Kevin Feige says no to another Hulk Movie.

[JeetKuneDo]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

You guys are taking this personal on Hulk's behalf, and I don't think that's reasonable. The concern is entirely practical. Hulk is expensive to have on screen, and he's even more expensive to have on screen and do right. All-CGI superheroes right now are 200M for dodgy effects only on the screen for half the film (re: Green Lantern). Hulk done right would be more expensive, and RDJ's Iron Man is barely recouping a 200M budget, and Hulk isn't on that level.

If that's the reason...don't bother. (Which apparently is exactly what they are doing) Why waste everyone's time making an inferior product when you know it's going to be inferior going in?

But that's not the only problem. When they do put the Hulk onscreen they take away his ability to speak and his personality. (I guess because of that horrid TV show?) It's so sad to see another CGI character have a personality in the Hulk's own movie while he is only allowed to balefully stare and grunt. (Abomination) So the "he's expensive" excuse doesn't cover everything. The Abomination was just as costly. (And so was Gollum and Yoda)

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

But the problem goes further, as per Joss Whedon:

He knows that Banner is boring without having Thor, Cap, and Iron Man in the room to keep everyone awake. Applause to Whedon for knowing this and realizing it's a waste of time to make a Hulk solo movie.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

at the end of the day, a quality Hulk movie is a challenge on a creative level because the concepts are so different and the Banner/Hulk dynamic can cause even great directors like Ang Lee and Louis Leterrier to go off course.

They face the problem of having an actor play Banner...and actor who is the "star" of the movie. That means they are forced to dominate the narrative with a boring character. It's an impossible situation...A director can only do so much.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

BUT wait you say, forget Banner! That's the cry of the New Hulk fans, they love WWHulk, Planet Hulk, Fall of Hulks, Worldbreaker all that Gammaporn (tm). Hulk is the central character there... and he is valued by his feats, especially his ability to thoroughly best otherwise incredibly powerful Marvel characters. And best them he does!

Unfortunately, it's unfilmable,

Well...then don't bother with Hulk solo movies. As Whedon said, only use him in movies where other characters can keep the audience awake.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

I know many people love Hulk, but if you think it's because he talks and has his own thoughts, you're mistaken about the core appeal of the character.

I can only say why he appeals to me. ...And it's because I love his personality (in most runs of the comic at least). He's kinda like a cross between a 5 year old kid and a Labrador Retriever with muscles. I'm definitely not mistaken about why I love the Hulk. The mute non-character who has appeared in all live action versions of the Hulk has very little appeal to me. He's now minor guest star used as a walking special effect who provides "wow" moments instead of a real character with his own personality and motivations.

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by JeetKuneDo

If that's the reason...don't bother. (Which apparently is exactly what they are doing) Why waste everyone's time making an inferior product when you know it's going to be inferior going in?

But that's not the only problem. When they do put the Hulk onscreen they take away his ability to speak and his personality. (I guess because of that horrid TV show?) It's so sad to see another CGI character have a personality in the Hulk's own movie while he is only allowed to balefully stare and grunt. (Abomination) So the "he's expensive" excuse doesn't cover everything. The Abomination was just as costly. (And so was Gollum and Yoda)

He knows that Banner is boring without having Thor, Cap, and Iron Man in the room to keep everyone awake. Applause to Whedon for knowing this and realizing it's a waste of time to make a Hulk solo movie.

They face the problem of having an actor play Banner...and actor who is the "star" of the movie. That means they are forced to dominate the narrative with a boring character. It's an impossible situation...A director can only do so much.

Well...then don't bother with Hulk solo movies. As Whedon said, only use him in movies where other characters can keep the audience awake.

I can only say why he appeals to me. ...And it's because I love his personality (in most runs of the comic at least). He's kinda like a cross between a 5 year old kid and a Labrador Retriever with muscles. I'm definitely not mistaken about why I love the Hulk. The mute non-character who has appeared in all live action versions of the Hulk has very little appeal to me. He's now minor guest star used as a walking special effect who provides "wow" moments instead of a real character with his own personality and motivations.

Keeping the audience awake? Can you quote anyone who said any such thing? If not, please respect that I cannot be part of a non-existent conversation with people who think the Hulk is boring.

On the technical side, Gollum and Yoda were more costly, as were the Na'vi, but they were in much more profitable franchises. If Hulk was a billion dollar franchise, he'd already have had a trilogy of Hulk-centric film.

On the creative side, the Hulk has always had a personality, and that has come through each time. Perhaps it's not the personality you enjoy though, perhaps it's not overt enough, but it was very much there, each Hulk had their quiet moments. The animators did very well, imho. Even without the Banner actor, the animators can only do so much as well though, which is why they rely on actors to carry the film instead of hoping they have somehow become Pixar-level CGI storytellers.

