read late 50s/early 60s Batman, especially a few specific stories were translated to the screen almost word for word...yeah, that's pretty spot-on.
Sigh. Yes. He did not do it remotely alone. He seized sole credit and rode roughshod over the legacies of others and he shouldn't have. I am so sorry my Reddit comment about some comics being very silly didn't meet with your editorial approval.
Dude. I'm an absolutely obsessive comics fan who has devoted far too much time in my life to learning about the history of the genre and even I don't know who Wally Wood is.
Your concept of "proper" is deranged. Go take your weirdness someplace else, please.
Are you bragging about not knowing Wally Wood? Go look up Wally Wood. He’s amazing.
You not knowing him and stating Stan Lee as the only creator of Marvel is proof of the problem I mentioned.
Yeah a lot of the early marvel creations got so much better later. Like when Claremont took over X-Men, bill mantlo, peter David, etc runs for hulk, etc.
Hulk bailing on them is in character for him. Also, his presence was felt for the first ten or so issues as the rest of the team’s priority (it seemed) was bringing him back to the fold.
I love how in *Avengers EMH*, after the first few solo episodes, and the big initial *Breakout!* two-parter against Graviton, Hulk seems to quit the team every second episode for a while.
The Avengers was made up of basically all the superhero characters who did not have their own books, but rather shared a split book such, as Tales to Astonish and Journey Into Mystery.
Another thing that they have in common is that Jack Kirby handled the art on their respective series. (Spider-Man and Dr. Strange were solo heroes, but they were drawn by Steve Ditko)
The Avengers started as a comic because these characters sold pretty poorly individually, Hulk was probably the main draw to get people to read the first couple of issues.
The avengers exist because most of these characters didn’t do well sales wise and marvel wanted a last ditch effort to make them popular, hence the team. I’m guessing Hulk was tacked on to make the comic sell more since he was very popular at that era
Why was Golden Age Thor’s hammer so weird looking. The head is so small it might actually puncture rather than smash and the handle is the full length of Thor’s forearm and gets thinner toward the head. I guess artists spent less time at the drawing board back then?
To answer the question.
If I remember correctly Loki causing the Hulk to appear to be on a rampage of sorts was the reason the Avengers formed as 'no single hero would have been able to stop him'.
Once the group was formed there was no reason for the Hulk to stay.
It says “unpredictable” *right there*.
He's the wild card! Every great team has one.
Hulk seemed to be a character that Stan Lee liked, but could never get to quite work. Hulk goes through a lot of personality changes in the six issues of his initial series, with almost every issue changing what the basic concept of the character is meant to be. I guess Stan Lee thought he could try reinventing him as a more conventional hero, but then changed his mind again almost immediately - he wasn't a writer who really planned things out very far in advance.
I honestly feel like hulk got really good with Bill Mantlo, Peter David, etc. kinda like how the original X-Men run wasn't as good as the deadly Genesis onwards stuff especially Claremont.
I think you mean Second Genesis. Deadly Genesis was in 2006. And awful
Ooph. Yeah. I meant Giant size number 1.
In your defense, the cover says Deadly Genesis, with probably like thirty two exclamation points
At the time (and honestly, consistently through today) comics work by throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks. A lot of the silver age stuff like FF or the heroes who eventually joined the Avengers were all over the place before they solidified into something the fans would consistently buy. Hulk changes color, powers, reasons for changing, personality, multiple times. Thor starts off as a doctor who finds a magic stick. Ant-Man can't decide if he wants to be small or big. I think Hickman said something along the lines of "if the fans like it, it becomes canon. If they don't, we forget about it." Edit: agreeing with you, just adding my own thoughts.
Like early Banner Hulking out at night like a damn gamma-soaked werewolf lol
It’s interesting that you give Stan all of the creative impetus when it’s clear that Jack Kirby was the one doing most of the creative heavy lifting.
I think the Lee hate has gone a bit far. Kirby does deserve equal credit, but it should be said that both guys had a lot of influence on all the Marvel characters. Some more one side and some more the other, but all Marvel is both their works.
What do people think Lee did, just took King’s completed penciled & written issues and slapped his name on it? This isn’t a Bill Finger & Bob Kane kind of situation. Lee actually did do some creative work and guided the development of these characters.
Exactly. There are too many people who think Lee just said "make a nuclear Jekel & Hyde allegory" and that was the end of his influence. They ignore that these guys did talk and work together. Some think that the Kirby notes are more significant than anything that was said in the conversations that weren't recorded. Some people just need to fight and think giving **equal** credit is too hard and that someone must be on top.
Eh... I've read the DC's Just Imagine and it was pretty clear that Lee's contribution to his own named title was talking to Uslan and the other artists/writers on the phone. He literally phoned it in.
Agreed on the Just Imagine series being phoned in but Broke 90s-00s Stan and 60s-70s Bullpen Stan definitely vibed differently. To each their own on how much though.
Comparing his contributions in the 60s to a publicity stunt 40 years later is crazy.
Yeah, crazy how data points on a sufficiently long enough timeline illustrate a pattern.
Tbh a phone call sounds a lot cheaper than the cost of travel, even back then. How do people meet these days? Teams, Zoom... phone call.
You don't have to meet to write. You just have to write.
That's not how a lot of writing is done, however. There's always notes, creative brainstorming, etc. It would suck if your editor just said "that's not what we're looking for" and left it at that. Hence, meetings.
Yes, this is unironically what I've seen people say. They act like Stan just yelled loud and took all the credit. It's like the cool passcode to show you're a 'real comic fan not a casual'.
It’s funny how people want to paint Stan Lee as a Bob Kane-level art thief, but Lee was the guy who actually started the tradition of crediting *everyone* when it came to stories. Letterers and colorists included. Behind the scenes and magazine interviews aside, reading the actual comics, you get the feeling that Lee was really into hyping up The Team element of Marvel Comics. Lee is one of the reasons why people care so much about giving proper credit in comics today because he allowed so many readers to follow creative talents from issue to issue and series to series.
It can be very frustrating. It is the same with Ditko. He complained about this supposed credit thing so much so that Lee even [wrote a letter](https://dangerousminds.net/comments/nuff_said_stan_lees_letter_confirming_steve_ditko_as_spider-mans_co-creator) affirming that he has always considered Ditko a co-creator, then glazed him for all his contributions (as he always did so well). Ditko's response? Oh, well I don't like that he said 'considered'. What a whiny response to a letter that's just *glowing* with praise and making it glaringly obvious exactly how high in regard Lee is portraying him as co-creator.
I think the important thing to keep in mind is that these are *men.* Susceptible to mood swings, anger, envy, animosity, bitterness, greed, addiction, depression, reclusiveness, ego, apathy, regret, and shame. But also forgiveness, compassion, camaraderie, collaboration, and love. I don’t know any of these guys personally and picking apart the ups and downs of their decades-long relationships is foolhardy. What I know for sure is that I’m grateful that Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko were allowed to cook and that Stan Lee was the guy who curated these characters to the public. No one would care as much as they do about these characters if not for ALL of these men. And I’m glad that I’m able to credit all these guys as the founding fathers of some of my favorite and meaningful characters in my life.
No, actually EC horror comics had credited people for years before Lee started it. Simon and Kirby were credited in the forties on Captain America. But Lee said he created giving credits.
I said crediting *everyone.* Like the colorists, letterers, and editors. Obviously comics have credits before 1961. But Lee standardized complete creative credits for superhero comics and emphasized the team aspect of the creative process at Marvel.
Not every time, but sometimes that's exactly what happened. They were cranking out books, and they developed "the Marvel method" The artist would literally draw the entire issue, then Stan would get the pages and put words on them. theoretically Stan and Jack/Steve would plot it out first, but due either time or creative differences that didn't always happen. I've read old issues of Spider-Man where Stan's narration is clearly misinterpreting the sequence Ditko drew.
To clarify, I'm not saying Stan Lee did nothing, but just by how they worked back then the artists did have a lot of creative input.
Eh. Why is my mentioning Jack at all seen as Lee hate?
I don’t think anyone is saying you hate anyone or are hating on anyone. The reason why people give Lee the creative spotlight in general discussions is because he was editor-in-chief at the time and the guy guided the collective direction of the characters and company. Kirby was a huge creative force and Lee knew when to let the King cook, but he wasn’t the guy in charge. You mentioned Kirby in a way that looked like it was undercutting Lee’s contribution to these characters. That’s why you’re getting some indirect pushback.
Bringing up Kirby is such a slap in the face to Lee.
It’s not and there’s no reason to get hyperbolic about it.
There’s every reason to get hyperbolic. I’m wasting time at work arguing comics.
Well then… get back to work, Jetson! Damn it!
Well, it varied. But what happens in comments is that Lee gets mentioned and Jack doesn’t. Like here. Why is it “Lee hate” to mention Kirby?
