Is a Hulk movie that difficult to do right?

[héad.casé]

I love Hulk, hated the Ang Lee 2003 movie, wasn't a fan of Eric Bana as Bruce Banner either, loved the Ed Norton Hulk movie (which is apparently canon according to Marvel), but there were a lot of people that didn't like that either (though many loved Norton in the lead role). Ruffalo was the show stealer in the Avengers, and a theory among many that i've seen across comic forums is that it was because Whedon wrote Hulk well, because he knows fans want to see Hulk smash shit up.

Even now Marvel seemingly have no plans to do a solo Hulk movie even though Ruffalo was well received in the role. Is it because a Hulk movie is hard to do right in a sense that it pleases the majority?

[Goldenbane]

I think that a lot of Hollywood writers out there are conflicted about the Hulk. They know we want "Hulk smash" type movies, but think the Hulk is popular/known for the conflicted stuff from the tv show (and yeah, that's party right). These days, I think the audience is more interested in "Hulk Smash" sorts of movies, so I really think writers should lean towards that sort of thing.

[Sephiroth]

Lack of iconic storylines and only well known for "Hulk smash!"

[The Summer of Muskrat XVII]

I think they've adopted the "less is more" strategy for Hulk for the time being. The previous movies under-performed, and the audience hasn't really been screaming for a Hulk stand alone again so I don't think it's something they have in the cards. Plus, They've recently gone on record saying they like having a major character who only appears in the Avengers flicks.

However, with Inhumans, Doc Strange, etc coming in Phase 3, I could definitely see them doing a take on Planet Hulk at some point in Phase 4/5. There's definitely money on the table with a severely pissed off Hulk as the main antagonist in an Avengers flick (or, what about doing it from Hulks point of view, and presenting the Avengers as the antagonists in a Hulk movie)

[Red Impact]

I think he's the hardest Marvel character to make a solo movie around.

Banner is too much of a loner, and there's really only so much you can do with him and Betsy Ross moping about his condition while Thunderbolt angrily plans to mobilize against him. The version of the Hulk they want to use is just very limiting with plot. And you're only going to have 2 kinds of major action scenes: The military trying to blow him up or him trading punches with another gamma-irradiated monster, neither of which make very compelling action sequences long-term. Not to mention that the bulk of his potential allies are all gamma monsters as well.

It's hard to build strong pathos around that, at least until they adopt the more merged Hulk who is smarter.

[Deleted]

I think the big issue is that there's a lot of psychological crapola in the Hulk's backstory and character.

As such, with a movie you probably need to either go psychological and sacrifice the big action (the Ang Lee version), or ditch that and go for monsters punching monsters (the Ed Norton version)

Either way, you create movies that, because of studio politics or whatever, don't marry the 2 together very well.

[xCompackx]

It probably doesn't help that since you can only really portray The Hulk using CGI, doing an entire movie about him is either going to be extremely expensive to make, or not feature The Hulk as much as people want.

[Red Impact]

Dec 26, 2014 13:06:38 GMT -5 @knapp said:

I think the big issue is that there's a lot of psychological crapola in the Hulk's backstory and character.

As such, with a movie you probably need to either go psychological and sacrifice the big action (the Ang Lee version), or ditch that and go for monsters punching monsters (the Ed Norton version)

Either way, you create movies that, because of studio politics or whatever, don't marry the 2 together very well.

Even if you work the psychology aspect, I think directors would have to reach to try to stretch that out for 2 hours. Avengers did the psychological elements perfectly in a few scenes, but if you asked me if they could make it work if they dragged it out to full length, I'd say no. The psychology can be compelling, but not enough to carry a full movie.

He works fine as an ensemble character, there's just not as much there to make him the sole focus once you've told his initial story.

[Savage Gambino]

Dec 26, 2014 13:07:50 GMT -5 xCompackx said:

It probably doesn't help that since you can only really portray The Hulk using CGI, doing an entire movie about him is either going to be extremely expensive to make, or not feature The Hulk as much as people want.

I think that's the biggest problem. A serious Hulk film would mean a lot of destruction and a LOT of CGI, and that ain't cheap. Especially when you hear people throwing out titles like Planet Hulk and World War Hulk. Making those movies would would require Avengers-level budgets, which is a lot of risk for a product that hasn't had much luck with the returns.

Another problem is, a Hulk movie that is heavy on the Hulk will, most likely, be light on Mark Ruffalo. You see, when a studio spends big bucks on a star, they expect to get that star on-screen as much as possible. That's one of the reasons they tend to stay away from characters that will be masked the whole time. Most of the X-Men have appeared umasked, Spider-Man and Captain America appear without their masks throughout their respective movies, they even found a way around it with Iron Man by showing his facial expressions behind the mask. I think they simply don't want to spend all that money on a movie where their top billed star will only appear in person maybe 15-20 minutes, and will appear in CGI the rest of the movie.

[xCompackx]

Dec 26, 2014 14:27:05 GMT -5 Savage Gambino said:

Dec 26, 2014 13:07:50 GMT -5 xCompackx said:

It probably doesn't help that since you can only really portray The Hulk using CGI, doing an entire movie about him is either going to be extremely expensive to make, or not feature The Hulk as much as people want.

I think that's the biggest problem. A serious Hulk film would mean a lot of destruction and a LOT of CGI, and that ain't cheap. Especially when you hear people throwing out titles like Planet Hulk and World War Hulk. Making those movies would would require Avengers-level budgets, which is a lot of risk for a product that hasn't had much luck with the returns.

Another problem is, a Hulk movie that is heavy on the Hulk will, most likely, be light on Mark Ruffalo. You see, when a studio spends big bucks on a star, they expect to get that star on-screen as much as possible. That's one of the reasons they tend to stay away from characters that will be masked the whole time. Most of the X-Men have appeared umasked, Spider-Man and Captain America appear without their masks throughout their respective movies, they even found a way around it with Iron Man by showing his facial expressions behind the mask. I think they simply don't want to spend all that money on a movie where their top billed star will only appear in person maybe 15-20 minutes, and will appear in CGI the rest of the movie.

Yeah, it'd be a really tricky balance between Hulk and Bruce Banner and there'd still be complaints that one was featured more than the other. It reminds me of the first Ghost Rider's DVD commentary where the filmmakers admitted that a huge problem for them was trying to balance Nicolas Cage scenes and Ghost Rider scenes since Ghost Rider is another case of needing constant CGI (I think the first Michael Bay Transformers movie had that problem too). Maybe they could still work it out so that Hulk could appear more often, but I don't see it increasing all that much.

[Some Guy]

I like Ang Lee's movie

[Kevin Hamilton]

As much as I love Peter David's run on the Hulk (perhaps my favorite run of any creator on any title ever), and all the complexities and nuance he gave to the Hulk; you're gonna be hard pressed to boil that sort of thing down to a two hour movie. I'd like it, but I think generally you're gonna turn most audiences that wanna see Hulk just be Hulk off.

As is, he works great as he is portrayed in Avengers, a show stealer that doesn't have to carry the load of his own movie.

[Joe Neglia]

One of the things I feel that is missing from the previous Hulk films is the sidekick. Outside of Peter David's run, much of which would be hard to translate to the MCU (Joe Fixit, Professor Hulk, the Pantheon), Hulk's best times were always when he had an unwanted tagalong like Rick Jones, Jim Wilson or Amadeous Cho. The character the audience can actually relate to.

[Duke Delicious]

I just don't want to see a super hero movie where the hero is a CGI creation and not the actor himself. I know it's impossible to ever find someone that big that could be as big as they apparently want him to be but that takes me out of it. I'd like them to do a Grey Hulk though. 


Give the Hulk his intelligence and attitude in Hulk form.






And have the Circus Of Crime be the villains

[Kevin Hamilton]

I love Joe Fixit; he and his antagonism toward his Banner self is my favorite version of the character.

I think general audiences would shit all over it.

[Joe Neglia]

Dec 26, 2014 16:00:09 GMT -5 Kevin Hamilton said:

I love Joe Fixit; he and his antagonism toward his Banner self is my favorite version of the character.

I think general audiences would shit all over it.

Same thinking here. It's a great arc, but it's not something they'll get away with making a movie about. I could see an animated film, but that's about it.

[Joker]

The cost vs the revenue to make a good hulk movie is just too difficult especially asmost would want to see a hulk heavy film not Bruce Banner.

This oddly lines up with my opinion that Spider-man is exactly the same no one really cares about Peter Parker and just want to see Spider-man do cool stuff.

To solve both you make Hulk & Spider-man films like the first Burton Batman film; focus on the villain get a decent actor for that role (Like Nicholson was Joker) and make the heroes normal alter-ego not terribly important and stick with the Super-hero side.

[Duke Delicious]

I actually think Spider Man has a pretty interesting non super hero life, not the Hulk though.

[Deleted]

Hulk can act reasonably well, but unless a studio is willing to spend 8 or 9 figures, all you can get is a lower-budget movie. He can't just make a great movie by himself, it's also up to the directors and stuff to work together to make a great Hulk movie.

Suburban Commando was OK though, even though it was super-cheesy.

[Cela]

Dec 26, 2014 12:25:20 GMT -5 Goldenbane said:

I think that a lot of Hollywood writers out there are conflicted about the Hulk. They know we want "Hulk smash" type movies, but think the Hulk is popular/known for the conflicted stuff from the tv show (and yeah, that's party right). These days, I think the audience is more interested in "Hulk Smash" sorts of movies, so I really think writers should lean towards that sort of thing.

Hollywood confuses me sometimes. They think modern audiences care about the Lou Ferigno version of Hulk, but insist on reshooting the origin story every time they reboot Spider-man or Batman because audiences might forget Uncle Ben and the Waynes died.