In phase two of Marvel's Cinematic Universe, nearly every film from the first phase had a sequel, except for The Incredible Hulk; instead, Marvel made Guardians of the Galaxy, which I enjoyed, but I much rather would have had a second Incredible Hulk film, since GotG has few connections to the other films, and I am eager to see Bruce Banner and the Hulk have further development as characters.
Currently, Bruce's next appearance shall be Avengers: Age of Ultron, but there is no news about any appearances beyond that. I very much would like to see further appearances of him, plus, the possibility of She-Hulk appearing at some point, as well. Also keep in mind that both Blonsky/Abomination and Dr. Sterns are still alive, as well, so they certainly have the potential to appear again.
What does everyone else say about this? Why has Marvel not ever made a second Incredible Hulk film, is there any possibility of there being such a film in the future, and what do you hope to see in such films (I especially am interested to know if anyone shares my hope for She-Hulk appearing)?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Those who would trade their freedoms for security will have neither.”-Benjamin Franklin
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
Does anyone else have anything to say on this subject? When I started this thread on another forum, the users there were not as enthusiastic about it as I had hoped they would be, so I really would like to have an in-depth discussion of it, here, if that is possible.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Those who would trade their freedoms for security will have neither.”-Benjamin Franklin
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
I think that the Hulk on its own makes for less interesting films. However, since they're talking about a possible Civil War film, due to RDJ wanting a bigger role in future films, it's possible they'll do something like Planet Hulk.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
Personally I think Hulk on his own is just too much of a one note character. He makes a good character for an ensemble, or a good antagonist, but as the central character of a story I'm not sure how much you can do with it.
The Incredible Hulk was the poorest performer among the phase one films. I believe Marvel is currently planning to use Bruce Banner as an ensemble character, as brasswire said.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I think that the Hulk on its own makes for less interesting films. However, since they're talking about a possible Civil War film, due to RDJ wanting a bigger role in future films, it's possible they'll do something like Planet Hulk.
I am very displeased to hear that Robert Downey, Jr. is being given so much influence and clout in this franchise; in my mind, he is almost as arrogant as his character of Tony Stark, and needs to have his ego checked in some way.
Personally I think Hulk on his own is just too much of a one note character. He makes a good character for an ensemble, or a good antagonist, but as the central character of a story I'm not sure how much you can do with it.
How, exactly, is Hulk not able to carry an entire story on his own? He is a modern version of Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde, and any story that focuses on him should emphasize the psychological aspects of his dual nature, which I believe would make for an excellent film.
The Incredible Hulk was the poorest performer among the phase one films. I believe Marvel is currently planning to use Bruce Banner as an ensemble character, as brasswire said.
If that is the case, what chances are there of Blonsky and Dr. Sterns returning? What about an appearance by She-Hulk? How likely is that?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Those who would trade their freedoms for security will have neither.”-Benjamin Franklin
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
I am very displeased to hear that Robert Downey, Jr. is being given so much influence and clout in this franchise; in my mind, he is almost as arrogant as his character of Tony Stark, and needs to have his ego checked in some way.
Without Downey, there would be no MCU. He is a towering colossus of arrogance, but, again like Tony, he actually is almost as good as he thinks he is.
If that is the case, what chances are there of Blonsky and Dr. Sterns returning?
Very, very low. They mention Blonsky in Agents of SHIELD, and Tim Roth's salary may be low enough to appear for a TV episode, but I don't think rehashing an old poor-performing movie villain would be a good idea for the show. Slightly better chances for Sterns, since his storyline from the comics hasn't played out yet, but that really ought to happen in a Hulk movie, don't you think?
What about an appearance by She-Hulk? How likely is that?
More likely than an appearance by Howard the Duck. Very tentatively, given her profession, I'd look for her (possibly pre-Hulkification) in the upcoming Daredevil series or maybe AKA Jessica Jones. Under no circumstances should you hold her breath, but if she is going to show up, those seem like the most likely places for it.
I am very displeased to hear that Robert Downey, Jr. is being given so much influence and clout in this franchise; in my mind, he is almost as arrogant as his character of Tony Stark, and needs to have his ego checked in some way.
He's also the main box office draw of the films.