Most people who like the Hulk like his primal emotions. Even your examples, a small child and an animal. These are not great vocalizers... but they have plenty of personality in their actions and cries. Adding a little vocabulary changes little, "Puny God" didn't make us say "Oh, NOW he's a character!" and like WWHulk, the Avengers film, and Ultimates, Hulk is at his best beating up other heroes, which just another reason to not make a solo movie, on top of the money and creative issues. Having him speak so that his personality will be more transparent will not address any of those issues.

[JeetKuneDo]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Keeping the audience awake? Can you quote anyone who said any such thing? If not, please respect that I cannot be part of a non-existent conversation with people who think the Hulk is boring.

I was not expecting you to take that statement so literally.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

On the technical side, Gollum and Yoda were more costly, as were the Na'vi, but they were in much more profitable franchises. If Hulk was pulling Star Wars, LOTR and Avatar numbers, he'd already have had a Hulk-centric film.

This is a chicken/egg thing. Is the Hulk not popular because he's not a real character or is he not a real character because he's not popular? Since no one has ever actually tried to make the Hulk a real character, I hesitate to blame his lack of popularity on that.

On the creative side, the Hulk has always had a personality, and that has come through each time. Perhaps it's not the personality you enjoy though, perhaps it's not overt enough, but it was very much there, each Hulk had their quiet moments. The animators did very well, imho. Even without the Banner actor, the animators can only do so much as well though, which is why they rely on actors to carry the film instead of hoping they have somehow become Pixar-level CGI storytellers.

The box office is a problem. If Marvel is content to not make Hulk movies or make Hulk movies with very limited box office potential, then by all means continue with the way they are doing it.

I would suggest trying something else if they want to expand the number of people who enjoy Hulk movies.

[The Shrike]

Originally Posted by Dark Raven

Perhaps El Maybe is going to say that it's all a Whedon conspiracy and that he's lying just to discredit LR.

You're right, insiders would never mislead us.

[The Shrike]

Originally Posted by JeetKuneDo

....This is a chicken/egg thing. Is the Hulk not popular because he's not a real character or is he not a real character because he's not popular? Since no one has ever actually tried to make the Hulk a real character, I hesitate to blame his lack of popularity on that....

The Hulk is the most popular Marvel character after Spiderman. To say otherwise is to deny decades of proof.

[Bruce Malone]

Originally Posted by The Shrike

The Hulk is the most popular Marvel character after Spiderman. To say otherwise is to deny decades of proof.

Wolverine is 2nd to spider-man and Iron Man is arguably near spider-man among the general public as well.

[xeno000]

Originally Posted by The Shrike

The Hulk is the most popular Marvel character after Spiderman. To say otherwise is to deny decades of proof.

The Hulk may be a popular character in the comics, but in the Marvel Cinematic Universe he wasn't popular until The Avengers. The box office numbers for both Hulk solo outings are empirical proof of that.

[wobbly]

Whedon's comments on the Hulk surprise me a little there. I'm sure he knows there's more to the Hulk than that simplified description ("half superhero, half werewolf"), so him (sort of) ruling out a solo outing based on that seems a little odd to me...

I'd agree that description fits for Hulk on TV and films so far, which have (for understandable reasons) focused on Banner and limited Hulk time drasticly, reducing him to a mostly grunting mute. Avengers gave us the best we have seen so far (we got a ####king grin out of him for once!!), but even there they limited his speech to just 2 words.

So for me all have made the same fundamental error in not really giving him a proper personality, something he's had almost all the time in the books. At first he was a Hyde type character. Surly, mean, and had a bit of a nasty streak, then he developed into the most recognised "Hulk Smash" version, but for most of the last 20 years or so he has been a good deal smarter (they have recently reverted him back to 'Hulk Smash' levels however...).

Bottom line for me is we still have not really had a true Hulk done in live action. One where the Hulk is aware of his own self identity, one that either cannot stand or can barely tolerate that he is also Banner, and one who talks a lot more than just a couple of token lines.

When they try a Hulk film like that, and that one doesn't do well, then I'd say they have a point. But while they keep reducing his live action version in this manner that argument against having Hulk solo films is a false one (imo).

[wobbly]

Originally Posted by The Shrike

You're right, insiders would never mislead us.

A bit different. That was a film already in production, script sorted, scenes already in the can etc.

The 2 big scoops concerning Marvel & DC are about longer term plans/strategies for films that are not in production at all at this time.

[samsnee]

Hulk is a fun character. Avengers proved that. He's just not a leading character. As others have said, he and Banner are more interesting when they have other heroes to play off of. Otherwise it's just Banner running from something for half the movie.

[wobbly]

Originally Posted by samsnee

Hulk is a fun character. Avengers proved that. He's just not a leading character. As others have said, he and Banner are more interesting when they have other heroes to play off of. Otherwise it's just Banner running from something for half the movie.

Only if they continue to follow that model of it being all about Banner, with the Hulk turning up as as a mostly grunting mute a few times to get him out of whatever jam Bruce has landed in.

When they try a Hulk film that has him with a personality I can recognise from the books (and this would mean giving him more than a few words) they might just find that is the formula that works.

Until it's been tried, to say the Hulk cannot work on his own is a false claim imo, because they have not really done the Hulk yet on film. It's been getting closer, with Avengers being the closest so far (that smile on it's own showed more personality and intelligence than anything from 03 or TIH), but they aint there yet.

[cherokeesam]

Apropos of nothing, there's another franchise Marvel officially shut down in all the news that has 'sploded on the Internets today: Feige said unequivocally that they're not doing Runaways now. In case anybody (like me) was still holding out hope.

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by The Shrike

The Hulk is the most popular Marvel character after Spiderman. To say otherwise is to deny decades of proof.

How do you measure who's more popular over the decades? Do you weight for population or exposure? Right now, Wolverine, Spider-Man and Iron Man are miles ahead of Hulk.

Originally Posted by JeetKuneDo

I was not expecting you to take that statement so literally.

Oh, uh... my bad.

This is a chicken/egg thing. Is the Hulk not popular because he's not a real character or is he not a real character because he's not popular? Since no one has ever actually tried to make the Hulk a real character, I hesitate to blame his lack of popularity on that.

Hulk is a real character. He even speaks in every film he's in. He doesn't walk around and have conversations, but he's a real character, just not the central character. And he is popular, he's just not mega popular. And a lot of his popularity rides on him being that monster/loose cannon. If anything, overexpose him and he'll get Spikificated, as he has in every story where he doesn't dominate the universe.

The box office is a problem. If Marvel is content to not make Hulk movies or make Hulk movies with very limited box office potential, then by all means continue with the way they are doing it.

I would suggest trying something else if they want to expand the number of people who enjoy Hulk movies.

That's a nice suggestion, unfortunately, there are no ways to carry out that suggestion that are financially available. And all of it rides on the unproven notion that more screen time and lines will make Hulk everyone's favorite superhero. That's a nice hope for a Hulk fan, but doesn't make much sense to anyone else.

Originally Posted by wobbly

Whedon's comments on the Hulk surprise me a little there. I'm sure he knows there's more to the Hulk than that simplified description ("half superhero, half werewolf"), so him (sort of) ruling out a solo outing based on that seems a little odd to me...

I'd agree that description fits for Hulk on TV and films so far, which have (for understandable reasons) focused on Banner and limited Hulk time drasticly, reducing him to a mostly grunting mute. Avengers gave us the best we have seen so far (we got a ####king grin out of him for once!!), but even there they limited his speech to just 2 words.

So for me all have made the same fundamental error in not really giving him a proper personality, something he's had almost all the time in the books. At first he was a Hyde type character. Surly, mean, and had a bit of a nasty streak, then he developed into the most recognised "Hulk Smash" version, but for most of the last 20 years or so he has been a good deal smarter (they have recently reverted him back to 'Hulk Smash' levels however...).

Bottom line for me is we still have not really had a true Hulk done in live action. One where the Hulk is aware of his own self identity, one that either cannot stand or can barely tolerate that he is also Banner, and one who talks a lot more than just a couple of token lines.

When they try a Hulk film like that, and that one doesn't do well, then I'd say they have a point. But while they keep reducing his live action version in this manner that argument against having Hulk solo films is a false one (imo).

What you just described was a Half Werewolf Half Superhero.

I know it sounds rude, but I think they need to team with Pixar and do an all CGI Hulk movie, because that's what Hulk fans seem to want, a CGI principal character, with CGI supporting characters and villains, and CGI sets in the background getting demolished in various ways... I think that's a lot easier to do in a CGI film than try to put everything up against a green screen in real life.

[wobbly]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

What you just described was a Half Werewolf Half Superhero.

Traditionally, Werewolves don't speak at all, they have no self awareness, no awareness of their human self, no intelligence beyond that of an animal etc. They are (traditionally) pretty much mindless killing machines until someone with a silver bullet puts an end to them.

I can understand why anyone who only knows of the Hulk's live action efforts might think of him like that, but if we are to compare the comic Hulk to any one classical horror figure then Mr. Hyde is far closer.

Mr. Hyde is the unintentional creation of Jekyll, he is intelligent, he speaks, is fully self aware (and aware of his dual nature), but unfortunately he is a also sadistic killer.

But a better description for me would be to say the Hulk is more a composite of ideas from both Hyde and Frankenstein's monster. Werewolf would only enter into my head because of him changing at night in the early days (that did not last long at all), but that would be where that similarity ends for me.

[JeetKuneDo]

Originally Posted by The Shrike

The Hulk is the most popular Marvel character after Spiderman. To say otherwise is to deny decades of proof.

Agreed that he is one of the most popular characters in Marvel comics. Is it fair to say he has usually been more popular than Thor, Iron Man, and Capt America?

Which is why I'm thinking he should be more popular than he is in movies. He currently lags far behind Thor, Cap, and Iron Man. So when wondering why the Hulk did not do as well as characters who were less popular than him in the comics, the first thing that comes to mind is, "What did they change about the character from the comics?" It stands to reason that that may be the culprit. Something changed him from "more popular than Thor and Cap" to "less popular than Thor and Cap".

The answer came back, "They made him a mute"...."They almost completely removed him from the narrative in favor of Banner"..."They removed the idea that he is a separate entity"...."They don't really allow him to have a personality".

In essence they created a whole new character who is a minor part of the story and functions as a special effect and/or "wow moment".

So instead of accepting the idea that "the public doesn't like the Hulk character" (as I've heard some suggest), I submit someone should actually try putting the Hulk character onscreen before we say something like that.

[JeetKuneDo]

Originally Posted by wobbly

Whedon's comments on the Hulk surprise me a little there. I'm sure he knows there's more to the Hulk than that simplified description ("half superhero, half werewolf"), so him (sort of) ruling out a solo outing based on that seems a little odd to me...

I'd agree that description fits for Hulk on TV and films so far, which have (for understandable reasons) focused on Banner and limited Hulk time drasticly, reducing him to a mostly grunting mute. Avengers gave us the best we have seen so far (we got a ####king grin out of him for once!!), but even there they limited his speech to just 2 words.

So for me all have made the same fundamental error in not really giving him a proper personality, something he's had almost all the time in the books. At first he was a Hyde type character. Surly, mean, and had a bit of a nasty streak, then he developed into the most recognised "Hulk Smash" version, but for most of the last 20 years or so he has been a good deal smarter (they have recently reverted him back to 'Hulk Smash' levels however...).

Bottom line for me is we still have not really had a true Hulk done in live action. One where the Hulk is aware of his own self identity, one that either cannot stand or can barely tolerate that he is also Banner, and one who talks a lot more than just a couple of token lines.

When they try a Hulk film like that, and that one doesn't do well, then I'd say they have a point. But while they keep reducing his live action version in this manner that argument against having Hulk solo films is a false one (imo).

Originally Posted by wobbly

Only if they continue to follow that model of it being all about Banner, with the Hulk turning up as as a mostly grunting mute a few times to get him out of whatever jam Bruce has landed in.

When they try a Hulk film that has him with a personality I can recognise from the books (and this would mean giving him more than a few words) they might just find that is the formula that works.

Until it's been tried, to say the Hulk cannot work on his own is a false claim imo, because they have not really done the Hulk yet on film. It's been getting closer, with Avengers being the closest so far (that smile on it's own showed more personality and intelligence than anything from 03 or TIH), but they aint there yet.

Ditto x1000. "That won't work" sounds like what people say about everything...until it does work. Remember when Hollywood was laughing at James Cameron while he was "spending too much money" on Titanic? Remember when the idea of using the Spider-Man costume on film was snickered at? (Hey DC/WB....how about using the Batman costume for a change?)

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Hulk is a real character. He even speaks in every film he's in. He doesn't walk around and have conversations, but he's a real character, just not the central character. And he is popular, he's just not mega popular. And a lot of his popularity rides on him being that monster/loose cannon. If anything, overexpose him and he'll get Spikificated, as he has in every story where he doesn't dominate the universe.

Not exactly sure what "spikification" is, but having the Hulk speak two words per movie isn't enough to develop a character. It's almost a tease...and somewhat puzzling. "Hey...he can talk...why the hell didn't he talk to Betty in the cave?" As awesome as "Puny god" was...he demonstrated he can talk with no problem...so what was stopping him before that? Why in the world did they make a speaking character into a non-speaking character?

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

That's a nice suggestion, unfortunately, there are no ways to carry out that suggestion that are financially available. And all of it rides on the unproven notion that more screen time and lines will make Hulk everyone's favorite superhero. That's a nice hope for a Hulk fan, but doesn't make much sense to anyone else.

That covers screentime...but does it really cost more to have him speak? Do they pay Ruffalo extra for each line the Hulk gets or something?

And like I said...if you can't do it....fine...don't bother. (Sounds like Whedon knows this, thank god) They are just doing damage to the character. The public already got the idea the Hulk can't talk or leap from the TV show. Anyone ever hear someone ask, "Why is he flying?" while watching the Ang Lee Hulk movie?

You are right that this is not proven. What is proven is that the mute Hulk is not working compared to other characters like Thor, Cap, and Iron Man. Now...do they want to keep doing something that has been proven not to work or try something else? As Wobbly said, any claim this would not work is based on nothing since it's never been tried.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

I know it sounds rude, but I think they need to team with Pixar and do an all CGI Hulk movie, because that's what Hulk fans seem to want, a CGI principal character, with CGI supporting characters and villains, and CGI sets in the background getting demolished in various ways... I think that's a lot easier to do in a CGI film than try to put everything up against a green screen in real life.

That could be awesome. Maybe Pixar would be brave ("brave"...heh...) enough to try the Hulk from the comic.

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by JeetKuneDo

Ditto x1000. "That won't work" sounds like what people say about everything...until it does work. Remember when Hollywood was laughing at James Cameron while he was "spending too much money" on Titanic? Remember when the idea of using the Spider-Man costume on film was snickered at? (Hey DC/WB....how about using the Batman costume for a change?)


Not exactly sure what "spikification" is, but having the Hulk speak two words per movie isn't enough to develop a character. It's almost a tease...and somewhat puzzling. "Hey...he can talk...why the hell didn't he talk to Betty in the cave?" As awesome as "Puny god" was...he demonstrated he can talk with no problem...so what was stopping him before that? Why in the world did they make a speaking character into a non-speaking character?


That covers screentime...but does it really cost more to have him speak? Do they pay Ruffalo extra for each line the Hulk gets or something?

And like I said...if you can't do it....fine...don't bother. (Sounds like Whedon knows this, thank god) They are just doing damage to the character. The public already got the idea the Hulk can't talk or leap from the TV show. Anyone ever hear someone ask, "Why is he flying?" while watching the Ang Lee Hulk movie?

You are right that this is not proven. What is proven is that the mute Hulk is not working compared to other characters like Thor, Cap, and Iron Man. Now...do they want to keep doing something that has been proven not to work or try something else? As Wobbly said, any claim this would not work is based on nothing since it's never been tried.

That could be awesome. Maybe Pixar would be brave ("brave"...heh...) enough to try the Hulk from the comic.

There's nothing "brave" about throwing money away, and no one's saying "That won't work." They are saying these are the specific challenges for a Hulk movie, and asking for solutions. The solution offered is: make Hulk talk more and he will "work," but Hulk already "works." He's more loved than Cap and Thor. People like Hulk. People love his personality. People enjoy that he doesn't solve his problems with talking (ie: cheap shot for Thor), because people like the Labrador with muscles, or the 5 year old child. He's working just fine.

And next time he will talk more and people will enjoy the evolution of the character, and eventually he will be that popular. But this claim that 'well, they haven't tried it, so they can't say it's too difficult' doesn't apply to ANYTHING else in reality, but here, all of a sudden, the human ability to gauge challenges just doesn't count...

Originally Posted by wobbly

Traditionally, Werewolves don't speak at all, they have no self awareness, no awareness of their human self, no intelligence beyond that of an animal etc. They are (traditionally) pretty much mindless killing machines until someone with a silver bullet puts an end to them.

I can understand why anyone who only knows of the Hulk's live action efforts might think of him like that, but if we are to compare the comic Hulk to any one classical horror figure then Mr. Hyde is far closer.

Mr. Hyde is the unintentional creation of Jekyll, he is intelligent, he speaks, is fully self aware (and aware of his dual nature), but unfortunately he is a also sadistic killer.

But a better description for me would be to say the Hulk is more a composite of ideas from both Hyde and Frankenstein's monster. Werewolf would only enter into my head because of him changing at night in the early days (that did not last long at all), but that would be where that similarity ends for me.

Werewolf or Jekyl and Hyde, from a storytelling perspective it's the same story. You're hung up on whether they talk or not, but you shoot a J&H just like a Werewolf film, and that's what Whedon was talking about, the structure, the journey, the heart of the story is completely different, even antithetical to a superhero film, regardless of the details of the monster. It provides an extreme challenge, that takes anyone who steps to it down a level. Good filmmakers do mediocre (as we've seen), great filmmakers would do good. I don't know any great filmmakers who want to do "good" films.

[Oberon sexton]

"Hulk: Love at the Heart of an Atom" "Future Imperfect" "Planet Hulk" "The Crossroads Saga"....really most of the comics that are considered the best of the characters publication history feature Hulk as the lead character. There's a reason why it's not called The Incredible Bruce Banner.

