Age of Ultron Ruffahulk Ruffasmash

[Farren]

Strange should have his first solo to himself, but I'd would welcome Bruce/Hulk in any sequels. But only if Hulk calls him "Magician."

 

[Herolee10]

I still feel like this film really missed its opportunity to incorporate and tie into "The Incredible Hulk".

Nothing against Claudia Kim (who imagine is mainly here for the team to have a better excuse into traveling to South Korea), but you could easily replace her character, imho, with Liv Tyler's Betty Ross.

I mean if rumors are true that Banner is going to have some kind of romantic connection with Widow, then it would have been better to just use Betty for that instead.

Plus, given on how this film will deal with the world's (namely the Government's ) reaction to the existence of the Avengers being an active unit in the world, you could easily fit in William Hurt's General Ross into the picture as being an antagonist towards the group...who would use Hulk's rampage in South Africa to not only alienate the public from the group (and mainly the Hulk) but help build support towards the Government having a stronger grip on things.

And from what I heard, it seems like one of the original plans was to use Abomination at some point in the film...possibly during the Avengers attack on the Hydra base. That would have also worked as well.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

It's weird, because I swear it's like Marvel wants to retcon TIH out of continuity, but they still drop hints here and there about it.

 

[Gamma Goliath]

That means they don't want to kick it out lol. Tim Roth just daid they almost brought him back for avengers 2.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Oh, I know. It's still considered the bastard child of the MCU though, which I blame on nobody but Marvel themselves (Norton being a diva nonwithstanding.)

 

[Herolee10]

Imagine what the MCU would be like right now had Marvel possessed the foresight not to release or create TIH (the way that we know it is now) back in 2008 and instead introduced the MCU Hulk for the first time in "The Avengers", with Banner getting a solo of his own in Phase 2 and a sequel in Phase 3.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

TIH would've made more if they didn't have a piss poor marketing strategy behind it, and if it wasn't sandwiched inbetween IM and TDK.

 

[Roose Bolton]

I'd be happy if none of the TIH cast save for Tim Roth came back, even then I'd like Abomination to get a new look closer to his comic depiction.

Also, with Ant-Man and Dr Strange introduced there's the possibility of the Heart of the Atom and Crossroads storylines to be utilized if they want to keep him reduced to team-up films instead.

 

[Wildcard]

I'd be fine if they kept the Abomination's look from TIH but if it got changed I wouldn't complain. And I agree, the only person I really want back is Roth. Hurt was cool as Ross but lacked that spark that Elliot brought...we need someone like Elliot again.

And God knows I love Ty Burrell but he was horribly miscast as Doc Samson.

I'm confident we'll get to see a sequel that follows up on TIH. It needs to happen...just like that Black Widow movie they've been promising us for years.

Where's that on the slate? Johansson makes nearly $500 million off of a $40 million action movie and still no announcement for a BW movie? C'mon Marvel, we want a Hulk & Black Widow solo movie respectively.

 

[Roose Bolton]

The thing I liked about Elliot's portrayal was that he brought the right amount of depth to the role. General Ross is a very conflicted man, with a lot of sympathetic traits in addition to his rage and obsession. I feel that Hurt, while serviceable, was much more 2-dimensional in his vendetta against Hulk, and more outwardly villainous in his desire to replicate that power.

 

[Spitfire]

The thing I liked about Elliot's portrayal was that he brought the right amount of depth to the role. General Ross is a very conflicted man, with a lot of sympathetic traits in addition to his rage and obsession. I feel that Hurt, while serviceable, was much more 2-dimensional in his vendetta against Hulk, and more outwardly villainous in his desire to replicate that power.

I preferred Elliot's portrayal as well. What I enjoy most about the Hulk story are the complexities of Bruce, Betty and Ross and I don't think the depths of these characters was captured that well in TIH.

In contrast IM did a great job in this respect and may explain why this movie did better at the box office that year.

 

[giveyourself12%]

Ah, I would have loved to see Tim Roth in Avengers AOU even if only briefly.

 

[Wildcard]

The thing I liked about Elliot's portrayal was that he brought the right amount of depth to the role. General Ross is a very conflicted man, with a lot of sympathetic traits in addition to his rage and obsession. I feel that Hurt, while serviceable, was much more 2-dimensional in his vendetta against Hulk, and more outwardly villainous in his desire to replicate that power.

Agreed entirely. Even though he came off as a hard ass, Elliot's Ross was still likable because all of those traits were perfectly infused. Hurt's Ross is likable, just not nearly to the same extent...and it's mostly due to his version not being as captivating.

The same can be said for Betty...Jennifer just gave way more to the role than Liv did, and it shows.

The main thing TIH does have on Ang's film is the villain. Nick Nolte didn't do a bad job, it just seemed like they weren't really sure what they wanted the film to build to and they just mixed some things together. Roth's Blonsky had pretty good build up and a solid conclusion as well.

Gotta get a movie with a completely solid cast through and through. No more miscasts.

 

[metaphysician]

The Elliot version of General Ross worked in large part because he wasn't the villain of the story. Talbot was a villain, representing those who would seek to exploit and abuse the Hulk, but General Ross instead represented "You know, the Hulk actually *is* a dangerous monster". He was the guy "fighting" the Hulk because it was actually the right thing to do.

