Universal MCU: Hulk and Namor

[Peyton Westlake]

I'm not sure if Universal's rights has anything to do with how Hulk is prtrayed on film.
It may just be & would explain a lot to me why he is how he is in the MCU.
It also ,in my opinion, matter how the writer & director view the charcter & then how the actor takes it & handles it.
A lot to think about.
I don't think the Hulk evolution in the MCU was bad......just not the route I would have chosen.
The Professor Hulk who is a great intellect, (rivals Tony Stark's genius?) just makes me a more dull character to me.
What's the sense of having a hulking savage brute, who goes off on uncontrollable rages & works well as a misunderstood figure if he is now a cultured professor?
Seems his evolution was too quick maybe?

 

[metaphysician]

How is a hulking savage brute whose only state of being is uncontrollable rage, a better character than. . . a character who is actually capable of *interacting* with other characters, making decisions, and possessing a personality?

 

[InCali]

How is a hulking savage brute whose only state of being is uncontrollable rage, a better character than. . . a character who is actually capable of *interacting* with other characters, making decisions, and possessing a personality?

The Banner/Hulk duality.

 

[MilkmanDan]

How is a hulking savage brute whose only state of being is uncontrollable rage, a better character than. . . a character who is actually capable of *interacting* with other characters, making decisions, and possessing a personality?

Hulk did interact with other characters even in his less intelligent state, though. The interactions may have been somewhat simple in nature but I think that is what made them distinctive. Professor Hulk is basically just a more outgoing and confident Bruce Banner and I'm not sure that is a character that stands out in terms of personality.

 

[Peyton Westlake]

How is a hulking savage brute whose only state of being is uncontrollable rage, a better character than. . . a character who is actually capable of *interacting* with other characters, making decisions, and possessing a personality?

You're looking at it the wrong way.
If Banner , can be used in certains scenes, to Ruffalo's strengths, he can show the human side to the monster.
And when the hulk emerges , the anger/rage side takes over.
And even as the Hulk he can still bring expression into any scene.I think it makes the character more deep.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Number of films with a Hulk that is a mostly mute rage monster with a heart of gold:


4 (Ang Lee's Hulk, Incredible Hulk, Marvel's The Avengers, Age Of Ultron)


Number of films where Hulk is "classic", a childlike POV with basic language skills:

2 (Thor Ragnarok, Infinity War)


Number of films with the "Prof. Hulk" take:


Literally 1 Endgame)



Also... Why do the hardcore Hulk fans act as though... Films are reality and unchanging? Yeah... Last we left Hulk/Banner the Prof. thing SEEMED permanent and he had a terrible injury and even the directors have quotes that make that come off as being "permannent".


But... Has ANYONE read a freaking comic book among the Hulk fan set?

The complaints sure sound like some are really not familiar with the character's history (Uh... All this has been done before... Seems they always return to "classic" territory despite all the times Banner looked like he finally got the upper hand. So... Why the gnashing of teeth and rending of clothes?) or how simply fixes can be put in place... Cuz it's all fictional. Fantasy Sci Fi at that.


And the general sour grapes of Hulk not being exactly what some wanted post Ragnarok or that Thanos got a physical win over Hulk in IW? Villains have to be built up and some **** gets lost in the shuffle after a cast balloons to literally dozens of characters.

I love "Hulk Smash" as much as the next fan ( I am a HUGE Hulk fan) and I expect to see that in the MCU again at some point sooner than later.

But ONE movie with the Prof. Hulk isn't all she wrote and it is one moment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that is ongoing. We'll see bestial man monster Hulk again. It's a question of when.

 

[Zarex]

My guess is Grey Hulk/Joe Fixit will be the next iteration of the character. The She-Hulk series gives Bruce the opportunity for further evolution - he gives up gamma to Jennifer and doesn't quite get the mix right when he re-Hulkifies.

The grey version is a better sparring partner for MCU Wolverine and would be a more interesting character than the Smart Hulk. Though I would like to see petulant toddler Hulk make a comeback at some point.

 

[Dark Raven]

My guess is Grey Hulk/Joe Fixit will be the next iteration of the character. The She-Hulk series gives Bruce the opportunity for further evolution - he gives up gamma to Jennifer and doesn't quite get the mix right when he re-Hulkifies.