[JeetKuneDo]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

There's nothing "brave" about throwing money away, and no one's saying "That won't work." They are saying these are the specific challenges for a Hulk movie, and asking for solutions. The solution offered is: make Hulk talk more and he will "work," but Hulk already "works." He's more loved than Cap and Thor. People like Hulk. People love his personality. People enjoy that he doesn't solve his problems with talking (ie: cheap shot for Thor), because people like the Labrador with muscles, or the 5 year old child. He's working just fine.

Having the Hulk speak is throwing away money? I don't follow that one.

I also challenge the idea that the Hulk is more loved than Cap and Thor:
Thor: $181,030,624
Cap: $176,654,505
Hulk: $134,806,913

I daresay that the Hulk never lagged that far behind Cap and Thor in the comics. So that begs the question...what changed from comic to movie?

I don't know if making the Hulk more like the comic is the solution, but trying is better than continuing to do something that is not working. We know that's not the solution.

But this claim that 'well, they haven't tried it, so they can't say it's too difficult' doesn't apply to ANYTHING else in reality, but here, all of a sudden, the human ability to gauge challenges just doesn't count...

I believe the claim is: "You can't say it won't work because it's never been tried". If it's "too difficult"....forget it and make a different movie. Continuing to offer up the same tepid Hulk is not very smart since it's proven to be lackluster. Maybe someone else will be up to the challenge.

Who's human ability are we talking about here? A "challenge" is not the same for everyone. Some people even overcome challenges.

Werewolf or Jekyl and Hyde, from a storytelling perspective it's the same story. You're hung up on whether they talk or not, but you shoot a J&H just like a Werewolf film, and that's what Whedon was talking about, the structure, the journey, the heart of the story is completely different, even antithetical to a superhero film, regardless of the details of the monster. It provides an extreme challenge, that takes anyone who steps to it down a level. Good filmmakers do mediocre (as we've seen), great filmmakers would do good. I don't know any great filmmakers who want to do "good" films.

I don't think it's the same story at all. One features a character who makes himself into a monster voluntarily, the other is a victim. One is about a dual-natured being exposed for the first time, the other about a being which did not exist in the character prior to a curse. One monster is intelligent and intentionally does harm, the other a beast and acts on instinct.

There are elements of each in the Hulk....which is why the Hulk is different imo.

I would say Ang Lee is a great filmmaker and he failed with the Hollywood version of the Hulk. (i.e. a film about Bruce Banner only) As Whedon alluded to, Banner needs interesting characters around him...he can't carry a movie.

It just occurred to me how much I hated those old werewolf movies when I was a kid. (I LOVED werewolves) The whole freaking movie was about Lon Chaney Jr.....we finally got to see the werewolf at the very end. Drove me crazy....they sucked me in with the name of the movie and then barely let me see him. That probably happens to kids today who go to see a Hulk movie.

[JeetKuneDo]

Seeing what "a guy" can do with animation these days....I start to question that it's not possible to feature the Hulk for the majority of a Hulk movie.

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

[Bruce Malone]

Originally Posted by JeetKuneDo

Seeing what "a guy" can do with animation these days....I start to question that it's not possible to feature the Hulk for the majority of a Hulk movie.

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

That's probably not the best example...but anyways nobody's saying it's not possible to feature a hulk for most of the film just that it'd be ridiculously expensive.

Even look at non-fully CG characters like Iron Man or Batman they're seen more as their alter ego than in their suits arguably due to save on the budgets.

With these films you have the drama than the big action cg set pieces interspersed (usually one at the beginning and a middle one and the big finale). With the Hulk for most of the film you essentially have a lead character who is pretty much a walking cg set piece.

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by JeetKuneDo

Having the Hulk speak is throwing away money? I don't follow that one.

I also challenge the idea that the Hulk is more loved than Cap and Thor:
Thor: $181,030,624
Cap: $176,654,505
Hulk: $134,806,913

I daresay that the Hulk never lagged that far behind Cap and Thor in the comics. So that begs the question...what changed from comic to movie?

Hulk has often lagged far behind other heroes in the comics, outside of Peter David and Greg Pak's runs. Making a Hulk-centric film is throwing away money, remember how I was talking about it costs a bunch of money for CGI and Hulk is not popular enough to justify it? All I said about Hulk talking is that it wouldn't make much difference in his popularity, and I backed that up with how loved character is. Further, while it's true in 2008, Hulk was not more loved, post Avengers, the Hulk you call a mute non character is continually counted as the favorite Avengers after RDJ in virtually all of the polls. Listen to the people in the theatre when Hulk is on the screen. They love this guy.

I don't know if making the Hulk more like the comic is the solution, but trying is better than continuing to do something that is not working. We know that's not the solution.

What is 'working' to you, because Hulk as he is now, is a successful loved character. What is it that you want to happen to consider him "working."

I believe the claim is: "You can't say it won't work because it's never been tried". If it's "too difficult"....forget it and make a different movie. Continuing to offer up the same tepid Hulk is not very smart since it's proven to be lackluster. Maybe someone else will be up to the challenge.

Who's human ability are we talking about here? A "challenge" is not the same for everyone. Some people even overcome challenges.

Even with "You can't say it won't work because it's never been tried" that doesn't apply to jumping off buildings, or drinking strange chemicals. Humans have the ability to say: "Hmmm, this is a bad idea" without actually trying it. The idea that failure is required to predict failure is ridiculous.

But who actually said it won't work? Specific challenges were given. The solution of Hulk talking more doesn't do anything for the story challenges. I don't see how it does anything about the money challenge of making a Hulk-centric movie either.

The solution that they are doing: keep growing Hulk in ensemble pieces until he's popular enough that the world demands and expects a movie from him... that solution seems to be working quite fine, because he's growing in popularity. Who knows, maybe there'll be a leap in technology that will allow you to do a movie with a CGI lead well for an affordable price. Probably not, but maybe.

I don't think it's the same story at all. One features a character who makes himself into a monster voluntarily, the other is a victim. One is about a dual-natured being exposed for the first time, the other about a being which did not exist in the character prior to a curse. One monster is intelligent and intentionally does harm, the other a beast and acts on instinct.

And one has fur and the other doesn't. There's a reason Dr. Jekyl is in so much turmoil: he's a victim of his own devices. There's a reason the werewolf goes after the main character's life: he's a revelation of the true heart of the cursed. It's the same story, only details of the motivations change. The core of the story is the same, and the core of either story, the man vs monster conflict doesn't fit well with the superhero good vs evil external conflict.

So in juggling all that and making it come together, filmmakers have little time to do the things that make a movie great. People have been up to the challenge, overcome the challenge, and made good movies despite the challenges. They should be applauded... but that's not good enough for some Hulk fans. -shrug-

[JeetKuneDo]

Originally Posted by Bruce Malone

That's probably not the best example...but anyways nobody's saying it's not possible to feature a hulk for most of the film just that it'd be ridiculously expensive.

That was my question. This guy on YouTube made that video...methinks someone is overcharging for CGI these days. I suspect it's not as hard as it used to be if a guy can do something like that at his house.

Originally Posted by Bruce Malone

Even look at non-fully CG characters like Iron Man or Batman they're seen more as their alter ego than in their suits arguably due to save on the budgets.

With these films you have the drama than the big action cg set pieces interspersed (usually one at the beginning and a middle one and the big finale). With the Hulk for most of the film you essentially have a lead character who is pretty much a walking cg set piece.

With Iron Man and Batman the alter ego is the same guy with different clothes on. With Hulk it's a completely different character. Hollywood does not seem to know this and treats the Hulk the same way as other heroes.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Hulk has often lagged far behind other heroes in the comics, outside of Peter David and Greg Pak's runs. Making a Hulk-centric film is throwing away money, remember how I was talking about it costs a bunch of money for CGI and Hulk is not popular enough to justify it?

I'm in need of some specifics here if you don't mind. How much is "often lagged far behind other heroes"? How many heroes is "other heroes"? If you are talking about Spider-Man and X-men I knew about that. But the Hulk comic has usually been one of the top sellers, has it not? He is certainly more popular than Thor, Cap, and Iron Man on a historical basis.

I again wonder if this is a chicken/egg thing. Is the Hulk not popular in movies because he's not like the comic or is he not like the comic because he's not popular. Since the public has never seen the comic Hulk, that cannot be the reason for his lack of popularity in the movies. You would think the lack of great ratings for the TV show (it broke the top 25 once during its run and never made the top 20...this was back before viewers had many choices on TV) would have clued someone in that the Hollywood version of the Hulk isn't the best way to go.

I still have to ask why it would cost more money to have the Hulk speak. Was the Abomination a more pricey CGI creation because he was speaking?

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

All I said about Hulk talking is that it wouldn't make much difference in his popularity, and I backed that up with how loved character is. Further, while it's true in 2008, Hulk was not more loved, post Avengers, the Hulk you call a mute non character is continually counted as the favorite Avengers after RDJ in virtually all of the polls. Listen to the people in the theatre when Hulk is on the screen. They love this guy.

I know people love the Hulk. Even in Ang Lee's film the Hulk scenes were the favorites of the general audience. If the Hulk movies were as popular as Avengers, you would see just as many people citing the "Hulk" scenes. That's generally the only parts of Hulk movies that people like.

But the Hulk solo movies are not as popular as Avengers.

Again, no one can claim "a talking Hulk would not make much difference" because it's never been tried. How do you know that? And how much is "much" here? Can we put a number on that? Would it make him 1% more popular or 20% more popular?

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

What is 'working' to you, because Hulk as he is now, is a successful loved character. What is it that you want to happen to consider him "working."

I agree with Whedon. Forget solo movies. Banner movies don't work. Banner only works when you've got interesting characters around. That also helps make up for the lack of personality when you pretend the Hulk lost his vocal cords (except for select moments when he suddenly can speak out of nowhere).

Banner is boring. The Hulk is what people pay to see. It would be nice if the Hulk was a real character with a personality, motivations, and everything else other characters have.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Even with "You can't say it won't work because it's never been tried" that doesn't apply to jumping off buildings, or drinking strange chemicals. Humans have the ability to say: "Hmmm, this is a bad idea" without actually trying it. The idea that failure is required to predict failure is ridiculous.

Because obviously trying to kill yourself is the same as telling stories? The essence of performance and storytelling is trying different methods until you find the way which entertains the audience the most. I'm a performer myself so I know about that. I would never rule something out I had never tried if it had potential. (jumping off a building does not have potential benefits) It's not absurd to try the comic version of the character since that's the reason the Hulk is famous in the first place. It's illogical to rule it out given that. It's especially illogical to continue with something which is not working instead of trying something different that has proven successful in a different format.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

But who actually said it won't work? Specific challenges were given. The solution of Hulk talking more doesn't do anything for the story challenges. I don't see how it does anything about the money challenge of making a Hulk-centric movie either.

I believe you claimed a talking Hulk would not help his popularity "much". (not sure where you get this information)

Maybe Marvel should make Iron Man, Capt America, and Thor mute as well? What difference could it make, right? They could save some money I suppose (talking must cost money somehow).

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

The solution that they are doing: keep growing Hulk in ensemble pieces until he's popular enough that the world demands and expects a movie from him... that solution seems to be working quite fine, because he's growing in popularity. Who knows, maybe there'll be a leap in technology that will allow you to do a movie with a CGI lead well for an affordable price. Probably not, but maybe.

The latter is the only way it will work imo. My official prediction is that another Banner movie will fail again. Both the audience and the execs at Marvel will ask "Why? He was great in Avengers!". Whedon appears to know this as well....apparently he and I will be the only people who aren't surprised.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

And one has fur and the other doesn't. There's a reason Dr. Jekyl is in so much turmoil: he's a victim of his own devices. There's a reason the werewolf goes after the main character's life: he's a revelation of the true heart of the cursed. It's the same story, only details of the motivations change. The core of the story is the same, and the core of either story, the man vs monster conflict doesn't fit well with the superhero good vs evil external conflict.

This may depend on how one defines "different" in movies. Sure they are both about "monsters"...but there are different ways of doing that. Not every movie about monsters is the same to me.

The main difference between Jekyl/Hyde and the werewolf for me is that Hyde is a separate entity which existed in Jekyl prior while the werewolf is just a curse which would be the same for everyone. That's a different dynamic leading to different turmoil for the non-monster.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

So in juggling all that and making it come together, filmmakers have little time to do the things that make a movie great. People have been up to the challenge, overcome the challenge, and made good movies despite the challenges. They should be applauded... but that's not good enough for some Hulk fans. -shrug-

Not good enough for the general public either. ("good movies" is subjective...box office is not) Not compared to other comic book properties. That's one reason why a solo Hulk movie is not planned right now.

You gotta give Fox credit for one thing, the failure of the FF movies is prompting them to try something different. That notion apparently never occurs to to people involved with making Hulk movies. (which make about what the FF movies made)

[Poni_Boy]

Hulk was the only A-list superhero on Marvel Studios' roster before they started making movies. Now Iron Man, Cap and Thor are A-listers as well, joining Spider-Man and Wolverine.

That being said, after two failed Hulk movies they finally got Hulk right. No, he wasn't in the movie a lot but he was in the two major set pieces. And when he WAS in it, he shined. Quality > quantity. You can bet Marvel isn't going to screw with a good thing now that they know the formula, that's why they put the kibbosh on that planned TV series.

With Whedon overseeing the entire MCU for the next four years, with him being the only director to make a cinematic Hulk truly work, there should be no doubt he'll add the character in wherever and whenever he can as long as he can do it right.

As solo movie? Unnecessary at this point. And Marvel knows this. They're trying to launch new franchises that will perpetuate the brand after the current characters bid goodbye.

[Poni_Boy]

Via Mark Ruffalo (on Twitter):

"A lot of folks have been asking about the Next Hulk. The next time you see my Hulk it will be in the Avengers2. No plans for stand alone.

"I am not giving up on another stand alone HULK. But it’s not in the works right now. One never knows what the future will bring."