I can.Oh but this is wonderful. The character reduced to a guest star in another franchise. Can't think of anything less degrading.
When/if they finally get the Hulk onscreen in a movie that is about him (instead of only Banner), it will be the first Hulk movie to me.Third Hulk? The first one doesn't count...
I can.
Being a guest star in your own movie/TV show. That's what has happened to the Hulk so far.
From what I've heard, the Hulk is a bigger player in The Avengers than he ever was in his own movies. This is a step up.
When/if they finally get the Hulk onscreen in a movie that is about him (instead of only Banner), it will be the first Hulk movie to me.![]()
For a character that the public supposedly "doesn't care about", the comments on trailers and reviews for The Avengers certainly seem to focus on him a lot. What I think "the public doesn't care about" is the Bruce Banner movies we've gotten so far. The public certainly wanted to like the Ang Lee version....check out the opening weekend before word of mouth kicked in.
The movie is actually named after him...he's the title character...but they relagate him to a supporting role. ...And that's giving him all the best of it since the true supporting characters are usually Betty and General Ross. The Hulk is actually a minor side character who appears, smashes stuff, and goes away so Banner can come back to dominate the narrative.And how is that degrading in itself?
I'll take "a little development" please! Way more than he ever had in his movies.But there's little chance the character and his story are getting much development when he has top share 2 hours with 5 superheroes.
Hence the "if" in my post.They're not making a new one for the time being.
The Hulk is an exciting character by his very nature. All they have to do is add in some actually character development. Ang Lee's Hulk didn't have that big opening weekend for nothing. (6th biggest OW in 2003) Once word got out it was just a boring Bruce Banner story it died at the box office. (14th total BO for 2003)I think there's a chance that the character with the most smashing amount might get the audience more excited. That's not saying that they care about the character's story.
Whedon may be moving on to other things, but del Toro would be fantastic!Marvel should hire Whedon or Guillermo del Toro to direct the next Hulk movie if they decide to give it another shot.
The movie is actually named after him...he's the title character...but they relagate him to a supporting role. ...And that's giving him all the best of it since the true supporting characters are usually Betty and General Ross. The Hulk is actually a minor side character who appears, smashes stuff, and goes away so Banner can come back to dominate the narrative.
That's pretty degrading.
The Hulk is an exciting character by his very nature. All they have to do is add in some actually character development. Ang Lee's Hulk didn't have that big opening weekend for nothing. (6th biggest OW in 2003) Once word got out it was just a boring Bruce Banner story it died at the box office. (14th total BO for 2003)
Those are characters which are designed to be supporting characters. King Kong, Jaws, and E.T. are stories about the effect those characters have on humans. And Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man are not separate characters from Kent, Wayne, and Parker. It's that fact I think filmmakers are overlooking really. They are used to being able to develop the title character with the alter-ego. They don't have to develop the idea that Spider-Man hates Peter Parker or that Superman has different desires/needs from Clark Kent.Well, it worked for King Kong, the shark of Jaws and E.T. Other characters had the most screentime. Same with Bruce Wayne vs Batman, Clark Kent vs Superman or Peter Parker vs Spider-man. The costumed hero always get sustantively less screetime than his alter ego.
But I really don't think getting Hulk more screentime could be anything wrong. We have had the other way many times.
The 6th best OW was very good. That was my point. People were interested in seeing a movie about the Hulk. 14th total for the year was a drop-off from that...indicating the movie got bad word of mouth.I didn't know 6th biggest opening weekend in a year was bad.
And I don't know if those numbers were specifcally due to Hulk's screentime/development as you claim. I'd like to know how do you link BO numbers and Hulk's development.
Those are characters which are designed to be supporting characters. King Kong, Jaws, and E.T. are stories about the effect those characters have on humans.
And Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man are not separate characters from Kent, Wayne, and Parker. It's that fact I think filmmakers are overlooking really. They are used to being able to develop the title character with the alter-ego. They don't have to develop the idea that Spider-Man hates Peter Parker or that Superman has different desires/needs from Clark Kent.
The 6th best OW was very good. That was my point. People were interested in seeing a movie about the Hulk. 14th total for the year was a drop-off from that...indicating the movie got bad word of mouth.
That means, what they did with the character did not work. ...And what they did was make him a mute side-character with no personality of his own.
The Hulk was what people were interested in...the movie is named after him after all.
Bad word of mouth indicates the thing people were interested in was not portrayed very well.
Except it seems that all involved are not happy with the box office for the Hulk...which means that ain't working. Time to try something different...like a Hulk with a personality. Now...if they don't mind the lower tier box office returns, they can keep doing what they've been doing. It works for sharks and giant apes obviously judging from the box office, but doesn't work for Hulk.No, those characters are, like you said, supposed to show what their effect they have on humans. Hulk could perfectly fit as one of them.
Still one character. That character has that one "problem". The Hulk is a separate personality with different motivations and wants. We get a lot of Banner's problems but nothing from the Hulk.Funny, They have, in every single case, developed the idea that the alter ego wants to get rid of the costumed hero persona.
Boring movie. The Banner character was the focus of the boring movie. The Hulk was a special guest star at most. "The Hulk" was on the marquee so that's obviously what the people came to see. They left grumbling about how boring it was and the box office took a dive. Notable that people did admit to liking the best parts of the movie....the Hulk action scenes. It's not terribly hard to figure out. (Except for studios apparently)Which is due to what exactly?
Again, how can you possibly link the drop-off to what you're saying?
A movie about Banner is considered boring by the public. Color me unsurprised. 2nd movie...still about Banner and makes even less money. Starting to see a trend? Can you predict what a 3rd movie about Banner would do at the box office? I can.What they did with the movie has a bigger effect. If people felt that the movie was slkow - as it happened with Ang Lee's Hulk - they gave it a bad word of mouth. Your statement does nothing for the 'little character development for Hulk' theory.
Because they don't need it like the Hulk does. Notice the difference in the box office? People showed up (in great numbers...proving the public is interested in the character) ready to see a Hulk movie (His name is in the title) and got a Banner movie.Like King Kong, or Jaws.
Nobody complained that they ahd little character development.
It was definitely too slow for the general public. ...And it's a movie about Banner...not the Hulk. They can either keep making slow Banner movies to mediocre box office (relatively speaking of course....other movies would kill to make the money Hulk movies make) or do something different. It's not my decision. I know what I would do....not keep doing what isn't working.Or indicates film was too slow, or it was too cerebral, or had little action, etc etc etc. You fail to connect your own personal taste to the outcome of the movie.
Except it seems that all involved are not happy with the box office for the Hulk...which means that ain't working. Time to try something different...like a Hulk with a personality. Now...if they don't mind the lower tier box office returns, they can keep doing what they've been doing. It works for sharks and giant apes obviously judging from the box office, but doesn't work for Hulk.
Still one character. That character has that one "problem". The Hulk is a separate personality with different motivations and wants. We get a lot of Banner's problems but nothing from the Hulk.
Boring movie. The Banner character was the focus of the boring movie. The Hulk was a special guest star at most. "The Hulk" was on the marquee so that's obviously what the people came to see. They left grumbling about how boring it was and the box office took a dive. Notable that people did admit to liking the best parts of the movie....the Hulk action scenes. It's not terribly hard to figure out. (Except for studios apparently)
A movie about Banner is considered boring by the public. Color me unsurprised. 2nd movie...still about Banner and makes even less money. Starting to see a trend? Can you predict what a 3rd movie about Banner would do at the box office? I can.
Now...let's see the reaction to the Hulk in the Avengers. So far, I'm hearing he steals the show. Maybe Whedon figured it out.