The grey version is a better sparring partner for MCU Wolverine and would be a more interesting character than the Smart Hulk. Though I would like to see petulant toddler Hulk make a comeback at some point.

When you say "petutant toddler", Hulk is not what comes to mind. Trump fits that description, but savage Hulk is nothing like that and is far more reasonable, mature and not petty or vindictive at all. So I don't think that is really the best way to describe Hulk.

 

[Zarex]

When you say "petutant toddler", Hulk is not what comes to mind. Trump fits that description, but savage Hulk is nothing like that and is far more reasonable, mature and not petty or vindictive at all. So I don't think that is really the best way to describe Hulk.

That was his exact personality type in Ragnarok. And for much of the character's comic book run before Peter David.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

The Hulk that I fell in love with as a kid had elements of:

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
Frankenstein
King Kong
Hunchback of Notre Dame
Wolfman
Godzilla

and more.

The later variations have their place, but I don’t feel like I’ve really seen that simple, amazing, classic character explored yet, and that’s disappointing.

 

[Peyton Westlake]

Number of films with a Hulk that is a mostly mute rage monster with a heart of gold:


4 (Ang Lee's Hulk, Incredible Hulk, Marvel's The Avengers, Age Of Ultron)


Number of films where Hulk is "classic", a childlike POV with basic language skills:

2 (Thor Ragnarok, Infinity War)


Number of films with the "Prof. Hulk" take:


Literally 1 Endgame)



Also... Why do the hardcore Hulk fans act as though... Films are reality and unchanging? Yeah... Last we left Hulk/Banner the Prof. thing SEEMED permanent and he had a terrible injury and even the directors have quotes that make that come off as being "permannent".


But... Has ANYONE read a freaking comic book among the Hulk fan set?

The complaints sure sound like some are really not familiar with the character's history (Uh... All this has been done before... Seems they always return to "classic" territory despite all the times Banner looked like he finally got the upper hand. So... Why the gnashing of teeth and rending of clothes?) or how simply fixes can be put in place... Cuz it's all fictional. Fantasy Sci Fi at that.


And the general sour grapes of Hulk not being exactly what some wanted post Ragnarok or that Thanos got a physical win over Hulk in IW? Villains have to be built up and some **** gets lost in the shuffle after a cast balloons to literally dozens of characters.

I love "Hulk Smash" as much as the next fan ( I am a HUGE Hulk fan) and I expect to see that in the MCU again at some point sooner than later.

But ONE movie with the Prof. Hulk isn't all she wrote and it is one moment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that is ongoing. We'll see bestial man monster Hulk again. It's a question of when.

I think for me its not that I don't know his history....the Russos' also do take liberties & dont follow Marvel history 100% like gospel, too many points to list ,so I'm afraid of what the plan just may be

 

[Darkprime]

I'm not sure if Universal's rights has anything to do with how Hulk is portrayed on film.

it doesn't. The only rights Universal has are distribution rights and first right of refusal when it comes to distributing any new Hulk movies. I honestly think its pretty petty how they wont give up those rights either. Their never gonna get to use them. So just give them back to Disney/Marvel. The only legit reason I can think of why they might not want to give up those rights is maybe their somehow also tied up with Hulks themepark rights? Which Universal also have.

 

[Peyton Westlake]

it doesn't. The only rights Universal has are distribution rights and first right of refusal when it comes to distributing any new Hulk movies. I honestly think its pretty petty how they wont give up those rights either. Their never gonna get to use them. So just give them back to Disney/Marvel. The only legit reason I can think of why they might not want to give up those rights is maybe their somehow also tied up with Hulks themepark rights? Which Universal also have.

If that's the case if I was Disney/Marvel, Iwould offer Universal the rights to continue for Hulk rides or Theme parks & to use newer movie concepts that Disney/Marvel develops just for giving the rights for Hulk on the screen.

 

[Peyton Westlake]

From what I been reading, it looks like Marvel is setting up Kang to be the new MCU villain.
But it would be cool if they used Namor as the villain at 1st.
Perhaps Kang can be maniupulating something, that he perceives a threat to Atlantis.
Which makes Namor go after the surface dwellers.
After he & the current Avenger team fight, & realize its Kang,they put aside their differences to go after Kang.

