Why was Incredible Hulk ignored for so long?

[Gamma Ra]

The Incredible Hulk seemed rather anti-government/paranoia-ish, which was pretty inconsistent with the ethos of MCU (all are characters are lovable and loved and authorized) until TWS.

I'm not sure if you've ever read Marvel Comics from the 70's, but the government's concern of super powered beings running around freely was a big concern in the Avengers title. The Hulk has always been a MCU concern because his very first appearance took place on a government military base. The MCU has never been a universe like DC where the heroes were reveared by all. In the MCU heroes and villains were always under the microscope...even Captain America.

This is a Marvel Entertainment motif.

 

[metaphysician]

*blink* Thor 2 *doesn't* have the lowest reviews with the audience. Its audience score is 77, compared with TIH's 71. I don't normally truck in audience scores as having much meaning, but given that TIH only has a single point edge in critic score. . .

 

[Darth_Spock]

*blink* Thor 2 *doesn't* have the lowest reviews with the audience. Its audience score is 77, compared with TIH's 71. I don't normally truck in audience scores as having much meaning, but given that TIH only has a single point edge in critic score. . .

Sigh....
You're looking at the percentage and not the actual amount.
Thor: Dark World 77% of 307K which equals 236 of the audience.
With TIH it's 71% of 737K which comes up to 523 of the audience.

So who wins the popularity vote here???

 

[metaphysician]

The one who scored the higher percentage, simple as that. More people going to see a movie doesn't make it more popular, if a higher percentage of them come out of it saying "I wish I didn't see this movie".

 

[Gamma Ra]

I believe Universal doesn't have a say in green lighting it. The deal is if Marvel makes a Hulk movie then they must offer Universal distribution. If Universal declines then Disney can distribute it themselves but Universal have no reason to decline. So it's all about whether or not Disney is okay with another studio distributing their films. As it stands Disney rather they make movies they have full rights over.

Here's the latest news from Kevin Feige on a Hulk solo movie....

"With Ruffalo in the starring role, audiences are likely to be much more receptive to a Hulk solo film, but there's a wrinkle. Universal still holds the distribution rights to all Hulk solo movies, so Marvel Studios can' make a new Hulk solo movie unless they're willing to share the profits with Universal. With everything that Marvel Studios is already putting out becoming money-making hits, the studio is probably in no rush to do a movie where they won't reap all the benefits."

http://comicbook.com/marvel/2017/10/20/marvels-kevin-feige-comments-on-hulk-getting-his-own-movie/

 

[zachthegeek]

Here's the latest news from Kevin Feige on a Hulk solo movie....

"With Ruffalo in the starring role, audiences are likely to be much more receptive to a Hulk solo film, but there's a wrinkle. Universal still holds the distribution rights to all Hulk solo movies, so Marvel Studios can' make a new Hulk solo movie unless they're willing to share the profits with Universal. With everything that Marvel Studios is already putting out becoming money-making hits, the studio is probably in no rush to do a movie where they won't reap all the benefits."

http://comicbook.com/marvel/2017/10/20/marvels-kevin-feige-comments-on-hulk-getting-his-own-movie/

That’s what I figured. It would make no sense for Universal to say no if Marvel wanted to, which was the previous theory of many on this site.

 

[Chance Jackson]

no reference to Bruce's history with Betty. Outside of the opening minutes of Avengers, I don't think there's even been any reference to the fact that Bruce is powered by the same serum as Steve.

There's also the matter of the Leader tease, which was just left hanging.

So what I'm wondering is, why did Marvel ignore it? Was there some problem with Universal or was it something to do with recasting Banner? Do Marvel just consider the Incredible Hulk a failure (it scored 67% on Rotten Tomatoes and earned 263.4 million worldwide. Nothing to sneeze at in my eyes, anyway)? Can anyone give any insight into this?

1. Banner's attempt to recreate ireskine's serum with gamma was mentioned in Avengers by coulson to cap

2. Leader is dealt with in fury's big week iirc

3. Ih was a poor performer for its budget

 

[Gamma Ra]

 

[DrCosmic]

no reference to Bruce's history with Betty.

Just as a note, the violent way of stopping Hulk, The Hulkbuster, being called 'Veronica' is definitely a reference to Betty being the nice way, ala Archie Comics.

As others have said, it's simply out of a lack of interest in promoting that film because money doesn't go back to Disney for it. Whenever you re-watch TIH, the proceeds are going to Universal, not Disney, so Disney will not promote that, just as they don't donate money to Universal out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

[RockSP]

I'm working my way through all the mcu films again, watching them with my mother who hasn't seen them and doesn't go to the movies. So tonight I watched Hulk for the first time in years. I'd forgotten Jim Wilson made a cameo. And I never noticed before that they give human Blonsky some cgi muscles after he took the super soldier serum, lol.

 

[Dark Raven]

I'd say it's ignored largely because

a) It's Ed Norton instead of Mark Ruffalo
b) Hulk looks different physically to how he looks in the Avengers onwards.

It looks like it's from a different era and made by a different studio. There are too many inconsistencies, so they prefer not to have it mix with the other films but sweep it under the carpet where they can.