Because they don't need it like the Hulk does. Notice the difference in the box office? People showed up (in great numbers...proving the public is interested in the character) ready to see a Hulk movie (His name is in the title) and got a Banner movie.
It was definitely too slow for the general public. ...And it's a movie about Banner...not the Hulk. They can either keep making slow Banner movies to mediocre box office (relatively speaking of course....other movies would kill to make the money Hulk movies make) or do something different. It's not my decision. I know what I would do....not keep doing what isn't working.
There is only proof that a Banner movie doesn't work. It hasn't really worked 3 times. (Counting the TV show which was never that popular either)I seriously thought that in such a long post there would be a bit of evidence of this 'Hulk personality is what'll bring the money' still unsubstantiated personal theory of yours. But all you say is "The movie is boring. The movie is about Banner. Therefore the movie is boring because it's about Banner." For the same reason anyone could state that the movies have been unsuccessful because Betty Ross is in them, or because Gral. Ross has a moustache.
I agree, though, that they could as well try a different approach.
There is only proof that a Banner movie doesn't work. It hasn't really worked 3 times. (Counting the TV show which was never that popular either)
There is only proof that a Banner movie doesn't work. It hasn't really worked 3 times.
(Counting the TV show which was never that popular either)
So we know what doesn't work. what doesn't bring in the money.
My point is that anyone claiming "the public doesn't like the Hulk character" has no basis for that statement since he has never yet been the featured character in his live action properties.
The Hulk character has not failed...the Banner character has.
The second Hulk movie was not boring, but was still about Banner and the public stayed away. That's not encouraging for the Banner character....it ain't working. We have some real evidence to say Banner movies don't work that well.
Marvel should hire Andy Serkis to play him....that man doesn't mind supplanting his ego for the sake of making a great character. Playing Banner would actually seem high profile to him!
With the knowledge of what doesn't work, it only makes sense to try a different approach. I'm hoping that different approach is what we'll see in The Avengers. And I'll be curious to see how the the public reacts to the Hulk this time.
The TV show didn't really have much success. It landed in the top 30 exactly once during its 5 year run (#26). This was back when there were 3 networks and little/no cable competition too. I know fans of the show loved it...but there weren't that many of them.You're kidding right?
I say the only reason why the prior two movies didn't really work is because they cast the wrong actor as Banner. Find an actor who can portray Banner people like, and they'll care about the monster within him. The Tv shows success is proof of that.
The two movies have pretty much one thing in common...they were Banner movies. Both unperformed at the box office. Time to try something else.No. It could be that the first movie was too slow for audiences and the second one could have been affected by the first movie's results.
The "Banner movie" theory is not even close to be clear.
Popular/not popular is kinda the point when people say "the public doesn't care about the Hulk character". No Banner property has become popular. Time to let the Hulk be a real character.El Payaso said:Popular, not popular, it's untill today the first thing most people associate with Hulk. And while every Hulk movie only had one shot, the TV series had 5 seasons.
And the TV show. Three Banner entities, three different styles, three mediocre showings with the public. Time to try letting the Hulk be a real character.El Payaso said:No, we don't.
As I said I can put the blame on a number of things that are common to the two Hulk movies. That proves nothing.
Agreed. It's never actually been tried so we have no idea.El Payaso said:I agree there.
But at the same time we can't say "the public likes the Hulk" for the very same reasons.
After 3 different tries with 3 different styles, it may be time to admit the public doesn't care about the Banner character.El Payaso said:Or the pace of the movie. Or the CGI.
El Payaso said:Or people thought the second one was going to be similar to the first one in terms of pace so they didn't feel motivated.
OR - listen to this one - they could still be wanting something closer to the TV series.![]()
He probably would rock as the Hulk...but why not let him be Banner too? (If it ever becomes necessary to recast) He's not the type of actor who will get his feelings hurt if the whole movie isn't about him.El Payaso said:WHAT??? I thought you were saying Serkis should be the Hulk, as he's famous for making CGI characters alive.