 

[Iceman]

The thing with ruffalo is that he started out as an alright Banner but then deviated so far away from the the tortured but genius scientist that he just became comic relief and so unlike the character completely. I still stand by that Norton has been our best Banner based on the source material.

Such a shame after he started so well. I found him a bit annoying in Ragnarok and was desperate to have him stay as Hulk.

 

[MagicStingRay]

something to keep in mind too is that Mark would absolutely nail the tortured Bruce. I know some have mentioned he is too chill an actor to capture that pent up rage bubbling under the surface (although I would say his performance in Avengers captures that reasonably well), but I would point towards the show "I Know This Much is True" if you want to see how he can totally nail the rage that exists within Banner.

 

[Web-Head]

From what I been reading, it looks like Marvel is setting up Kang to be the new MCU villain.
But it would be cool if they used Namor as the villain at 1st.
Perhaps Kang can be maniupulating something, that he perceives a threat to Atlantis.
Which makes Namor go after the surface dwellers.
After he & the current Avenger team fight, & realize its Kang,they put aside their differences to go after Kang.

They can use both. I doubt Namor is used as a key Avengers type villain, nor would I want him to be. Namor works best as an anti-hero type.

 

[Dark Raven]

They can use both. I doubt Namor is used as a key Avengers type villain, nor would I want him to be. Namor works best as an anti-hero type.

But I prefer he starts off as a villain but then others realise that maybe he's defending himself and his homeworld. Make it a bit like that original Star Trek series "The devil in the dark" where these miners thought that the Horta was killing everyone like a predator. But then when Kirk and Spock investigated, they discovered that the miners had destroyed its eggs and killed its babies and so now it was only defending its territory, especially since it was the last of its kind.

So in fact it wasn't really the villain as such but the miners were more so.

Or they could even make Namor like the Klingons who seemed liked villains in the original series but were a proud and honourable people who also had certain ways that humans didn't agree with.

Make Namor only become more of a hero at the end of whichever film he's in - hopefully a Fantastic Four movie. Maybe Reed will discover that it's humans who have attacked his people or polluted the oceans and so Namor was only defending his world. Of course, he can still be arrogant and fiery but it can show a progression in his arc from supposed villain to anti-hero.

 

[Peyton Westlake]

They can use both. I doubt Namor is used as a key Avengers type villain, nor would I want him to be. Namor works best as an anti-hero type.

Well for him (Namor) I think being both a villain & hero, offers the MCU something fresh & new.
It really adds a very interesting character to their universe.
No one, that I know of in the MCU goes back & forth in their allegiance so quickly.
Namor ,historically in the comics, is known for that.
He takes whoever's side will benefit Atlantis.
I think it would be a GREAT idea if everytime we see him on film in a movie, we never quite know who's side he is on at the moment.
Would make for an interesting charcter, who is immensely powerful.

 

[Peyton Westlake]

But I prefer he starts off as a villain but then others realise that maybe he's defending himself and his homeworld.

Make Namor only become more of a hero at the end of whichever film he's in - hopefully a Fantastic Four movie. Maybe Reed will discover that it's humans who have attacked his people or polluted the oceans and so Namor was only defending his world. Of course, he can still be arrogant and fiery but it can show a progression in his arc from supposed villain to anti-hero.

Thats a good idea, I prefer it more back & forth .
Except over the course of 1 movie, make it over several.

 

[Peyton Westlake]

These images say it...you never know who's side he is on.
Makes for 1 interesting character.

 

[Peyton Westlake]

 

[Peyton Westlake]

 

[InCali]

They can use both. I doubt Namor is used as a key Avengers type villain, nor would I want him to be. Namor works best as an anti-hero type.

And I think he would be more interesting opposite the FF. For that matter, I think Kang would too. He'd be fine vs either, but I think the FF would be my choice.....in both cases. Namor as, as you say, the anti-hero and Kang the flat out villain.

 

[Dark Raven]

And I think he would be more interesting opposite the FF. For that matter, I think Kang would too. He'd be fine vs either, but I think the FF would be my choice.....in both cases. Namor as, as you say, the anti-hero and Kang the flat out villain.

I'd rather Namor appears to be the flat-out villain at first but then by the end of the movie is established as the anti-hero and also the result of prejudice, misunderstanding and fear.

Think "The devil in the dark" episode from Star Trek the original series. Or even the Klingons from the original series.