Kevin Feige says no to another Hulk Movie.

[wobbly]

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

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

And one has fur and the other doesn't.

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.

There's a reason Dr. Jekyl is in so much turmoil: he's a victim of his own devices.

As is Bruce Banner.

There's a reason the werewolf goes after the main character's life

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.

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.

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...

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-

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).

 

[wobbly]

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.

Agreed. They have already got 'Phase 2' planned out and the Hulk is not a necessity for it (beyond being in Avengers 2).

I'm hoping they give him a proper go after that, and good to see Rufallo is more than up for it too. I figure (regardless of his comments) that Whedon is savvy enough to know what they should do with him next time round if they do give him another shot.

 

[The Shrike]

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."

I doubt Ruffalo signed on for 7 Avengers films.

Avengers was the first film where the Hulk was done right. Now that they have the template down pat, the rest should fall into place eventually.

The prattle of naysayers will be as effective as Black Bolts pathetic scream.

 

[TheVileOne]

Well the rumors were for Planet Hulk and World War Hulk stories after Avengers 2 .

But whatever, Whedon doesn't seem to be a fan of the World War Hulk story which IMHO was a pretty stupid story to begin with. I mean some good art and fun fights, but its still a stupid, nonsensical story.

Audiences are not going to go for World War Hulk onscreen. Here is what Whedon said on Indiewire(?):

Whedon told the site, "I didn't actually read World War Hulk so I'm not sure how I'd adapt it. Mark and I loved the Hulk and went over and over the concept of rage and how it should manifest, and that part of it was fascinating to both of us. But when it comes time for the Hulk he has to put on the silliest damn pajamas you ever saw, a tiara made of balls, and a bunch of dots on his face and growl around like an idiot. The real heart of the experience ultimately becomes playing Banner, and the thing that people fell in love with was Banner because I think Mark has you from the first time he shows up. The Hulk is the most difficult Marvel property because it's always about balance. Is he a monster? Is he a hero? Are you going to root for a protagonist who spends all his time trying to stop the reason you came to the movie from happening? It's always a dance. I don't think the first two movies nailed it, but I don't envy them the task. It was easier to have him in a group than to build everything around him. I don't think there would be any problem getting a movie together that had enough Banner, even if there was also Hulk. But if he was only Hulk for the entire movie I think Mark at some point would go, why am I here? I would be less inclined to pursue a storyline where the Hulk is only ever the Hulk."

 

[The Shrike]

Well the rumors were for Planet Hulk and World War Hulk stories after Avengers 2 .

But whatever, Whedon doesn't seem to be a fan of the World War Hulk story which IMHO was a pretty stupid story to begin with. I mean some good art and fun fights, but its still a stupid, nonsensical story.

Audiences are not going to go for World War Hulk onscreen. Here is what Whedon said on Indiewire(?):

All Whedon says there is he doesn't want a story where it's all Hulk and no Banner. That's easy enough to remedy for a film that has no script yet.

This is a Marvel comic being adapted to a Marvel film, so they can make any changes to the story that they want.

Oh, and people fell in love with the Hulk in the Avengers, not Banner. That was made clear by the cheering during the film when the green guy did his thing. It wasn't Banner who smashed Loki on the ground, or who sucker punched Thor, or who saved Iron Man when he fell, it was the jade giant.

Kudos to Whedon for being the first director to get Hulk right on film, but he's dead wrong when he tries to infer it's all about Banner.

 

[kedrell]

I'd say Hulk in Avengers is the best he's been in a film to date. But I certainly don't think we've yet got the Hulk done right in ANY film. Any Hulk who doesn't talk or have his own personality inherently is being done WRONG.

 

[TheVileOne]

People also liked Ruffalo's character as Banner as well...

Also, keep in mind it was Ruffalo doing all the motion capture and physical movements for Hulk as well. They modeled his face after Ruffalo's face. So it wasn't just Ruffalo doing work as Banner. He was on set in the motion capture suit acting out the Hulk's movements as well.

 

[Kryptonian Titan]

I'd say Hulk in Avengers is the best he's been in a film to date. But I certainly don't think we've yet got the Hulk done right in ANY film. Any Hulk who doesn't talk or have his own personality inherently is being done WRONG.

Very well put, kedrell.

 

[Roose Bolton]

Well the rumors were for Planet Hulk and World War Hulk stories after Avengers 2 .

But whatever, Whedon doesn't seem to be a fan of the World War Hulk story which IMHO was a pretty stupid story to begin with. I mean some good art and fun fights, but its still a stupid, nonsensical story.

