Kevin Feige says no to another Hulk Movie.

[Mr.M]

You can squeeze WWH into the third movie along with Thanos in the final act. I think the buildup to the Infinite Guantlet and Thanos will happen in Thor 2, GotG, and other solo films. I don't think Thanos will be the main villain in Avengers 2 although that remains to be seen. If Thanos is the main villain in Avengers 2, he very well could remain so in Avengers 3, but if not, the only other comparable threat would be a WWH scenario. After an alien invasion and Thanos, I don't know if you can top that. Ultron and Kang do not fall on his level.

[TheVileOne]

Originally Posted by Kirmit

Just out of interest, how many people here have actually read WWH?

I actually have.

[TheVileOne]

Originally Posted by Mr. Dent

And we all know Hulk would not be the main villain (he wouldn't be the villain at all even against the Avengers because they are the ones who betrayed him) and would eventually rejoin the Avengers and help take down the real villain. It's not a terrible idea at all and creates good conflict and drama, things every moviegoer loves.

Again just not sure if I can buy into that and how audiences will see it either.

And Hulk wasn't really betrayed at all if you honestly think about it. Except by Miek.

[Joeyjojo72]

As I posted before, you have a short first Act (re) introduction to the characters, a looong Act 2 featuring a highly abbreviated adaptation of WWH, everybody hugs it out and then finish with an equally long Act 3 featuring either Thanos or, if hes done after A2, another cosmic level baddie. close to 3 hours for the whole thing.

An alternative - possibly insane - is to do A3 as a two-parter. Film them at the same time and release them 6 months apart. Make it a true MCU cross-over, with every team involved including GotG. In that case, you do Avengers 3: WWH and then Avengers 3: Megateamup!! No?

Oh and a Planet Hulk inspired Hulk movie would be very very cool.

[TheVileOne]

So essentially the first Avengers movie? Because that ain't World War Hulk.

World War Hulk is basically the Hulk as the enemy and it doesn't end with another bad guy.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by Mr. Dent

And we all know Hulk would not be the main villain (he wouldn't be the villain at all even against the Avengers because they are the ones who betrayed him) and would eventually rejoin the Avengers and help take down the real villain. It's not a terrible idea at all and creates good conflict and drama, things every moviegoer loves.

And if the Avengers are the ones who "betrayed" him, then *they're* the bad guys.

Again: either (a) the Hulk or (b) one or more of the other Avengers comes off looking like a villain and/or a douche. That's not "good conflict and drama," that's a disservice to the characters and the fans.

And we've already seen Hulk vs. Thor and Hulk vs. Black Widow; you get Hulk back into the ring against the Avengers again, and it's going to be been-there/done-that all over again ("that's soooooo 2012").

It's a terrible idea.

Planet Hulk: not a terrible idea.
World War Hulk, in any shape or form: a terrible idea. In the comics, and in the movies.

[Oberon sexton]

Planet Hulk on its own has the potential to be better than any other of Marvels current film library and even one of the better CBMs ever made, if done right. All of that Illuminati/WWH stuff is entirely uneccesaary and honestly insulting to the work Marvel studios have done with their other franchises.

I say do PH and end it with him as King but leave it open where Sakaar is destroyed and he can return to Earth for adventures there. It's a bad film on its own but a Quantum of Solace type deal with an emotionally wounded and grieving Bruce Banner in search of the guy who killed off his wife and child, like the Leader for example, would be more entertaining and dare I say it, more rewarding than WWH where everyone is the bad guy.

[wobbly]

Originally Posted by TheVileOne

Again just not sure if I can buy into that and how audiences will see it either.

And Hulk wasn't really betrayed at all if you honestly think about it. Except by Miek.

He was initially betrayed by the Illuminati of Stark, Richards, Strange & Black Bolt when they tricked him into being sent off into space in the first place (Namor and Professor X didn't have any hand in that decision iirc).

Ironically, though they never intended to send him to Sakaar (he was meant to arrive on an uninhabited planet but something went wrong), if Miek had not allowed the ships damaged core to explode then the Hulk would have found happiness there.

[blalex620]

Originally Posted by Kirmit

Just out of interest, how many people here have actually read WWH?