I think the South America thing had something to do with that. And it did feel like they sped right by the "origin" thing as if it was already established (which was fine with me).El Payaso said:I'd even say that they should for once say this is A DIFFERENT THING. When Batman begins was out they thought it was a prequel, when TIH was out they thought itw as a sequel.
The TV show didn't really have much success. It landed in the top 30 exactly once during its 5 year run (#26). This was back when there were 3 networks and little/no cable competition too. I know fans of the show loved it...but there weren't that many of them.
The two movies have pretty much one thing in common...they were Banner movies. Both unperformed at the box office. Time to try something else.
Popular/not popular is kinda the point when people say "the public doesn't care about the Hulk character". No Banner property has become popular. Time to let the Hulk be a real character.
There are also things from the Ang Lee movie that people now associate with the Hulk....that doesn't mean it was successful or that that should be the guide for future incarnations of the Hulk. If Warner Bros used the 60s TV show as the guide for Batman it would also be a disaster...and that TV show was actually popular.t:
And the TV show. Three Banner entities, three different styles, three mediocre showings with the public. Time to try letting the Hulk be a real character.
Agreed. It's never actually been tried so we have no idea.
After 3 different tries with 3 different styles, it may be time to admit the public doesn't care about the Banner character.
t: Judging from the box office results, it looks like the same number of people are interested in the Banner movies who were interested in the Banner TV show....there really aren't any more people out there wanting.
He probably would rock as the Hulk...but why not let him be Banner too? (If it ever becomes necessary to recast) He's not the type of actor who will get his feelings hurt if the whole movie isn't about him.
I think the South America thing had something to do with that. And it did feel like they sped right by the "origin" thing as if it was already established (which was fine with me).
Heck...just make it good. Terminator 2 grabbed a much bigger audience than Terminator 1 without having to explain what T2 was.
I think Iron Man took that light away with his first movie, and then there are the X-MenHulk is Marvel's #2 or #3 most recognizable character. I can see why Stan is befuddled at the lukewarm reaction.
I think Iron Man took that light away with his first movie, and then there are the X-Men
Banner movies/TV shows haven't worked with 3 distinctly different syles. That's the main point. Not sure how many more Banner movies have to "meh" their way through the box office for that to be "proven".El Payaso said:Half of this post is something you still haven't proven.
Any version of the Hulk would be a nice change. So far he's not really appeared in any of the live action incarnations. "Banner and his mute unimportant green friend" are all we have so far. Hopefully Whedon will change that. The reviews certainly seem impressed with the Hulk as much or more than any of the other characters. That's an indication the Hulk was never the problem.Hulk is Marvel's #2 or #3 most recognizable character. I can see why Stan is befuddled at the lukewarm reaction.
It seems like a no-brainer to bring in different versions of the Hulk on the next outing. Non-comic fans would be very surprised by the difference in the Joe Fixit/The Professor/Green Scar personalities.
Banner movies/TV shows haven't worked with 3 distinctly different syles. That's the main point. Not sure how many more Banner movies have to "meh" their way through the box office for that to be "proven".![]()
Thank god. Finally.As far as we know the next time we'll see Banner and Hulk is in Avengers 2.
I don't consider TIH to be slow-paced....certainly not compared to Ang Lee's Hulk. And the TV show garnered similar mediocre audience numbers...was it slow-paced as well?El Payaso said:But again, being Banner movies is not proven to be what people didn't like about them. In fact, TIH could have been affected by Hulk's slow pace only.
Thank god. Finally.
I don't consider TIH to be slow-paced....certainly not compared to Ang Lee's Hulk.
And the TV show garnered similar mediocre audience numbers...was it slow-paced as well?
The one constant is...Banner dominated narrative. They've tried different actors, different directors, different styles while keeping the Hulk character mute and undeveloped. I can see the problem pretty clear.