In retrospect, I think the perfect ending for the movie would have been to stop the movie at the end of the "Hulk vs the Army" set piece. Then have a post script where Ross is speaking with his daughter about how "After Talbot's debacle, the top brass are actually listening to me on how to deal with Banner." Cut to Bruce, working in a lab. . . pan back, revealing that this lab ( and attached living quarters ) are a secure-but-comfortable containment facility deep inside Gamma Base. He's a prisoner, but one who is a victim-of-circumstance and an ally, not a test subject. Things aren't perfect, but it is a satisfactory compromise for all involved. Oh, and David Banner? He's still out there. . . and *he* isn't satisfied with this outcome, not at all. . .

Basically, you have the status quo set up for a future sequel: personal drama between Banner, Betty, and General Ross; Banner achieving progress in his research and efforts to cure or control the Hulk; repercussions from the outside world such as other people attempting to duplicate the Hulk; and, of course, David Banner eventually throwing everything into chaos when he seeks to "rescue" his son.

 

[Keyser Soze]

This is an old interview with Mark Ruffalo, from back in 2012 before the release of the first film, but I just watched it for the first time. Some nice observations about Banner's character from Ruffalo, and his approach to the role.

[YT]08QFstEkSTw[/YT]

 

[A Necessary Evil]

This is an old interview with Mark Ruffalo, from back in 2012 before the release of the first film, but I just watched it for the first time. Some nice observations about Banner's character from Ruffalo, and his approach to the role.

[YT]08QFstEkSTw[/YT]

Awesome.

Agreed entirely. Even though he came off as a hard ass, Elliot's Ross was still likable because all of those traits were perfectly infused. Hurt's Ross is likable, just not nearly to the same extent...and it's mostly due to his version not being as captivating.

The same can be said for Betty...Jennifer just gave way more to the role than Liv did, and it shows.

The main thing TIH does have on Ang's film is the villain. Nick Nolte didn't do a bad job, it just seemed like they weren't really sure what they wanted the film to build to and they just mixed some things together. Roth's Blonsky had pretty good build up and a solid conclusion as well.

Gotta get a movie with a completely solid cast through and through. No more miscasts.

Yessss, and while Norton was awesome as Banner, I actually feel he was the weakest of the 3, IMO.

 

[samsnee]

Marvel was clearly concerned with making another Hulk movie that would be considered slow and boring so they almost went too much in the other direction. I still like the movie but they clearly should have waited to relaunch the character.

 

[Keyser Soze]

For me, all 3 actors had their strengths, and I can see what they were all trying to do. Eric Bana seemed to be drawing from the comics, playing a Banner who was all buttoned-down trauma from childhood abuse. Edward Norton seemed more inspired by Bill Bixby in the TV series, modernising the idea of the good-intentioned drifter searching for a cure and a way home. But Mark Ruffalo is the best for me, as he seems to have been less inspired by what came before and instead attempted to emulate Robert Downey Jr. by injecting his own persona into the part of Banner. And so he has Ruffalo's natural affability and easy-going demeanour, but punctured with this immense world-weariness and simmering anger.

 

[MahvelBaby!]

Personally i think the reason we aren't seeing solo hulk films has something to do with universal still technically owning the film rights, I'm not sure what the agreements are between ms and universal.

 

[BarryAllen]

Personally i think the reason we aren't seeing solo hulk films has something to do with universal still technically owning the film rights, I'm not sure what the agreements are between ms and universal.

Universal still owns the distribution rights to a Hulk stand-alone flick. Same thing with Namor.

 

[Iceman]

Ruffalo fits best for the MCU but I was fine with both Bana and Norton for Banner in solo films.

 

[samsnee]

Anyone else find it surreal to see both MCU Hulk actors at all these award shows together?

 

[A Necessary Evil]

For me, all 3 actors had their strengths, and I can see what they were all trying to do. Eric Bana seemed to be drawing from the comics, playing a Banner who was all buttoned-down trauma from childhood abuse. Edward Norton seemed more inspired by Bill Bixby in the TV series, modernising the idea of the good-intentioned drifter searching for a cure and a way home. But Mark Ruffalo is the best for me, as he seems to have been less inspired by what came before and instead attempted to emulate Robert Downey Jr. by injecting his own persona into the part of Banner. And so he has Ruffalo's natural affability and easy-going demeanour, but punctured with this immense world-weariness and simmering anger.

Oh, I agree with you completely with what you said - and I enjoy all 3 interpretations at that, as well. It wasn't a knock on Norton at all when I said i prefer Bana & Ruffalo over him, all three were fantastic.

 

[Wildcard]

They really all did great. The thing I like about all three performances is that none of the guys tried to imitate the other...they went for something that fit them, and it worked. It's just that in Ruffalo's case for the first time we'll actually get a follow-up on his interpretation.

 

[Herolee10]

It's interesting hear, from the latest reports from the Empire article, on how Banner actually doesn't like transforming into the Hulk for these hero missions, let alone hearing about the things that the Hulk did as a result.