Stan Lee wants ANOTHER Hulk reboot?

[VenomVsSpidey]

^^

what you guys said. I liked lee's hulk the best though

 

[Marvel Spider]

I'm pretty happy with the design we got in TIH.

Me too. There was nothing wrong with it, IMO.

 

[Timstuff]

Either go ahead with a sequel to the Norton version of Hulk or just give up on having a Hulk franchise and only use him in The Avengers. The Incredible Hulk was about as good a Hulk movie as I could have hoped for, and it still didn't make money which tells me that either A) the studios just don't know how to market Hulk, or B) audiences are not interested in the character. Maybe the Avengers movie will be enough to generate interest in TIH2, but I'm not betting on it. I'd love to see another Hulk movie, but another reboot is downright excessive and would not do anything to help Hulk's image. They already made a good Hulk reboot, and audiences didn't watch it. What's ANOTHER reboot supposed to accomplish, other than making Marvel look indecisive?

Stan, I love ya, but that doesn't mean you can't be wrong. In this case, you are wrong wrong WRONG.

 

[Hmarrs]

Edit

 

[Hmarrs]

We got this in the first movie:

Then this in Norton's:

I would like to see Hulk look like this:

I'd like to see him look like a big inhuman (including his face) monster. More like Kirby's version. It would also make him look scarier.[/QUOTE]
Dog!!!! I couldn't agree with you more!!!If you look at most of my posts I been saying the same thing!!!I even used the same pictures.For a minute there I thought it was one of my post!!!!He has to look that way because if he looks too much human he fails to be the hulk.In both movies he just looked like a big Green man.Not only that but it effects the CGI if he looks too human we tend to see the faults in the CGI however the more unnatural he looks the more realistic the CGI looks.WHY???Because we have nothing to compare to.I don't care what anyone says I agree.and it's true!!!!

 

[Son of Coul]

Either go ahead with a sequel to the Norton version of Hulk or just give up on having a Hulk franchise and only use him in The Avengers. The Incredible Hulk was about as good a Hulk movie as I could have hoped for, and it still didn't make money which tells me that either A) the studios just don't know how to market Hulk, or B) audiences are not interested in the character. Maybe the Avengers movie will be enough to generate interest in TIH2, but I'm not betting on it. I'd love to see another Hulk movie, but another reboot is downright excessive and would not do anything to help Hulk's image. They already made a good Hulk reboot, and audiences didn't watch it. What's ANOTHER reboot supposed to accomplish, other than making Marvel look indecisive?

Stan, I love ya, but that doesn't mean you can't be wrong. In this case, you are wrong wrong WRONG.

Yeah this. The fact that they were rebooting it in the first place gave it some negative press right off the bat from the more ignorant presses, like "oh, Hulk failed so hard the first time in a movie, could he manage to actually do it right???" Rebooting it a second time would only destroy Hulk's reputation and credibility in the movie world. I could see the ****** news blogs already- "So it looks like they're rebooting the Hulk. Again. Perhaps with two already underwhelmingly performing movies, Hollywood is just not the place for the big green goliath? Given the success of his 70s tv series, maybe he should leap his way back to the small screen."

TIH was a damn fine movie, it's already integrated into the MCU and accepted as canon. Marvel's sticking to their guns so if you don't like it you'll just have to deal with it.

 

[Doc Ock]

I'm pretty happy with the design we got in TIH.

Definitely! It was perfect IMO!

 

[bubbadoom]

Was TIH really a "reboot?"
If that's all the "reboot" we get with the new Spider-Man, I doubt many will notice the difference [other than the new cast].

 

[Abraham]

keep THIS Bruce,

Keep THIS hulk,

kthxbye

 

[Abraham]

Was TIH really a "reboot?"
If that's all the "reboot" we get with the new Spider-Man, I doubt many will notice the difference [other than the new cast].

I think they'll catch on when they see Spidey in High School.

 

[Superboy-Prime]

no more Hulk "reboots", "remakes", "reimagines", just continue with the goddamn series already

 

[Superboy-Prime]

edithttp://www.imdb.com/name/nm0922035/

 

[Artistsean]

I don't want another reboot, or reimagine either. I would be fine, and would love and ask for, a continuation of the Norton Hulk story.
I would just like, if any changes were made, for Hulk to look more Hulk like. Thats all. No other changes needed. Just bigger eyebrows and stuff. Thats all.

 

[Heretic]

There is a very good chance that Avengers will use the opportunity to showcase exactly what Hulk can do. When people flock to that movie to see Iron Man, Captain America etc...they could instead get wrapped up in the coolness of the Hulk. That could lead to an action packed Hulk sequel....maybe.

 

[david icke]

We got this in the first movie:

Then this in Norton's:

I would like to see Hulk look like this:

I'd like to see him look like a big inhuman (including his face) monster. More like Kirby's version. It would also make him look scarier.

Dog!!!! I couldn't agree with you more!!!If you look at most of my posts I been saying the same thing!!!I even used the same pictures.For a minute there I thought it was one of my post!!!!He has to look that way because if he looks too much human he fails to be the hulk.In both movies he just looked like a big Green man.Not only that but it effects the CGI if he looks too human we tend to see the faults in the CGI however the more unnatural he looks the more realistic the CGI looks.WHY???Because we have nothing to compare to.I don't care what anyone says I agree.and it's true!!!!