I have

[TheVileOne]

Originally Posted by wobbly

He was initially betrayed by the Illuminati of Stark, Richards, Strange & Black Bolt when they tricked him into being sent off into space in the first place (Namor and Professor X didn't have any hand in that decision iirc).

Ironically, though they never intended to send him to Sakaar (he was meant to arrive on an uninhabited planet but something went wrong), if Miek had not allowed the ships damaged core to explode then the Hulk would have found happiness there.

So basically the heroes betrayal was a good thing. Again Miek was the only guy who truly betrayed him. The Marvel heroes weren't actually the bad guys in the story. Hulk had a vendetta based on false pretenses established by Miek. The heroes didn't blow up Skaar.

I don't think you can make World War Hulk work in movies like the story was in the comic. Same thing with Civil War.

[blalex620]

I think I'm one of the few who's not completely for the "good" hero. One of the reasons I love Marvel is because their heroes have real personalities and aren't all saints. Just because they're heroes doesn't mean they aren't humans with flaws who make decisions they think have the best intentions but turn out to lead to problems. What made WWH a good story to me is because it didn't portray Hulk as a villain but as a man who had everything taken from him and wanted to make those responsible pay. What would have turned him into a villain is if he would have taken Prof X even after the girl(forgot her name) said what she said.

Also I loved Civil War not just because it was hero vs hero (which I found cool) but because it was about both sides fighting for what they believed in. And for the record if we had superheroes in real life eventually something along the lines of the Superhero Registration Act would come to pass. It'd be inevitable.

[jaqua99]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

And if the Avengers are the ones who "betrayed" him, then *they're* the bad guys.

Again: either (a) the Hulk or (b) one or more of the other Avengers comes off looking like a villain and/or a douche. That's not "good conflict and drama," that's a disservice to the characters and the fans.

And we've already seen Hulk vs. Thor and Hulk vs. Black Widow; you get Hulk back into the ring against the Avengers again, and it's going to be been-there/done-that all over again ("that's soooooo 2012").

It's a terrible idea.

Planet Hulk: not a terrible idea.
World War Hulk, in any shape or form: a terrible idea. In the comics, and in the movies.

I ****ing love you for making my...artwork..your avvy HAHAHAH

[TheVileOne]

Originally Posted by blalex620

I think I'm one of the few who's not completely for the "good" hero. One of the reasons I love Marvel is because their heroes have real personalities and aren't all saints. Just because they're heroes doesn't mean they aren't humans with flaws who make decisions they think have the best intentions but turn out to lead to problems. What made WWH a good story to me is because it didn't portray Hulk as a villain but as a man who had everything taken from him and wanted to make those responsible pay. What would have turned him into a villain is if he would have taken Prof X even after the girl(forgot her name) said what she said.

Also I loved Civil War not just because it was hero vs hero (which I found cool) but because it was about both sides fighting for what they believed in. And for the record if we had superheroes in real life eventually something along the lines of the Superhero Registration Act would come to pass. It'd be inevitable.

How it happened in the comics would never be how it would happen in real life.

For starters even in the comics it should've been Cap supporting registration and Iron Man doing the reverse.

Look what happened in Iron Man 2. The government demanded Tony Stark to play ball and he said piss off.

If anything I see it basically working like Ultimate Spider-Man. Nick Fury already knows and keeps tabs on everybody. He has files and has basically registered everybody.

[blalex620]

Originally Posted by TheVileOne

How it happened in the comics would never be how it would happen in real life.

For starters even in the comics it should've been Cap supporting registration and Iron Man doing the reverse.

Look what happened in Iron Man 2. The government demanded Tony Stark to play ball and he said piss off.

If anything I see it basically working like Ultimate Spider-Man. Nick Fury already knows and keeps tabs on everybody. He has files and has basically registered everybody.

Not at all. If you remember he also made a crack about being secretary of state..... Just like in the comics if the president took him serious enough to offer the job I'm sure some time down the road even in the films he'd take it. Take into account Tony is a narcissistic genius (who at that point was working for the government) then of course he would think following the registration act would be the most logical choice to protect everyone, heroes and normal people alike. And with Cap being the patriot fighter he is of course he'd support heroes rights to privacy. So in actuality they had it correct.