Audiences are not going to go for World War Hulk onscreen. Here is what Whedon said on Indiewire(?):

The story wasn't nonsensical, it was just a straight up revenge story that fitted in with the post-Civil War Marvel landscape where most readers generally wanted to see guys like Tony Stark and Reed Richards get their dues after all the stuff they had done across the line in months preceeding it. Should that be used as the basis for an Avengers film? No because that story is extremely specific to the continuity of the comics.

But to just dismiss an actual adaption (key word there) of Planet Hulk, the story that's considered the best in the characters 50 year history, is extremely narrow minded on Marvel's behalf.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Never read Planet Hulk, but I highly doubt it is the best Hulk story ever.

 

[Roose Bolton]

Why?

 

[Spider-Fan]

From what I saw in the cartoon film, I wasn't impressed. I get that is a heavily abriged version of the story, but I thought the overall concept was better when I saw Gladiator. I plan on reading it eventually, but I am not big into the style of newer comics. I feel they waste too many pages, have really poor pacing, and rush the endings. They try telling stories over 5-6 issues that we could get in much better pacing and even better detail in only 1-3 issues back in the 70s-80s because new comics have wasteful splash pages. I also feel like comics try to be trendy with their dialogue, and overlook the fact that they're superheroes, and what we want to see is awesome action. But, awesome action NEEDS good build-up. Most writers today fail in this aspect.

 

[kedrell]

Never read Planet Hulk, but I highly doubt it is the best Hulk story ever.

It isn't. The Peter David stuff(you know, the stuff Ang Lee crapped all over) is way better than Planet Hulk. Not that Planet Hulk is bad but it doesn't hold a candle to Future Imperfect or the Joe Fixit, vegas enforcer era.

 

[Xeno]

From what I saw in the cartoon film, I wasn't impressed. I get that is a heavily abriged version of the story, but I thought the overall concept was better when I saw Gladiator. I plan on reading it eventually, but I am not big into the style of newer comics. I feel they waste too many pages, have really poor pacing, and rush the endings. They try telling stories over 5-6 issues that we could get in much better pacing and even better detail in only 1-3 issues back in the 70s-80s because new comics have wasteful splash pages. I also feel like comics try to be trendy with their dialogue, and overlook the fact that they're superheroes, and what we want to see is awesome action. But, awesome action NEEDS good build-up. Most writers today fail in this aspect.

I could not agree more with you about the current state of comics. Nowadays, they are all talk and no action. The majority of books I've picked up in the last few years feature epic talk-fests featuring multiple characters just standing around hashing things over for page after page of boring word balloons. Artists put in so many static splash pages that I've become convinced that it's a way to avoid having to draw complex action. There have been entire issues that have only a few panels of action in them. The way the writers and artists skimp on battle scenes, it's as if they're treating the books like movies where each bit of action costs millions to produce.

 

[Dark Raven]

I could not agree more with you about the current state of comics. Nowadays, they are all talk and no action. The majority of books I've picked up in the last few years feature epic talk-fests featuring multiple characters just standing around hashing things over for page after page of boring word balloons. Artists put in so many static splash pages that I've become convinced that it's a way to avoid having to draw complex action. There have been entire issues that have only a few panels of action in them. The way the writers and artists skimp on battle scenes, it's as if they're treating the books like movies where each bit of action costs millions to produce.

It's probably because it takes an effort to have to actually draw an epic battlescene with many different elements going on, especially if they have a deadline to meet.

 

[The Shrike]

I'd say Hulk in Avengers is the best he's been in a film to date. But I certainly don't think we've yet got the Hulk done right in ANY film. Any Hulk who doesn't talk or have his own personality inherently is being done WRONG.

Planet Hulk was just the set up to World War Hulk, where the worldbreaker demonstates why he is the strongest there is. His defeat of Black Bolt and Sentry were legendary, and lets face it, after what that fascist skrull Stark did during the civil wars, the Marvel universe needed a good anarchistic toilet flush. Who better to provide it that old jade jaws.

 

[blalex620]

Whedon told the site, "I didn't actually read World War Hulk so I'm not sure how I'd adapt it. Mark and I loved the Hulk and went over and over the concept of rage and how it should manifest, and that part of it was fascinating to both of us. But when it comes time for the Hulk he has to put on the silliest damn pajamas you ever saw, a tiara made of balls, and a bunch of dots on his face and growl around like an idiot. The real heart of the experience ultimately becomes playing Banner, and the thing that people fell in love with was Banner because I think Mark has you from the first time he shows up. The Hulk is the most difficult Marvel property because it's always about balance. Is he a monster? Is he a hero? Are you going to root for a protagonist who spends all his time trying to stop the reason you came to the movie from happening? It's always a dance. I don't think the first two movies nailed it, but I don't envy them the task. It was easier to have him in a group than to build everything around him. I don't think there would be any problem getting a movie together that had enough Banner, even if there was also Hulk. But if he was only Hulk for the entire movie I think Mark at some point would go, why am I here? I would be less inclined to pursue a storyline where the Hulk is only ever the Hulk."

As much as I love Whedon and what he did with Banner and Hulk I hate that he thinks of the character in this way. Hulk was never meant to be portrayed as a mindless rage monster that runs around "grunting like an idiot" all the time. To reduce his character to this because that's the way the TV show did it is stupid. Hulk can be just as smart as Banner at times i.e. a scene from Avengers EMH when Hulk easily explained a difficult concept that Stark thought went over his head. That's just one of many times Hulk has showed his intellect. If we got a film that gave Hulk a personality and rationed the screen time between Hulk and Banner then we could finally see a successful Hulk solo film.

 

[metaphysician]

Planet Hulk was just the set up to World War Hulk, where the worldbreaker demonstates why he is the strongest there is. His defeat of Black Bolt and Sentry were legendary, and lets face it, after what that fascist skrull Stark did during the civil wars, the Marvel universe needed a good anarchistic toilet flush. Who better to provide it that old jade jaws.

You mean the guy who rapidly proved that as bad as the Illuminati were, they were the lesser evil besides an erratic psycho out for revenge?

 

[The Shrike]

You mean the guy who rapidly proved that as bad as the Illuminati were, they were the lesser evil besides an erratic psycho out for revenge?

If they just left Hulk alone there wouldn't be a problem, but being the control freaks they are they just couldn't resist. There's a lesson in there for them, for their sakes I hope they learned it, otherwise the worldbreaker will once again give them a much needed lesson in humility.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

World War Hulk was a pretty horrible story, Planet Hulk was far superior

 

[InternetPeople]

Planet Hulk would be an excellent story because it puts Hulk in his element smashing the **** out of a planet. Maybe the planet can stun hulk and control Banner from hulking out giving Ruffalo a larger role to play rather than having him be Hulk the whole time.

Smart Hulk is a bad idea for the screen because it reduces the role of the actor to simply a puppeteer (like the guy who plays Golem). The way Hulk has been developed as a character in the MCU, you will not see an intelligent Hulk. One of the most interesting parts about Banner/Hulk is the two extremes they operate at. One is a well-spoken scientist who avoids confrontation and the other is a rage beast who will destroy everything given the opportunity. Giving Hulk intelligence undermines that personal dynamic that makes the character interesting.

Hulk being just a dumb brute also works better for the group of heroes. It creates a danger within the team. Hulk can create chaos which is appealing to watch. If Hulk was intelligent he would just be another part of the group instead of the most volalite member of the group that the other have to aware of.

Hulk is also too massive to have a proper conversation with on screen. Everyone else just so tiny next to him. He just doesn't work as a smart fellow.

 

[TheVileOne]

The story wasn't nonsensical, it was just a straight up revenge story that fitted in with the post-Civil War Marvel landscape where most readers generally wanted to see guys like Tony Stark and Reed Richards get their dues after all the stuff they had done across the line in months preceeding it. Should that be used as the basis for an Avengers film? No because that story is extremely specific to the continuity of the comics.

But to just dismiss an actual adaption (key word there) of Planet Hulk, the story that's considered the best in the characters 50 year history, is extremely narrow minded on Marvel's behalf.

I liked the Planet Hulk story a lot, but to call it the best in Hulk's history is a bit of a stretch. One of the really good ones, but the best? Dunno about that.

Civil War/WWH would simply not work in this MCU. At least they would have to be totally different than how it was in the comics if they attempted it in some way. Plus there are much better stories to adapt anyway.

WWH wouldn't as a movie work because it makes the Hulk the villain who is basically in the wrong and he was duped. Even if he was shot into space.

 

[Kal-E]

I think he is fibbing. I can see a Hulk 2 in phase 3. The Hulk needs another movie.

 

[Silvermoth]

Maybe the technology is just not up to scratch yet? I mean it takes ages to make a CGI character in high def which is why he only appears occassionally rather than throughout the whole film?

I suppose that's why alot of CGI films these days are kind of cartoony because it's easier and cheaper to animate?

 

[blalex620]

Maybe the technology is just not up to scratch yet? I mean it takes ages to make a CGI character in high def which is why he only appears occassionally rather than throughout the whole film?

I suppose that's why alot of CGI films these days are kind of cartoony because it's easier and cheaper to animate?

Transformers???