How, exactly, is Hulk not able to carry an entire story on his own? He is a modern version of Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde, and any story that focuses on him should emphasize the psychological aspects of his dual nature, which I believe would make for an excellent film.
It hasn't, and no, Hulk is boring. He's a big, dumb, angry green guy who runs around being big, dumb, and angry. There is absolutely nothing interesting or complex about the Incredible Hulk. He is a one note character.
Now, Bruce Banner is interesting, especially if Mark Ruffalo is playing him. But the comic isn't named after Bruce Banner. It's named after The Incredible Hulk, and invariably, it will result in Hulk appearing and running amok. Which is boring.
As for Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, no, there's a world of difference between that and The Hulk. Dr. Jekyll is a person who grapples with the good and evil within himself, thereby creating a separate personality named Mr. Hyde, who is Jekyll's evil and whom he is continuously at war with. Notice the difference from this and Bruce Banner. Hyde represents the evil that Jekyll is trying to suppress, and represents what Jekyll would be without a conscience. This makes Hyde interesting; he's complex, and he as a character says interesting things about Dr. Jekyll and about evil in general. The whole story is a meditation on the darker aspects of our nature.
The Hulk is a big, dumb, green guy who gets really angry and breaks things.
He's best in an ensemble. I was amazed Avengers was able to make him work as well as he did, but they were able to do it in part by giving Banner the ability to control the Hulk to a limited degree, making him sort of like a werewolf. Giving the Hulk big targets to aim at seems key.
I could've sworn I saw future news about a Hulk film. Maybe I misread.
That said, I was disappointed with the first Hulk film (2003), and was also disappointed when they didn't bring Edward Norton back for the Banner role in The Avengers after the 2008 movie. Basically, they ruined him with all the change-ups and probably can't redeem it, so if I did, in fact, misread, that's probably the reason - because they can't keep Bruce Banner to a single actor.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Okay, so apparently as the only big Hulk fan here, I need to step up to the plate. I think there will be a Hulk film, although what form that film takes we'll have to see. The Hulk is a very hard character to write, but there are a few writers out there who've written very compelling Hulk stories. Saying he's a big dumb guy who smashes things is really reductive. The problem with both of the films to date is that one scene in the Avengers captures the Hulk better than either of them did - namely where Banner makes a conscious choice to embrace his rage and put it to good use rather than fight it and risk losing control.
I mean, the Hulk's origin is that his Dad beat him and his mother, but he still became a brilliant scientist who risks his life to save a random kid. I think in the films, they really lose a lot because BOTH adaptations completely eliminate what makes the Hulk the Hulk. In making the Hulk a lab accident, you remove the Hulk being born from a moment of pure heroism from an otherwise fairly *****ty guy saving a kid from his own weapon. The Hulk is that instinct to protect made flesh, and he can be a very interesting when he and his allies and rogues are reflections of how anger affects you and how you cope with that anger. They find the Hulk balancing his destructive nature with the desire to protect. I personally love it, although when the overly simplistic 'green man smash' elements tend to be what is focused on it does produce crap. Hulk stories tend to be really hit or miss because of that.
As a follow-up to Jay's post, I'd be interested in seeing Hulk and Gray Hulk team up against Red Hulk. That'd be an interesting movie. Maybe throw Ghostrider into the mix and see if they can salvage that franchise.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
It hasn't, and no, Hulk is boring. He's a big, dumb, angry green guy who runs around being big, dumb, and angry. There is absolutely nothing interesting or complex about the Incredible Hulk. He is a one note character.
Now, Bruce Banner is interesting, especially if Mark Ruffalo is playing him. But the comic isn't named after Bruce Banner. It's named after The Incredible Hulk, and invariably, it will result in Hulk appearing and running amok. Which is boring.
As for Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, no, there's a world of difference between that and The Hulk. Dr. Jekyll is a person who grapples with the good and evil within himself, thereby creating a separate personality named Mr. Hyde, who is Jekyll's evil and whom he is continuously at war with. Notice the difference from this and Bruce Banner. Hyde represents the evil that Jekyll is trying to suppress, and represents what Jekyll would be without a conscience. This makes Hyde interesting; he's complex, and he as a character says interesting things about Dr. Jekyll and about evil in general. The whole story is a meditation on the darker aspects of our nature.