And it's already been proven in history that the general people are willing to sacrifice other people's rights for their "increased protection" i.e. the Patriot Act which anyone can see Marvel drew upon as inspiration for their SRA. So I'm sure this is exactly how it would happen in real life. All it takes is one incident involving "heroes" that results in people (especially children) being killed to cause the general public to want these "heroes" to be controlled. And as I stated it would be similar to the SRA but maybe not the exact same

[Artistsean]

I want them to make another Hulk movie and this time bring in She-Hulk. It would be easy enough to just bring her in, the public is already familiar enough with the Hulk and the whole concept that they don't need to worry that anyone would be lost. Just quickly explain things, how the blood transfusion gave his Hulk powers to her. I think they could start expanding on the Hulk world already. They introduced Hulk on TV years ago. Then in his own solo movie, where they really convoluted and messed up his simple origin. But then he got another movie where they didn't really explain in detail what his origin was, plus he fought another Hulk creature without the public getting confused. Then he was brought into the Avengers (where he excelled) and his origin wasn't really explained to much.
So I think they could expand his world more, bring in villains like the Leader, bring in She-Hulk, bring in Rick Jones as his friend and Marlo as his girlfriend (because every superhero needs a supporting cast in their movie) and maybe bring up the ideas of the Gray Hulk and the Red Hulk (eventually).

I guess the studio is worried that another solo Hulk film was work, and they want to play it safe with him this time and keep him in the Avengers world. Which would work, but I think everyone would go see the Hulk movies now. Especially if they were about more than just him running from Thunderbolt Ross. Have him fight the Leader, stuff more like the Avengers had him do.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by blalex620

Not at all. If you remember he also made a crack about being secretary of state..... Just like in the comics if the president took him serious enough to offer the job I'm sure some time down the road even in the films he'd take it. Take into account Tony is a narcissistic genius (who at that point was working for the government) then of course he would think following the registration act would be the most logical choice to protect everyone, heroes and normal people alike. And with Cap being the patriot fighter he is of course he'd support heroes rights to privacy. So in actuality they had it correct.

And it's already been proven in history that the general people are willing to sacrifice other people's rights for their "increased protection" i.e. the Patriot Act which anyone can see Marvel drew upon as inspiration for their SRA. So I'm sure this is exactly how it would happen in real life. All it takes is one incident involving "heroes" that results in people (especially children) being killed to cause the general public to want these "heroes" to be controlled. And as I stated it would be similar to the SRA but maybe not the exact same

The Civil War was about reining in secret identities and unregulated vigilantism, which was obviously par for the course in comic books for half a century. NONE of the MCU heroes has a secret identity or practices vigilante justice (except Tony, who practices vigilante warfare on foreign soil). So it does not apply to the MCU. At all.

[Dark Raven]

Civil War went completely against Iron Man's personality during the Armor Wars where he went off on a crusade of his own (which would be seen as vigilantism). Cap eventually tried to stop him and that's where they first came into conflict on a bigger scale. Iron Man was even kicked out of the Avengers.

Armor Wars was all about Tony protecting his secrets (his technology) and having complete control over it. It was about not wanting the government to have a hand in anything either.

Which is why it's hard to believe that, having established this side of Tony's personality (which is in line with how he had been before, but just a more extreme version, and also more in line with the MCU Stark) that he'd do a complete 180 in Civil War. Civil War was really totally out of character for him.

[jenonso2]

Planet Hulk would be huge risk and the cost alone would be staggering.

[wobbly]

Originally Posted by TheVileOne

So basically the heroes betrayal was a good thing.

No, not really, as that potential happy ending was not what they had planned: They intended to send him to an inhabited planet where he was out of their hair. That was their primary motivation: to be rid of him without having to dirty their hands by killing him, and they gave no thought as to how Banner would take to a life of total isolation either.

Hulk ending up on Sakaar, overcoming the dire circumstances he found himself in, and potentially finding a happy life, was never in the Illumaniti's plan.

Betrayal cannot be excused as a 'good thing' if the outcome, no matter how good it might have been, was never what the perpetrators had ever intended.

Again Miek was the only guy who truly betrayed him. The Marvel heroes weren't actually the bad guys in the story. Hulk had a vendetta based on false pretenses established by Miek. The heroes didn't blow up Skaar.

