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.
Bruce Malone said:
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.
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?
DrCosmic said:
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?
DrCosmic said:
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.
DrCosmic said:
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?
t: 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.
DrCosmic said:
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).
DrCosmic said:
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.
DrCosmic said:
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.
DrCosmic said:
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)