The Hulk is a big, dumb, green guy who gets really angry and breaks things.
I am sorry to contradict you, but that is very wrong. You clearly are not familiar with the Hulk if you believe that he is merely a giant angry person who is fond of smashing things (I am not exactly an expert on him, either, but I know that it is very wrong to simplify him and believe him to be less complex than Thor, Tony, or Steve). Just as Jeckyll and Hyde are a metaphor for the struggle between good and evil in every sentient being, so is the Hulk a metaphor for the struggle between emotion and intellect, between rage and rationality, in every person.
It was very unfortunate that Bruce's traumatic childhood and abusive father were excluded from the 2008 film (but included in the unrelated 2003 film), since they are very important to his backstory and character development in that they are one of the major sources of the anger that he is constantly suppressing.
As for Blonsky and Sterns: the fact they were not killed in the film suggests that Marvel may have plans for them in the future: Stane, Vanko, Killian, Schmidt, and Garrett all died, because Marvel had no further plans for them, but, just as Loki and Ward have been left alive to play further roles, so, too, shall Blonsky and Sterns return. Why else would they be kept alive if Marvel did not have further plans for them?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Those who would trade their freedoms for security will have neither.”-Benjamin Franklin
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
It was very unfortunate that Bruce's traumatic childhood and abusive father were excluded from the 2008 film (but included in the unrelated 2003 film), since they are very important to his backstory and character development in that they are one of the major sources of the anger that he is constantly suppressing.
They were invented for the 2003 film. Even the basic outline, of the elder Banner being abusive, didn't appear in the comics until twenty years after the Hulk's debut. This is no dying-Uncle-Ben or cave-with-box-of-scraps.
As for Blonsky and Sterns: the fact they were not killed in the film suggests that Marvel may have plans for them in the future: Stane, Vanko, Killian, Schmidt, and Garrett all died, because Marvel had no further plans for them, but, just as Loki and Ward have been left alive to play further roles, so, too, shall Blonsky and Sterns return. Why else would they be kept alive if Marvel did not have further plans for them?
There's no doubt at all Marvel them alive for a Hulk sequel. They didn't know the movie would underperform when they wrote it. Plans change.
Also, Schmidt is alive.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What evidence is there of that? His body quite visibly disintegrated at the end of The First Avenger after he touched the tesseract, so I find it very unlikely that he may still be alive.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Those who would trade their freedoms for security will have neither.”-Benjamin Franklin
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
Even the basic outline, of the elder Banner being abusive, didn't appear in the comics until twenty years after the Hulk's debut. This is no dying-Uncle-Ben or cave-with-box-of-scraps.
Sure, but the background of Banner's rage was in there from the start, as were hints towards his relatively crappy behavior toward other people (Peter Parker had elements of this, too, but the Spider-man comics went a different direction). Unfortunately, both films took the TV Series route where Banner is a nice guy, which was done to death by the TV show. Nice guys don't turn into giant green rage monsters, which the Avengers helped address by making more clear that Banner wasn't just a nice guy that something bad happened to. And I really think that removing the 'building a better bomb' element hurt the character, although I can see why testing a nuke wouldn't make as much sense today, but it could have been some other gamma weapon.
On a side note about the Leader, I was really thinking 'the Clairvoyant' would turn out to be the Leader before the Hydra twist.
What evidence is there of that? His body quite visibly disintegrated at the end of The First Avenger after he touched the tesseract, so I find it very unlikely that he may still be alive.
The effect for Schmidt's disintegration is very similar to the Bifrost and to Loki's teleportation in the Avengers.
The Hydra guns may 'disintegrate' because they can't teleport people like the Tesseract. Or maybe there are a whole bunch of people floating around in space somewhere.
I am sorry to contradict you, but that is very wrong. You clearly are not familiar with the Hulk if you believe that he is merely a giant angry person who is fond of smashing things (I am not exactly an expert on him, either, but I know that it is very wrong to simplify him and believe him to be less complex than Thor, Tony, or Steve).
He IS less complex than Thor, Tony, or Steve. Thor, Tony, and Steve feel things that aren't blind rage at least some of the time.
"Gets angry" is the only thing that Hulk does.
As I said, Bruce Banner is an interesting, multidimensional character. Hulk isn't.
Just as Jeckyll and Hyde are a metaphor for the struggle between good and evil in every sentient being, so is the Hulk a metaphor for the struggle between emotion and intellect, between rage and rationality, in every person.
And having Bruce Banner turn into a big, dumb, angry green guy is one of the most boring ways to represent that.
Hell, X-Men routinely showcases better examples of that conflict. The Xavier/Magneto dynamic is all about rage versus rationality, and the recent X-Men films have shown both Magneto and Xavier trying to handle their anger and bitterness. Then there's Beast, whose struggle between his primal and intellectual aspects manifests physically. Then in X3 we have the Phoenix, who represents all of Jean Grey's repressed emotion.
All of these are more interesting than the Hulk is. The big problem with the Hulk is that he's this separate character from Bruce Banner. It's not that we see Bruce Banner unchecked as we see Bruce Banner turn into this other, separate monster character.
He IS less complex than Thor, Tony, or Steve. Thor, Tony, and Steve feel things that aren't blind rage at least some of the time.
"Gets angry" is the only thing that Hulk does.
As I said, Bruce Banner is an interesting, multidimensional character. Hulk isn't.
Please read Peter David's 12 year run on the Hulk. Please. His work on the character is often considered the definitive definition of Hulk's characterization.
If there shall be no further Incredible Hulk films, how will the story writers continue Bruce's story outside of the Avengers films? Since Tony, Thor, and Steve all had adventures of their own between the two Avengers films, would it not be logical that Bruce did, as well? And what about all the other characters in his film? What about Betty Ross, Thaddeus Ross, Blonsky, and Sterns? Are we, the audience, supposed to seriously believe that they have done nothing since their initial appearances? We will ever see any of them, again?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Those who would trade their freedoms for security will have neither.”-Benjamin Franklin
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
If Marvel Studios are not confident the can make money off of those characters, then no, we won't see them again. You don't have to "seriously believe that they have done nothing". Just believe that whatever they have been doing is not going to appear on camera in the foreseeable future.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
If Marvel Studios are not confident the can make money off of those characters, then no, we won't see them again. You don't have to "seriously believe that they have done nothing". Just believe that whatever they have been doing is not going to appear on camera in the foreseeable future.
I can believe that for Betty, Thaddeus, and Blonsky, since they are easy to simply ignore or write out of the story, but Sterns is another matter; I am not very familiar with him as a character, but is he not superhumanly intelligent and also fond of controlling and dominating others? I doubt that he is content to remain in the shadows and have a quiet and normal life. He definitely would want to enact some grand scheme of world-domination, would he not?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Those who would trade their freedoms for security will have neither.”-Benjamin Franklin
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
To play devil's advocate for a bit, Marvel is in a somewhat unusual place when it comes to movie finances. They have a huge collection of films which are related but not directly sequels of one another, and certain members of the franchise make almost an order of magnitude more money than others. If they really wanted storyline X for Avengers 5 (meaning they thought it would increase box office from 2.2 to 2.6 billion, say) but it would require an entire movie to set up which wouldn't make a profit itself, it could still end up as a good idea from a business perspective.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I primarily play limited, so most of my spoiler season comments view cards through that lens.
To play devil's advocate for a bit, Marvel is in a somewhat unusual place when it comes to movie finances. They have a huge collection of films which are related but not directly sequels of one another, and certain members of the franchise make almost an order of magnitude more money than others. If they really wanted storyline X for Avengers 5 (meaning they thought it would increase box office from 2.2 to 2.6 billion, say) but it would require an entire movie to set up which wouldn't make a profit itself, it could still end up as a good idea from a business perspective.
Except, obvious problems with that include:
A) They could just do storyline X for Avengers 5 without the tie-in movie.
B) Still doesn't justify making more Hulk films. People don't like Hulk films. Marvel tried it twice, it lost money twice. People aren't interested in the Hulk.
C) There is absolutely no reason to make a film in a franchise that people will see dependent upon a film in a franchise that people won't see. Marvel is not going to bring down their Avengers franchise in order to produce more films in a franchise that has lost them money.
You're right, certain members of the franchise make an order of magnitude more money than the other films. The intelligent choice, then, is to keep making more films in those franchises.
Currently, Bruce's next appearance shall be Avengers: Age of Ultron, but there is no news about any appearances beyond that. I very much would like to see further appearances of him, plus, the possibility of She-Hulk appearing at some point, as well. Also keep in mind that both Blonsky/Abomination and Dr. Sterns are still alive, as well, so they certainly have the potential to appear again.
What does everyone else say about this? Why has Marvel not ever made a second Incredible Hulk film, is there any possibility of there being such a film in the future, and what do you hope to see in such films (I especially am interested to know if anyone shares my hope for She-Hulk appearing)?
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I am very displeased to hear that Robert Downey, Jr. is being given so much influence and clout in this franchise; in my mind, he is almost as arrogant as his character of Tony Stark, and needs to have his ego checked in some way.
How, exactly, is Hulk not able to carry an entire story on his own? He is a modern version of Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde, and any story that focuses on him should emphasize the psychological aspects of his dual nature, which I believe would make for an excellent film.
If that is the case, what chances are there of Blonsky and Dr. Sterns returning? What about an appearance by She-Hulk? How likely is that?
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
Very, very low. They mention Blonsky in Agents of SHIELD, and Tim Roth's salary may be low enough to appear for a TV episode, but I don't think rehashing an old poor-performing movie villain would be a good idea for the show. Slightly better chances for Sterns, since his storyline from the comics hasn't played out yet, but that really ought to happen in a Hulk movie, don't you think?
More likely than an appearance by Howard the Duck. Very tentatively, given her profession, I'd look for her (possibly pre-Hulkification) in the upcoming Daredevil series or maybe AKA Jessica Jones. Under no circumstances should you hold her breath, but if she is going to show up, those seem like the most likely places for it.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It hasn't, and no, Hulk is boring. He's a big, dumb, angry green guy who runs around being big, dumb, and angry. There is absolutely nothing interesting or complex about the Incredible Hulk. He is a one note character.
Now, Bruce Banner is interesting, especially if Mark Ruffalo is playing him. But the comic isn't named after Bruce Banner. It's named after The Incredible Hulk, and invariably, it will result in Hulk appearing and running amok. Which is boring.
As for Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, no, there's a world of difference between that and The Hulk. Dr. Jekyll is a person who grapples with the good and evil within himself, thereby creating a separate personality named Mr. Hyde, who is Jekyll's evil and whom he is continuously at war with. Notice the difference from this and Bruce Banner. Hyde represents the evil that Jekyll is trying to suppress, and represents what Jekyll would be without a conscience. This makes Hyde interesting; he's complex, and he as a character says interesting things about Dr. Jekyll and about evil in general. The whole story is a meditation on the darker aspects of our nature.
The Hulk is a big, dumb, green guy who gets really angry and breaks things.
He's best in an ensemble. I was amazed Avengers was able to make him work as well as he did, but they were able to do it in part by giving Banner the ability to control the Hulk to a limited degree, making him sort of like a werewolf. Giving the Hulk big targets to aim at seems key.
That said, I was disappointed with the first Hulk film (2003), and was also disappointed when they didn't bring Edward Norton back for the Banner role in The Avengers after the 2008 movie. Basically, they ruined him with all the change-ups and probably can't redeem it, so if I did, in fact, misread, that's probably the reason - because they can't keep Bruce Banner to a single actor.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
I mean, the Hulk's origin is that his Dad beat him and his mother, but he still became a brilliant scientist who risks his life to save a random kid. I think in the films, they really lose a lot because BOTH adaptations completely eliminate what makes the Hulk the Hulk. In making the Hulk a lab accident, you remove the Hulk being born from a moment of pure heroism from an otherwise fairly *****ty guy saving a kid from his own weapon. The Hulk is that instinct to protect made flesh, and he can be a very interesting when he and his allies and rogues are reflections of how anger affects you and how you cope with that anger. They find the Hulk balancing his destructive nature with the desire to protect. I personally love it, although when the overly simplistic 'green man smash' elements tend to be what is focused on it does produce crap. Hulk stories tend to be really hit or miss because of that.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
I am sorry to contradict you, but that is very wrong. You clearly are not familiar with the Hulk if you believe that he is merely a giant angry person who is fond of smashing things (I am not exactly an expert on him, either, but I know that it is very wrong to simplify him and believe him to be less complex than Thor, Tony, or Steve). Just as Jeckyll and Hyde are a metaphor for the struggle between good and evil in every sentient being, so is the Hulk a metaphor for the struggle between emotion and intellect, between rage and rationality, in every person.
It was very unfortunate that Bruce's traumatic childhood and abusive father were excluded from the 2008 film (but included in the unrelated 2003 film), since they are very important to his backstory and character development in that they are one of the major sources of the anger that he is constantly suppressing.
As for Blonsky and Sterns: the fact they were not killed in the film suggests that Marvel may have plans for them in the future: Stane, Vanko, Killian, Schmidt, and Garrett all died, because Marvel had no further plans for them, but, just as Loki and Ward have been left alive to play further roles, so, too, shall Blonsky and Sterns return. Why else would they be kept alive if Marvel did not have further plans for them?
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
There's no doubt at all Marvel them alive for a Hulk sequel. They didn't know the movie would underperform when they wrote it. Plans change.
Also, Schmidt is alive.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What evidence is there of that? His body quite visibly disintegrated at the end of The First Avenger after he touched the tesseract, so I find it very unlikely that he may still be alive.
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Sure, but the background of Banner's rage was in there from the start, as were hints towards his relatively crappy behavior toward other people (Peter Parker had elements of this, too, but the Spider-man comics went a different direction). Unfortunately, both films took the TV Series route where Banner is a nice guy, which was done to death by the TV show. Nice guys don't turn into giant green rage monsters, which the Avengers helped address by making more clear that Banner wasn't just a nice guy that something bad happened to. And I really think that removing the 'building a better bomb' element hurt the character, although I can see why testing a nuke wouldn't make as much sense today, but it could have been some other gamma weapon.
On a side note about the Leader, I was really thinking 'the Clairvoyant' would turn out to be the Leader before the Hydra twist.
The effect for Schmidt's disintegration is very similar to the Bifrost and to Loki's teleportation in the Avengers.
The Hydra guns may 'disintegrate' because they can't teleport people like the Tesseract. Or maybe there are a whole bunch of people floating around in space somewhere.
In any case, it's left open-ended.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
"Gets angry" is the only thing that Hulk does.
As I said, Bruce Banner is an interesting, multidimensional character. Hulk isn't.
And having Bruce Banner turn into a big, dumb, angry green guy is one of the most boring ways to represent that.
Hell, X-Men routinely showcases better examples of that conflict. The Xavier/Magneto dynamic is all about rage versus rationality, and the recent X-Men films have shown both Magneto and Xavier trying to handle their anger and bitterness. Then there's Beast, whose struggle between his primal and intellectual aspects manifests physically. Then in X3 we have the Phoenix, who represents all of Jean Grey's repressed emotion.
All of these are more interesting than the Hulk is. The big problem with the Hulk is that he's this separate character from Bruce Banner. It's not that we see Bruce Banner unchecked as we see Bruce Banner turn into this other, separate monster character.
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I can believe that for Betty, Thaddeus, and Blonsky, since they are easy to simply ignore or write out of the story, but Sterns is another matter; I am not very familiar with him as a character, but is he not superhumanly intelligent and also fond of controlling and dominating others? I doubt that he is content to remain in the shadows and have a quiet and normal life. He definitely would want to enact some grand scheme of world-domination, would he not?
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
Seriously, what do you want me to say here? No money, no movie. End of story. There's absolutely zero point in arguing about it.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Interested in Custom Card Creation.
My Cube:Cardinal Custom Cube
A custom version of a third modern masters: MM2019
(filter->rarity to see in set rarity).
A) They could just do storyline X for Avengers 5 without the tie-in movie.
B) Still doesn't justify making more Hulk films. People don't like Hulk films. Marvel tried it twice, it lost money twice. People aren't interested in the Hulk.
C) There is absolutely no reason to make a film in a franchise that people will see dependent upon a film in a franchise that people won't see. Marvel is not going to bring down their Avengers franchise in order to produce more films in a franchise that has lost them money.
You're right, certain members of the franchise make an order of magnitude more money than the other films. The intelligent choice, then, is to keep making more films in those franchises.