Yeah, I think you are onto something here guys. There is a term, 'the uncanny valley' , that was coined by a Japanese scientist , that describes how the closer an artificial construction is to human, the more repulsed we are by it.
I know just what he means, like that motion capture stuff Zemekis used for Beowulf, pure turn off.
and now that you have brought it up, I think I agree that this might be a factor with the cgi hulk too, i never liked how we got a 'good looking' hulk that looked like bana, the norton hulk was a little more monster like, but not by much, just a little uglier i suppose, still looked like a big green man.

and yeah, the kirby design is ideal, those 3d sculptures look like the perfect hulk, they get him down like that he could be as good as gollum.

 

[M.O.Steel]

He's delusional to think the third time will be a charm.
The reason it performed underwhelmingly is due to the negative feelings the public had of Angs version, you redo **** again and it wont strike customer confidence it'll end up crashing and burning even more then if they build on what they already have.

Just save him for the Avengers.

i disagree...maybe TIH just wasn't that good?

 

[Hmarrs]

Yeah, I think you are onto something here guys. There is a term, 'the uncanny valley' , that was coined by a Japanese scientist , that describes how the closer an artificial construction is to human, the more repulsed we are by it.
I know just what he means, like that motion capture stuff Zemekis used for Beowulf, pure turn off.

Boy was Beowolf ever a turn off and what or who was best CGI character to come off??????
The big Ogre creature.The son remember?????

 

[Maximillian]

maybe TIH just wasn't that good?

Sure it was. Just that people were stupid enough to believe it was a sequel to that crappy Ang Lee movie.

While the Frankenstein's monster aspect is great, he looks too much like a ******ed ape. I'm glad we got the Sal Buscema design in TIH.

 

[Spidey-Quad]

Don't say "******" say "special"

 

[M.O.Steel]

Sure it was. Just that people were stupid enough to believe it was a sequel to that crappy Ang Lee movie.

While the Frankenstein's monster aspect is great, he looks too much like a ******ed ape. I'm glad we got the Sal Buscema design in TIH.

I liked it. but lets not kid ourselves. it wasn't that good, and really offered nothing more than "just another throw-away" character, which is sad. People aren't stupid. outside of the opening credits, it would fit in with the first movie like lock and key. the last one ended with him in south america, and the new starts there. They didn't do a good job introducing it as a new frachise. if you didn't follow as intensely, and read interview and watch behind the scenes, you would think the same thing


but in the larger scope of cinema, the Ang Lee's Hulk did a better job of establishing the hulk in mainstream cinema than TIH which is what I call just a typical comic-book movie.

Batman is the only one that I feel did it successfully. Punisher failed, and i have a strong feeling spiderman will as well.

 

[jadejaws]

I liked it. but lets not kid ourselves. it wasn't that good, and really offered nothing more than "just another throw-away" character, which is sad.

but in the larger scope of cinema, the Ang Lee's Hulk did a better job of establishing the hulk in mainstream cinema than TIH which is what I call just a typical comic-book movie.

I disagree...TIH has received some pretty solid reviews from the comic book community. For the most part, it was well received by audiences...critics are another story.

Ang Hulk - establishing the Hulk in mainstream cinema huh? I don't necessarily dislike Ang's movie, but the only thing it established was a bad taste in the mouths of movie goers that summer.

I'm not in any way saying that TIH would been an extreme hit without Ang's film. However, I simply refuse to believe that it had absolutely no effect on TIH's box office.

 

[M.O.Steel]

I disagree...TIH has received some pretty solid reviews from the comic book community. For the most part, it was well received by audiences...critics are another story.

Ang Hulk - establishing the Hulk in mainstream cinema huh? I don't necessarily dislike Ang's movie, but the only thing it established was a bad taste in the mouths of movie goers that summer.

I'm not in any way saying that TIH would been an extreme hit without Ang's film. However, I simply refuse to believe that it had absolutely no effect on TIH's box office.

if it were, then it would have been a box-office success. within the comic book community, sure, but that is a very small portion. you can disagree all you want. clearly it was a business failure, even stan lee's optimistic-heavy glass-half-full attitutude thought it was a failure.

don't get me wrong, ang lee's hulk established hulk because it was the first one it was a real introduction to the character. not necessarily a reflection of the quality of the film. just saying more people will remember that movie, for better or for worse, 10, 20, 30 years from now than the new TIH version, which just came and went.

Anglee's movie absolute had an effect on TIH BO. no question. but the movie itself like i said doesn't really offer anything unique to make it stand out, definitely didn't set itself apart from the last one.

 

[jadejaws]

if it were, then it would have been a box-office success. within the comic book community, sure, but that is a very small portion. you can disagree all you want. clearly it was a business failure, even stan lee's optimistic-heavy glass-half-full attitutude thought it was a failure.

Sorry, again I disagree. A movie can be well liked and still not necessarily a box office smash. The casual movie fan simply didn't want to spend their hard earned money to give the Hulk another shot in the theater.

Business failure is a bit strong. We can argue about numbers, dvd sales, toy revenue, etc all night. Marvel was quoted as saying that, "TIH was a success". Whether people want to believe that is up to them, but that's what was said.

And as far as an introduction to the character...we can thank the TV show for that. People still consider that "the real Hulk".

 

[bubbadoom]

I'll take the Kirby Hulk over ANY other Hulk any time...

 

[Boom]

I've always loved these designs: