Why doesn’t Hulk work in a solo movie?

[Sephiroth]

It was on TV so I had this on my mind. On one hand I can kind of understand Joss Whedon’s viewpoint that the whole point is to see Bruce Banner turn into the Hulk and that it can be a difficult concept to stretch out into a full movie-but I think the 2008 movie actually did it pretty darn well, and it left enough potential openings that a follow up could easily have been possible. Maybe not full Planet Hulk mode-which they did a good job of incorporating into Thor Ragnarok. But still, I would think that at least The Leader and She Hulk would be a great sequel.

[Muskrat]

They haven’t had the right combo of writers and director to make it work. And with the rights tied up with Universal, it doesn’t look like anyone is gonna get a real shot anytime soon

[Deleted]

But Bruce turning into the Hulk doesn't have to be the whole point.

You could have him start off as the Hulk early in the film, return to Banner, have brief Hulk "flare-ups", and have Banner come back as the Hulk for the film's climax.

[Sephiroth]

Jun 9, 2018 12:37:49 GMT -5 @irontyger said:

But Bruce turning into the Hulk doesn't have to be the whole point.

You could have him start off as the Hulk early in the film, return to Banner, have brief Hulk "flare-ups", and have Banner come back as the Hulk for the film's climax.

In short-the 2008 movie

[Deleted]

Jun 9, 2018 12:40:24 GMT -5 Sephiroth said:

Jun 9, 2018 12:37:49 GMT -5 @irontyger said:

But Bruce turning into the Hulk doesn't have to be the whole point.

You could have him start off as the Hulk early in the film, return to Banner, have brief Hulk "flare-ups", and have Banner come back as the Hulk for the film's climax.

In short-the 2008 movie

Thor: Ragnarok used Hulk very well in this regard too.

[Kevin Hamilton]

Incredible was perfectly decent, just tweak that a bit and he works fine.

[agent817]

Just wondering, but was the 2003 film really as bad as people said it was?

[Hit Girl]

"Because brotha, Billionaire Ted promised me movies and Hollywood stardom brotha, but he lied brotha!"




Oh.

[Muskrat]

Jun 9, 2018 13:09:56 GMT -5 agent817 said:

Just wondering, but was the 2003 film really as bad as people said it was?

One of the major action sequences involved a mutated poodle

It had some decent ideas, but really failed in the execution.

[Natural Born Farmer]

I thought Incredible Hulk was excellent. For whatever reason people just don't seem to want to pay to see solo Hulk films though.

[schizo]

Didn't know I wanted Hans Solo and Hulk in a movie together till now.

And The Incredible Hulk was pretty good. I though Norton was good in it.

[Kevin Hamilton]

Jun 9, 2018 13:09:56 GMT -5 agent817 said:

Just wondering, but was the 2003 film really as bad as people said it was?

It was a combination of things really. Ang Lee had some interesting ideas that just weren't well-executed (the different shots sometimes looking like panels was a neat attempt that didn't really pan out). The script desperatedly needed some editing to trim it down and get rid of a lot of long periods of people sitting around talking. And this was that period in the early 2000s where comic book movies overall were still pretty meh and forgettable. Think in terms of something like the Affleck Daredevil which also had some good in it but was overall a pretty drab experience too. A lot of the visuals don't hold up well at all either. Hulk being a CGI character, they did the best they could and it was passable; it just hasn't aged well. And that climax where Bruce fights Absorbing Dad, you can't see a damned thing.

[zrowsdower]

Jun 9, 2018 12:34:03 GMT -5 Muskrat said:

They haven’t had the right combo of writers and director to make it work. And with the rights tied up with Universal, it doesn’t look like anyone is gonna get a real shot anytime soon

I'm sorry, but I've a little confused on the Universal rights thing, can you explain a little bit about it?

[Feyrhausen]

Jun 9, 2018 15:31:56 GMT -5 zrowsdower said:

Jun 9, 2018 12:34:03 GMT -5 Muskrat said:

They haven’t had the right combo of writers and director to make it work. And with the rights tied up with Universal, it doesn’t look like anyone is gonna get a real shot anytime soon

I'm sorry, but I've a little confused on the Universal rights thing, can you explain a little bit about it?

I believe Marvels Studios has the rights to the character but Universal has the right to distribute any solo Hulk (or Hulk family, I assume) movie.

[Muskrat]

Jun 9, 2018 15:31:56 GMT -5 zrowsdower said:

Jun 9, 2018 12:34:03 GMT -5 Muskrat said:

They haven’t had the right combo of writers and director to make it work. And with the rights tied up with Universal, it doesn’t look like anyone is gonna get a real shot anytime soon

I'm sorry, but I've a little confused on the Universal rights thing, can you explain a little bit about it?

Marvel has the rights to use Hulk in their movies, but any actual Hulk movie Universal has the right to distribute. In order to do a Hulk stand alone movie, Disney would either have to buyout Universals rights (and Universal refuses to workout a deal) or share distribution with them which Disney is unwilling to do.

At least, that’s my understanding based on statements from Ruffalo and Feige.

[Juice]

Jun 9, 2018 15:34:48 GMT -5 Feyrhausen said:

Jun 9, 2018 15:31:56 GMT -5 zrowsdower said:

I'm sorry, but I've a little confused on the Universal rights thing, can you explain a little bit about it?

I believe Marvels Studios has the rights to the character but Universal has the right to distribute any solo Hulk (or Hulk family, I assume) movie.

As confirmed by Mark in numerous interviews, though he used other examples prior to this as to why they don't anticipate a solo film.

[The Thread Barbi]

The lack of Jack McGee, inteprid reporter.

[Deleted]

The Ed Norton film is in my top 5 Marvel films but I know that's a minority view. Obviously I think the film world fine.

Not into Ruffalo's performance as much, although Ragnarok was good fun.

[Mighty Attack Tribble]

Jun 9, 2018 15:38:58 GMT -5 Muskrat said:

Jun 9, 2018 15:31:56 GMT -5 zrowsdower said:

I'm sorry, but I've a little confused on the Universal rights thing, can you explain a little bit about it?

Marvel has the rights to use Hulk in their movies, but any actual Hulk movie Universal has the right to distribute. In order to do a Hulk stand alone movie, Disney would either have to buyout Universals rights (and Universal refuses to workout a deal) or share distribution with them which Disney is unwilling to do.

At least, that’s my understanding based on statements from Ruffalo and Feige.

And based on Kevin Smith's attempts to make a Mallrats sequel, Universal don't release the rights to an IP they have acquired, even if they have no intention of ever using it again (to the best of my knowledge they've only ever done it once).

[Alice Syndrome]

Jun 9, 2018 14:44:09 GMT -5 Kevin Hamilton said:

Jun 9, 2018 13:09:56 GMT -5 agent817 said:

Just wondering, but was the 2003 film really as bad as people said it was?

It was a combination of things really. Ang Lee had some interesting ideas that just weren't well-executed (the different shots sometimes looking like panels was a neat attempt that didn't really pan out). The script desperatedly needed some editing to trim it down and get rid of a lot of long periods of people sitting around talking. And this was that period in the early 2000s where comic book movies overall were still pretty meh and forgettable. Think in terms of something like the Affleck Daredevil which also had some good in it but was overall a pretty drab experience too. A lot of the visuals don't hold up well at all either. Hulk being a CGI character, they did the best they could and it was passable; it just hasn't aged well. And that climax where Bruce fights Absorbing Dad, you can't see a damned thing.

For an example of the "idea vs execution", check this ridiculous scene out: