I submitted a really long post that bad-WiFi ate, so I'll summarize here:
Unlimited rage is two words we can understand separately (Actually, 'unlimited' is probably nonsense) but make no sense together. Even if the Hulk's rage were capable of becoming 'infinite' the mental effects would make him insane, like a man on a gallon of PCP, and the strength effects would be suicidal (he would kill himself on accident). Even ignoring that, Pre-Crisis Earth One Superman had automatically unlimited strength and speed, barring special circumstances and inconsistent writing he easily moved galaxies at faster than light speed and could do so forever without tiring. DC - now and then - uses a much higher logorhythmic scale for the top tiers of strength than Marvel does. Marvel likes to confine their ultra-brick battles to city or at most mountain busting levels, so that characters regularly classed as much stronger than the Hulk - like Thanos - are at best planet busters. Even the New 52 Superman, who is a cripple compared to PC Earth One Superman, can move a planet's mass without any significant difficulty in his mid-20s.
DC just tends to like spacey-sci-fi more, and they feel freer to let physical battles ascend to the absolutely physics baffling. Marvel tends to like to keep things 'closer to home', in terms people can more readily understand (Helicarriers, holding up mountains) while DC likes to actually demonstrate (Rather than throw out as hyperbole) unlimited mechanical strength.
Also, I don't understand why people take in-comic statements of a character's potential seriously, given that those making the observations are clearly and frequently proven wrong. Some assclown of a supervillian overestimating his robot gimmick does not prove the Hulk has unlimited power, it only proves he's able to overcome a hyperbolically inflated robot. Objective strength feats and demonstrated failures and limits show you a character's strength, not the barely-informed subjective opinion of some scientist or scanner gadget which has all the reliability of a Star Trek holodeck.
Basically, you can't take statements of a character's power seriously in comics. With rare exceptions, like Jim Shooter's Solar, any statement of their power level will be shown wrong by several orders of magnitude in the next five issues. Hyperbole, more hyperbole, one-shot freak feats and subjective character judgments never pan out in actual story terms.
Most impressive Marvel strength feats tend to be attributable to Silver Age Thor and Wonder Man (popping the adamantium Ultron's head off like a doll's), Hulk has almost never shown to operate anywhere near that except in Planet Hulk and Secret Wars. Hulk thinks he's the strongest there is, but yet again - why does a rage-maddened childish expression of Banner's feelings of helplessness have an opinion we take seriously? Characters can, and obviously are, frequently wrong about how 'powerful' they and others are. I don't get why people think that someone saying something proves it in a comic anymore than it does in real life.
Log in to comment