I for one don't recall lobbying for a Hulk Centric movie. The books are generally balanced between the 2. I'd like the Hulk to have more screen time than he has been given in his solo flicks so far, but I'm more concerned that when he does appear he has a proper personality. Think of it this way: How effective would Gollum, Davey Jones, The Transformers, etc, have been had they been mostly mute? All are special effects CGI creations, and all far better served by giving that effect a talking personality. And yet there are no plans so far to give this version another solo flick. As we keep being reminded, the Hulk can apparently only shine when there's other heroes for him to bounce off and fill in the slack left when he isn't on screen. While he remains a mostly personality free brawler, I'd agree. For a solo film I think he needs a proper personality to gain greater (and more box office) appeal, as I've described before, and as presented in the comics for the last 50 years. Failure of one method presents precedent. The untried of an alternative we cannot predict the obvious outcome for (like your 'jumping off buildings') does not. Until an alternative method is tried, the result of that remains an unknown, wouldn't you agree? So, are you saying then that a Hulk solo film with a more comic faithful personality is a 'bad idea'? If so then what evidence is that based on? It can't be that talking wouldn't work, as the examples I listed above of talking CGI blow that notion out of the water. See, I can say with reasonable confidence that another rehash of the TV show formula for a solo film won't do all that well, because we've had 2 films go with that basic level of character already and the box office for both was not exactly spectacular. I have not yet seen a Hulk with a proper personality yet in a solo film though. Until we do and we find out how well it does or does not do, we will simply never know. Again, it doesnt have to be Hulk centric (where are you getting that from?)..and aren't these 'story challenges' entirely self imposed? See, these 'challenges' are only presented by ignoring decades of Hulk books in favour of a formula developed over 30 years ago for a TV show: Banner runs around and gets himself into trouble, the Hulk grunts his way out of it. If they put a more intelligent Hulk into the story they are not so limited in what they can do with him. It opens up possibilities for the story, instead or creating the unnecessary 'challenge' of trying to sell a mostly mute reactionary 'rage monster' as a superhero. Well, now that Disney own ILM, the costs should be reduced (it's now an 'in house' thing for them). And like I've said before, it doesn't have to be all or even mostly Hulk. Giving the time he has more substance by granting him a personality is the key (imo). Ouch...I think RL Stephenson might be a bit miffed at his creation being considered as no more substantial than a furless werewolf. An OTT simplification imo. That's like comparing Dracula to a Zombie: Both are dead, both feed off the living and spread their affliction with a bite. Only difference is one has fangs, the other does not. Nah...Remove all personality from Dracula then the comparison becomes valid, but then it's not really Dracula when you have to do that. That's the problem with doing this with the Hulk. As is Bruce Banner. In legend a Werewolf kills anything that's in its way. 'Reason' doesn't enter it in any of it. The thing is an animal. The Core of the Hulks story is that he is Banner's repressed emotions given a voice and form all of its own (Banner actually has MPD with a ton of personalities in him these days). He isn't a mindless werewolf and he is not a sadistic killer. He knows right from wrong and though he'd rather be left alone he will (but for rare exceptions) side with the angels when called upon. That's what Avengers got right, and why he went down so well. It's only if you forcibly ignore these 'details of the motivations' that you can go comparing the Hulk to something as basic as a Werewolf. And I'm not seeing how the man/monster conflict cannot fit well for heroes in any event. Hellboy for example is a monster, in conflict with his nature, doesn't stop him fighting evil. Blade is a hydrid Vampire, same again. The Thing? Beast? All of them have this conflict in varying ways. Details are what makes the character, at least when you are not selectively ignoring them. Another thing to note: The above all have personalities too, they don't just snarl and grunt most of the time. Maybe that's why they don't present the same 'story challenges'? If so, the solution is somewhat obvious... Regarding this alleged 'challenge', what I said above. It's a self imposed one as they have basically adapted the TV show more than the comics, limiting what they can do with the Hulk himself. So for me as a Hulk fan, it's not so much about what's 'good enough' (I can appreciate both Hulk films) it's about what could have been, had they looked at the books more for the Hulk's own character more than that bloody tv show. Had they done this I do not think we'd be looking at post Avengers 2 for any potential Hulk sequel. Having said that Avengers did him superbly, he undoubtedly stole the show, and I will applaud Whedon for that. Thing is, and this is why I find Whedon's comments odd, is at the end of TIH, and again in the finale of Avengers, they have clearly opened up the door for an evolution in that approach. One where its less 'man vs monster' (and less like the TV Show) and more of the man working with the monster (hallmarks of both Peter David's and Greg Paks well regarded runs). Build on that opening, give the big guy some true character, and I do believe he can hold his own in a solo film very well, even if he is still given limited screen time. That should be the challenge they set themselves. It should not lie in the folly of repeatedly trying to adapt a formula that should have died with the TV show 30 years ago (imo).