As far as the hulk was concerned they did. And Miek's hand in the allowing the core to explode was not revealed until later in the story. From a readers POV the Hulk had every right to be pissed off with them big time. First with the exile, then when he had overcome that the ship that they sent him away in destroys the life he had fought so hard for.

I don't think you can make World War Hulk work in movies like the story was in the comic. Same thing with Civil War.

Agreed. I don't think they could do Planet Hulk the same either.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by Dark Raven

Civil War went completely against Iron Man's personality during the Armor Wars where he went off on a crusade of his own (which would be seen as vigilantism). Cap eventually tried to stop him and that's where they first came into conflict on a bigger scale. Iron Man was even kicked out of the Avengers.

Armor Wars was all about Tony protecting his secrets (his technology) and having complete control over it. It was about not wanting the government to have a hand in anything either.

Which is why it's hard to believe that, having established this side of Tony's personality (which is in line with how he had been before, but just a more extreme version, and also more in line with the MCU Stark) that he'd do a complete 180 in Civil War. Civil War was really totally out of character for him.

Yeah, if I ever see Mark Millar in real life, first thing I'm gonna ask him: "Why did you get the lead characters reversed in Civil War?" Cap would've logically been PRO-Reg, and Tony would've logically been ANTI-Reg. But apparently Millar had a hard-on for Cap, because he chose to make *him* the selfless martyr and Tony the fascist prick. Go figure.

[blalex620]

Originally Posted by Dark Raven

Civil War went completely against Iron Man's personality during the Armor Wars where he went off on a crusade of his own (which would be seen as vigilantism). Cap eventually tried to stop him and that's where they first came into conflict on a bigger scale. Iron Man was even kicked out of the Avengers.

Armor Wars was all about Tony protecting his secrets (his technology) and having complete control over it. It was about not wanting the government to have a hand in anything either.

Which is why it's hard to believe that, having established this side of Tony's personality (which is in line with how he had been before, but just a more extreme version, and also more in line with the MCU Stark) that he'd do a complete 180 in Civil War. Civil War was really totally out of character for him.

You have to remember though Armor Wars was written in the 80s a good 15 years before they started changing Starks personality. No comic stays the same throughout the years they wanted to do a different take on Stark and they did and you forget they had been building Stark 's new personality for a while before Civil War so to mention a story from years before as a basis on why Stark shouldn't have acted the way he did in Civil War is mute. Just look at how many times they've changed his origin story

[blalex620]

And you talk about secret identities in the MCU the only people who knows everyone's identity is Fury and Shield. The government only knows who IM, Cap, and Hulk are same as the comics. Just because they haven't mentioned secret identities as much doesn't mean they aren't there or that they won't be there for other characters.

[Dark Raven]

Originally Posted by blalex620

You have to remember though Armor Wars was written in the 80s a good 15 years before they started changing Starks personality. No comic stays the same throughout the years they wanted to do a different take on Stark and they did and you forget they had been building Stark 's new personality for a while before Civil War so to mention a story from years before as a basis on why Stark shouldn't have acted the way he did in Civil War is mute. Just look at how many times they've changed his origin story

It's silent or unable to speak, is it?

[blalex620]

Originally Posted by Dark Raven

Civil War went completely against Iron Man's personality during the Armor Wars where he went off on a crusade of his own (which would be seen as vigilantism). Cap eventually tried to stop him and that's where they first came into conflict on a bigger scale. Iron Man was even kicked out of the Avengers.

Armor Wars was all about Tony protecting his secrets (his technology) and having complete control over it. It was about not wanting the government to have a hand in anything either.

Which is why it's hard to believe that, having established this side of Tony's personality (which is in line with how he had been before, but just a more extreme version, and also more in line with the MCU Stark) that he'd do a complete 180 in Civil War. Civil War was really totally out of character for him.

You have to remember though Armor Wars was written in the 80s a good 15 years before they started changing Starks personality. No comic stays the same throughout the years they wanted to do a different take on Stark and they did and you forget they had been building Stark 's new personality for a while before Civil War so to mention a story from years before as a basis on why Stark shouldn't have acted the way he did in Civil War is mute. Just look at how many times they've changed his origin story

[blalex620]

Originally Posted by Dark Raven

It's silent or unable to speak, is it?

Yes it should remain silent and unable to speak