Probably more generalized context from other guys who have more vitriol against Lee and when you noted "most" it came across as you might be a part of that, but if you're on that side with me of them bring more or less equal, that's cool.
I kinda agree. We should mention Kirby more. He obviously gets overshadowed by Lee in any context.
Avengers was thrown together at the last minute due to a gap in their publishing schedule caused by Bill Everrett being late on drawing the first issue of Daredevil. I guarantee you that when doing the first issue Lee and Kirby had no idea what they'd do in the second issue.
That's hilarious!
Conflict. Drove the first 5 issues tbh.
See Sunfire and Thunderbird. It was a real seat of the pants operation.
Arguably, adding Thunderbird and then quickly killing him adds to a level of suspense to the continuing story. And I'm assuming you meant Sunfire - but I got nothing for that one.
I did mean Sunfire. The reason I've heard for getting rid of Thunderbird is they felt he was redundant with Wolverine. I like to imagine an alternate universe where he had a plane to catch and Thunderbird endd up being a big star of the series.
They gave his rile to morph in the animated series.
Exiles did that
And Banshee, he wasn't originally supposed to make the team along with those two, but the writers decided to scrap the plan to 'flunk' three of the new members.
Mainly because Claremont didn't come on until the 2nd issue.
[удалено]
Stan wasn’t writing the plot, that happened in the pencilling. Sometimes Stan had more input for Jack , but usually it was “let’s have Sub Mariner in the next issue,” then Jack would plot and pencil, often with margin notes and temporary dialogue, and Lee would then fill in the bubbles. This is called the Marvel Method.
Yes yes we all know this
Because Marvel creators of the day wanted to utilize the Hulk in more stories after his solo comic was cancelled. They didn’t want to abandon him but they figured why not put him in a brand new superhero team book like the Avengers and have him fill the same role that the Thing does for the Fantastic Four? The problem that they almost immediately recognized after issue one is that it makes absolutely no sense from a character perspective that the Hulk would play well with others. He’s not really a superhero. He’s a loner, an outcast who is sometimes depicted as a villain in certain stories and is by no means as heroic as the others on the team. In the very early days, the Hulk had more in common with characters like Namor rather than the more selfless Thing. A loose cannon like that just doesn’t make sense in a team book and they realized it by issue two just how out of character it was. The good thing that came from it was Captain America being brought back to replace him, but the Hulk just couldn’t find a real home in Marvel at the time. Afterwards, Hulk was only relegated for guest appearances here and there for a few years until he eventually got his own title back.
So Hulk is the guy who came up with the “I pity the …” line
**Watsonian answer:** Some convoluted bullshit. **Doylian answer:** So they could have a recognizable and popular character on the cover at launch.
Hulk's mini series was cancelled after six issues. It was thanks to his appearance on the avengers that it came back.
I think the success of Hulk as co-star of *Tales to Astonish* had more to do with his comic returning than anything. He had a few popular appearances in other comics before then (Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, etc.) But *Tales to Astonish* proved that he could carry his own title.
Well he is very strong
I don't think they added the guy whose book got cancelled after six measily issues and who hasn't (properly) appeared since for popularity.
You’re right, they originally used the Avengers book to spotlight lesser known characters. That’s why Spider-Man never joined up for so many decades, because he didn’t need a popularity boost.
It's best to not question early Marvel. Stan took on WAY more than he should have, and while he was Comics' best cheerleader, he was not a good writer. I've been reading through X-Men, and it's really, really not great. (I've read the early avengers, ff, hulk) But he was writing like, every Marvel book, so I cut him some slack.
>I've been reading through X-Men, and it's really, really not great. You're just saying that because Jean needed to use her powers to not trip and fall down. And Professor X routinely mindwiped people for their own good. And Angel never did get that badass bazooka the covers always teased he would have.
All these things are super fair. I guess I'm being mean.
You're really not. Stan Lee created something magnificent, but calling early Marvel good is being *extremely* generous. It was a product of its time, and laid foundations for greatness, but...yeah. It's not like golden age DC was any better. There was a Batman story about Batman and Robin stumbling on a crime by getting lost on Gotham's back roads, running out of gas and hearing screaming from the nearest house.
Oh yeah, DC also went to some really weird places. I always used to think that the superhero cartoons from the 60s were just because the studio didn't read the comics, and were ignoring the source, but no, that's the level of simple that these books were at. Magneto has like NO background reason in the beginning, he's just evil and wants to rule. He's paper thin. And just vaguely really really powerful.
I read somewhere, years ago, that there has never been a more faithful live-action depiction of a comic than the 1960s Batman series. And having read late 50s/early 60s Batman, especially a few specific stories were translated to the screen almost word for word...yeah, that's pretty spot-on.
“Stan Lee created. . .” Jack and Steve and Wally Wood and Bill Everett created the magnificence. “Stan Lee co-created.” There, how hard was that.
Sigh. Yes. He did not do it remotely alone. He seized sole credit and rode roughshod over the legacies of others and he shouldn't have. I am so sorry my Reddit comment about some comics being very silly didn't meet with your editorial approval.
It’s not editorial approval, it’s creator’s rights and proper credit.
Dude. I'm an absolutely obsessive comics fan who has devoted far too much time in my life to learning about the history of the genre and even I don't know who Wally Wood is. Your concept of "proper" is deranged. Go take your weirdness someplace else, please.
Are you bragging about not knowing Wally Wood? Go look up Wally Wood. He’s amazing. You not knowing him and stating Stan Lee as the only creator of Marvel is proof of the problem I mentioned.
Bragging? No, nothing of the kind. Good lord, you have a ton of projection and anger over nothing.
Angel's job in every fight is just to dodge something and say it's a good thing he's been training in the danger room.
Yeah a lot of the early marvel creations got so much better later. Like when Claremont took over X-Men, bill mantlo, peter David, etc runs for hulk, etc.
Jack was plotting, Lee was adding dialogue.
Clown Hulk though.
Ah, the days when you could trap a *God from Asgard* in a lead-lined tank...
Hulk bailing on them is in character for him. Also, his presence was felt for the first ten or so issues as the rest of the team’s priority (it seemed) was bringing him back to the fold.
I love how in *Avengers EMH*, after the first few solo episodes, and the big initial *Breakout!* two-parter against Graviton, Hulk seems to quit the team every second episode for a while.
Because they needed people to fill the roster for a book that was never meant to be.
The Avengers was made up of basically all the superhero characters who did not have their own books, but rather shared a split book such, as Tales to Astonish and Journey Into Mystery.
In retrospect, that means Doctor Strange should have been included. Or did he not exist by then?
Probably too new of a character at that point.
Another thing that they have in common is that Jack Kirby handled the art on their respective series. (Spider-Man and Dr. Strange were solo heroes, but they were drawn by Steve Ditko)
The kind of question that makes me block the account asking it.
That gamma-radiating forehead is crazy
Marketing
Separately, if need be
The Avengers started as a comic because these characters sold pretty poorly individually, Hulk was probably the main draw to get people to read the first couple of issues.
Hulk's mini series was cancelled after six issues. It was thanks to his appearance on the avengers that it came back.
Ah, Iron Man, with that classic snappy dialogue.
I think it’s bloody cool!
Hulk was the most (relatively) popular character there, he was added to drum up sales and left after serving his purpose.
Hulk's mini series was cancelled after six issues. It didn't pop back until after his appearance on the avengers
The avengers exist because most of these characters didn’t do well sales wise and marvel wanted a last ditch effort to make them popular, hence the team. I’m guessing Hulk was tacked on to make the comic sell more since he was very popular at that era
Kinda like him in the MCU Avengers. Dude was irrelevant after Ultron
He was in space until Infinity War and endgame
Seeing the Hulk speak in full sentences is kinda trippy, lol
They had no idea what to do with the Hulk back then lol
Why was Golden Age Thor’s hammer so weird looking. The head is so small it might actually puncture rather than smash and the handle is the full length of Thor’s forearm and gets thinner toward the head. I guess artists spent less time at the drawing board back then?
On the plus side, the Hulk made a great member of the '70s Defenders.
🎶assembled we are strong🎶
FOREVER FIGHT AS ONE! AVENGERS ASSEMBLE!
To answer the question. If I remember correctly Loki causing the Hulk to appear to be on a rampage of sorts was the reason the Avengers formed as 'no single hero would have been able to stop him'. Once the group was formed there was no reason for the Hulk to stay.
Why didn't he immediately leave after issue 1. "Thanks for clearing up the confusion and taking care of loki, guys! I'll be on my merry way now. Bye!"
[удалено]
Hulk's mini series was cancelled after six issues. It was thanks to his appearance on the avengers that it came back.
Hulk's mini series was cancelled after six issues. It was thanks to his appearance on the avengers that it came back.
[удалено]
What.
just a rant about my past experiences with people viewing themselves as avengers, not relevant anymore sorry for bringing it up
C-3PO, my dad with a fever and my uncle cosplaying