Stan Lee wants ANOTHER Hulk reboot?

[Cain]

The world needs another Hulk movie and since word is that they FINALLY got it correct in TA I really do hope that the world gets another Hulk movie.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Oh but this is wonderful. The character reduced to a guest star in another franchise. Can't think of anything less degrading.

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.

Third Hulk? The first one doesn't count...

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.

 

[El Payaso]

I can.

Being a guest star in your own movie/TV show. That's what has happened to the Hulk so far.

And how is that degrading in itself?

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.

Yeah, I've heard many things. Like they're not making a new movie.

But there's little chance the character and his story are getting much development when he has top share 2 hours with 5 superheroes.

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.

They're not making a new one for the time being.

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.

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.

I'll have to actually watch the movie first.

 

[Mikelus]

Marvel should hire Whedon or Guillermo del Toro to direct the next Hulk movie if they decide to give it another shot.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

And how is that degrading in itself?

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.

But there's little chance the character and his story are getting much development when he has top share 2 hours with 5 superheroes.

I'll take "a little development" please! Way more than he ever had in his movies.

They're not making a new one for the time being.

Hence the "if" in my post.

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.

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)

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Marvel should hire Whedon or Guillermo del Toro to direct the next Hulk movie if they decide to give it another shot.

Whedon may be moving on to other things, but del Toro would be fantastic!

 

[El Payaso]

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.

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 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 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.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

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.

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.

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.

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. Essentially a walking special effect since there was nothing else to him. 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.

 

[Roose Bolton]

Whatever they decide to do next they better keep Whedon involved, at least as a writer.

 

[El Payaso]

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.

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.

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.

Funny, They have, in every single case, developed the idea that the alter ego wants to get rid of the costumed hero persona.

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.

Which is due to what exactly?

Again, how can you possibly link the drop-off to what you're saying?

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.

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.

The Hulk was what people were interested in...the movie is named after him after all.

Like King Kong, or Jaws.

Nobody complained that they ahd little character development.

Bad word of mouth indicates the thing people were interested in was not portrayed very well.

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.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

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.

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.

Funny, They have, in every single case, developed the idea that the alter ego wants to get rid of the costumed hero persona.

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.

Which is due to what exactly?
Again, how can you possibly link the drop-off to what you're saying?

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)

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.

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.

Like King Kong, or Jaws.

Nobody complained that they ahd little character development.

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.

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.

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.

 

[El Payaso]

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.

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.

 

[Norm3]

They are rebooting Hulk in the planned TV show. I'm not wild about another Banner on the run TV show with the Hulk beating up bikers & evil citizens. But they meaning Marvel thinks the Hulks not a viable movie franchise. I say they haven't found the right director yet maybe Joss Whedon has finally gotten the Hulk right in the Avengers.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

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)

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. (Again...relatively speaking...other movies would love to gross $130 million domestic) I'm sure this would be a real blow to the egos of Edward Norton and Eric Bana. 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.

 

[Golgo-13]

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)

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.

 

[El Payaso]

There is only proof that a Banner movie doesn't work. It hasn't really worked 3 times.

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.

(Counting the TV show which was never that popular either)

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.

So we know what doesn't work. what doesn't bring in the money.

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.

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.

I agree there.

But at the same time we can't say "the public likes the Hulk" for the very same reasons.

The Hulk character has not failed...the Banner character has.

Or the pace of the movie. Or the CGI.

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.

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.

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!

WHAT??? I thought you were saying Serkis should be the Hulk, as he's famous for making CGI characters alive.

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.

A different approach is where I can agree with you.

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.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

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 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.

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.

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, 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.

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:

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.

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.

I agree there.

But at the same time we can't say "the public likes the Hulk" for the very same reasons.

Agreed. It's never actually been tried so we have no idea.

Or the pace of the movie. Or the CGI.

After 3 different tries with 3 different styles, it may be time to admit the public doesn't care about the Banner character.

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.

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.

WHAT??? I thought you were saying Serkis should be the Hulk, as he's famous for making CGI characters alive.

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'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.

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.

 

[Lantern Venom]

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.

 

[El Payaso]

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.

Half of this post is something you still haven't proven.

The other half is defending something no one is against.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Hulk 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

 

[Lantern Venom]

I think Iron Man took that light away with his first movie, and then there are the X-Men

I think there is a interesting discussion between who is more recognizable to the general public: Wolverine or Hulk? Spidey is #1, no doubt, but the #2 character has a couple of contenders.

I wouldn't put Iron Man in the discussion at all, however. Before '08, he was a 2nd tier character in terms of name recognition. Older generations (ones where adults didn't read comics or watch cartoons) had very little exposure to him. Of course, his story has translated to the big screen better than any of his Avenger allies, which has catapulted him to an elite status.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Half of this post is something you still haven't proven.

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".

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.

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.

 

[El Payaso]

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".

As far as we know the next time we'll see Banner and Hulk is in Avengers 2.

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.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

As far as we know the next time we'll see Banner and Hulk is in Avengers 2.

Thank god. Finally.

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.

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.

 

[El Payaso]

Thank god. Finally.

Finally what?

I don't consider TIH to be slow-paced....certainly not compared to Ang Lee's Hulk.

Not even in the BO numbers?

And the TV show garnered similar mediocre audience numbers...was it slow-paced as well?

Tell me how 2 movies compare to 5 seasons with 83 episodes.

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.

Or while Hulk being green. Maybe the reason is the colour. It's another constant.